Showcase Sony FE 24–105mm f/4 G OSS (SEL24105G)

[WoodWorks]

This lens seemed a good replacement for my heavy Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8/LA-EA3 combo, so I just couldn't resist getting one.


Lavender Fog.jpg by David Wood, on Flickr


Above the Fog.jpg by David Wood, on Flickr


Pilot Rock.jpg by David Wood, on Flickr

Yes, it's a f/4 lens, but its bokeh is delightful, I think.


Bokeh of Flowers.jpg by David Wood, on Flickr


Barleywine.jpg by David Wood, on Flickr

It's fairly resistant to flare (but the A7RII's sensor sure isn't resistant to reflections), and it gives a nice sun star at f/16.


Flare.jpg by David Wood, on Flickr

I like shooting compressed landscapes, and the extra 35mm reach above a 24-70mm zoom is substantial.


105mm.jpg by David Wood, on Flickr


70mm.jpg by David Wood, on Flickr

I shot a bunch of comparison test shots between this lens and the Tamron, and the Sony bested it handily, especially in the corners. When I get the time, I'll put up another thread comparing the two lenses.

I think Sony's got a real winner here, at least for my purposes. And when spring comes, I bet this lens is going to be my "motorcycle tank bag" lens.

 

[Bill]

Lavender Fog, particularly, is just outstanding. Nice work.

 

[bdbits]

Nice shots.

I'm normally partial to primes, but pics and reports with this lens have are giving me second thoughts.

 

[Mus Aziz]

Lavender fog , or in your own word David, woof

 

[NickCyprus]

Wow David, (I know its not the gear but the photographer) but with photos like those, you’re gonna cause some serious GAS here

Excellent photos buddy! Congrats on the new lens - enjoy

 

[Ad Dieleman]

Glad you bought one, gives us the opportunity to see how you get on with it! Nice series too. Anxiously waiting for your test shots.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Woof Woof.

 

[WNG]

Wow, epic!

 

[dbmiller]

Two weeks ago, I picked up a used 24-70GM. Earlier this week, I stopped in at the camera store just after another Sony and lenses were traded in. One of the lenses was a SEL24105G. The manager said the owner pretty much only had the lens for a month, and he felt like he had to give him a good price on it. He was asking $1200 for it used, which seemed like a lot. I decided to pass, although I considered returning the 24-70.

I happened to be in the area again yesterday, and walked by the camera store. They still had the 24-105, and the person working that day looked up the info on the lens. "Oh! We really overpaid for this. There's no way we'll ever get $1200 when you can buy a new one for $98 more. Tell you what, if you want it, the boss may not like it, but I'll let you have it for $1000. We take care of customers that have bought a lot of stuff from us.

How could I refuse?

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

 

[hodad66]

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

I joined the 24-105 club a couple of days ago.....

 

[N4865G]

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

 

[Antonio Correia]

I dare to suggest the renaming of this thread to Sony 24-105 f4 G OSS (SEL24105G)

I am looking for this lens. I mean buying it... My suggested rename is a better link for the lens.
Clicking on the image bellow guides you to Sony site.
Thank you !

​

 

[TedG954]

After seeing examples on this site, and reading lots of reviews, I finally picked up a 24-105/4. I found the reviews to be mixed. "Expert" pixel-peepers found flaws; real-world users couldn't sing their praises loud enough. I always go with the real folks. Today's weather was a bit iffy, but I had to get out to try the new lens. I'm pleased.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.

 

[WoodWorks]

Congrats on the new lens, Ted!

 

[WNG]

Shots look great from this lens. Looking forward to more from you, enjoy!

 

[Tipton]

Some (most?) of my favorite lenses would not pass the "pixel peeper" test, yet I love the images I get from them.

 

[MWhite]

Such a nice lens! (x-posted from Flowers)


Curve by UnderOpenWater, on Flickr


Blur by UnderOpenWater, on Flickr


A Crowd by UnderOpenWater, on Flickr

 

[Richard Crowe]

I shoot mostly with primes on my APSC A6400 and A6500 cameras although I have the little 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS lens. I use the it lens mostly for family activities and to document the adoptions of our Maltese Rescue California dogs. The I.Q. for those uses is O.K.. However, I used the kit lens for a model photo shoot and found the I.Q. to be fairly acceptable at best.
I would like a zoom lens that can produce I.Q., for stills, that is significantly better than the kit lens.
Would you judge the I.Q. of the FE 24-105 f/4 G to be noticeably better than that of the 28-70mm OSS kit lens when shooting stills?

 

[TedG954]

The 24-105/4 is an excellent lens for a full frame camera. I have used the 18-105/4 for my ASP-c cameras and have gotten excellent results. I have never used the 28-70.

 

[MWhite]

I shoot mostly with primes on my APSC A6400 and A6500 cameras although I have the little 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS lens. I use the it lens mostly for family activities and to document the adoptions of our Maltese Rescue California dogs. The I.Q. for those uses is O.K.. However, I used the kit lens for a model photo shoot and found the I.Q. to be fairly acceptable at best.
I would like a zoom lens that can produce I.Q., for stills, that is significantly better than the kit lens.
Would you judge the I.Q. of the FE 24-105 f/4 G to be noticeably better than that of the 28-70mm OSS kit lens when shooting stills?

All of the online reviews that I have seen indicate that the FE 24-105 is a better lens than the kit lens. But not having made a side by side comparison, I can't speak from personal experience. The 24-105 is a pleasure to use and produces really nice images. The constant aperture is a plus and f4 seems not to impede it producing very nice out of focus effects. I have been very impressed with it in the short time that I have owned it. Having said that, the kit lens is lighter and on an APS-C camera might well do an excellent job.