Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2
8

This UNSCIENTIFIC HOME-MADE TEST* contains side-by-side sharpness comparison at infinity between the following lenses:

  • Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS — my own copy (review here ), after optical adjustment in service.
  • Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS — rented.
  • Tamron SP 70-200mm F2.8 Di VC USD G2 — rented, installed via my own MC-11 adapter.

* Disclaimer: due to large sample variation in these very complicated zoom lenses your mileage may vary by quite a lot.

Tested bodies were my own Sony A7III and Sony A6300. (Due to time constraints I haven’t tested 18-135 on A7III and 70-200 on A6300.)

The camera was mounted on lightweight tripod, OSS on, AF-S, 2 sec. delay. Straight out of camera JPEG/fine, AWB, all corrections enabled. Each shot was made thrice in burst mode, the sharpest one was picked.

The test shots were compared on two aperture settings: wide open and F8. Each comparison was taken in two areas of frame:

  • Center — not always a geometric center of image, may be a bit off for better look at fine details. On tested lenses I haven’t noticed the difference between center and off-center sharpness.
  • Border — the farthest left or right part of image, but not the extreme corner. The centering quality of all tested lenses appeared okay to me. (24-240 had had really bad right side, but it became OK after servicing.)

Source OOC images and 100% crops can be found here, so you can evaluate them by yourselves and tell me if I’m wrong in something.

Throughout this UNSCIENTIFIC HOME-MADE TEST I was seeking the answers for the following questions:

  1. What’s the difference between images taken on A7III w/24-240 and A6300 w/18-135? Is there a reason to sell 24-240 and replace it to 18-135?
  2. Can I mount the 24-240 on A6300 and still get good quality pictures? Or it’s really bad idea, and 18-135 would be much better?
  3. How compares the poor 24-240 with razor-sharp telephoto lens? I rented the Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 because it has outstanding sharpness ratings, and in the meantime it isn’t insanely expensive, which would prohibited me from renting. BTW it weighs twice the 24-240.
  4. A crazy question: if I take a great 100 mm lens and upscale its image by 240%, will it perform better than 24-240 @240 mm? This question was inspired by numerous statements that Sony 24-105G is better than 24-240 in every aspect, and it’s better to have sharp 100 mm image than average 240 mm one.

I divide my sub-conclusions regarding each case (plus 100% comparison crops) by several threads (found below) for better readability and ability to discuss them independently.

TL/DR, the final conclusions:

  1. Sharpness-wise 24-240 on A7III and 18-135 on A6300 are generally equal. This makes the 24-240 mm lens a well-engineered one, as it covers larger sensor, has bigger range, and still it gets its tasks done. The final choice between these two shall be based on other factors, there are too many of them to particularize. Generally 18-135 is great lens, considering its weight, size and price in bundle with camera.
  2. Mounting 24-240 on cropped camera isn’t a good idea, unless you don’t shoot wider than F8 (F11 is probably even better). The wide open performance is ranging from “okay” to “unusable”, while increasing the focal length.
  3. 24-240 is very capable until 100 mm, closely matching the performance of Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 in 70-100 mm range.
    Starting from 100 mm it becomes gradually softer, but it’s still OK if you don't look at image borders. Past 100 mm the borders are really soft, especially wide open. In the same time the center of 24-240 is obviously softer than that of 70-200, but in absolute terms it’s usable. Interestingly, the performance at 240 mm is a bit better than at 200 mm.
  4. The idea of substituting “okay” 240 mm setting with razor-sharp 100 mm lens is complete fail on 24 MP FF sensor. After up-scaling the great 100 mm image, the resulting sharpness doesn’t match that of 240 mm by slightest bit. 
-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS Tamron SP 70-200 F2.8 G2
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Case I. A7III w/24-240 vs. A6300 w/18-135
2

Case I. A7III w/24-240 vs. A6300 w/18-135

See 100% crop comparisons here:

A6300 w/18-135 wide open | A6300 w/18-135@F8

A7III w/24-240 wide open | A7III w/24-240@F8

  • Wide end (24 mm vs. 27 mm equivalent)
    • Center: 18-135 @F8 has a tiny edge in sharpness, but 24-240 in both shots has a bit better contrast. Wide open, the 24-240 has a tiny bit better sharpness than 18-135@F3.5.
    • Border: 24-240 @F3.5 has a bit lower sharpness. Both images from 18-135 look almost the same as 24-240 @F8.
  • 50 mm equivalent
    • Center: 24-240 @F8 is obviously the best, very closely followed by three others.
    • Border: 24-240 @F8 is still the best, the second is 18-135 @F8, the worst is 18-135 @F4.5
  • 100 mm equivalent
    • Center: 24-240 has better contrast. Sharpness-wise 24-240 @F8 is followed really closely by others.
    • Border: 24-240 still has better contrast. In sharpness, 18-135 lags behind 24-240 a bit, 18-135 @F8 isn’t really impressive.
  • 200 mm equivalent
    • Center: all 4 crops are essentially the same.
    • Border: decisive victory by 18-135, both crops from 24-240 are softer. In both lenses there’s very little variation due to aperture.
  • Telephoto end (240 mm vs. 202 mm equivalent)
    • Center: 24-240@F6.3 looks a bit soft, other 3 images are OK and very even in appearance.
    • Border: 24-240 performs “come back”, and it’s quite good at F8 (better than both 18-135 shots), while at F6.3 it roughly matches the performance of 18-135.

Sub-conclusion

There’s no definite winner, both camera+lens combos are displaying very even performance on matching aperture values. For some reason, it’s better to use the telephoto end of 24-240 than its 200 mm setting, which is the only point where it clearly lags behind the 18-135. Also one shall note that the sensor performance of A7III is about 1.5 stops better than A6300, so with A7III you can close the aperture to F8 without much hesitations.

Considering the fact that 18-135 was designed for smaller sensor, and it has less range in both zoom ends, I can praise the engineers of 24-240 who created a capable 10x zoom for demanding full frame sensor. Still 18-135 is an extremely solid choice for E-mount cameras, offering really good sharpness without obvious flaws, tiny weight, compact dimensions and good price in bundle with camera.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Case II. A6300 w/24-240 vs. A6300 w/18-135
1

Case II. A6300 w/24-240 vs. A6300 w/18-135

See 100% crop comparisons here:

A6300 w/18-135 wide open | A6300 w/18-135@F8

A6300 w/24-240 wide open | A6300 w/24-240@F8

  • Wide end (equivalent to 36 mm vs. 27 mm)
    • Center: 24-240@F3.5 lags a bit behind others.
    • Border: 24-240@F8 looks a bit better than 18-135, while 24-240@3.5 looks worse.
  • 36 mm equivalent
    • Center: 18-135 clearly has better contrast. By sharpness, both 18-135 are a bit better than 24-240@8, and noticeably better than 24-240@3.5.
    • Border: 18-135@F8 is the sharpest, followed closely by 24-240@F8, and 24-240@F3.5 is the least sharp (but not much worse than 18-135@F4).
  • 70 mm equivalent
    • Center: 18-135 is clearly sharper, 24-240@F4.5 looks soft, while @F8 it’s okay.
    • Border: 18-135@F8 has the best contrast and sharpness, followed by 24-240@F8, which is still usable. Wide open shots from both lenses are quite soft.
  • 100 mm equivalent
    • Center: 18-135 (both shots) are looking really well, closely followed by 24-240@F8. But 24-240@F5 is soft.
    • Border: strangely 24-240@F8 has finally won over 18-135, which doesn’t look impressive here. But 24-240@F5 is very soft.
  • 200-230 mm equivalent (sorry, couldn’t match the focal lengths exactly)
    • Center: both 18-135 mm shots are looking very solid. The sharpness of 24-240 is okay, but the contrast is not.
    • Border: both 18-135 shots are soft, while 24-240 is very soft.
  • Telephoto end (equivalent to 360 mm vs. 202 mm)
    • Center: all shots except for 24-240@F6.3 are looking good.
    • Border: all shots are soft and lacking contrast, but 24-240@F8 wins due to technically better magnification. 24-240@F6.3 is unusably soft.

Sub-conclusion

While the 24-240 mm lens on 24 MP cropped sensor is technically usable and reaches “okay” level at F8, it’s not the best idea to prefer it over 18-135, and, most probably, a silver 18-200. 24-240 is really soft wide open, probably as bad as 18-200 LE which costs 2 times less. If using the 24-240 on cropped sensor, stick to F8, and your results will be acceptable.

Aside from optical properties, for cropped camera 24-240 is extremely large, heavy, expensive for what it delivers, but it benefits form a sort of weather sealing, while E lenses do not. Also after dedicated $1500 telephoto lenses, it’s the longest available lens in system.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Case III. A7III w/24-240 vs. A7III w/ Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2
2

Case III. A7III w/24-240 vs. A7III w/ Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2

See 100% crop comparisons here:

A7III w/70-200 wide open | A7III w/70-200@F8

A7III w/24-240 wide open | A7III w/24-240@F8

  • 70 mm
    • Center: both lenses @F8 are looking really good, 24-240@F5 is a bit softer, 70-200@2.8 is soft.
    • Border: both lenses @F8 are looking good, 24-240@F5 is a bit softer, 70-200@2.8 is very soft. 70-200@8 has better contrast.
  • 100 mm
    • Center: 70-200 suddenly reaches the peak performance, with F2.8 sharpness better than F8 (limited by diffraction). It’s very closely followed by 24-240@F8, while @5.6 it’s softer but fully usable. 70-200 has a bit better contrast overall.
    • Border: both 70-200 shots are looking very good, while both 24-240 are a bit softer and have worse contrast, but still good.
  • 140 mm
    • Center: it’s hard to distinguish both 70-200 shots and also 24-240@F8 from each other. 24-240@F6.3 is a tad softer.
    • Border: while both 70-200 mm shots are still very good, the 24-240@F8 is much softer, and at F6.3 it’s even more softer.
  • 200 mm
    • Center: it’s hard to distinguish all 4 images from each other, 24-240 is softer, but not too much.
    • Border: both 70-200 shots are really good (though @F2.8 it’s a bit softer), while 24-240 lacks contrast and sharpness badly, especially at F6.3. 70-200 was heavily hit by vignetting (corrected automatically for Sony lenses).
  • Telephoto end (240 mm vs 200 mm)
    • Center: 24-240@F6.3 looks a bit soft, but three other images are roughly equal.
    • Border: 24-240@F8 looks a bit better than at 200 mm setting, but still it lacks sharpness and contrast. 24-240@F6.3 is still bad.

Sub-conclusion

24-240 has proven to be a good rival to one of the sharpest zoom lenses available for mortals… until it crosses 100 mm line. After 100 mm it becomes increasingly soft outside the center, losing the contrast in process. Still the center of 24-240 is quite capable even at telephoto end. Interestingly at 240 mm F8 it looks better than at 200 mm.

One shall note that the shots were made from the distance of hundred meters. At close distance the Tamron could have been sharper due to lack of atmospheric disturbances.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Case IV. A7III w/24-240 @240 mm vs. A7III w/ Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2 @100 mm
2

Case IV. A7III w/24-240 @240 mm vs. A7III w/ Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2 @100 mm

See 100% crop comparisons here:

A7III w/70-200 wide open | A7III w/70-200@F8

A7III w/24-240 wide open | A7III w/24-240@F8

70-200 was used on 100 mm setting. Images were up-scaled by 240% using the Lanczos3 method.

24-240 was used on 240 mm setting.

Here the “border” of image corresponds to the border of 240 mm shot. That said, the “border” crop from 70-200 was actually taken from mid-field of original 100 mm shot.

  • Center: both pictures from 70-200 are unusable due to lack of fine details, while 24-240 is looking relatively well.
  • Border: 70-200 has noticeably better contrast, but fine details are still missing, and it cannot reach 24-240 even closely.

Sub-conclusion

The idea of emulating average 240 mm lens by upscaling the picture from great 100 mm lens has failed completely. I won’t find myself selling the 24-240 to fund the 24-105G, unless I get a camera with 50+ Mpix sensor. Though the contrast at 240 mm is low and shall be boosted in post.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
diness Veteran Member • Posts: 3,191
Re: Case III. A7III w/24-240 vs. A7III w/ Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2

voronspb wrote:

Case III. A7III w/24-240 vs. A7III w/ Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2

See 100% crop comparisons here:

A7III w/70-200 wide open | A7III w/70-200@F8

A7III w/24-240 wide open | A7III w/24-240@F8

  • 70 mm
    • Center: both lenses @F8 are looking really good, 24-240@F5 is a bit softer, 70-200@2.8 is soft.
    • Border: both lenses @F8 are looking good, 24-240@F5 is a bit softer, 70-200@2.8 is very soft. 70-200@8 has better contrast.
  • 100 mm
    • Center: 70-200 suddenly reaches the peak performance, with F2.8 sharpness better than F8 (limited by diffraction). It’s very closely followed by 24-240@F8, while @5.6 it’s softer but fully usable. 70-200 has a bit better contrast overall.
    • Border: both 70-200 shots are looking very good, while both 24-240 are a bit softer and have worse contrast, but still good.
  • 140 mm
    • Center: it’s hard to distinguish both 70-200 shots and also 24-240@F8 from each other. 24-240@F6.3 is a tad softer.
    • Border: while both 70-200 mm shots are still very good, the 24-240@F8 is much softer, and at F6.3 it’s even more softer.
  • 200 mm
    • Center: it’s hard to distinguish all 4 images from each other, 24-240 is softer, but not too much.
    • Border: both 70-200 shots are really good (though @F2.8 it’s a bit softer), while 24-240 lacks contrast and sharpness badly, especially at F6.3. 70-200 was heavily hit by vignetting (corrected automatically for Sony lenses).
  • Telephoto end (240 mm vs 200 mm)
    • Center: 24-240@F6.3 looks a bit soft, but three other images are roughly equal.
    • Border: 24-240@F8 looks a bit better than at 200 mm setting, but still it lacks sharpness and contrast. 24-240@F6.3 is still bad.

Sub-conclusion

24-240 has proven to be a good rival to one of the sharpest zoom lenses available for mortals… until it crosses 100 mm line. After 100 mm it becomes increasingly soft outside the center, losing the contrast in process. Still the center of 24-240 is quite capable even at telephoto end. Interestingly at 240 mm F8 it looks better than at 200 mm.

One shall note that the shots were made from the distance of hundred meters. At close distance the Tamron could have been sharper due to lack of atmospheric disturbances.

Hmm, interesting results from your Tamron.  I had one of those (don't anymore) and it was exceptionally sharp at f4 and up at all focal lengths.  F2.8 was only slightly soft at 200mm, but the rest was pretty darn good.  I'm very surprised to hear that yours is so soft.

 diness's gear list:diness's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Sony a7 III Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Tamron SP 70-200 F2.8 G2 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 G2
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Re: Case III. A7III w/24-240 vs. A7III w/ Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2

diness wrote:

I'm very surprised to hear that yours is so soft.

Everything is possible in relatively inexpensive lens consisting of 23 elements.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
DenImage Senior Member • Posts: 2,410
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

Thanks for the comparison test.

Its a shame you couldn't test the Sony RX10 mark IV as well, IMO it outperforms the combos in your test except for lowlight performance.

I primarily use it as an "all in one" lens solution and for telephoto (24-600mm equivalent).

Den

 DenImage's gear list:DenImage's gear list
Sony a7R II Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 100mm F2.8 GM +2 more
Dirk W Veteran Member • Posts: 3,229
Re: Case III. A7III w/24-240 vs. A7III w/ Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2
1

voronspb wrote:

diness wrote:

I'm very surprised to hear that yours is so soft.

Everything is possible in relatively inexpensive lens consisting of 23 elements.

Interesting comparison, thank you! My 24-240 was very sharp at 200 and softer at 240, I guess there is sample variation.

 Dirk W's gear list:Dirk W's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony a7R II Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +2 more
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

DenImage wrote:

Thanks for the comparison test.

Its a shame you couldn't test the Sony RX10 mark IV as well, IMO it outperforms the combos in your test except for lowlight performance.

I primarily use it as an "all in one" lens solution and for telephoto (24-600mm equivalent).

Sorry, I'm not interested personally in such a task-specific camera like Sony RX10. Half a year ago I replaced the last fixed lens camera in my kit to ILC.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
Jeff2013
Jeff2013 Senior Member • Posts: 2,711
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

Last year, I traveled to the Amazon rainforest; and, wanting a light and non-valuable kit to use in wet/poor areas, I purchased a 24-240 and also took along a 35mm f1.4... with an A7RIII.

in evaluating my images, under 60mm they were amazingly sharp and contrasty. Between 60 and about 110mm they were quite good. At 150mm my shots could generally be “fixed” with careful Photoshop processing. Between about 180 and 240mm the sharpness was poor by my standards, but more significantly, the contrast plummeted to where my shots were not great - even after careful processing and major PS enhancements. I really wished that I had taken a different lens combination.

-- hide signature --
 Jeff2013's gear list:Jeff2013's gear list
Sony RX1R II Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro +16 more
DenImage Senior Member • Posts: 2,410
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

voronspb wrote:

DenImage wrote:

Thanks for the comparison test.

Its a shame you couldn't test the Sony RX10 mark IV as well, IMO it outperforms the combos in your test except for lowlight performance.

I primarily use it as an "all in one" lens solution and for telephoto (24-600mm equivalent).

Sorry, I'm not interested personally in such a task-specific camera like Sony RX10. Half a year ago I replaced the last fixed lens camera in my kit to ILC.

What do you mean by "task-specific camera"?

The RX10iv is one of the most versatile cameras I've ever used, hardly task-specific.

Unless I have misunderstood what you meant?

Den

 DenImage's gear list:DenImage's gear list
Sony a7R II Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 100mm F2.8 GM +2 more
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

DenImage wrote:

What do you mean by "task-specific camera"?

The RX10iv is one of the most versatile cameras I've ever used, hardly task-specific.

Unless I have misunderstood what you meant?

I don't consider a superzoom lens or camera as versatile all-in-one solution. My 24-240 has a specific task - covering my needs in travels, where I'm outdoors all the time, shooting distant objects (like birds) from time to time. For other tasks I have much better instruments, like 55/1.8 and 28/2. Actually I put 24-240 on my camera really rarely, may be 10 times a year.

Here're my statistics from recent trip (I had 24-240 and 28/2). It counts only keepers, not the raw images. The FL usage chart gives some idea regarding what part of RX10' potential would be wasted if I used it.

To my taste, versatility is impossible without good low-light performance, so in case of P&S I can see RX100V as a versatile (to some degree) camera, but definitely not RX100VI or RX10.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
DenImage Senior Member • Posts: 2,410
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

"I don't consider a superzoom lens or camera as versatile all-in-one solution. My 24-240 has a specific task - covering my needs in travels, where I'm outdoors all the time, shooting distant objects (like birds) from time to time..."

:

I'm not sure why you brought up the prime lenses in your reply, I'm referring to the topic of the thread, your comparison test of the zoom lenses.

What "specific task" do you believe the 24-240mm and/or E18-135mm could achieve that the 1" sensor 24-600mm RX10iv bridge camera couldn't?

Den

 DenImage's gear list:DenImage's gear list
Sony a7R II Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 100mm F2.8 GM +2 more
D Lynch Veteran Member • Posts: 4,095
Varonsb...Thanks....Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

I truly appreciate your work.

I came across the FE24240 by accident. I had fallen and broke my left humerus (shoulder). Yes it healed.

I bought my lens to keep shooting. After my arm healed I kept the lens and sold the kit lenses I had bought.

I appreciate the extra reach with this lens. I appreciate not changing lenses with the Sony mount. (I've used Nikon so long any other mount feels strange.)

I feel happy every time I pick up my a6000 with this lens attached. Contrast. Colour.

Summary? It works for me, but I found out by accident.

-- hide signature --

DaveL
Toronto

 D Lynch's gear list:D Lynch's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony RX100 II Nikon D300S Sony a6000
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

DenImage wrote:

I'm not sure why you brought up the prime lenses in your reply, I'm referring to the topic of the thread, your comparison test of the zoom lenses.

To my taste, a fast normal-to-wide prime is closer to all-in-one lens type than a slow superzoom. Which is really good only outdoors, and if you aren't concerned about background blur, and if you shoot the distant objects occasionally.

What "specific task" do you believe the 24-240mm and/or E18-135mm could achieve that the 1" sensor 24-600mm RX10iv bridge camera couldn't?

For me 24-240 is a task-specific lens, while RX10 is a task-specific camera. Luckily 24-240 isn't glued to the camera body, and I can use it in any combination with my other lenses or leave on shelf when it's not needed (most of the time).

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
DenImage Senior Member • Posts: 2,410
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

"a fast normal-to-wide prime is closer to all-in-one lens type than a slow superzoom. Which is really good only outdoors, and if you aren't concerned about background blur, and if you shoot the distant objects occasionally"

:

How can a prime lens be considered as an "all-in-one" lens when it has only has one focal length?

The Sony RX10iv has a 1" sensor with a Zeiss lens (designed and optimised specifically for the RX10 series) that is able to shoot f2.4 at 24mm, why do you say it's good only outdoors? Do you have anything to substantiate your claim?

:

"For me 24-240 is a task-specific lens, while RX10 is a task-specific camera. Luckily 24-240 isn't glued to the camera body, and I can use it in any combination with my other lenses or leave on shelf when it's not needed (most of the time)"

:

Ah now I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

To me an "all in one" camera/lens is a one camera/lens solution to cover most general photography requirements with the compromise of lower image quality over convenience.

The DPReview 84% GOLD awarded Sony RX10iv is a 24-600mm (35mm equivalent) bridge camera with high speed shooting and PDAF for superior tracking, DPReview below:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv/4

However subject isolation or background blur is a weak point of the 1" sensor and slower zoom lens combination but not noticeably better or worse than the E18-135mm and 24-240mm lenses, but the longer focal length (up to 600mm) enables background blur to be achieved via compression.

Another weak point of the combination (as I mentioned in my earlier post) is lowlight performance, but I'm able to take perfectly acceptable lowlight shots at ISO 800, beyond that the noise becomes noticeable but able to be reduced in post with modern denoising algorithms like the awesome DXO Prime denoising engine.

IMO the Sony RX10iv is vastly superior to the E18-135mm and 24-240mm lens (which I used to own), I too leave it on the shelf when I need something more task specific like an ultrawide or faster prime, or for a more compact camera/lens solution (see my gear list).

Den

 DenImage's gear list:DenImage's gear list
Sony a7R II Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 100mm F2.8 GM +2 more
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2
1

DenImage wrote:

How can a prime lens be considered as an "all-in-one" lens when it has only has one focal length?

It depends on your shooting habits, that's all. To my taste, a normal-to-wide prime covers basically everything except very wide or very long shots, which equals to may be 10% of lost frames in daily shooting. On the other hand, a slow ultrazoom would make me use ISO 10K-20K-50K for half of my photos.

I prefer 90% of great photos over 100%, half of which are horribly noisy and/or have really poor background blur where it's really needed.

On the other hand, another photographer may have completely different shooting scenarios, and equivalent to 24-600 mm F6.5-11 lens may be exactly what he needs.

The Sony RX10iv has a 1" sensor with a Zeiss lens (designed and optimised specifically for the RX10 series) that is able to shoot f2.4 at 24mm, why do you say it's good only outdoors? Do you have anything to substantiate your claim?

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv/8

Around F9-10 equivalent aperture in the most useful "portrait range" is too slow for indoor shooting by any measure. My phone camera is just a little bit worse (equivalent to F11).

I use F1.8-F2 lenses indoors, and the typical sensitivity is around ISO 1600 wide open. From time to time my ISO levels go past 10K even at F1.8-F2. Doing the same with 1" sensor and relatively slow lens would result in images like those shot on a phone camera.

24-240 offers around 1.5 stop advantage over RX10, but still I always put it aside  indoors, unless I shoot completely immobile objects, relying upon OSS.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
DenImage Senior Member • Posts: 2,410
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

"...a normal-to-wide prime covers basically everything except very wide or very long shots, which equals to may be 10% of lost frames in daily shooting. On the other hand, a slow ultrazoom would make me use ISO 10K-20K-50K for half of my photos.

I prefer 90% of great photos over 100%, half of which are horribly noisy and/or have really poor background blur where it's really needed"

:

A "normal-to-wide prime" is one prime that is in the 55mm to 28mm range.

One prime lens in that range cannot be considered as an "all in one" lens.

Suggesting that a bridge camera like the RX10iv would be used at ISO 10K-20K-50K for half of your photos is stretching the point. I've never shot my RX cameras above ISO 3200.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion differs from many others, including Dan Bracaglia from DPReview who awarded the RX10iv an 84% GOLD award as I posted earlier. So I believe the RX10iv would compete favourably with the lenses tested in your OP.

Den

 DenImage's gear list:DenImage's gear list
Sony a7R II Sigma 8mm F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 100mm F2.8 GM +2 more
OP voronspb Senior Member • Posts: 1,120
Re: Sharpness test FE24-240 vs. E18-135 vs. Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2

DenImage wrote:

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your opinion differs from many others, including Dan Bracaglia from DPReview who awarded the RX10iv an 84% GOLD award as I posted earlier. So I believe the RX10iv would compete favourably with the lenses tested in your OP.

I never told that RX10 doesn't deserve its gold badge. Indeed it's great camera within its usage scope. I don't blame this camera for lack of match between my shooting habits and its specs.

-- hide signature --

Vladimir Gorbunov

 voronspb's gear list:voronspb's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads