Is 24-105 obsolete in 2024?

Ab S said:

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!

Click to expand...

I read different reviews probably, Nikon zoom is better bur Canon one it isn't. And none outperforms the other, it's just slightly better.

This lens is not big, it also has image stabilization which the lenses that you mentioned do not have.
It’s also sharp across the range in my experience shooting with an A1.
FYI, Canon‘s similar 24-105 RF lens is not nearly as good as the Sony. I have both.

Anecdotally. I tend to end up with a dumbbell set of focal lengths

1. 16-35

2. 70-105 (or up)

If I'm doing cities, I'll bring the 16-35 + the 70-180, but if I'm doing nature, I'll bring the 16-35 + the 24-105 + the 100-400 which gets a surprising amount of use within half a mile of the car. Usually on a tripod.

Because cities are both dark, but also you're taking pictures off a plane and you can usually recompose a 50mm picture to be a 35 or a 70.

But nature is outdoors and hiking trails of mountains miles away are taking pictures off lines or sometimes even points. And at that point if the shot is 57mm, the shot is 57mm.

Or go the other way. For my nikon gear, 35-150 has become the go-to lens. Especially for video content. That lens is a beast, 2.0 -2.8. It's a fantastic lens.

The 24-105 is, in my opinion, 'utilitarian' and serves a purpose but it's not an exciting lens.

Rakosky said:

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.

Click to expand...

It took me a long time, but I finally let go of needing 24mm on my standard zoom. Once I did that, pretty much all the 24-xxx lenses became irrelevant to me. Modern sensors are phenomenal too so max speed isn't super critical.

So for me something like my 28-200 is better than a 24-105, and I'll happily take one of the 28-7x/2.8 zooms over the 24-70/2.8 at half the weight/size/price. Modern FF really lets you have your cake and eat it too- incredible IQ + capability with smallish size/weight and manageable costs. For me portability is way more enjoyable/relevant than bleeding edge performance.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Is 24-105 obsolete in 2024?

Ok, a good lens is never obsolete, but with this provocative question

Click to expand...

IMO it's not really a provocative question. But okay, I'll explain why not.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. A 24-105/4 was one of the first lenses I bought when I switched to Sony four years ago. Makes a decent one-lens walkabout kit and covers everything from wide scenics and interiors to tight portraits. It was, for me, a dual-use lens for both my paid event work (lit group portraits) and my walkabout scenic adventures.

But, I ditched it this summer. I strongly prefer more reach for walkabout, and after considering a 28-200, I went, instead for a 20-40 & 50-300 combo, as this is still very portable and I can combine the 20-40 with my 35-150 for event work.

If there were a decent, smaller 28-135/3.5-5.6 for under $700, I might be interested.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Jacques Cornell said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Jacques Cornell said:

Is 24-105 obsolete in 2024?

Ok, a good lens is never obsolete, but with this provocative question

Click to expand...

IMO it's not really a provocative question. But okay, I'll explain why not.

Jacques Cornell said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. A 24-105/4 was one of the first lenses I bought when I switched to Sony four years ago. Makes a decent one-lens walkabout kit and covers everything from wide scenics and interiors to tight portraits. It was, for me, a dual-use lens for both my paid event work (lit group portraits) and my walkabout scenic adventures.

But, I ditched it this summer. I strongly prefer more reach for walkabout, and after considering a 28-200, I went, instead for a 20-40 & 50-300 combo, as this is still very portable and I can combine the 20-40 with my 35-150 for event work.

If there were a decent, smaller 28-135/3.5-5.6 for under $700, I might be interested.

Click to expand...

I did a different choice. For portability I have my Fuji, when I need maximum quality for work I have sony. Both worlds, in the last one I needn't portability, only quality and reliability. 24-105 is a good lens to avoid changing lenses.

Rakosky said:

Jacques Cornell said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Rakosky said:

Is 24-105 obsolete in 2024?

Ok, a good lens is never obsolete, but with this provocative question

Click to expand...

IMO it's not really a provocative question. But okay, I'll explain why not.

Rakosky said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. A 24-105/4 was one of the first lenses I bought when I switched to Sony four years ago. Makes a decent one-lens walkabout kit and covers everything from wide scenics and interiors to tight portraits. It was, for me, a dual-use lens for both my paid event work (lit group portraits) and my walkabout scenic adventures.

But, I ditched it this summer. I strongly prefer more reach for walkabout, and after considering a 28-200, I went, instead for a 20-40 & 50-300 combo, as this is still very portable and I can combine the 20-40 with my 35-150 for event work.

If there were a decent, smaller 28-135/3.5-5.6 for under $700, I might be interested.

Click to expand...

I did a different choice. For portability I have my Fuji, when I need maximum quality for work I have sony. Both worlds, in the last one I needn't portability, only quality and reliability. 24-105 is a good lens to avoid changing lenses.

Click to expand...

For portability, I have my a7C with 28-60.

I got so sick of swapping my standard and tele zooms on this trip that I bought a 10x zoom for hiking and travel when I was doing these a lot. Now I'm settled and mostly doing event work, so a two-zoom kit for the occasional expedition is tolerable once again.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

Jacques Cornell said:

I totally agree. A 24-105/4 was one of the first lenses I bought when I switched to Sony four years ago. Makes a decent one-lens walkabout kit and covers everything from wide scenics and interiors to tight portraits. It was, for me, a dual-use lens for both my paid event work (lit group portraits) and my walkabout scenic adventures.

But, I ditched it this summer. I strongly prefer more reach for walkabout, and after considering a 28-200, I went, instead for a 20-40 & 50-300 combo, as this is still very portable and I can combine the 20-40 with my 35-150 for event work.

If there were a decent, smaller 28-135/3.5-5.6 for under $700, I might be interested.

Click to expand...

IMO there are three basic issues, and all really come down to person preferences and tolerances:

(1) Are you willing to carry more than one lens and swap lenses in the field?

To me, as an amateur, the answer the large majority of the time is no. So whatever the merits of the 20-40mm + 50-300mm combo (or anything like that, e.g. 16-35 + 70-200mm), the two lenses are not satisfactory for me. But obviously you and many others disagree. There's more than one reasonable personal preference!

(2) What range of focal lengths do you think you really need or at least want?

Again that is highly personal, depending on what you shoot and how you like to shoot it. But to me, I strongly prefer having the range of at least FF equivalent of 28-85mm, and find 24mm quite useful. After 85mm I see somewhat diminishing but still substantial use for 105mm and even 135mm. That's based on having had as my standard zoom at various times various lenses starting at (or equivalent to) 24, 28, and 35mm, and going to 77, 80, 85, and 105mm. I found 35mm really just not wide enough; 28mm was usually wide enough, but not rarely I wanted wider. I found 77 and 80mm often not quite as long as I wanted; 85mm was better, 105mm better still, and I think I'd find 135mm even better yet.

(3) How much loss of optical performance, lens speed, weight / size handiness, and/or money are you willing to tolerate?

Most zoom lenses of more than about 4x or arguably even 3x have substantially worse optical performance than lenses with lower zoom ratios. Most lenses with large zoom ratios are slower at the long end. And then there's weight and cost.

So all things considered, I find the Sony 24-105mm f/4 a very good compromise for my needs. Before that I had an APS-C camera and a 16-50mm f/2.8 lens, so equivalent to a 25-77mm f/4.3. I found equivalents of 25mm and f/4.3 okay, but 77mm a bit short. That lens in turn replaced an 18-50mm f/2.8, so equivalent to a 28-77mm f/4.3, and I found equivalent of 28mm not wide enough in addition to 77mm not long enough. Going back through a bunch of lenses over many years, the only one that rarely left me thinking I didn't have long enough was a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (on 35mm film); and the first one that rarely left me thinking I didn't have wide enough was the 16-50mm / 24mm FF equivalent. If my "walkabout" were e.g. Manhattan, then I'd be coveting the 20-70mm. But mostly I'm quite happy with the 24-105mm.

Of course, this is all so very personal, YMMV, and it's nice to have so many reasonable choices!

P.S.

Minolta made an AF 28-135mm f/4-4.5 that was (I guess is) very well regarded, but it's about 750g (and A-mount, and screw-drive, and ...). Maybe one day you'll get what you want.

sportyaccordy said:

Rakosky said:

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.

Click to expand...

It took me a long time, but I finally let go of needing 24mm on my standard zoom. Once I did that, pretty much all the 24-xxx lenses became irrelevant to me. Modern sensors are phenomenal too so max speed isn't super critical.

So for me something like my 28-200 is better than a 24-105, and I'll happily take one of the 28-7x/2.8 zooms over the 24-70/2.8 at half the weight/size/price. Modern FF really lets you have your cake and eat it too- incredible IQ + capability with smallish size/weight and manageable costs. For me portability is way more enjoyable/relevant than bleeding edge performance.

Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better (-;

nice travel pix! which lens?

"Most zoom lenses of more than about 4x or arguably even 3x have substantially worse optical performance than lenses with lower zoom ratios."

This might occasionally be true, but i have found the difference in IQ very very minute between my 20-70G/28-75f2.8G2 vs. 28-200.

(I realize that we should look at like F-stop)

So unless you need the speed, the Tam 7x super zoom is a "winner".

For travel i take 16-35f4G PZ, 28-200, & 40f2.5

- but i have about 9 other lenses

rashid7 said:

nice travel pix! which lens?

Click to expand...

Thanks. On my Corsica trip I used a Panasonic GX7 with 7-14/4, 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8. Wandering the back alleys of the old port of Bastia, I was frequently switching from wide for the immediate surroundings to long tele for distant details, and that's what made me get a 14-140. This reduced lens count from 3 to 2, which is effectively what I've done recently in going from 17-28, 28-60 & 70-300 to 20-40 & 50-300 with my Sony kit.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

(3) How much loss of optical performance, lens speed, weight / size handiness, and/or money are you willing to tolerate?

Most zoom lenses of more than about 4x or arguably even 3x have substantially worse optical performance than lenses with lower zoom ratios. Most lenses with large zoom ratios are slower at the long end. And then there's weight and cost.

Click to expand...

Here's how I look at this point- I'm not trying to come at you as I know you are asking genuinely.

• The IQ floor for lenses has never been higher. So the marginal IQ gain for a higher end lens- especially stopped down- has arguably never been smaller. Even the cheapest FF kit lenses are razor sharp at ~F/4-5.6. I feel like people don't talk about MTF-50 charts or resolution tests anymore.
• Even the best zooms are inherently compromised- if max IQ is the priority, primes are the answer.
• Sensors do so much more heavy lifting for IQ these days. A "bad" lens on a 40+ MP sensor can generate surprisingly impressive resolution. My old EF 24-85 on my A7R2 absolutely blew me away. So for optical performance on the cheap, get a high res sensor.

sportyaccordy said:

sportyaccordy said:

(3) How much loss of optical performance, lens speed, weight / size handiness, and/or money are you willing to tolerate?

Most zoom lenses of more than about 4x or arguably even 3x have substantially worse optical performance than lenses with lower zoom ratios. Most lenses with large zoom ratios are slower at the long end. And then there's weight and cost.

Click to expand...

Here's how I look at this point- I'm not trying to come at you as I know you are asking genuinely.

• The IQ floor for lenses has never been higher. So the marginal IQ gain for a higher end lens- especially stopped down- has arguably never been smaller. Even the cheapest FF kit lenses are razor sharp at ~F/4-5.6. I feel like people don't talk about MTF-50 charts or resolution tests anymore.
• Even the best zooms are inherently compromised- if max IQ is the priority, primes are the answer.
• Sensors do so much more heavy lifting for IQ these days. A "bad" lens on a 40+ MP sensor can generate surprisingly impressive resolution. My old EF 24-85 on my A7R2 absolutely blew me away. So for optical performance on the cheap, get a high res sensor.

Click to expand...

Insofar as your basic premise is that the large majority of modern camera-plus-lens combinations are capable of producing what are, but traditional or even reasonable standards, high quality photos, and therefore we should not worry too much about differences in image quality among remotely-comparable lenses, IMO that's a fair point. But:

* I'm constantly amazed by what differences I see and am bothered by, but others don't see or at least aren't bothered by. Conversely, sometimes others claim to (maybe do!) see differences that I don't. So this seems to be very much an issue of YMMV.

* Unless the subject is 100% static (in which case you can take multiple shots and stitch), if you don't have a wide enough lens, there are some pictures you simply cannot take.

* We have FF zoom lenses in or near the 'normal' range that are as fast as constant f/1.8 and as slow as f/4-6.3, and there are basic and quite visible differences among what the respective captures at maximum aperture look like.

So IMO the lens still matters a lot. Even among well-informed and reasonable people, what lens (or set of lenses) provides the best set of tradeoffs is very much a personal decision. And coming here to discuss our experiences and conclusions can be both helpful and interesting.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian wrote:
....
IMO the lens still matters a lot. Even among well-informed and reasonable people, what lens (or set of lenses) provides the best set of tradeoffs is very much a personal decision. And coming here to discuss our experiences and conclusions can be both helpful and interesting.

Click to expand...

+ 1
Cheers,
Ralf

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

(3) How much loss of optical performance, lens speed, weight / size handiness, and/or money are you willing to tolerate?

Most zoom lenses of more than about 4x or arguably even 3x have substantially worse optical performance than lenses with lower zoom ratios. Most lenses with large zoom ratios are slower at the long end. And then there's weight and cost.

Click to expand...

Here's how I look at this point- I'm not trying to come at you as I know you are asking genuinely.

• The IQ floor for lenses has never been higher. So the marginal IQ gain for a higher end lens- especially stopped down- has arguably never been smaller. Even the cheapest FF kit lenses are razor sharp at ~F/4-5.6. I feel like people don't talk about MTF-50 charts or resolution tests anymore.
• Even the best zooms are inherently compromised- if max IQ is the priority, primes are the answer.
• Sensors do so much more heavy lifting for IQ these days. A "bad" lens on a 40+ MP sensor can generate surprisingly impressive resolution. My old EF 24-85 on my A7R2 absolutely blew me away. So for optical performance on the cheap, get a high res sensor.

Click to expand...

Insofar as your basic premise is that the large majority of modern camera-plus-lens combinations are capable of producing what are, but traditional or even reasonable standards, high quality photos, and therefore we should not worry too much about differences in image quality among remotely-comparable lenses, IMO that's a fair point. But:

* I'm constantly amazed by what differences I see and am bothered by, but others don't see or at least aren't bothered by. Conversely, sometimes others claim to (maybe do!) see differences that I don't. So this seems to be very much an issue of YMMV.

Click to expand...

For sure, and a lot of this comes down to how you view photos. When I was blowing photos up on a big 4K monitor, fine details were important. Then I had children :-D I'm lucky if I even get to pull the ILC out at all these days lol.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

* Unless the subject is 100% static (in which case you can take multiple shots and stitch), if you don't have a wide enough lens, there are some pictures you simply cannot take.

* We have FF zoom lenses in or near the 'normal' range that are as fast as constant f/1.8 and as slow as f/4-6.3, and there are basic and quite visible differences among what the respective captures at maximum aperture look like.

Click to expand...

For sure, and I'd say the main meaningful differentiator in zooms these days (obviously besides FL ranges) is max aperture. I think barring extremes most modern zooms are within range of each other at similar apertures.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

So IMO the lens still matters a lot. Even among well-informed and reasonable people, what lens (or set of lenses) provides the best set of tradeoffs is very much a personal decision. And coming here to discuss our experiences and conclusions can be both helpful and interesting.

Click to expand...

Mostly agreed, though I think it can be confusing for the uninitiated.

sportyaccordy said:

• ..
• Sensors do so much more heavy lifting for IQ these days. A "bad" lens on a 40+ MP sensor can generate surprisingly impressive resolution. My old EF 24-85 on my A7R2 absolutely blew me away. So for optical performance on the cheap, get a high res sensor.

Click to expand...

This I don't understand: If the optical resolution of the lens is lower than that of the sensor, how can a higher resolution sensor give you a better result?

For Opticallimits it's superior to Canon and Nikon

"The Sony lens isn't flawless, but just to provide a framework for comparison - it is superior to both the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS II and Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/4G VR. So it's certainly a lens we can recommend to Sony FE users"

https://opticallimits.com/sony/sony-fe-24-105mm-f-4-g-oss-sel24105g-review/

Ab S said:

Ab S said:

• Sensors do so much more heavy lifting for IQ these days. A "bad" lens on a 40+ MP sensor can generate surprisingly impressive resolution. My old EF 24-85 on my A7R2 absolutely blew me away. So for optical performance on the cheap, get a high res sensor.

Click to expand...

This I don't understand: If the optical resolution of the lens is lower than that of the sensor, how can a higher resolution sensor give you a better result?

Click to expand...

Lens resolution is generally / typically not a yes or no; it doesn't have some absolute limit or abrupt cutoff. Lens resolution, sharpness, and contrast are sometimes described by what's called modulation transfer function (MTF). It's a lot like frequency response in an audio system, if you're familiar with that. Basically, the ability of the lens to convey fine detail gets lower and lower as (1) the detail gets finer and finer and/or (2) the contrast of the detail gets lower and lower. The overall performance in capturing a photo is the combined MTF response of the lens plus that of the sensor or film. So e.g. even a lens that is mediocre on a 24 MP sensor is likely to provide some additional detail so that a 42 MP sensor will capture a (maybe only slightly) higher-resolution photo than a 24 MP sensor with that same lens. Some info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function

https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowle...introduction-to-modulation-transfer-function/