Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 OSS announced
#1
The MTFs seem to be quite awesome ...

 

http://www.sony.com.au/electronics/camer.../sel24105g
#2
And a 400mm f/2.8 GM is coming

 

http://presscentre.sony.co.uk/pressrelea...ns-2231794

#3
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 Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#4
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
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 Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#6
Quote: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
The question mark was put in with a purpose  Wink 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
$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? Smile

#9
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...  Sad feeling a tiny bit envy.
#10
Quote: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...  Sad 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).

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)