p.2 #1 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
No it doesn’t hold up. It impossible for any 24-105 minivan will ever get close to the IQ of the best primes. People who say otherwise aren’t doing proper testing or have lower standards.
That’s not to say this zoom isn’t a great lens, it is. Though I’ve sold mine (I’m an unashamed pixel peeper), it is very versatile, but it isn’t a bag of primes. That is asking too much of such a zoom.
smpetty wrote:
Stopped down at typical landscape apertures, how does the IQ of the 24-105 stand up to some of the best primes? Lenses like these:
Sony 24/1.4 GM
Loxia 25/2.4
CV 40/1.2
CV 65/2 APO
Loxia 85/2.4
CV 110/2.5
If the Sony 24-105 effectively holds its own at f/8 to f/14, it would replace a bag of lenses for landscape photography. Has anyone done a comparison of the the 24-105 versus the best primes in the same focal length range at landscape apertures?
p.2 #2 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
TakenWild wrote:
No it doesn’t hold up. It impossible for any 24-105 minivan will ever get close to the IQ of the best primes. People who say otherwise aren’t doing proper testing or have lower standards.
That’s not to say this zoom isn’t a great lens, it is. Though I’ve sold mine (I’m an unashamed pixel peeper), it is very versatile, but it isn’t a bag of primes. That is asking too much of such a zoom.
Like I said before, depends what one does with the images. If they are only viewed on the net at typical net sizes, I highly doubt one could accurately tell what lens was used for a given photo. if printing large, like 36" and greater, then I believe you'll see the difference with the primes.
Since the vast majority do not print large, the 24-105 would be a fantastic lens for their landscape photos.
p.2 #3 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
The 24-105 performance is similar to the Sony 70-200 f4 @ 70mm-105mm (maybe slightly better at 70mm).
It’s below the performance of the Sony 85 /1.8 or the GM 100-400 and well, well below the best, lenses in that range like the Loxia 85, CV110, Canon TSE90ii
p.2 #4 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
smpetty wrote:
Stopped down at typical landscape apertures, how does the IQ of the 24-105 stand up to some of the best primes? Lenses like these:
Sony 24/1.4 GM
Loxia 25/2.4
CV 40/1.2
CV 65/2 APO
Loxia 85/2.4
CV 110/2.5
If the Sony 24-105 effectively holds its own at f/8 to f/14, it would replace a bag of lenses for landscape photography. Has anyone done a comparison of the the 24-105 versus the best primes in the same focal length range at landscape apertures?
If you want a serious answer then just look at the roll call of top photographers using them not just a couple of guys on the internet pooh poohing them. Just from the videos I've watched over Xmas (I subscribe to their YT channels so it was a time to catch up) : Mads Peter Iversen, Alex Nail (though he and Nigel Dansen prefer the 70-200), Matt Payne and Adam Gibbs (says his 24-120 is his most used lens) who was the winner of the International Landscape Photographer of the Year award in 2018. As Chez pointed out even on this board two of our finest (Joshua and Ronny) both use them.
I suspect that many lenses are capable at f8 - f14 and most primes will have lost the the big edge they had making the flexibility of the zoom a more critical component than the now only minor differences between them.
One of the main aspects I noticed when looking through websites of the world's top landscape photographers (thanks to this thread I thought it worth an hour of my time over my morning coffee) is that the vast majority use zooms. Full stop. Almost all in the main variants of 16-35 / 24-70 / 24-105 / 70-200 with a smattering of primes or UWA thrown in. Erin Babnik, Thomas Heaton (16-35 & 70-200), Bruno Pisani (UWA, 24-70 and 70-200), Alex Nail (16-35 & 70-200), Daniel Kordan (24mm f/2.8, a 24-70mm f/2.8, and a 70-200mm f/2.8) and so on. Quite enlightening.
This will make me re-evaluate my kit though I've been quite happy with my primes up until now I do want to add the Tamron 70-180 when it comes out in a few months and I've been looking for a Canon 24-105 to adapt for a couple of months.
Mads Peter Iversen even has a video on the 24-105 for his brilliant landscape photography : &feature=emb_logo
Quote on/from Adam Gibbs : While some lenses, such as the 24-120mm f/4 zoom that Gibbs often uses, are considered less sharp than the faster f/2.8 zooms, such as a 24-70mm f/2.8, Gibbs doesn't consider this an issue for his work. He often shares his images online and with prints. Even with a large print, customers don't stand right up against them and analyze the sharpness, they stand at least a few feet back and enjoy the work. To this end, he considers the 24-120mm f/4 zoom plenty sharp. Plus, it's more versatile than the 24-70mm f/2.8 with respect to focal length.
Quote from Matt Payne : Sony FE 24-105. This lens is shockingly good. I was skeptical at first when I got this lens; however, I have never had any problems using this lens for landscape work. It's quite sharp and the 24-105 focal range makes it a very versatile weapon in my arsenal of lenses. I really enjoy this lens. https://www.mattpaynephotography.com/gallery/
As far as large prints go then the camera matters a lot more. More MPs then far sharper in large print.
As the saying goes, if it's good enough for them ......
Thought I'd just add this video of Adam Gibbs on lenses :
p.2 #7 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
I think you should qualify that with “close enough for me”. The extreme edge of a V110 will be sharper than the dead centre of a 24-105 @105. No matter the how stopped down.
It is a myth that zooms stopped down are as good as primes. Lens technology have moved on and modern primes are getting better. This is especially true in the 24-70 and 24-105 range. These lenses go from wide to Tele and always have weak parts of their range. Read lens rentals blog. They have been talking about this recently.
24-105s are fantastic, workhorse lenses that are very popular for good reason. But no matter how popular they are with even the best photographer’s doesn’t change the facts. People should buy what suits them best. I’m a pixel peeper and a Landscape photographer, they both give me joy. I don’t want to churn out content for a workshop audience. If I did a 24-105 would make a lot more sense. I’m much happier with my bag of primes.
When I owned the 24-105 it was sharpest around 35mm. But even there I would say it isn’t as good as a Tamron 35/2.8. Testing from lens rentals backs up my observations. They tested Canon 35/2 IS as sharper than 24-105s stopped down. I own a great copy of the Canon 35/2 IS and Tamron 35/2.8 is sharper. I’m sure the Tamron 35/1.4 is even sharper again.
lightskyland wrote:
The Sony 24-105/4 G has as good resolution as a top prime at f/5.6 - f/22. The differences show up in areas like bokeh, flare resistance and sunstars.
Aside from the lenses under discussion the Samyang 85/1.4, which I've been blah blah blahing about recently on these boards, scores at least the equal highest across the board (bar at f5.6 where a couple of Sonys just better it - but not at other f-stops) from f1.4 all the way up through f16 at both centre & corners for the lenses in the 85-100mm range (actually virtually matching the Sigma 105/1.4 Art). Astonishing value for money.
p.2 #9 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
Another thing with primes v zooms is how it affects creativity. Some people love zooms and it helps them creatively. I’m a very pre-visualisation person and I find primes help see better, as I can memorise focal lengths. But I feel I get bogged down with zooms.
Though I say I’m a prime snob, my most used lens is my adaptered Canon 16-35/4 in an Outex housing on a tripod. As the opening post said, in some conditions zooms are far better. When I’m around the ocean this weatherproof setup is far better than any prime. Better to have a slightly lower quality shot than no shot at all.
p.2 #10 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
12-24, it's 10 primes for the price of 2 plus a couple of good focal lengths at the long end.
Perfect companion to a 24-105.
Because a 12 isn't a 15 which isn't an 18, you can't make one look like the other, a 35 can pull off the look of a 40 easily, but the Ultra wide end needs all those individual focal lengths.
It's very little to do with AOV and more about the look an ultra wide focal length lends to the image.
p.2 #11 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
lightskyland wrote:
The Sony 24-105/4 G has as good resolution as a top prime at f/5.6 - f/22. The differences show up in areas like bokeh, flare resistance and sunstars.
Technically Sony 24-105mm is mostly very good. But somehow it lacks character and the bokeh is bad, but these shortcomings do not matter so much in typical landscape photography. I also appreciate that with a zoom exact framing is possible to get without cropping.
I bought Loxia 21 to compliment 24-105mm wide end, but I am not quite happy with this combo. When I want to go wider than 24mm, it is often more like 18mm. Loxia is also quite heavy and its image quality is perhaps a little over hyped.
I also have 16-35mm GM and I really like that lens. It is sharp sharp sharp and rendering it also has the "character" that 24-105mm lacks.
p.2 #12 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
It’s a matter of taste. I suspect what you’re calling “character” is simply contrast since the 24-105 renders fairly flatly out of camera. I find the 16-35 GM completely lacking in “character” though and find the 24-105’s bokeh lovely at the long end.
tuomkok wrote:
Technically Sony 24-105mm is mostly very good. But somehow it lacks character and the bokeh is bad, but these shortcomings do not matter so much in typical landscape photography. I also appreciate that with a zoom exact framing is possible to get without cropping.
I bought Loxia 21 to compliment 24-105mm wide end, but I am not quite happy with this combo. When I want to go wider than 24mm, it is often more like 18mm. Loxia is also quite heavy and its image quality is perhaps a little over hyped.
I also have 16-35mm GM and I really like that lens. It is sharp sharp sharp and rendering it also has the "character" that 24-105mm lacks. ...Show more →
p.2 #13 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
I have the 24-105G and often pair it with 12-24G for travel and casual group and events.
The 24-105G is very good and capable, but not quite equal to using best primes, and less control than manual focus primes, which is what I am most often using these days.
Still have my Canon TS-E lenses and use them as appropriate, but more often use Loxia and Alt primes.
p.2 #14 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
RayinNY wrote:
I have the Batis 18, 24 1.4GM and the 24-105 F4. All are great and I have been most surprised by how good the 24-105 is for a zoom. If you don't need anything longer than 35, I think you should stay with the 16-35. I would not get any of the Tamron zooms over the 24-105 even if they are faster lens since I think they are optically inferior.
My exact setup. 18 and 24-105 work great for landscapes. 24/1.4 comes along if theres astro opportunities.
p.2 #15 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
TakenWild wrote:
Another thing with primes v zooms is how it affects creativity. Some people love zooms and it helps them creatively. I’m a very pre-visualisation person and I find primes help see better, as I can memorise focal lengths. But I feel I get bogged down with zooms.
I have often heard this from other prime snobs, too. But it seems to me more a limitation of the photographer than the lens.
I shoot mostly primes, but have always found the versatility of zooms liberating as far as composition goes.
Any zoom can be "upgraded" to a prime with a piece of duct tape if the photographer lacks self control.
p.2 #16 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
lightskyland wrote:
The Sony 24-105/4 G has as good resolution as a top prime at f/5.6 - f/22. The differences show up in areas like bokeh, flare resistance and sunstars.
Frogfish wrote:
Some very useful information there.
Except for the test results being suspect and the conclusion being flawed, specifically on the 24-105 f4,…….maybe.
I don’t know about you but I did not buy my lenses based upon shooting a bookcase in a bedroom 2 meters away. According to the tests on the sonyalpha blog, here is how various Sony primes hold up against the 24-105 at working apertures that landscape photographers would most likely use, f4, f5.6, f8 and f11, higher than that and diffraction sets in. The ratings listed cover both the center and corners for the various FOV, meaning there are 8 ratings per lens listed below.
Sony 35mm f2.8 ZA: This one makes no sense. The 35mm has 2 Excellent, 4 Very Good and 2 Good (at f11). It is given a rating of only 2 stars. Yet the 24-105 also has 2 Excellent, 4 Very Good and 2 Good (at f11), the difference being the 24-105 is Excellent in the center at both f4 and f5.6 where the 35mm is Excellent in both the center and corners at f5.6. What’s notable to me is that the 35mm is rated the same in the corners as the center in all 4 f stops, yet they rate the 24-105 2 stars more at 4 stars!
Sony 24mm f1.4GM: This lens wipes out the 24-105mm at 24mm with 6 Outstanding and 2 Excellent and thus is rated 5 stars. The 24-105 at 24mm gets 2 Excellent, 4 Very Good and 2 Good, same as at the 35mm FOV and it's lowest rating.
Sony 55mm f1.8 ZA: This lens also gets 6 Outstanding and 2 Excellent, again wiping out the 24-105 at 50mm yet it only gets 4 stars. The 24-105, gets 4 Excellent, 2 Very Good and 2 Good.
Sony 85mm f1.8: This lens get 7 Excellent and 1 Very Good (f11 corners), but it is only rated for 3 stars? While the 24-105 was not tested at 85, at 70mm it got 5 Excellent and 3 Very Good, it's best rating, and at 105mm it got 3 Excellent, 3 Very Good and 1 Good, showing the 24-105 is also weaker at the longer end too. The 85 was better than the 24-105 at both 70 and 105mm FOV’s yet the 24-105 was rated higher?
Based upon this blogs own tests the Sony 24-105 should be rated no higher than 3 stars. Or at least the same rating as the 35mm f2.8, which it does not beat. Every other Sony prime far exceeds it.
p.2 #17 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
SpecFoto wrote:
Not according to the sonyalpha blog tests.
Except for the test results being suspect and the conclusion being flawed, specifically on the 24-105 f4,…….maybe.
I don’t know about you but I did not buy my lenses based upon shooting a bookcase in a bedroom 2 meters away. According to the tests on the sonyalpha blog, here is how various Sony primes hold up against the 24-105 at working apertures that landscape photographers would most likely use, f4, f5.6, f8 and f11, higher than that and diffraction sets in. The ratings listed cover both the center and corners for the various FOV, meaning there are 8 ratings per lens listed below.
Sony 35mm f2.8 ZA: This one makes no sense. The 35mm has 2 Excellent, 4 Very Good and 2 Good (at f11). It is given a rating of only 2 stars. Yet the 24-105 also has 2 Excellent, 4 Very Good and 2 Good (at f11), the difference being the 24-105 is Excellent in the center at both f4 and f5.6 where the 35mm is Excellent in both the center and corners at f5.6. What’s notable to me is that the 35mm is rated the same in the corners as the center in all 4 f stops, yet they rate the 24-105 2 stars more at 4 stars!
Sony 24mm f1.4GM: This lens wipes out the 24-105mm at 24mm with 6 Outstanding and 2 Excellent and thus is rated 5 stars. The 24-105 at 24mm gets 2 Excellent, 4 Very Good and 2 Good, same as at the 35mm FOV and it's lowest rating.
Sony 55mm f1.8 ZA: This lens also gets 6 Outstanding and 2 Excellent, again wiping out the 24-105 at 50mm yet it only gets 4 stars. The 24-105, gets 4 Excellent, 2 Very Good and 2 Good.
Sony 85mm f1.8: This lens get 7 Excellent and 1 Very Good (f11 corners), but it is only rated for 3 stars? While the 24-105 was not tested at 85, at 70mm it got 5 Excellent and 3 Very Good, it's best rating, and at 105mm it got 3 Excellent, 3 Very Good and 1 Good, showing the 24-105 is also weaker at the longer end too. The 85 was better than the 24-105 at both 70 and 105mm FOV’s yet the 24-105 was rated higher?
Based upon this blogs own tests the Sony 24-105 should be rated no higher than 3 stars. Or at least the same rating as the 35mm f2.8, which it does not beat. Every other Sony prime far exceeds it....Show more →
Your maths is clearly flawed. The 24-105 is ten primes in one doncha know ? Therefore you have to multiply the rating by 10. Simples.
*I'm not interested in their overall rating TBH. Only how the lenses performed in the centre & corners at landscape apertures. Besides which .. I'll just point you to my other post above and let you debate it's usefulness with world-renowned landscape photographers
p.2 #18 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
The Sony 24-105 is a very good lens, with an even better focal range. I really like my second copy. First was clearly inferior. Regardless, the lens is getting overhyped. Yes, it is capable of some excellent results, but nowhere near the best across the frame through most (all?) of its focal range, even at 42mp.
p.2 #19 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
I found the per aperture/FOV score table to be useful, albeit bearing in mind that these are scores from a medium distance subject (whereas I would use this lens more for close-to-infinity landscapes).
I wouldn't put too much weight on how many 'stars' a lens gets though... Anyway, perhaps the higher number of 'stars' is due to the lens being a zoom and covering multiple FOVs with good performance?
p.2 #20 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
From memory the Sony 24-105 doesn’t get any better stopping it down to ‘landscape apertures’. It peaks around f4-f5.6. On lensRentals blog or The Digital Picture’s tools will confirm that.
I don’t think anyone would debate the 24-105 usefulness. I’m not surprised in the slightest top photographers use it. It’s very versatile and plenty sharp. If someone is on the fence, buy or rent one. You won’t be disappointed with realistic expectations.
What I would disagree with is anyone who says it can replace a bag of high end primes and achieve similar IQ (larger than web). Hell no.
