• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 OSS announced


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:09 AM

The MTFs seem to be quite awesome ...

 

http://www.sony.com....enses/sel24105g


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:14 AM

And a 400mm f/2.8 GM is coming

 

http://presscentre.s...nt-lens-2231794


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#3 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:21 AM

Let's hope they don't do the QA mess of the SEL1670Z... Being a GM, they shouldn't.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#4 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 October 2017 - 11:41 AM

As I was curious about the 24-105 (looks great! light! small! Doesn't extend?) I used Klaus' link and stumbled at first over a very unhealthy looking greenish portrait of a young woman. How could they? Nice bokeh, great sharpness and leave the colors just sick? Is that to appear authentical or just stupid?



#5 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 25 October 2017 - 01:06 PM

No mentions of the approx. price?


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#6 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 25 October 2017 - 01:41 PM

As I was curious about the 24-105 (looks great! light! small! Doesn't extend?) I used Klaus' link and stumbled at first over a very unhealthy looking greenish portrait of a young woman. How could they? Nice bokeh, great sharpness and leave the colors just sick? Is that to appear authentical or just stupid?

Where do you get that it does not extend?

The green on the skin is from reflected light from something green, nothing strange or wrong? 



#7 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 October 2017 - 01:51 PM

The question mark was put in with a purpose  ;) To clear that, DPReview already put in "Zoom method: Rotary (extending)". All b'sedr?

 

Of course the green come s from reflecting by something, nonentheless it does look unattractive with a drift to ugly. Out her in front of the forest, not inmidst of it and the result is more pleasing. There's no need to produce techncally good yet esthetically bad pictures to show our lens is also accurate if the photographer doens't like the model and needs to unflatter her.



#8 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 25 October 2017 - 01:53 PM

$1300 and G not GM. You be the judge if it's enticing or not.

I think it could be a part of an awesome three lens set: 12-24, 24-105 and 100-400. It would cover all bases (except fast primes, of course). If I had been a Sony user, I would've followed that route.

 

However, I get a feeling that Sony got on a "me too" bandwagon. What next, a 8-15mm f/4~ish fisheye zoom just like Canon and Nikon? :)



#9 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 October 2017 - 02:17 PM

100-400 is no Nikon offer. 100-300 or 200-500. But a lot of other manufacturers are at home with 100-400. I don't want to knw how light this triple set with a body wil be, and all for FF...  :( feeling a tiny bit envy.



#10 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 25 October 2017 - 02:45 PM

100-400 is no Nikon offer. 100-300 or 200-500. But a lot of other manufacturers are at home with 100-400. I don't want to knw how light this triple set with a body wil be, and all for FF...  :( feeling a tiny bit envy.

Can't be even the same weight as a comparable DSLR setup, the Sony 12-24 alone is half the weight of the Sigma, and the body too (give or take). If I had been starting from scratch with a Sony, I would've gone that route.

 

(Nikon doesn't have a 100-400 but they have a relatively new 80-400, innit... and the non-OEM 100-400s have been sprouting like mushrooms lately).



#11 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 October 2017 - 03:22 PM

ah yes, the 80-400. Not exactly a cheapo at 2k$ or featherweight (1.6kg), that's why it didn't make it into my mental list of 100-400s



#12 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,453 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 26 October 2017 - 09:11 AM

The awesome threesome (12-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm) is quite "slow".  If it's slow anyway, you can also go for smaller formats (Ok, ignoring extra DR and/or resolution).


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 26 October 2017 - 09:19 AM

That's true, but then, the holy trinity lenses are only one stop faster and a couple of kilos heavier*. OSS can compensate the speed to some effect and contrary to the smsaller formats, the Sony offers all kind of fast genuine or thrid-party lenses, together withan effective focus peaking.

 

I never had a speed problem with the 24-105 Sigma which could have been solved with only one stop more. On top of that, it's still the most effective OIS lens I have.

 

*Edit, just checked: 14-200/2.8 from Nikon are 3470 grams, 12-400/4 from Sony are 2623 kg. Plus, Sony makes your purse even lighter, so you don't  have to carry that much cash anymore after purchase  ;) Okay, f/4 from Nikon or Canon also are lighter.



#14 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 26 October 2017 - 09:28 AM

The awesome threesome (12-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm) is quite "slow".

 

Yes. But for landscapers... it's pretty ok. For the eventual shot with more isolation, one can buy some fast prime (there are many around, at this time, we're talking of them almost every day).


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#15 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 26 October 2017 - 09:53 AM

But for landscapers... APS-C is just as ok too. And but for landscapers... A few smaller, lighter primes seems to be a more sensible approach. An f4 standard+ zoom is not the most logical choice for someone who calls him/herself "landscaper".



#16 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 26 October 2017 - 10:11 AM

And but for landscapers... A few smaller, lighter primes seems to be a more sensible approach. An f4 standard+ zoom is not the most logical choice for someone who calls him/herself "landscaper".

 

It was my choice fifteen years ago: primes with ƒ/1.8 or ƒ/2 (because they were the best in IQ). The only exception was the 12-24mm ƒ/4 (at the time buying fast primes in that range was too expensive). But five years ago I moved to zooms - now I have ƒ/4 on all the range (something slower of course beyond 400mm). Much better for flexibility: my portfolio has dramatically improved since then.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#17 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 26 October 2017 - 11:18 AM

Since the landscapers usually stop down to kingdom come, f/4 (especially since it's f/4 on FF so "true" f/4 yadda yadda....) isn't going to bother them a lot.

My trinity set on Canon now is all f/3.5 or narrower (16-35/4, 24-85/3.5-4.5, 100-400/4.5-5.6) and it doesn't really bother me, when I need something drastically faster I have the 24/50 primes. In most cases, f/2.8 vs. f/4 is not a life saver anyway so I don't fret about my 16-35 not being faster (I had the f/2.8 L II... it went right to the chopping block after the f/4 hit the market). My main long lens is the 70-200/2.8L IS but it's in the sickbay for now, and the 100-400 does well.

(I do landscapes but I'm not earning my living from that, though, so take this with a grain of salt).


  • JoJu likes this

#18 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,014 posts

Posted 27 October 2017 - 11:26 PM

I'm confused. Though the slr was dead and the future was in mirror-less ? Or does this mean the a99 sold well ?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de