Jump to content

All of the Sony Standard-Zoom Lenses tested incl. 24-70 2.8 GM & 24-105 G F4 OSS


Recommended Posts

Hey folks,

 

at first I have to say that this is a german Video but I hope you wouldn't mind. I also have all the RAW Files ready for download here: https://goo.gl/vi5PzT

 

 

For short:

 

28-70 OSS - a small and light Kit lens with mayor optical flaws.

 

24-70 F4 ZA - better contrast, flaring and CAs, not much better in terms of sharpness

 

24-70 2.8 GM - sharp in most settings, very sharp wide open in the center, less vignetting, less CAs, but big, bulky and heavy

 

24-105 G F4 OSS - lighter and sharper then the GM, at 24mm uncorrected a very strong vignetting that is not acceptable but goes away with distortion and shading correction activated.

But sharp as f*** even wide open in every corner from 24 to 105. Best Lens with such a zoom range that I've ever seen. I terms of sharpness better then the GM, also with OSS and longer what gives you the same type of subject separation then 70 @ 2.8.

If you have any Questions, let me know! :)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice comparison! I'm amazed they haven't retired the 24-70 -

the 24-105 makes it completely redundant.

    

When I got Nikon's 24-120, that increase retired my 

28-70. But a 24-105 isn't tempting me to reconsider 

my 24-70 on the Sony side of things. If I were buying 

a midrange zoom "from scratch", then I'd hafta think 

about it ... a bit of extra bulk for a bit of extra reach at

essentially the same price ? Worthy of consideration.  

Only real question there is the added bulk. 

  

But to replace an on-hand lens ? I'd wait for a 24-135 

or a 19-85, or some stretch that extra clearly justifies 

replacing an in-use, on-hand, fairly compact lens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the 24-70 when I first started out for travel and optically it was so short of acceptable (especially for the money) that I ended up going with the 35/2.8 and 55/1.8.  Not saying I'd trade my primes in (you can take my 55/1.8 out of my cold dead hands), but it's so far ahead of the 24-70/4 in the tests I've seen that it's a no-brainer to anyone new to the platform. Personally I'm hoping that Sigma comes out with something interesting like a 24-50/f2.8, but I have a feeling they'll play it safe...

Link to post
Share on other sites

`   

   

 

Maybe I should read more "test results" ....  ROTFL 

     

OTOH, the "especially for the money" rings very true.   

 

Sony prices are ridiculous. Altho the only "results" I'll 

ever believe are MY results [my actual pictures] none 

of my pix from the 24-70 would exist at all, if I had not 

bagged an open-box-special for $825 :-) ..... and that 

"smiley" is NOT pure joy. Even $825 is pretty stiff :-( 

  

It's no wonder we have 10,000 threads on adapting 

Canon lenses [which BTW is usually a horrible idea]. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, by tests I mean what comes actually out of the camera - we all know that lens designers can optimise lenses for DXO style lab tests so I take them with a pinch of salt...  Do agree that we need an affordable decent quality zoom for FE - 100% not going to come from Sony though unfortunately and you're right, adapting from Canon really isn't a solution and asking £450 for the 28-70 is just robbery...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently have both the 24-70 2.8Gm and the new 24-105 and have owned and sold the 24-70 f4.  Of the three (to my eyes anyway) on my a7rII the 24-70 g master is in a league of it's own.  The out of camera images are at least as sharp, better saturated, more contrast, and just better rendering than my 24-105 (which is still better than excellent, just not superb in my opinion).  I did multiple comparisons of the two lenses as used in every day photography, and the only reason for the 105 in my case is the extra reach.  Size and weight difference not significant to me but the 2.8 aperture is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I currently have both the 24-70 2.8Gm and the new 24-105 and have owned and sold the 24-70 f4.  Of the three (to my eyes anyway) on my a7rII the 24-70 g master is in a league of it's own.  The out of camera images are at least as sharp, better saturated, more contrast, and just better rendering than my 24-105 (which is still better than excellent, just not superb in my opinion).  I did multiple comparisons of the two lenses as used in every day photography, and the only reason for the 105 in my case is the extra reach.  Size and weight difference not significant to me but the 2.8 aperture is. 

 

I can't go with this, for me the 24-105 is the sharpest zoom I've ever used. The corner sharpness is way better then the GM's I think and you can check it by yourself seeing the RAWs or just compare them side by side.

 

The GM has problems at 50 & 70mm is the corners, the 24-105 is tack sharp in every focal length.

 

I think it is exactly the Lens Sony beginners were waiting for, it can do a lot for a decent price and is so much better then the 24-70 F4 ZA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received and tested 2 of the 24-105 G lens and both had a severe problem with the left side being quite soft.  The center, and right side, resolved 80 lines/mm but the left side was around 36 lines/mm and the left corners were very bad.  This poor performance was only seen at the mid focal lengths ie:- 42mm, a most used area of focal length.  The lens performed very well at 24 and 105mm. These were out of the camera (a7RIII) photos of the targets.  I will agree that the lens is very sharp, where it is sharp, but Sony must have had a bad run.  After receiving 2 bad lenses I decided to get the 24-70 GM, and it performed as expected; 80 lines/mm corner to corner at all focal lengths.  It is too bad that I got 2 bad samples as I really wanted the 24-105 but was afraid to try a third sample.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I tried both the GM and the 24-105G this weekend, and they are almost similar when it comes to sharpness. The biggest difference in my opinion is the saturation and contrast where the GM is quite a lot better. Contrast and colours are easily fixed in LR, so I decided to keep the G lens as the price difference is simply not worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...