Not sure 24-105 will ever leave my camera...

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by SRHEdD, Jul 2, 2018.

  1. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    482
    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Steve
    A7RIII, 24-105/4FE at 54mm. ISO125, 1/60@f/11. Manual exposure, center-weighted metering. HVL-F60RM bounced off ceiling at left, Dracast Silkray Bi-Color LED Round LED light at right of camera. Adjusted intensity and temperature to taste. A little Luminar to suit.

    This is for the September issue of SpaceCoast Living.

    DSC06251b.
     
    • Like Like x 10
    • Winner Winner x 3
  2. Tipton

    Tipton TalkEmount Veteran

    429
    Jan 30, 2016
    Rae Leggett
    I like how the sharpness falls off steadily instead just suddenly becoming blurry.
    Now I'm hungry.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Biro

    Biro TalkEmount Regular

    115
    Oct 21, 2012
    I recently bought the Tamron FE 28-75 f/2.8 for my A7 III and it's a great lens. No complaints. But I think at least some of us can make a valid argument for owning both the Tamron and the Sony 24-105 f/4. I'm not sure I'm one of those people yet, but...

    At any rate, Steve, your image above proves one thing that I'm sure you already know: We shouldn't shop for lenses based on specifications. 24-105 f/4 may sound pedestrian, but there's clearly some magic in that piece of glass and it was clearly used by a person who knows what he's doing. :2thumbs:
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. AlwaysOnAuto

    AlwaysOnAuto TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Feb 17, 2015
    Steve - I've been eyeing your ad for the 24-70 lens you have for sale. My question is, since this shot was taken at 54mm, how does it differ from what the 24-70 lens would have given you?
    It is a nice shot by the way, I'm just curious as to why the 24-70 couldn't have been used.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. OOooooh.......!!!!! This definitely reinforces my feeling that when/if I buy the A7III that rather than going with the kit 28-70mm or even the 24-70mm, I should splurge for the 24-105 f/4. I think in the end the latter is a much more versatile lens. VERY nice image and I especially like the pleasing-to-the-eye background bokeh.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    482
    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Steve
    About the 24-70 giving me the same image... I have no doubt, I solely moved to the 24-105 for the range. This has always been my dream range, satisfying most every need for me. 105 is just that bit longer for portraits to be more flattering when needed.

    I am not the primary shooter for our publication, I fill in where I can. As publisher, it is a budget-friendly decision for me to shoot. I say this because my photo editor (and primary photog) told me while it was a good shot, he preferred his food photos closer. But my graphic designer prefers a little more room on the file to shift the image around in layout. So, there is more here than normal for him, and for my photo editor, I zoomed in on one scallop in the massive A7Riii file and showed him this was an easy fix.

    That’s the benefit for me in the A7Riii over the A7iii, more flexible files in practical use.

    I should also add that accompanying editorial talks about the restaurant’s location at a marina, hence the emphasis on the background. The hard part here for me was balancing the light and keeping background still somewhat recognizable, not too out of focus.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    482
    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Steve
    ...and Biro, I’m really close to selling my D850 to buy an A7iii. The files will be better (smaller) for shooting my sons’ lacrosse games. Great pair of bodies THAT would be!
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. michelb

    michelb TalkEmount Veteran

    219
    Oct 27, 2013
    Greater Montreal area in Quebec, Canada
    Michel Brien
    Wait 'till you try the FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G if you need something for close-ups: 1st picture is center crop from the 2nd picture taken at F4 in AF mode (i rarely use AF in Macro) DSC07506 crop. DSC07506 red.
     
    • Like Like x 9
  9. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    482
    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Steve
    Yeah, it is on my list, but I WANT it, I don’t need it.

    Still waiting to see Nikon mirrorless to stick with only one system before I buy much more.
     
  10. mesmerized

    mesmerized TalkEmount Regular

    57
    Mar 26, 2014
    Hi there.

    I don't want to hijack this thread... but is the 24-105 the one lens to rule them all? I've just realized that I'd have to get 3 lenses in the near future (16-35, 85, 70-200/300) and it's gonna burn a hole in my wallet...
     
  11. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    482
    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Steve
    Certainly not. I’ll still use my 70-300 for sports, 85 & 50 for less DOF, and either that 16-35 or a 90 will follow. But for my daily work this will cover just about everything. Every lens we have in our kit gets used, right? I’ve used the 70-300 for food shots, and I can foresee using the 16-35 for an environmental portrait (I used 24-70 at 24 for one recently). All we do is make sure we have the right arrows in the quiver for the hunt.
     
  12. I hear you, Mesmerized -- My bank account is already quivering at the idea of my making the switch! I'm lusting for the A7 III and four lenses: the 24-105 f/4 leads the list, with the 90mm f/2.8 macro a close second (I'm drooling over those images from it in this thread)....third is the 70-300mm, with the 50mm f/28 macro coming in fourth, last but not really least! (Really love macro and there are times when the shorter length works out better, easier to manipulate in some situations.) I don't really shoot much wide-angle but I know I would at some point need to get something in that range as well, either a prime or the 16-35mm. ACK, decisions, decisions!! Right now, much of this stuff is not even in stock locally or online so I can't just rush into anything at the moment anyway.
     
  13. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount Top Veteran

    981
    Aug 22, 2012
    I was an early adopter to FF E-mount, and I've lived very happily on the following combos:

    1) 28-70 kit + 55/1.8 (back when FE had just 5 lenses in total)
    2) 16-35/4 + 55/1.8 (I would still happily shoot a small wedding with just this kit)
    3) 16-35/4 + 90/2.8 (if a larger wedding, or other types of events)
    4) 25/2 + 55/1.8 (ultimate small two lens combo)

    The 24-105/4 could replace 1, 2, 3, for me, especially with the extra stop of lowlight the A7iii has over the A7i/ii. But for shallow DoF, you will still need a fast prime. If I were starting from a blank slate today, I'd probably pair a 24-105 with the 25/2 (or FE28/2) and 85/1.8, but the 55/1.8 is just so darn versatile it is hard not to pick it, though it does neither wide nor is it fully portrait.
     
  14. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD TalkEmount Veteran

    482
    Nov 25, 2012
    Viera, Florida, USA
    Steve
    I'd only counter that the 50/1.8FE and 85/1.8FE combined are cheaper than the 55/1.8Z,. and the 50/1.8FE is more than satisfactory on a budget.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.