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

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,392
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Malling wrote:

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.

Yes, I believe that. The chances of getting a lemon is much diminished. But there are still large individual differences, ranging from fair to exceptional. I am not sure why.

 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: 2,392
My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...

This research is obviously unscientific. It is meant only to help me choose a mostly landscape lens out of the following six alternatives. These ratings are for image quality only. The ratings were formulated after looking at 25-30 landscape shots on flickr for each lens, usually at 100% view. The ratings are out of 5 points, and a 2.5 would be an average rating, meaning it was just satisfactory.

Sony 24-70 2.8 GM ..... (4.5/5.0)

Sigma 24-70 2.8 Art .... (4.0/5.0)

Sony 24-105 4 G........... (3.5/5.0)

Sony 24-240 3.5/6.3 .... (3.0/5.0)

Tamron 24-70 2.8 ......... (2.5/5.0)

Tamron 28-200 2.8/5.6 ..(2.0/5.0)

If someone has compared more than one of these lenses please let me know what your findings have been relative to these ratings. I would also love to hear why you disagree with these ratings. In fact, if you want to re-order, please do (based on IQ). I might revisit my conclusions. I hope I haven't insulted anyone who owns these last couple of lenses.

-Charles

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
LenRivers Senior Member • Posts: 2,900
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...
1

Numbers never mean anything as a basis to make a decision. Unless you are a pixel photographer or a 200% look at the corners photographer no one views any image like this in a normal way. 
every lens is great. Each have a bias   
If i said or did say when you have a list like test in person is the best way.

OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,392
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...

LenRivers wrote:

Numbers never mean anything as a basis to make a decision. Unless you are a pixel photographer or a 200% look at the corners photographer no one views any image like this in a normal way.
every lens is great. Each have a bias
If i said or did say when you have a list like test in person is the best way.

I can't test in person. I live in a town in the Himalayas, and the nearest possibility is a city that takes a 15 hour taxi ride to get there. So I have to rely on the results others get that approximate the landscape features I am interested in photographing. Of course, there are so many factors that enter into my assessments that they are not rigorous by any means. Color saturation, "pop", sharpness, all have a certain variability among different lenses, not to mention the skills of the photographer involved.

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
LenRivers Senior Member • Posts: 2,900
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...

Then this is what I would say based on it seems you have to get it right the first time.

Buy Sony glass with Sony bodies you will be happy. You know all will just work perfectly.

I feel there is still that extra 1% of compatibility when not mix and matching lenses.

Myself I can easily do the things I suggest but with your limited resources and I assume no desire to make a return my  2 cents  is play it safe and buy only Sony. Same suggestion if you shot Nikon I would not use Tamron or Sigma.

At least you know that the Sony lens you are buying was designed with the Sony body in mind. Sony, Canon Nikon etc are not designing anything for 3rd party glass in mind.

that is what I would do knowing what I feel I know and where you live and again seems like you need to get this right the first time and feel confident

I cant get in your head and you see you have many biased responses

I dont consider mine that way only cause I know how can anyone go wrong matching manufacture body and glass ?

OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,392
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...

LenRivers wrote:

Then this is what I would say based on it seems you have to get it right the first time.

Buy Sony glass with Sony bodies you will be happy. You know all will just work perfectly.

I feel there is still that extra 1% of compatibility when not mix and matching lenses.

Myself I can easily do the things I suggest but with your limited resources and I assume no desire to make a return my 2 cents is play it safe and buy only Sony. Same suggestion if you shot Nikon I would not use Tamron or Sigma.

At least you know that the Sony lens you are buying was designed with the Sony body in mind. Sony, Canon Nikon etc are not designing anything for 3rd party glass in mind.

that is what I would do knowing what I feel I know and where you live and again seems like you need to get this right the first time and feel confident

I cant get in your head and you see you have many biased responses

I dont consider mine that way only cause I know how can anyone go wrong matching manufacture body and glass ?

Thank you. I will actually probably take your advice and buy a Sony lens. I am thinking of trading my near mint 55mm Otus, for a 24-70 GM plus an additional lens. Or maybe it will have to wait till I next visit the West.

I found my perfect portrait lens, and now it is just a question of settling for a reasonable zoom for landscapes.

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
LenRivers Senior Member • Posts: 2,900
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...

charley5 wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Then this is what I would say based on it seems you have to get it right the first time.

Buy Sony glass with Sony bodies you will be happy. You know all will just work perfectly.

I feel there is still that extra 1% of compatibility when not mix and matching lenses.

Myself I can easily do the things I suggest but with your limited resources and I assume no desire to make a return my 2 cents is play it safe and buy only Sony. Same suggestion if you shot Nikon I would not use Tamron or Sigma.

At least you know that the Sony lens you are buying was designed with the Sony body in mind. Sony, Canon Nikon etc are not designing anything for 3rd party glass in mind.

that is what I would do knowing what I feel I know and where you live and again seems like you need to get this right the first time and feel confident

I cant get in your head and you see you have many biased responses

I dont consider mine that way only cause I know how can anyone go wrong matching manufacture body and glass ?

Thank you. I will actually probably take your advice and buy a Sony lens. I am thinking of trading my near mint 55mm Otus, for a 24-70 GM plus an additional lens. Or maybe it will have to wait till I next visit the West.

I found my perfect portrait lens, and now it is just a question of settling for a reasonable zoom for landscapes.

To address landscapes that depends since you may want a 70-200 zoom as much as one would want a 16-35 or 12-24. Sometimes you want a telephoto lens for landscapes

I suggest thinking about what you shoot with frequency and buy that. If you have the money to buy whatever then for sure buy whatever you like.

I would also consider if you need to use filters with your lenses and why or why not to buy a wide angle zoom like the Sony 12-24 for a one off example.

If you have to pay for shipping I might even suggest you add an external flash, they are always handy to have.

Malling Regular Member • Posts: 231
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...
1

LenRivers wrote:

charley5 wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Then this is what I would say based on it seems you have to get it right the first time.

Buy Sony glass with Sony bodies you will be happy. You know all will just work perfectly.

I feel there is still that extra 1% of compatibility when not mix and matching lenses.

Myself I can easily do the things I suggest but with your limited resources and I assume no desire to make a return my 2 cents is play it safe and buy only Sony. Same suggestion if you shot Nikon I would not use Tamron or Sigma.

At least you know that the Sony lens you are buying was designed with the Sony body in mind. Sony, Canon Nikon etc are not designing anything for 3rd party glass in mind.

that is what I would do knowing what I feel I know and where you live and again seems like you need to get this right the first time and feel confident

I cant get in your head and you see you have many biased responses

I dont consider mine that way only cause I know how can anyone go wrong matching manufacture body and glass ?

Thank you. I will actually probably take your advice and buy a Sony lens. I am thinking of trading my near mint 55mm Otus, for a 24-70 GM plus an additional lens. Or maybe it will have to wait till I next visit the West.

I found my perfect portrait lens, and now it is just a question of settling for a reasonable zoom for landscapes.

To address landscapes that depends since you may want a 70-200 zoom as much as one would want a 16-35 or 12-24. Sometimes you want a telephoto lens for landscapes

I suggest thinking about what you shoot with frequency and buy that. If you have the money to buy whatever then for sure buy whatever you like.

I would also consider if you need to use filters with your lenses and why or why not to buy a wide angle zoom like the Sony 12-24 for a one off example.

If you have to pay for shipping I might even suggest you add an external flash, they are always handy to have.

agree, the lenses that is most frequently advised for landscape, is probably not the 24-70 but rather the 12-24/16-35 and some sort of telephoto like 70-200 or 100-400. The first one I would get is the 12-24 or 16-36 as you can then get some great images with foreground especially used on a tripod and focus stacking.

OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,392
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...

LenRivers wrote:

charley5 wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Then this is what I would say based on it seems you have to get it right the first time.

Buy Sony glass with Sony bodies you will be happy. You know all will just work perfectly.

I feel there is still that extra 1% of compatibility when not mix and matching lenses.

Myself I can easily do the things I suggest but with your limited resources and I assume no desire to make a return my 2 cents is play it safe and buy only Sony. Same suggestion if you shot Nikon I would not use Tamron or Sigma.

At least you know that the Sony lens you are buying was designed with the Sony body in mind. Sony, Canon Nikon etc are not designing anything for 3rd party glass in mind.

that is what I would do knowing what I feel I know and where you live and again seems like you need to get this right the first time and feel confident

I cant get in your head and you see you have many biased responses

I dont consider mine that way only cause I know how can anyone go wrong matching manufacture body and glass ?

Thank you. I will actually probably take your advice and buy a Sony lens. I am thinking of trading my near mint 55mm Otus, for a 24-70 GM plus an additional lens. Or maybe it will have to wait till I next visit the West.

I found my perfect portrait lens, and now it is just a question of settling for a reasonable zoom for landscapes.

To address landscapes that depends since you may want a 70-200 zoom as much as one would want a 16-35 or 12-24. Sometimes you want a telephoto lens for landscapes

I suggest thinking about what you shoot with frequency and buy that. If you have the money to buy whatever then for sure buy whatever you like.

I would also consider if you need to use filters with your lenses and why or why not to buy a wide angle zoom like the Sony 12-24 for a one off example.

If you have to pay for shipping I might even suggest you add an external flash, they are always handy to have.

All good suggestions, Len. Right now all I have is a Voightlander 45mm so any range below and above that would be welcome.

 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: 2,392
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...
1

Malling wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

charley5 wrote:

LenRivers wrote:

Then this is what I would say based on it seems you have to get it right the first time.

Buy Sony glass with Sony bodies you will be happy. You know all will just work perfectly.

I feel there is still that extra 1% of compatibility when not mix and matching lenses.

Myself I can easily do the things I suggest but with your limited resources and I assume no desire to make a return my 2 cents is play it safe and buy only Sony. Same suggestion if you shot Nikon I would not use Tamron or Sigma.

At least you know that the Sony lens you are buying was designed with the Sony body in mind. Sony, Canon Nikon etc are not designing anything for 3rd party glass in mind.

that is what I would do knowing what I feel I know and where you live and again seems like you need to get this right the first time and feel confident

I cant get in your head and you see you have many biased responses

I dont consider mine that way only cause I know how can anyone go wrong matching manufacture body and glass ?

Thank you. I will actually probably take your advice and buy a Sony lens. I am thinking of trading my near mint 55mm Otus, for a 24-70 GM plus an additional lens. Or maybe it will have to wait till I next visit the West.

I found my perfect portrait lens, and now it is just a question of settling for a reasonable zoom for landscapes.

To address landscapes that depends since you may want a 70-200 zoom as much as one would want a 16-35 or 12-24. Sometimes you want a telephoto lens for landscapes

I suggest thinking about what you shoot with frequency and buy that. If you have the money to buy whatever then for sure buy whatever you like.

I would also consider if you need to use filters with your lenses and why or why not to buy a wide angle zoom like the Sony 12-24 for a one off example.

If you have to pay for shipping I might even suggest you add an external flash, they are always handy to have.

agree, the lenses that is most frequently advised for landscape, is probably not the 24-70 but rather the 12-24/16-35 and some sort of telephoto like 70-200 or 100-400. The first one I would get is the 12-24 or 16-36 as you can then get some great images with foreground especially used on a tripod and focus stacking.

Yes, good points. I am certainly considering these options!

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
paul cool
paul cool Senior Member • Posts: 2,824
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 tamron 70-180mm f2.8 is quite a bit lighter than the gm 70-200mm and optically a little better, the sigma 24-70 is also lighter and optically better than the 24-70mm gm,other examples new art lenses 85mm f1.4 is optically better and lighter than the sony lens ,in fact the sigma macro is also better optically than the sony 90mm macro but there other caveats in this comparison focus ois and manual focus clutch.I am sure there are more options like this also.

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

 paul cool's gear list:paul cool's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Sony a7R III Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A +7 more
SafariBob
SafariBob Senior Member • Posts: 2,122
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...

charley5 wrote:

This research is obviously unscientific. It is meant only to help me choose a mostly landscape lens out of the following six alternatives. These ratings are for image quality only. The ratings were formulated after looking at 25-30 landscape shots on flickr for each lens, usually at 100% view. The ratings are out of 5 points, and a 2.5 would be an average rating, meaning it was just satisfactory.

Sony 24-70 2.8 GM ..... (4.5/5.0)

Sigma 24-70 2.8 Art .... (4.0/5.0)

Sony 24-105 4 G........... (3.5/5.0)

Sony 24-240 3.5/6.3 .... (3.0/5.0)

Tamron 24-70 2.8 ......... (2.5/5.0)

Tamron 28-200 2.8/5.6 ..(2.0/5.0)

If someone has compared more than one of these lenses please let me know what your findings have been relative to these ratings. I would also love to hear why you disagree with these ratings. In fact, if you want to re-order, please do (based on IQ). I might revisit my conclusions. I hope I haven't insulted anyone who owns these last couple of lenses.

-Charles

Your list does not match my experience. I would put the 24-240 at the bottom. and to me all the 2.8 lenses, and the 24-105, are not that different in iq. Both the tamrons have harsher bokeh in my mind, and the 24-240 is weak towards the long end, and does not handle shooting into the light well. The tamron 28-200 is not that far behind the 24-105, but obviously lacks stabilisation.

 SafariBob's gear list:SafariBob's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony a7R II Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +1 more
FrenchKiss78 Regular Member • Posts: 146
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

After years and shelfes of lenses you realize that sharpess is needed up to a point and each lens render images differently. This is what is more important and the pleasure you get from using it.

Even the worst of modern lenses like the sony 50 f1.8 is already super sharp.

The only reason you might want ultra sharp lenses is when cropping, printing or you are a pro. Most of pro landscape photographers shoot with lenses you would not even believe.

What counts is the image character.

I still use a lot my nikon AIS 50mm f1.2 and I love it after 30 years.  I dont care about sharpess when downsampling to 4k images. They are all the same ones gone tru capture one.

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

Why we should be looking at the overall IQ and not just sharpness, as it’s relatively easy with modern lens manufacturering techniques and materials to make sharp lenses. There is a reason behind Samyang and Tamron closing the gap on the OM in regards to sharpness.
I mostly buy lenses I know will work also in 5 or 10 years, I don’t care much about sharpness as most lenses above a certain price is plenty sharp.

There are allot of landscape photographers that has shifted to lighter gear of that reason alone.

If you’re a wedding photographer however it still make sense go buy those massive expensive native lenses as the overall rendering is often noticeable better, but Hiking with those lenses why would you do that, when you can get the job done with lighter gear.

one of the better examples is the Sony 1.8/85 it’s sharp little light lens, in regards to shapness there is very little difference between it and the GM, but the overall rendering is not nearly as nice as the GM and even the Sigmas. But it’s perfect if you’re going to travel with it, I would not want to travel with any GM portrait lens or Sigma for that matter.

Ghuraify
Ghuraify New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

charley5 wrote:

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?

Yes, sorry it was a typo. Go with the 24-105. Either way you can't go wrong. All depends on your needs.

24-105 F4 is the better option for your case

 Ghuraify's gear list:Ghuraify's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony Xperia Z LG G3
OP charley5 Senior Member • Posts: 2,392
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...

SafariBob wrote:

charley5 wrote:

This research is obviously unscientific. It is meant only to help me choose a mostly landscape lens out of the following six alternatives. These ratings are for image quality only. The ratings were formulated after looking at 25-30 landscape shots on flickr for each lens, usually at 100% view. The ratings are out of 5 points, and a 2.5 would be an average rating, meaning it was just satisfactory.

Sony 24-70 2.8 GM ..... (4.5/5.0)

Sigma 24-70 2.8 Art .... (4.0/5.0)

Sony 24-105 4 G........... (3.5/5.0)

Sony 24-240 3.5/6.3 .... (3.0/5.0)

Tamron 24-70 2.8 ......... (2.5/5.0)

Tamron 28-200 2.8/5.6 ..(2.0/5.0)

If someone has compared more than one of these lenses please let me know what your findings have been relative to these ratings. I would also love to hear why you disagree with these ratings. In fact, if you want to re-order, please do (based on IQ). I might revisit my conclusions. I hope I haven't insulted anyone who owns these last couple of lenses.

-Charles

Your list does not match my experience. I would put the 24-240 at the bottom. and to me all the 2.8 lenses, and the 24-105, are not that different in iq. Both the tamrons have harsher bokeh in my mind, and the 24-240 is weak towards the long end, and does not handle shooting into the light well. The tamron 28-200 is not that far behind the 24-105, but obviously lacks stabilisation.

Thanks. I appreciate your feedback on my list!

 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: 2,392
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

TittyTwister wrote:

After years and shelfes of lenses you realize that sharpess is needed up to a point and each lens render images differently. This is what is more important and the pleasure you get from using it.

Even the worst of modern lenses like the sony 50 f1.8 is already super sharp.

The only reason you might want ultra sharp lenses is when cropping, printing or you are a pro. Most of pro landscape photographers shoot with lenses you would not even believe.

What counts is the image character.

I still use a lot my nikon AIS 50mm f1.2 and I love it after 30 years. I dont care about sharpess when downsampling to 4k images. They are all the same ones gone tru capture one.

Yes, you are totally right about that regard. It is the lens character that I find critical. Some lenses are very sharp but have a very clinical character. For instance I have the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton. Extremely sharp but looks very clinical to my eye. I started using cine lenses for portraits because they have a charming look, and I love that. I use projection lenses for macro images because they also have a special character that is hard to define. So for me, image quality (IQ) is about 50% sharpness and 50% character.

-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: 2,392
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Malling wrote:

Why we should be looking at the overall IQ and not just sharpness, as it’s relatively easy with modern lens manufacturering techniques and materials to make sharp lenses. There is a reason behind Samyang and Tamron closing the gap on the OM in regards to sharpness.
I mostly buy lenses I know will work also in 5 or 10 years, I don’t care much about sharpness as most lenses above a certain price is plenty sharp.

There are allot of landscape photographers that has shifted to lighter gear of that reason alone.

If you’re a wedding photographer however it still make sense go buy those massive expensive native lenses as the overall rendering is often noticeable better, but Hiking with those lenses why would you do that, when you can get the job done with lighter gear.

one of the better examples is the Sony 1.8/85 it’s sharp little light lens, in regards to shapness there is very little difference between it and the GM, but the overall rendering is not nearly as nice as the GM and even the Sigmas. But it’s perfect if you’re going to travel with it, I would not want to travel with any GM portrait lens or Sigma for that matter.

For me, character is just as important as sharpness. I have found that portraits done with cine lenses are charming looking, have beautiful bokeh and great sharpness, and so I use them exclusively for people portraits. I wanted the look of something different and after experimenting I found my match. For macros, I use old projection lenses that give a special dreamy look. However, I have not yet found my special lens for landscapes. I have a Voightlander 40mm, but although it is sharp, it looks very clinical to my eye. That is why I am still looking for that special landscape lens

-Charles

 charley5's gear list:charley5's gear list
Sony a7 II Sony a7R III Zeiss Otus 55mm F1.4 +2 more
FrenchKiss78 Regular Member • Posts: 146
Re: Sony 24-105 f4 G vs. Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM... flickr bias

Malling wrote:

Why we should be looking at the overall IQ and not just sharpness, as it’s relatively easy with modern lens manufacturering techniques and materials to make sharp lenses. There is a reason behind Samyang and Tamron closing the gap on the OM in regards to sharpness.
I mostly buy lenses I know will work also in 5 or 10 years, I don’t care much about sharpness as most lenses above a certain price is plenty sharp.

There are allot of landscape photographers that has shifted to lighter gear of that reason alone.

If you’re a wedding photographer however it still make sense go buy those massive expensive native lenses as the overall rendering is often noticeable better, but Hiking with those lenses why would you do that, when you can get the job done with lighter gear.

one of the better examples is the Sony 1.8/85 it’s sharp little light lens, in regards to shapness there is very little difference between it and the GM, but the overall rendering is not nearly as nice as the GM and even the Sigmas. But it’s perfect if you’re going to travel with it, I would not want to travel with any GM portrait lens or Sigma for that matter.

The new samyang 75mm f1.8 uses a super fqst linear AF motor and is much sharper than the sony 85mm f1.8. Cost 2 times less.

This shows how fast technology goes.

TravelMore
TravelMore Regular Member • Posts: 301
Re: My ratings of six lenses' IQ after doing research...
1

charley5 wrote:

I can't test in person. I live in a town in the Himalayas,

I call "Field Trip"!  Let's all go visit charley5, bringing one or both of these lenses and have a shoot off!

jk

-- hide signature --

~TM

 TravelMore's gear list:TravelMore's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony a7R III Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads