Just received SEL24240

[KWGeorge]

Well this is my first post here and I thought I would use it to tell you about the 24-240 SEL24240 that showed up about an hour ago via UPS. So the lens is rather large as noted by others but is  not uncomfortably so. It is right at the same size as other full frame lenses in this category so I guess the size is necessary if you want to shoot full frame at this time. Ergonomically mounted on the A7II it feels fine and it is pretty easy to zoom in and out though a bit stiff. The lens hood brings the width to about 3-3/4” in diameter. I am not much for the lens grading sites so I test the lens for myself to see how I like it and I made a target to shoot at. On the target I try to fill the frame and I shoot at 1 aperture, shutter speed and ISO through the whole range of the zoom. I use 2 flashes in small soft boxes. Anyhow I am more pleased than I thought I would be with this lens as it is really not too bad! It should really make a good travel lens and work well during my impending trip to Disney World. 

 

So on the lens itself at 24mm there is substantial barrel distortion (easy fixed in Lightroom) and some softness on the edges but still acceptable. At 35mm the barrel is almost gone but it is still on the soft size. At 50mm the distortion changes to pin cushion but it becomes very sharp and continues that until 150 where the image becomes a bit soft on the edges again and is the same at 240mm. 

 

Just some quick thoughts.

 

Was going to add some files but not working well so I will upload them to FLKR or somewhere in a bit.

 

[KWGeorge]

Couple of things I forgot to mention, I am not really a fan of the placement of the focus ring as I found it clumsy to use while manual focusing on a close caterpillar as it is just too close to the camera body. The distance between 150mm and 240mm is not very much when zooming so that may be interesting. 

 

Some very quick shots at my target.

 

https://flic.kr/p/rnt3MU

240mm

 

https://flic.kr/p/rnrWsE

150mm

 

https://flic.kr/p/rBJJrL

100mm

 

https://flic.kr/p/rDVxD5

70mm

 

https://flic.kr/p/rnrWvA

50mm

 

https://flic.kr/p/rDVxG1

35mm

 

https://flic.kr/p/rnrWx9

24mm

[SAR_admin]

Hi! Thansk a lot for sharing this! Can you show us the lens on your camera?

[tsk1979]

After you correct at 24mm, how bad is the corner softness. In case of 16-50, post correction, it was pretty bad!

[KWGeorge]

So a few more pictures as requested. Sorry for the quality as I did not have time to setup proper product shot lighting. 

 

 

Side View Extended

https://flic.kr/p/ro4eoV

 

Side View 

https://flic.kr/p/rEvdzt

 

Right Side View

https://flic.kr/p/rEpJZ4

 

70-200 f/4 Compare

https://flic.kr/p/rEpJZz

 

70-200 f/4 Compare Extended

https://flic.kr/p/rEpoxJ

[KWGeorge]

So here is a large picture after the distortion correction at 24mm. As you can see it is a little soft on the edges but really not bad at all and I am kind of impressed with it :-)

 

https://flic.kr/p/qHKgVX

 

File is converted from RAW to JPG full size so its 7.8MB.

[KWGeorge]

I will add one more picture, not cropped but I wanted to show the background the lens can produce.

 

1/250 sec, f/6.3, 1600 iso 240mm

 

https://flic.kr/p/rmpTVe

 

Hand held so be kind :-)

[jaclarkaus]

At 35, looks fine.

 

Were all of these RAW converted or JPG in camera? In Camera JPG would have lots of correcting, so would be misleading of what the lens can do on other bodies, although good indication of after edit. Were there any edits in Lightroom?

 

Is it possible to get corner crops @100% without editing?

 

Looks like you have a 70-200 - how does it compare? These are the two options for me for travel (along with 24-70 and 16-36)

[KWGeorge]

 So this image here https://flic.kr/p/qHKgVX is a direct export from the raw file in Lightroom to a full size JPG. I understand that Lightroom itself does some minor sharpening to all images but other than that I repaired the distortion and cropped out the area left over from that correction.

 

The corners are as they were recorded by the camera. 

 

I like the 70-200 a lot but it is longer and harder to travel with and it does not have the range that this one does. 

[Austerror]

Corners look good enough for me!

 

Seems like a neat lens.

[Creativebush]

Thanks for sharing your tests. My lens arrives tomorrow but I'm out of town till Thursday, can't wait to give it a go. The only other native lens I have for my A7s is the 28-70, which works well on a 3 axis gimbal for video but I wanted a nice travel lens and hopefully  this fits the bill.

 

Paul

[Joshi_H]

Hi,

 

a couple of days ago I had the opportunity to have a 2-3 hours walk with the 24-240mm. Here is my decision: http://joerghaag.com/2015/03/18/first-contact-sony-fe-24-240mm-f35-63/ Maybe you'll find that interesting....

 

Let me know if posting this here is inappropriate and I will open a new thread for it.

 

Jörg

[Max the Dog]

Nice blog, nice decision.  "Although we only had 3 hours, we did not build a relationship."

 

 

 

Hi,

 

a couple of days ago I had the opportunity to have a 2-3 hours walk with the 24-240mm. Here is my decision: http://joerghaag.com/2015/03/18/first-contact-sony-fe-24-240mm-f35-63/ Maybe you'll find that interesting....

 

Let me know if posting this here is inappropriate and I will open a new thread for it.

 

Jörg

[Max the Dog]

No one can tell anything from these 1024 sized images.   Flickr is free to post full size images and these aren't really of any commercial or copyright value.  

 

 

Well this is my first post here and I thought I would use it to tell you about the 24-240 SEL24240 that showed up about an hour ago via UPS. So the lens is rather large as noted by others but is  not uncomfortably so. It is right at the same size as other full frame lenses in this category so I guess the size is necessary if you want to shoot full frame at this time. Ergonomically mounted on the A7II it feels fine and it is pretty easy to zoom in and out though a bit stiff. The lens hood brings the width to about 3-3/4” in diameter. I am not much for the lens grading sites so I test the lens for myself to see how I like it and I made a target to shoot at. On the target I try to fill the frame and I shoot at 1 aperture, shutter speed and ISO through the whole range of the zoom. I use 2 flashes in small soft boxes. Anyhow I am more pleased than I thought I would be with this lens as it is really not too bad! It should really make a good travel lens and work well during my impending trip to Disney World. 

 

So on the lens itself at 24mm there is substantial barrel distortion (easy fixed in Lightroom) and some softness on the edges but still acceptable. At 35mm the barrel is almost gone but it is still on the soft size. At 50mm the distortion changes to pin cushion but it becomes very sharp and continues that until 150 where the image becomes a bit soft on the edges again and is the same at 240mm. 

 

Just some quick thoughts.

 

Was going to add some files but not working well so I will upload them to FLKR or somewhere in a bit.

[Joshi_H]

Nice blog, nice decision.  "Although we only had 3 hours, we did not build a relationship."

 

Yes, I changed that line. I agree that this way to put it was a bit unfortunate. Sorry, but I'm not an English native.

[KWGeorge]

Hi,

 

a couple of days ago I had the opportunity to have a 2-3 hours walk with the 24-240mm. Here is my decision: http://joerghaag.com/2015/03/18/first-contact-sony-fe-24-240mm-f35-63/ Maybe you'll find that interesting....

 

Let me know if posting this here is inappropriate and I will open a new thread for it.

 

Jörg

 

So understand this is not an attack response I just simply wish to understand some of your comments that you made on your blog particularly with the statements in your verdict section.

 

“Superzooms never really work out for me and my way of photography. Actually, I rarely use focal lengths above 100mm when hiking or on travel. When I need those focal lengths it is for special situations like sports, portraiture or wildlife and for this I pack the adequate lenses.”

 

So, you’re carrying around a 70-300mm but you don’t use it above 100mm? Also I think the idea of a super zoom is a special situation like having to carry less specialized lenses to accomplish pretty much the same thing. I am looking at not taking the 28-70 and the 70-200 f/4 with me and instead using this 24-240 on my trips where I need to pack lighter. Is it as good as the 70-200? No, not so much but it still is better than lots of other lenses I have with one in particular carrying a Zeiss badge. Also I think this lens will work well for some wildlife like a certain state park I frequent and if the weather holds I will find out this weekend. J Also if you don’t like supper zooms why would you review one? Seems to me your opinions would be prejudice going in.

 

“This lens is not really giving me a buzz for the price of a little below 1,000 Euro. Maybe 3 hours is not enough, but we did not build a relationship like I did with other lenses.”

 

I don’t know what that means J Seems to me it is priced in the same range as the Nikon FF or the Canon in the same class.

 

“I find this lens a little to heavy for a constant use on the A7 and to slow which was clearly showing when using with AF-Tracking on the alpha 6000 (sorry, but I don’t have the release for those pictures).”

 

It is a bit heavy but lighter than the 70-200 f/4 and certainly lighter than my A-Mount 70-200. I don’t find it that bad on my A7II but I will be prepared to eat those words after handling the rig for 12 hours strait in the near future. When you are talking slow I guess you are talking focusing? I did not see that issue on my A7II as a matter of fact I thought it did a pretty good job and I thought it was faster than the 70-200 f/4. On testing it on the A6000 I suppose I could do that and see if I experience what you are seeing but I really did not buy it for that camera and have quite the selection of lens already that are native to its APSC sensor and that body.

 

I will agree with you that a super zoom is a tradeoff in a lot of ways and someone looking to purchase one needs to consider what they are losing. This lens to me is a bright day lens above 100mm but honestly I would be shooting things that far away at f/6 to f/11 anyway. In the end it is the pictures I take with that will tell the tale if I made the right decision or not. 

[vegasphotog]

Thank you for taking the time to shoot photos and provide your first impressions.  I share positively your opinion that super-zooms inevitably compromise the integrity of the the shots I like to shoot.  But, you never know with technology advancing so quickly.  But, even though for the money this is probably a decent extra lens, the 90mm macro is probably of more interest to my shooting mediums.

[PaulVelgos]

My A7R and 24-240 just showed up a couple days ago and my findings are similar to KWGeorge's. I'm also happier than I thought I'd be.

 

This gear is intended to replace my Nikon D800 and 28-300mm. After some side-by-side comparisons the 24-240 results are better. So very happy about that.

 

A lot of someone's level of satisfaction with this lens is going to depend on if best image quality or most convenience is more important. If it's best image quality this lens isn't going to do it and neither is any other similatly ranged zoom with any camera maker. For me it offers just the right combination of quality and convenience. I do mostly cityscapes used for large prints and commerical licensing so while ultimate corner to corner sharpness would be nice, it's not a requirement. I have a 40"x60" canvas hanging on my office wall taken with the D800/28-300 and it's intensely detailed and the soft corners of the Nikkor aren't even noticable. Back in the day I had an old Sigma 18-200 on a D50 and it was bad. Soft all over. You coud see the softness without even going to 100%. Zooms have come a long way. Center is sharp. Sides are reasonably sharp. Corners are a bit soft but not bad. And a big suprise for me was almost no chromatic aberration. Price, size and weight are similar to the Nikkor 28-300. Really liking the A7R/24-240 so far.

 

I did a lens review on my blog and can create a new topic if anyone is interested. Didn't want to post it here.

[Joshi_H]

So understand this is not an attack response I just simply wish to understand some of your comments that you made on your blog particularly with the statements in your verdict section.

 

“Superzooms never really work out for me and my way of photography. Actually, I rarely use focal lengths above 100mm when hiking or on travel. When I need those focal lengths it is for special situations like sports, portraiture or wildlife and for this I pack the adequate lenses.”

 

So, you’re carrying around a 70-300mm but you don’t use it above 100mm? Also I think the idea of a super zoom is a special situation like having to carry less specialized lenses to accomplish pretty much the same thing. I am looking at not taking the 28-70 and the 70-200 f/4 with me and instead using this 24-240 on my trips where I need to pack lighter. Is it as good as the 70-200? No, not so much but it still is better than lots of other lenses I have with one in particular carrying a Zeiss badge. Also I think this lens will work well for some wildlife like a certain state park I frequent and if the weather holds I will find out this weekend. J Also if you don’t like supper zooms why would you review one? Seems to me your opinions would be prejudice going in.

 

“This lens is not really giving me a buzz for the price of a little below 1,000 Euro. Maybe 3 hours is not enough, but we did not build a relationship like I did with other lenses.”

 

I don’t know what that means J Seems to me it is priced in the same range as the Nikon FF or the Canon in the same class.

 

No, I don't understand this as an attack but as valid arguments. Regarding my gear when I am hiking: I think you ripped that a bit out of the context. I said, that I rarely use a focal length above 100mm which does not mean that I don't need it - at least I am trying to use it. Hiking through the forests in Germany (as many other places in the world) gives the opportunity for some wild life and I want to be prepared for this. I have to admit, that I was not really lucky so far but I keep on trying. That is the reason why I carry my 70-300 and in some areas sometimes (2 or 3 times a year and not worth mentioning) my 70-400.

I also mentioned the following in my blog regarding the advantages I see in carrying two bodies with these lenses (flexibility, backup body which might not really important to everybody but it is to me).

 

This is an acceptable gear with a total of 2,150 grams which does not require to change lenses, additionally offers the possibility to extend to 450 mm focal length (full frame equivalence) by mounting the SAL 70-300mm on the alpha 6000 and allows to have the backup body at hand when needed. Sony alpha 7 together with the SAL 70-300 mm is hanging on the SunSniper which is quiet comfortable.

 

 

Yes, I find it slow regarding focussing but this may be related to A7 and A6000 and may not be an issue on the A7II (maybe related to firmware and may require an update on A7 and A6000 for this lens).

 

I am not saying that everybody has to agree to what I wrote in my blog and I did not mean to give it a negative verdict (which I did not do). I find that this is a superb lens for the focal range it covers and that is what I stated in my blog. If it is the right lens for you - fine and let me share your happiness. It just does not suit me as a package.

[Max the Dog]

Yes, I changed that line. I agree that this way to put it was a bit unfortunate. Sorry, but I'm not an English native.

Joshi - I LIKED the way you wrote it.  It's profound - one either creates a relationship with an 'item' or does not.    Based on trust.  If you can't trust the lens, the camera, the tripod (the girlfriend, the friend) etc.  You don't build a relationship with them.   

[Max the Dog]

My forest walks in Germany are limited to the Black Forest where I can imagine a fast lens is preferred.  Not much light even on good days.  The 135mm APO-Sonnar would probably be my choice (and has been). 

 

Nikon 70-200 would be the best fast zoom choice if wildlife was the target.

 

No, I don't understand this as an attack but as valid arguments. Regarding my gear when I am hiking: I think you ripped that a bit out of the context. I said, that I rarely use a focal length above 100mm which does not mean that I don't need it - at least I am trying to use it. Hiking through the forests in Germany (as many other places in the world) gives the opportunity for some wild life and I want to be prepared for this. I have to admit, that I was not really lucky so far but I keep on trying. That is the reason why I carry my 70-300 and in some areas sometimes (2 or 3 times a year and not worth mentioning) my 70-400.

I also mentioned the following in my blog regarding the advantages I see in carrying two bodies with these lenses (flexibility, backup body which might not really important to everybody but it is to me).

 

 

Yes, I find it slow regarding focussing but this may be related to A7 and A6000 and may not be an issue on the A7II (maybe related to firmware and may require an update on A7 and A6000 for this lens).

 

I am not saying that everybody has to agree to what I wrote in my blog and I did not mean to give it a negative verdict (which I did not do). I find that this is a superb lens for the focal range it covers and that is what I stated in my blog. If it is the right lens for you - fine and let me share your happiness. It just does not suit me as a package.

[Max the Dog]

Lens testers - please post full size images when doing lens reviews.  No one can make any reasonable assessments from tiny 1024px sized images. 

it's hard to assess tiny images.     

[gadelrosario]

My A7R and 24-240 just showed up a couple days ago and my findings are similar to KWGeorge's. I'm also happier than I thought I'd be.

 

This gear is intended to replace my Nikon D800 and 28-300mm. After some side-by-side comparisons the 24-240 results are better. So very happy about that.

 

A lot of someone's level of satisfaction with this lens is going to depend on if best image quality or most convenience is more important. If it's best image quality this lens isn't going to do it and neither is any other similatly ranged zoom with any camera maker. For me it offers just the right combination of quality and convenience. I do mostly cityscapes used for large prints and commerical licensing so while ultimate corner to corner sharpness would be nice, it's not a requirement. I have a 40"x60" canvas hanging on my office wall taken with the D800/28-300 and it's intensely detailed and the soft corners of the Nikkor aren't even noticable. Back in the day I had an old Sigma 18-200 on a D50 and it was bad. Soft all over. You coud see the softness without even going to 100%. Zooms have come a long way. Center is sharp. Sides are reasonably sharp. Corners are a bit soft but not bad. And a big suprise for me was almost no chromatic aberration. Price, size and weight are similar to the Nikkor 28-300. Really liking the A7R/24-240 so far.

 

I did a lens review on my blog and can create a new topic if anyone is interested. Didn't want to post it here.

Thanks for your feedback.  I too have a D800 and a 28-300 that I use most frequently.  I just purchased an A7 Mark II and am trying to get my hands on a 28-240.  I'm encouraged by your feedback and the OP's.  From what I've seen in sample photos, most of the issues can be corrected in post.  Would've been nice not to have to do that but I acknowledge that sacrifices have to be made for the convenience of a zoom lens such as this.

[PaulVelgos]

Gadelrosario, glad it was useful. Really enjoying the A7R/24-240 so far. I would think on the 24MP A7 it would perform really well.

 

Here's a couple side by sides of the 24-240 and 28-300. As you can tell from the pics I don't think you'll be disappointed. My 28-300 seems to have a centering issue but the 24-240 still outperforms it in every way.

 

Overall Scene (Full Size Download)

 

28mm, f/8, Top Middle Left Corner, 100%

 

28mm, f/8, Left Center, 100%

 

240mm, f/8, Center, 100%

 

28mm, f/8, Right Center, 100%

[bobstamp]

First shots with the 24240 on the a7s.