Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Hi Everybody:

I have been trying to figure out which lens to get (mainly for landscapes) and I reviewed a long thread which covered this topic. I even instigated one myself. I was leaning toward the 24-105mm because it is almost or as sharp as the 24-70mm, is much lighter, I will rarely use f2.8, image stabilization, and of course the zoom range is significantly greater. It seems almost a no-brainer.

Yet, when I check the two flickr groups devoted to these lenses, I much prefer the 24-70mm. About 10% of shots from the 24-105mm I consider exceptional, whereas more than half of the 24-70mm I consider to be that. The bottom line is that i really like the look of the 24-70mm pics more. I can't describe why: more pop or 3D effect. I can't really put my finger on it.

But then I thought, well maybe there is an inherent bias operating here. Maybe people who are willing to spend a lot of money on the 24-70mm are also more serious about their photography. Not that you are not if you buy the 24-105mm lens. It is obviously possible to take fantastic pics with it, but they were a small minority in that specific flickr group.

So I am figuring maybe I shouldn't take these groups as serious examples of what these lenses can do. Or maybe the 24-70mm does indeed have a more appealing result to my eye. Interestingly, when I checked the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 group, it fell somewhere in between the the two Sony's as far as appealing to my aesthetic.

Any thoughts?

-Charles

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
Austinian
Austinian Forum Pro • Posts: 10,869
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

charley5 wrote:

Hi Everybody:

I have been trying to figure out which lens to get (mainly for landscapes) and I reviewed a long thread which covered this topic. I even instigated one myself. I was leaning toward the 24-105mm because it is almost or as sharp as the 24-70mm, is much lighter, I will rarely use f2.8, image stabilization, and of course the zoom range is significantly greater. It seems almost a no-brainer.

Yet, when I check the two flickr groups devoted to these lenses, I much prefer the 24-70mm. About 10% of shots from the 24-105mm I consider exceptional, whereas more than half of the 24-70mm I consider to be that. The bottom line is that i really like the look of the 24-70mm pics more. I can't describe why: more pop or 3D effect. I can't really put my finger on it.

But then I thought, well maybe there is an inherent bias operating here. Maybe people who are willing to spend a lot of money on the 24-70mm are also more serious about their photography. Not that you are not if you buy the 24-105mm lens. It is obviously possible to take fantastic pics with it, but they were a small minority in that specific flickr group.

So I am figuring maybe I shouldn't take these groups as serious examples of what these lenses can do. Or maybe the 24-70mm does indeed have a more appealing result to my eye. Interestingly, when I checked the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 group, it fell somewhere in between the the two Sony's as far as appealing to my aesthetic.

Any thoughts?

-Charles

It might be interesting to get someone else to scramble multiple images from the different lenses randomly and present them to you without revealing the lens used until later. That would remove any bias from knowing beforehand which lens was used.

 Austinian's gear list:Austinian's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a7R IV Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Sony FE 50mm F2.8 Macro Sony FE 24-105mm F4 +2 more
ElGhuraify Junior Member • Posts: 35
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

charley5 wrote:

Hi Everybody:

I have been trying to figure out which lens to get (mainly for landscapes) and I reviewed a long thread which covered this topic. I even instigated one myself. I was leaning toward the 24-105mm because it is almost or as sharp as the 24-70mm, is much lighter, I will rarely use f2.8, image stabilization, and of course the zoom range is significantly greater. It seems almost a no-brainer.

Yet, when I check the two flickr groups devoted to these lenses, I much prefer the 24-70mm. About 10% of shots from the 24-105mm I consider exceptional, whereas more than half of the 24-70mm I consider to be that. The bottom line is that i really like the look of the 24-70mm pics more. I can't describe why: more pop or 3D effect. I can't really put my finger on it.

But then I thought, well maybe there is an inherent bias operating here. Maybe people who are willing to spend a lot of money on the 24-70mm are also more serious about their photography. Not that you are not if you buy the 24-105mm lens. It is obviously possible to take fantastic pics with it, but they were a small minority in that specific flickr group.

So I am figuring maybe I shouldn't take these groups as serious examples of what these lenses can do. Or maybe the 24-70mm does indeed have a more appealing result to my eye. Interestingly, when I checked the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 group, it fell somewhere in between the the two Sony's as far as appealing to my aesthetic.

Any thoughts?

-Charles

As a person who own and used both, I would say go with the 24-70. Landscape photography does not need the f2.8, and you will have the extra reach. Both lenses are fantastic overall and you will not go wrong with either.

It is a matter of preferences and real world usage needs.

 ElGhuraify's gear list:ElGhuraify's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-105mm F4
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Austinian wrote:

charley5 wrote:

Hi Everybody:

I have been trying to figure out which lens to get (mainly for landscapes) and I reviewed a long thread which covered this topic. I even instigated one myself. I was leaning toward the 24-105mm because it is almost or as sharp as the 24-70mm, is much lighter, I will rarely use f2.8, image stabilization, and of course the zoom range is significantly greater. It seems almost a no-brainer.

Yet, when I check the two flickr groups devoted to these lenses, I much prefer the 24-70mm. About 10% of shots from the 24-105mm I consider exceptional, whereas more than half of the 24-70mm I consider to be that. The bottom line is that i really like the look of the 24-70mm pics more. I can't describe why: more pop or 3D effect. I can't really put my finger on it.

But then I thought, well maybe there is an inherent bias operating here. Maybe people who are willing to spend a lot of money on the 24-70mm are also more serious about their photography. Not that you are not if you buy the 24-105mm lens. It is obviously possible to take fantastic pics with it, but they were a small minority in that specific flickr group.

So I am figuring maybe I shouldn't take these groups as serious examples of what these lenses can do. Or maybe the 24-70mm does indeed have a more appealing result to my eye. Interestingly, when I checked the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 group, it fell somewhere in between the the two Sony's as far as appealing to my aesthetic.

Any thoughts?

-Charles

It might be interesting to get someone else to scramble multiple images from the different lenses randomly and present them to you without revealing the lens used until later. That would remove any bias from knowing beforehand which lens was used.

Excellent suggestion!

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

ElGhuraify wrote:

charley5 wrote:

Hi Everybody:

I have been trying to figure out which lens to get (mainly for landscapes) and I reviewed a long thread which covered this topic. I even instigated one myself. I was leaning toward the 24-105mm because it is almost or as sharp as the 24-70mm, is much lighter, I will rarely use f2.8, image stabilization, and of course the zoom range is significantly greater. It seems almost a no-brainer.

Yet, when I check the two flickr groups devoted to these lenses, I much prefer the 24-70mm. About 10% of shots from the 24-105mm I consider exceptional, whereas more than half of the 24-70mm I consider to be that. The bottom line is that i really like the look of the 24-70mm pics more. I can't describe why: more pop or 3D effect. I can't really put my finger on it.

But then I thought, well maybe there is an inherent bias operating here. Maybe people who are willing to spend a lot of money on the 24-70mm are also more serious about their photography. Not that you are not if you buy the 24-105mm lens. It is obviously possible to take fantastic pics with it, but they were a small minority in that specific flickr group.

So I am figuring maybe I shouldn't take these groups as serious examples of what these lenses can do. Or maybe the 24-70mm does indeed have a more appealing result to my eye. Interestingly, when I checked the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 group, it fell somewhere in between the the two Sony's as far as appealing to my aesthetic.

Any thoughts?

-Charles

As a person who own and used both, I would say go with the 24-70. Landscape photography does not need the f2.8, and you will have the extra reach. Both lenses are fantastic overall and you will not go wrong with either.

It is a matter of preferences and real world usage needs.

Do you mean go with the 24-105?

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
AZheaven Senior Member • Posts: 1,704
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

I have the Sony 24-105 f4. It was my one and only lens for 2 years before I bought a Tamron 70-180 f2.8. The 24-105 is a superb lens and very sharp. And less expensive than the Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM. I've used the 24-105 for landscapes (just used it at the Grand Canyon last Friday) and street. And some wildlife.

But also to consider is the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. It's a little less than the 24-105, sometimes even a couple of hundred less and it's highly rated and super sharp. And you will have f2.8 when you need it. There are many reviews out on Youtube on this Sigma between Fro Knows, Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost.

PJM2018 Regular Member • Posts: 139
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias
2

The 24-105 is a great landscape lens....as mentioned you don’t need the F2.8 speed but the extra range comes very handy!

 PJM2018's gear list:PJM2018's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony FE 28mm F2 +1 more
LenRivers Senior Member • Posts: 2,890
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Buy what you can afford. Both lenses will do the job. 
How important is a shorter focal length in these zooms. Does it matter to you. 
how important is paying $1000 or so for one F stop when you can use a slower shutter speed or higher ISO

You can always buy a prime lens for a speciality need and use the 24-105 mm

If you are still unsure you would need to see these lenses in person at your local camera store or rent both of them. 
Pretty much your call since you have To like the photos your produce and have to carry this gear.

Malling Regular Member • Posts: 231
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

I own the 24-70GM and it’s excellent for landscape and also have the benefit of being an excellent all purpose zoom lens that dos low light and portrait well. The biggest issue with the GM besides it’s rather hefty price, is that it’s not particularly light, so if size and weight is important to you the 24-105 might be a better solution, what I can say is that back when I tried it I didn’t  found the IQ to be nearly as good as the GM so I opted against it as I use my lens for so many different task. but for most who doesn’t need 2.8 the extra reach might be a selling point, for me I already had the 70-200 so I where already covered and would strongly recommend getting the 70-200 for landscape or alternative the 100-400 (Sigma or Sony) if you do get the 24-105, Telephoto zoom are just great for landscape!

would I get a GM in 2020 probably not, as the Sigma 24-70 is almost on pair and is allot cheaper, slightly smaller and lighter compared  to the GM and has newer technology. I kind of expect the GM to be updated soon so I’m not sure it’s the right time to get one unless you can find it used.

Jojophotomo Regular Member • Posts: 160
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

charley5 wrote:

Hi Everybody:

I have been trying to figure out which lens to get (mainly for landscapes) and I reviewed a long thread which covered this topic. I even instigated one myself. I was leaning toward the 24-105mm because it is almost or as sharp as the 24-70mm, is much lighter, I will rarely use f2.8, image stabilization, and of course the zoom range is significantly greater. It seems almost a no-brainer.

Yet, when I check the two flickr groups devoted to these lenses, I much prefer the 24-70mm. About 10% of shots from the 24-105mm I consider exceptional, whereas more than half of the 24-70mm I consider to be that. The bottom line is that i really like the look of the 24-70mm pics more. I can't describe why: more pop or 3D effect. I can't really put my finger on it.

But then I thought, well maybe there is an inherent bias operating here. Maybe people who are willing to spend a lot of money on the 24-70mm are also more serious about their photography. Not that you are not if you buy the 24-105mm lens. It is obviously possible to take fantastic pics with it, but they were a small minority in that specific flickr group.

So I am figuring maybe I shouldn't take these groups as serious examples of what these lenses can do. Or maybe the 24-70mm does indeed have a more appealing result to my eye. Interestingly, when I checked the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 group, it fell somewhere in between the the two Sony's as far as appealing to my aesthetic.

Any thoughts?

-Charles

Yes!  I definitely have a few thoughts.

Apart from some AF performance in video (which, generally, you'd want MF for video anyway?), I think that you're imagining the differences between the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the Sony GM 24-70 f/2.8.  The Sigma is everything that the Sony is, but for 1/2 the cost.

I say this as a 24-70 GM owner; get the sigma, go make photographs, and forget about it.  I recently acquired he Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN which is unreal.  It's an absolutely amazing little lens.  So yeah, pick up the Sigma.

 Jojophotomo's gear list:Jojophotomo's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a1 Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS Sony FE 20mm F1.8G
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

AZheaven wrote:

I have the Sony 24-105 f4. It was my one and only lens for 2 years before I bought a Tamron 70-180 f2.8. The 24-105 is a superb lens and very sharp. And less expensive than the Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM. I've used the 24-105 for landscapes (just used it at the Grand Canyon last Friday) and street. And some wildlife.

But also to consider is the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. It's a little less than the 24-105, sometimes even a couple of hundred less and it's highly rated and super sharp. And you will have f2.8 when you need it. There are many reviews out on Youtube on this Sigma between Fro Knows, Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost.

Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I want to make the right decision since my trips are done with considerable expense and effort and I want to make sure I get the kind of pics I like. I would definitely consider the Sigma, but having had experience with Sigma lenses and cameras, I know there is a large variance in terms of quality control and I am not sure if I want to take the chance. I am living in India now, and if I got a problem lens that would complicate things. However, when these Sigma lenses are good, they are very good.

-Charles

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

PJM2018 wrote:

The 24-105 is a great landscape lens....as mentioned you don’t need the F2.8 speed but the extra range comes very handy!

I have no doubt. My question is more whether I would like the look of the results more or as much as the 24-70 GM. This is more a subtle thing related to aesthetics.

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Malling wrote:

I own the 24-70GM and it’s excellent for landscape and also have the benefit of being an excellent all purpose zoom lens that dos low light and portrait well. The biggest issue with the GM besides it’s rather hefty price, is that it’s not particularly light, so if size and weight is important to you the 24-105 might be a better solution, what I can say is that back when I tried it I didn’t found the IQ to be nearly as good as the GM so I opted against it as I use my lens for so many different task. but for most who doesn’t need 2.8 the extra reach might be a selling point, for me I already had the 70-200 so I where already covered and would strongly recommend getting the 70-200 for landscape or alternative the 100-400 (Sigma or Sony) if you do get the 24-105, Telephoto zoom are just great for landscape!

would I get a GM in 2020 probably not, as the Sigma 24-70 is almost on pair and is allot cheaper, slightly smaller and lighter compared to the GM and has newer technology. I kind of expect the GM to be updated soon so I’m not sure it’s the right time to get one unless you can find it used.

I am considering the Sigma as well but they have a larger variance in terms of quality control, and if I get a bad lens, I will have a problem here in India sending it back. I might opt for a used 24-70GM when I go back to the West. What you say about the 24-105 seems to confirm my intuition.

Thanks!

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias
1

LenRivers wrote:

Buy what you can afford. Both lenses will do the job.
How important is a shorter focal length in these zooms. Does it matter to you.
how important is paying $1000 or so for one F stop when you can use a slower shutter speed or higher ISO

You can always buy a prime lens for a speciality need and use the 24-105 mm

If you are still unsure you would need to see these lenses in person at your local camera store or rent both of them.
Pretty much your call since you have To like the photos your produce and have to carry this gear.

Len, I know all these lenses will "do the job", but IQ is 90% of what's important to me. Not just sharpness, but having a bit of that special something, perhaps "pop" or dimensionality. You can really tell the difference between an exceptional lens and a good lens. I am just picky that way. Of course, it all finally comes down to the talent of the photographer. No lens will make a bad picture a good one. But a very great lens could make a good picture a bit greater.

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Jojophotomo wrote:

charley5 wrote:

Hi Everybody:

I have been trying to figure out which lens to get (mainly for landscapes) and I reviewed a long thread which covered this topic. I even instigated one myself. I was leaning toward the 24-105mm because it is almost or as sharp as the 24-70mm, is much lighter, I will rarely use f2.8, image stabilization, and of course the zoom range is significantly greater. It seems almost a no-brainer.

Yet, when I check the two flickr groups devoted to these lenses, I much prefer the 24-70mm. About 10% of shots from the 24-105mm I consider exceptional, whereas more than half of the 24-70mm I consider to be that. The bottom line is that i really like the look of the 24-70mm pics more. I can't describe why: more pop or 3D effect. I can't really put my finger on it.

But then I thought, well maybe there is an inherent bias operating here. Maybe people who are willing to spend a lot of money on the 24-70mm are also more serious about their photography. Not that you are not if you buy the 24-105mm lens. It is obviously possible to take fantastic pics with it, but they were a small minority in that specific flickr group.

So I am figuring maybe I shouldn't take these groups as serious examples of what these lenses can do. Or maybe the 24-70mm does indeed have a more appealing result to my eye. Interestingly, when I checked the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 group, it fell somewhere in between the the two Sony's as far as appealing to my aesthetic.

Any thoughts?

-Charles

Yes! I definitely have a few thoughts.

Apart from some AF performance in video (which, generally, you'd want MF for video anyway?), I think that you're imagining the differences between the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the Sony GM 24-70 f/2.8. The Sigma is everything that the Sony is, but for 1/2 the cost.

I say this as a 24-70 GM owner; get the sigma, go make photographs, and forget about it. I recently acquired he Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN which is unreal. It's an absolutely amazing little lens. So yeah, pick up the Sigma.

Okay. I shall look into the Sigma more closely. As I mention above though, there is a wider variability of quality control with Sigma lenses, and I may have trouble returning a bum copy if I had to do so. I am open to getting a Sigma.

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
Malling Regular Member • Posts: 231
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

I haven’t found that to be true any longer with the Art series.

Back in the days when I where a Nikon shooter that was very much true even with the better lenses, but from what I have seen Sigma has improved allot on their QC, but lemons probably still exist heck you can even get a bad top of the range Nikon Lens.

AZheaven Senior Member • Posts: 1,704
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

charley5 wrote:

AZheaven wrote:

I have the Sony 24-105 f4. It was my one and only lens for 2 years before I bought a Tamron 70-180 f2.8. The 24-105 is a superb lens and very sharp. And less expensive than the Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM. I've used the 24-105 for landscapes (just used it at the Grand Canyon last Friday) and street. And some wildlife.

But also to consider is the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. It's a little less than the 24-105, sometimes even a couple of hundred less and it's highly rated and super sharp. And you will have f2.8 when you need it. There are many reviews out on Youtube on this Sigma between Fro Knows, Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost.

Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I want to make the right decision since my trips are done with considerable expense and effort and I want to make sure I get the kind of pics I like. I would definitely consider the Sigma, but having had experience with Sigma lenses and cameras, I know there is a large variance in terms of quality control and I am not sure if I want to take the chance. I am living in India now, and if I got a problem lens that would complicate things. However, when these Sigma lenses are good, they are very good.

-Charles

This new Sigma lens is supposed to be supurb and so far I haven't read of any issues with it. I even had a Sigma 24-105 when I shot Nikon and it was an excellent lens. I think Sigma's quality control has improved over the years. You can get bad Sony glass also. I rented 2 different Sony 70-200 f4's and both were bad copies. It can happen and I understand your anxiety over it! My first copy of the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 was super sharp. But then my serial number was part of a recall. One of 3 lenses sold on the west coast. My second replacement copy was off and that had to be replaced. Thankfully my 3rd copy is as good as the first! It can happen and it is sometimes a crap shoot for sure! Good luck with your decision.

LenRivers Senior Member • Posts: 2,890
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

charley5 wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Buy what you can afford. Both lenses will do the job.
How important is a shorter focal length in these zooms. Does it matter to you.
how important is paying $1000 or so for one F stop when you can use a slower shutter speed or higher ISO

You can always buy a prime lens for a speciality need and use the 24-105 mm

If you are still unsure you would need to see these lenses in person at your local camera store or rent both of them.
Pretty much your call since you have To like the photos your produce and have to carry this gear.

Len, I know all these lenses will "do the job", but IQ is 90% of what's important to me. Not just sharpness, but having a bit of that special something, perhaps "pop" or dimensionality. You can really tell the difference between an exceptional lens and a good lens. I am just picky that way. Of course, it all finally comes down to the talent of the photographer. No lens will make a bad picture a good one. But a very great lens could make a good picture a bit greater.

Ok, so with that response I would only buy GM Sony lenses.

My basis is from when I shot Nikon. I shot over a few years the D750 and D850.

I knew I wanted F 2.8 zooms not the Nikon 24-120 mm F 4 or 70-200 F 4 etc. 24-70 mm 2.8 VR and 70-200 2.8 VR ii. I also compared and tested first hand Sigma, Nikon F 1.8 and F 1.4 primes. The IQ with the price tag I purchased f 1.4 primes. The 1.4's were just phenomenal.

35 mm, 58 mm, 85 mm and 105 mm F 1.4's

My photo business looked different a few years ago than what I do now.

***

Today after selling all my Nikon. Sony A7 iii, Sony 24-105 4.0 and 200-600. I did sell Three Batis lenses with some video gear to fund my Leica Q2 purchase few months ago.**

I am always open to sell and buy and switch systems as my needs call for it. Today I am good with Sony. I am looking forward to what the A7 IV (non R) might look like.

IMO the only reason to buy Tamron or Sigma is if money is a #1 dealbreaker,

The best thing you can do for you is do your own side by side test and make a return to the camera store.  I wont buy Sigma or Tamron anymore. I have tried and just dont like the IQ once I see the manufactures glass in comparison to my eyes.  The cost of the lens is the cost of the hobby we all chose, it is what it is..

If your research leads elsewhere that is the right decision for your needs

OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

AZheaven wrote:

charley5 wrote:

AZheaven wrote:

I have the Sony 24-105 f4. It was my one and only lens for 2 years before I bought a Tamron 70-180 f2.8. The 24-105 is a superb lens and very sharp. And less expensive than the Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM. I've used the 24-105 for landscapes (just used it at the Grand Canyon last Friday) and street. And some wildlife.

But also to consider is the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. It's a little less than the 24-105, sometimes even a couple of hundred less and it's highly rated and super sharp. And you will have f2.8 when you need it. There are many reviews out on Youtube on this Sigma between Fro Knows, Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost.

Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I want to make the right decision since my trips are done with considerable expense and effort and I want to make sure I get the kind of pics I like. I would definitely consider the Sigma, but having had experience with Sigma lenses and cameras, I know there is a large variance in terms of quality control and I am not sure if I want to take the chance. I am living in India now, and if I got a problem lens that would complicate things. However, when these Sigma lenses are good, they are very good.

-Charles

This new Sigma lens is supposed to be supurb and so far I haven't read of any issues with it. I even had a Sigma 24-105 when I shot Nikon and it was an excellent lens. I think Sigma's quality control has improved over the years. You can get bad Sony glass also. I rented 2 different Sony 70-200 f4's and both were bad copies. It can happen and I understand your anxiety over it! My first copy of the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 was super sharp. But then my serial number was part of a recall. One of 3 lenses sold on the west coast. My second replacement copy was off and that had to be replaced. Thankfully my 3rd copy is as good as the first! It can happen and it is sometimes a crap shoot for sure! Good luck with your decision.

Thanks. It is the luck of the draw. Although I agree that there are many fewer lemons than even a decade ago.

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

LenRivers wrote:

charley5 wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Buy what you can afford. Both lenses will do the job.
How important is a shorter focal length in these zooms. Does it matter to you.
how important is paying $1000 or so for one F stop when you can use a slower shutter speed or higher ISO

You can always buy a prime lens for a speciality need and use the 24-105 mm

If you are still unsure you would need to see these lenses in person at your local camera store or rent both of them.
Pretty much your call since you have To like the photos your produce and have to carry this gear.

Len, I know all these lenses will "do the job", but IQ is 90% of what's important to me. Not just sharpness, but having a bit of that special something, perhaps "pop" or dimensionality. You can really tell the difference between an exceptional lens and a good lens. I am just picky that way. Of course, it all finally comes down to the talent of the photographer. No lens will make a bad picture a good one. But a very great lens could make a good picture a bit greater.

Ok, so with that response I would only buy GM Sony lenses.

My basis is from when I shot Nikon. I shot over a few years the D750 and D850.

I knew I wanted F 2.8 zooms not the Nikon 24-120 mm F 4 or 70-200 F 4 etc. 24-70 mm 2.8 VR and 70-200 2.8 VR ii. I also compared and tested first hand Sigma, Nikon F 1.8 and F 1.4 primes. The IQ with the price tag I purchased f 1.4 primes. The 1.4's were just phenomenal.

35 mm, 58 mm, 85 mm and 105 mm F 1.4's

My photo business looked different a few years ago than what I do now.

***

Today after selling all my Nikon. Sony A7 iii, Sony 24-105 4.0 and 200-600. I did sell Three Batis lenses with some video gear to fund my Leica Q2 purchase few months ago.**

I am always open to sell and buy and switch systems as my needs call for it. Today I am good with Sony. I am looking forward to what the A7 IV (non R) might look like.

IMO the only reason to buy Tamron or Sigma is if money is a #1 dealbreaker,

The best thing you can do for you is do your own side by side test and make a return to the camera store. I wont buy Sigma or Tamron anymore. I have tried and just dont like the IQ once I see the manufactures glass in comparison to my eyes. The cost of the lens is the cost of the hobby we all chose, it is what it is..

If your research leads elsewhere that is the right decision for your needs

Ok, I did do the research and it came down to two lenses. I'll post my findings below...

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads