Ok, a good lens is never obsolete, but with this provocative question I mean...with lighter alternatives as tamron and sigma, or sony 20-70, does it make sense spend around 1000 bucks for big lenses as sony 25-104 f4 or also sigma art 24-70? They should cost less I think to be competitive now.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is 24-105 obsolete in 2024?
- Thread starter Rakosky
- Start date
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
People will buy what they need and what they can afford for their use-case.
Lens pricing is lens pricing and has NEVER dropped due to competition.
Willy81
Veteran Member
I have a nice selection of FF lenses and the FR 24-105mm f/4.0 G OSS remains to be one of my favorites (I would still buy it today, I use the long end at 105mm a lot).
--
I enjoy content, simplicity and light weight: A5100, A6500, A7C and A7RV w/ G + GM Glass
Last edited:
MikeInOr
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,116
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,205
It all depends on what you need! The 24-105 is an excellent lens and has given me many stunning photographs that I have made large prints of (20" x 30").
I will say that the 20-70 is a very tempting lens and I may buy one someday but I take many photos at the 105 end that I then crop which keeps me from having to carry a tele-zoom and switch lenses. I wish the 20-70 was compatible with the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters.
One of the great things about the 24-105 lens is that it has been around for a while and you can pick up used copies in like new condition for a deal.
I will say that the 20-70 is a very tempting lens and I may buy one someday but I take many photos at the 105 end that I then crop which keeps me from having to carry a tele-zoom and switch lenses. I wish the 20-70 was compatible with the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters.
One of the great things about the 24-105 lens is that it has been around for a while and you can pick up used copies in like new condition for a deal.
NAwlins Contrarian
Veteran Member
IMO it's not really a provocative question. But okay, I'll explain why not.
The 24-105mm is not even close to obsolete because, for many uses, there is no better alternative. If you need or really want the 71-105mm range--and in many cases, IMO 'just crop' (and throw away 56% of your pixels) is not a satisfactory answer--then no 20-70mm or 24-70mm can replace it. At the other end, I've had standard zooms starting at 24, 28, and 35mm, and 24mm is definitely and substantially more useful to me, so no 28-70mm, 28-75mm, 28-200mm, or 35-150mm is a good substitute.
Are there times and uses where I'd prefer a 20-70mm to my 24-105mm? Sure. But if forced to choose one, the 24-105mm would clearly be my choice because it's more useful more of the time for me.
Now, if Sony introduced a 24-105mm f/4 II that was somewhat sharper, somewhat lighter, and somewhat faster-focusing, would that be nice? Sure. If Sony introduced a 20-105mm f/4 or a 24-120mm f/4 that was in all other respects as good as the 24-105mm, would that be nice? Sure. But it is impossible to render the 24-105mm obsolete until there's an alternative that's clearly better for all, or at least the large majority, of uses. And there is no such alternative now, so the 24-105mm is not obsolete.
Thanks for the exhaustive answer. That's true, and I think that a 24-105 II could be on the way because the original one is an old project. It's really good but it was also a kit lens, so the price of the lens out of the kit in my opinion has been ever too high. Said that, in the current lenses lineup its uniqueness and usefulness is unquestionable.
MikeInOr
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,116
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,205
I was not aware of the 24-105 being a kit lens? Some retailers may have bundled it with some bodies but they will do that with ANY lens. Likewise the 70-200 GM might have been bundled but that does not make it a kit lens.
jpartlo
Veteran Member
There no doubt the 24-105 is a very useful and capable lens. I owned it for many years and was generally happy with it but things change and I felt it was time for a change. I invested in a Tamron 28-75 and added to that its wider brother the 17-28 and I am very happy with the results. They are both sharp ,indeed, maybe super sharp and the cost and weight factors are very good.
Attachments
neilt3
Veteran Member
I've just bought a used Sony 24-105mm for my a7Riv as the range works for me .
I had the 24-70mm but it's not long enough as a walk around lens meaning I'm frequently swapping lenses whereas the 105mm reach greatly reduces the need .
In my A mount gear I'm used to using mainly a Minolta 24-105mm or 28-105mm lens , both on film and digital.
I've also been using the Canon 24-105mm f /4 IS L via the Sigma MC-11 with good results , but wanted a native lens .
I can't see the point of buying a lens to use on the basis that you know it's not long enough and plan on throwing half the image away your taking a lot of the time .
Just buy the right lens .
24mm is typically wide enough for mist of what I do , though I carry a 20mm with me just in case .
I do have wider lenses I can adapt if I know I'll need wider .
I have the Canon 70-200mm f/4 US L that I'm happy with for short telephoto work .
I'm typically carrying and using both this and the Sony 24-105mm all the time .
Just taking out extra lenses when I know I might need them .
Likewise I have the Sony 200-600mm for when I'm planning to need longer .
But that's not something to carry around on the off chance I'll use it .
So no , it's absolutely not obsolete. YMMV.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/sets
I had the 24-70mm but it's not long enough as a walk around lens meaning I'm frequently swapping lenses whereas the 105mm reach greatly reduces the need .
In my A mount gear I'm used to using mainly a Minolta 24-105mm or 28-105mm lens , both on film and digital.
I've also been using the Canon 24-105mm f /4 IS L via the Sigma MC-11 with good results , but wanted a native lens .
I can't see the point of buying a lens to use on the basis that you know it's not long enough and plan on throwing half the image away your taking a lot of the time .
Just buy the right lens .
24mm is typically wide enough for mist of what I do , though I carry a 20mm with me just in case .
I do have wider lenses I can adapt if I know I'll need wider .
I have the Canon 70-200mm f/4 US L that I'm happy with for short telephoto work .
I'm typically carrying and using both this and the Sony 24-105mm all the time .
Just taking out extra lenses when I know I might need them .
Likewise I have the Sony 200-600mm for when I'm planning to need longer .
But that's not something to carry around on the off chance I'll use it .
So no , it's absolutely not obsolete. YMMV.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/sets
Last edited:
Anyway, as I consider 25-104 a really useful "Swiss knife" per all the situations, noticing that someone prefers Tamron 28-75 g2 for its weight, I have to point out that that lens is longer, a factor for me more important than weight (100-150g more is not a big difference in my case)
Last edited:
Chuck Eklund
Leading Member
Bring out a 24-105 that is lighter, quicker, and has an aperture ring and I would find work for it and the 20-70 I already have. The presence of an aperture ring has become an important factor in the decision about which lens I put on the camera.
noel2
Veteran Member
I am in complete agreement with you. Ever since I got it, I have very rarely had to change lenses according to circumstances. If you use it with a high definition sensor (A7RIII or A7RV) you can most often do the work of a longer focus by cropping. Software (Topaz for instance) can then restore any decrease in sharpness at the long end. I do a lot of landscape and close-up photography while hiking, and the 24-105 is the only lens I take with me.
It may be sort of ok on 24 MP cameras, but on 50+ MP it is showing its age.
www.lenstip.com
For instance Tamron 28-75 G2 is doing better.
www.lenstip.com
As a travel superzoom the Tamron 28-200 is a better option too.
Sony FE 24-105 mm f/4 G OSS review - Image resolution - LensTip.com
Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.
www.lenstip.com
For instance Tamron 28-75 G2 is doing better.
Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 review - Image resolution - LensTip.com
Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.
www.lenstip.com
As a travel superzoom the Tamron 28-200 is a better option too.
contadorfan
Veteran Member
That answers your question.
IMO, the competing lens is the Tamron 28-200mm -- lighter, almost as compact, faster, more range, cheaper.
I went round & round trying to decide between the two. I chose the Sony (used, from MPB) because my favorite a-mount was a similar focal range: 24-105mm covers the bulk of my shooting. And if I want to shoot longer than 105mm, I have a Sigma 100-400mm that allows better choices for long focal lengths. Ditto the wide end: Tamron 17-28mm gives good choices. For indoor & low light, the 24-105mm f4 is actually pretty good, especially with flash. But I got a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 for indoor work, just for the slight weight reduction & f2.8 if needed -- not necessary, it was a splurge.
Finally, yeah, the 24-105mm doesn't have crystalline sharpness, or buttery soft bokeh with 3D pop subjects, but there's something really nice about the image rendering. The Sun stars are very good, and there are low light, long exposure shots at Flickr that show how good & versatile the lens can be. It was the lovely images on Flickr that persuaded me to get the 24-105mm. So many were elevated above a mere snapshot.
I don't find the lens to be heavy or bulky.
--
"Never let good clouds go to waste." -- Margaret Bourke-White
Last edited:
Well, it’s a zoom f4 It’s difficult to have those properties (buttery and 3d pop). Anyway in my opinion it’s quite sharp to be a zoom lens. My doubts were with tamron e sigma 28-x but 24mm and 70-105 are very useful focal lenghts, then the first one is lighter but longer. I prefer more weight than more length to carry it in my little bag and Sigma sharpness decades at 70mm. Maybe Sony will launch a version II but it will cost the double of a used 24-105, considering the cost of 20-70.
Last edited:
contadorfan
Veteran Member
"...24mm and 70-105 are very useful focal lenghts..."
They sure are.
Last week my husband's college sports team was inducted into their college's hall of fame, so it was a big reunion for them. I brought both the Sony 24-105mm for outdoor shots & the Tamron 28-75mm for indoor shots at the banquet. The Sony is slightly softer than the Tamron, & I'm glad for that. At our age, it's better not to show every wrinkle & face blemish in contrasty ultra crisp detail. Shots came out great. The Sony 's 24mm got nice, close group shots, & the length got the half time shot where the guys were on midfield for introduction (I was in the stands). The Tamron did a fine job at the banquet.
"Never let good clouds go to waste." -- Margaret Bourke-White
They sure are.
Last week my husband's college sports team was inducted into their college's hall of fame, so it was a big reunion for them. I brought both the Sony 24-105mm for outdoor shots & the Tamron 28-75mm for indoor shots at the banquet. The Sony is slightly softer than the Tamron, & I'm glad for that. At our age, it's better not to show every wrinkle & face blemish in contrasty ultra crisp detail. Shots came out great. The Sony 's 24mm got nice, close group shots, & the length got the half time shot where the guys were on midfield for introduction (I was in the stands). The Tamron did a fine job at the banquet.
"Never let good clouds go to waste." -- Margaret Bourke-White
Adam-T
Veteran Member
No, 24-105mm is still one of the most useful focal ranges for a standard zoom - it's just that the Sony FE one needs an update to bring the optics in line with the latest G lenses, remove the Unnecessary cost increasing OSS and bring it down in size and weight ........
The lens itself may be but the focal range certainly not. It is a convenient range for travel and landscape photography (my personal use case).
I am currently orienting myself (but no hurry) for a FF system and the Sony A7RV body is on top of my wish list for its 60 MP resolution and praised image quality and dynamic range.
But another approach would be to start with the travel zoom lens and let that determine the system. In that case we have the Sony E 24-105/4.0 G, the Canon R 24-105/4.0 L and the newer Nikon 24-120/4.0 S.
Reading several reviews and looking at resolution test charts the Nikon and Canon outperform the Sony lens. So yes, it is time for a Sony E 24-105/4.0 GM lens that can shine on the Sony A7RV!
I am currently orienting myself (but no hurry) for a FF system and the Sony A7RV body is on top of my wish list for its 60 MP resolution and praised image quality and dynamic range.
But another approach would be to start with the travel zoom lens and let that determine the system. In that case we have the Sony E 24-105/4.0 G, the Canon R 24-105/4.0 L and the newer Nikon 24-120/4.0 S.
Reading several reviews and looking at resolution test charts the Nikon and Canon outperform the Sony lens. So yes, it is time for a Sony E 24-105/4.0 GM lens that can shine on the Sony A7RV!
Reilly Diefenbach
Veteran Member
TDP shows little or no difference on the test chart between the 24-105 and the 20-70, so no, the 24-105 could hardly be called obsolete in terms of detail retrieval:
View attachment 3fc3f6032ca24cf596713de03f6ef0b6.jpg
Test Palm
Are there differences in LOCA and flare resistance? Yes, as the Northrups demonstrate. So between those improvements, the smaller size, and the extra 4mm, my 24-105 is going to be put up for sale and get replaced by the 20-70.
Last edited:
I tried to copies of the 24-105 but didn't want to keep it. I think its biggest advantage is its useful range. I found my copies to be very sharp at 24mm throughout the frame, making it a great choice for landscapes. I also loved portaits at 105mm F4.
What I disliked: sharpness in the 35-60mm range, some issues with CA but mostly the bulk and weight of the lens. I considered buying one of the Tamron options but these start at 28mm. I ended up going back to Aps-C with the 16-55 being almost as versatile but much more compact and sharper.
What I disliked: sharpness in the 35-60mm range, some issues with CA but mostly the bulk and weight of the lens. I considered buying one of the Tamron options but these start at 28mm. I ended up going back to Aps-C with the 16-55 being almost as versatile but much more compact and sharper.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum