1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

SEL24240 vs. SEL70200 comparison

Discussion in 'Native Lens Sample Image Showcase' started by WoodWorks, Mar 29, 2015.

  1. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    I was curious to see how these two lenses compared, so I mounted both on my A7, put the camera on my most rigid tripod, with OSS disabled, a 2-sec. timer on the shutter, ISO 100, daylight white balance, f/5.6 for the 70mm and f/6.3 for the 200mm (both being the widest aperture that the SEL24240 could manage at those focal lengths). Unfortunately the Oregon weather didn't cooperate, so the light changed as clouds came and went. But I hope it didn't affect the results of the test. On all of these, the SEL24240 is on the left and the SEL70200 is on the right. Here's what I got:

    The scene at 70mm.

    70mm.

    100% crop of the center of the frame:

    70C.

    And the right side of the frame:

    70R.

    At 200mm, the scene:

    200mm.

    Again, a 100% crop of the center of the frame:

    200C.

    And the right side of the frame:

    200R.

    And the relative size of the lenses themselves:

    Plan view.

    For those of you who are curious to see more, I've posted some sample images from the SEL24240 in this thread.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  2. robbie36

    robbie36 TalkEmount Veteran

    488
    Nov 21, 2014
    Thanks for that. Probably in line with what you might expect. 24-240 a bit weak at the edges but overall not bad at all.

    Can you comment on the relative focus speeds?
     
  3. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    I have not noticed any difference in the focus speeds. But I haven't done any comparative testing of that feature. The focus tracking on the 24240 was a pleasant surprise. You can see a sample here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. serhan

    serhan TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2011
    NYC
    Thanks for the comparison. So you finally got the lens:) It loses on some of the details but gains on the size...
     
  5. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    Yes, I bought it. And it's entirely your fault! ;)

    There's no question that it falls short of the 70-200's performance at the edges. But I place more value on versatility than on absolute IQ. So as long as a lens reaches a certain threshold, and this one exceeds mine by a large margin, then I'm happy to use it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. serhan

    serhan TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2011
    NYC
    I like your sample shots. I am still thinking whether I should go for Tamron 28-300mm, but then the adapter question comes eg canon adapter with no af vs sony mirror box, and the price and size might come close to 24-240mm with Sony adapter, but it has some more reach. I see 24mm f22 has better corners then some of the review shots, but most probably diffraction make it more even. Enjoy the lens and I am sure we'll some more great shots...

     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  7. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Thanks David for this comparison, it's how I would have tested myself. Having just bought an FE 70-200 I don't have to regret that move by seeing your results. I must say for a 10x zoom the FE 24-240mm looks pretty impressive, but I value the crisper rendition of the 70-200mm enough to prefer it. I have to redesign the interior of my bag though because of the lens hood's size :( and I'm planning to go out now with the Olympus OM Zuiko's 24/2.8 en 40/2 and of course the 70-200/4 (so no Minolta lenses :eek-30:).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  8. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    No Minoltas, Ad? That's like Superman going out without his cape! :D

    I did not think the results of this test would make you change your mind about the 70-200. It very clearly delivers better IQ. So anyone choosing between the two has to favor other factors to keep it from being a slam dunk.

    For me, yes, the size is a negative. Also, frankly, the color of the lens has always made me feel a little uncomfortable when using it around people. But having "more than good enough" IQ and not having to swap lenses in dusty or wet conditions make the 24-240 a better choice for me. And now that Sony is finally fleshing out its lens lineup, it's great to have more choices, isn't it? :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Yeah, feels weird to leave drawers full of nice Minoltas at home when going out with a camera bag. But as they say in Dutch: "Better is the enemy of good". Sony is working hard indeed to add FE lenses to the line-up, some nice ones too. That 70-200mm is one great lens, it consistently delivers top-notch results, even wide-open. My keeper rate of pixel-perfect sharp pics is well over 90 % at 1/60s and 200mm which is an unexpected bonus; I've read in some reviews that OSS wasn't all that impressive, only giving 1 extra stop. And if they'd make a 21mm like the G 28/2, that would be hard to resist!
     
  10. Snowy

    Snowy TalkEmount Veteran

    218
    Nov 18, 2013
    Melbourne, Australia
    Barry
    Thank you David for the very useful comparison. Much better IQ than I was expecting and I think Sony have a winner in the SEL24240.

    I went with the 70-200 G mainly for airshow photography using an A6000 but also for our recent New Zealand trip. The SEL70200G's OSS mode 2 setting is important for aircraft in flight shots and works a treat. It is the best lens I have ever used for such a purpose. The 24-240 was not available at the time but would have been more convenient for the New Zealand trip. Would I rather a black, smaller and lighter SEL70200G? Sure would but I think the white lens suits my needs best at the moment. Will a 24240 find its way into my camera bag one day? Quite possibly but it won't be as a replacement for my 70200G.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Lisandra

    Lisandra TalkEmount Veteran

    216
    Jan 28, 2015
    What version of the tamron?? The new one is quite something,, and focusig with the laea4 is very very fast. The older versions are DOGS at 300mm
     
  12. serhan

    serhan TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2011
    NYC
    Yes, new pzd version. I tried the older one last year and it was great 28-100 range but soft at the long end. Again mf was a challenge so I went with the Sony version. Amazon warehouse had one for $550. It is pretty good.

    Adorama has one demo 24-240 for 800 also:
    http://www.adorama.com/Als.Mvc/nspc/revisedProduct?sku=US 705404
     
  13. Lisandra

    Lisandra TalkEmount Veteran

    216
    Jan 28, 2015
    550$ for the new pzd?? Thats a very good price! Id get one without thought for that price
     
  14. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran

    544
    Mar 1, 2015
    Maryland
    Tom
    David,
    Thanks for pointing me here. I have a couple questions about the two lenses.
    (1) why is the 70-200 so much darker than the 24-240 if the aperture is the same (and assuming the shutter speed and ASA are the same)?
    (2) I'm assuming that you looked at the left side of the images also even though you only showed the right edge. (The right side of the 70-200 was much sharper than the 24-240 in terms of sharpness IMHO, so I assume the left side was too.)
    Also, How far does the 240 extend in full tele? Is it longer than the 70-200?
     
  15. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount Top Veteran

    941
    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    Tom, I'm not David (of course), but if I read his original post correctly, I think the darkness / difference in exposure is due to some clouds rolling through and obstructing some of his light. I could be wrong.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  16. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran

    544
    Mar 1, 2015
    Maryland
    Tom
    Oh yeah Steve, I missed that before. I guess I was looking too hard at the images!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    Steve's correct. It was the Oregon weather.

    As to your other two questions. 2) Yes, and 3) Dunno. I no longer own the 70-200, so I can't check. Maybe those dimensions are available on the interwebs somewhere.
     
  18. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran

    544
    Mar 1, 2015
    Maryland
    Tom
    Thanks David. I guess #2 was a dumb question. The fact that you no longer have the 70-200 makes me think it is the lesser lens. Is that your opinion too?
     
  19. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    Lesser lens? No, not at all. I think my comparison shows the 70-200 to be the clearly superior lens. But for me, the 24-240’s versatility trumps the 70-200’s better IQ, which is only really obvious in the corners. The way I see it, if anyone is closely examining the corners of my images, then I have failed to shoot an interesting photograph.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount Top Veteran

    941
    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    Okay, I'm going to through out at an odd question here:

    Does anyone have or know of a comparison between the 24-240 and either the APS-C 55-210 or the original APS-C 18-200 (the "fat" one, not the newer LE version)? Particularly on the fast-focusing a6000.

    While I'm satisfied with the 55-210 for what it is, I am beginning to wonder if the all-in-one versatility of a lens like the SEL18200 or SEL24240 would be worth the extra cost. Having one 10X+ zoom for vacation/travel use would certainly be attractive.

    If that's a subject of a separate thread, I suppose I can make it one.