I agree 1000% with your assessment. I only own 4 lenses, and they cover everything for my needs. #1 - Sony 24-105 f4 - (Best all around lens for walking around, travel, etc. great do-all workhorse) #2 -Sony 100-400 GM - (Best all around 'outdoors', in the wild, or sports, nature, etc. has great minimum focus distance) #3 -Sony 16-35 F2.8 GM - (low light, tight places, landscape, and astro shots) #4 - Sony Zeiss Batis 85 F1.8 - (creative, low light, street, portraits etc.) (I also have a 1.4 Teleconverter for the 100-400 for wildlife, birds, etc.) To be honest . . . If I was forced to have ONLY 1 lens, it would be the 24-105 . . . with the 100-400 a really close second. Great review. Cheers.
Actually, the blur on the background is directly proportional to the aperture's opening in mm. Because of this, the 105mm at F:4 will get you a (infinitesimally) blurrier background than a 70mm at F:2.8 ( 105/4 = 26mm, 70/2.8 = 25mm) 🙂
I totally agree. Bought this lens recently on eBay brand new for less than $900. I chose this lens because I wanted Sony native lenses, it's weather sealed plus F4 keeps the size, weight, and price down. OSS and focal range (even further when I programmed the button on the lens for APS-C mode) on this lens had a lot to do with my decision. I have it on my A7IV and pair it with my 50mm 1.2 GM for wedding and travel. I take 90% of my pictures with these 2 lenses. Great stuff. Sub
Question please: I have an A7 IV as well, and use Sigma lenses. But I get the feeling there is zero stabilization in camera with them. Will this lens, the 24-105 in question, give me much improved stabilization for run and gun video? As I have a Sigma 24-70 now, the descision is really all about stabilization. Thanks!
I own the equivalent lens for my Canon R mirrorless camera & it really is a beauty. f4 makes portraits / group shots sharp & the extra zoom up to 105 allows you to capture candid shots without intruding on your subject. I will always carry this focal length lens, no matter what. Recently my 70-200 went in for service, leaving me with just this lens to shoot sporting events. It's amazing how creative you can be when forced to use only this lens. Loved it..! If you can afford this lens on any system (not just Sony), then get it.. You'll not be disappointed.
This is the first lens i bought with my Sony A7IV… since then I bought other lenses… but still… most of the time, the 24-105 is the one on the camera. So in general… I totally agree with what you’ve said
Yep thats exactly my point. There can always be a specific situation that requires a specific lens. But the 24-105mm will have you covered most of the time!
This is one of the few lenses that works with A7R5 latest firmware for 8stop stabilization ....one of the main reasons why i have not replaced it with the new lighter 20-70f4
I loved this lens but as I get older, I found carrying weight harder. Even though this is a light lens, the new 20-70 F4 is lighter. Have swapped the 24-105 for this newer lighter one, and have not regretted it. As you say, each to their own.
Have to agree. That 20-70 is something of a lens. On a Sony A7CR or R5, it's easy to go into crop mode and stretch the long end to 105mm and still maintain great image quality.
Can’t agree more. Hesitated about the new 24-70 GM2 but didn’t take the step. Went for a second hand 12-24f4 lens. The same remark for the “less sharp” corners vs the f2.8. But use it at f10 most of the time on my 7r V (landscape) and the extreme corners are a little less sharp but have to pixel peep at 200%. Enjoy a lot doing focus stacking (finally available) with this lens. Will certainly do it with the 24-105 as well. Gives me new challenges. And indeed for astrophotography I’m using f1.4 or f2 lenses, also easy to find on the second hand market.
I agree with your main statement. Being a mFT-guy, my all-in-one lens is the Olympus 12-100mm F4 PRO on my OM-1. It corresponds to a 24-200mm full frame lens, and therefore it ist extremely versatile for nearly everything. I shoot about 75% of my images with it.
My experience as well, just came back form Japan and used that one for more than half of my shots, the rest using the 7-14 and 100-400 (and the Leica DG 9mm f1.7, a fantastic street lens). Now you know my travel kit...
Before I started to shoot Sony, I checked out their lens lineup to see what they offered. For me weight was a major concern and video usage was another. While I liked how the 24-70 GM2 felt on the A7R V, I also wanted a lens with a bit more reach. What I really wanted was the E 70-350 f/4 lens, for use out in nature. The 24-105 along with the A7R V is a good match for everyday use for video and when I want t bit more reach, for photo use, I can switch to APSC mode and get closer. This lens should be a bit sharper and I hope Sony updates its motors in the future. It’s not bad but, testing it against their newer lens with the XD motors, it feels like an update is warranted.
I got lucky and bought this lens for $700 in mint condition. Wow what a lens! I’m very content with its sharpness and that extra bit of focal length, however I put it back in the camera bag once the sun sets. Overall great lens and one of the few Sony native lenses that I’ll spend the extra cash on.
The 24-105 f4 G is my most used lens. Recently I‘ve done some comparisons to figure out how sharp it is on landscapes and it performs very well at all focal lengths at 42 MP. I‘ll definitely continue using it for travel and general purpose.
sure for outside during daytime and studio - it's a great lens, however, as I am mostly in very low light situations in clubs and on festival during night-time, I really need f2.8. Also 24mm is not wide enough by far. If I had to go with one lens and one lens only, it would choose the Sigma 16-28 f2.8... and this is the long end. On my b-cam, I have my 12mm Fisheye.
I initially bought this lens for my A7Riii as a travel lens but found it so good that I left it on the camera most of the time. Wasn't expecting the Sony 24-105 to be as sharp as it is. Back when I had a Canon 6D I upgraded the 24-105 f4, which was quite soft, for the 24-70 f2.8 and regretted it. Image quality was much better but lost so much versatility.
Very nice video man! I got myself the 35-150 Tamron, not exactly sure if I made the right choice. Sometimes its a little too heavy and not wide enough - I'll certainly miss the F2 at 35mm and F2.8 at 150mm though...
Glad you liked the video Stefan! I think there's always something that one lens does better than the other or something that could be improved on every lens. The perfect lens perhaps doesn't exist. Unless someone figures out how to build a 14-600mm f1.4 😅
I agree with you. I have same camera and lens for 5 years. I took many photos and videos and uploaded many videos on my TH-cam channel. I love this combination. I am waiting a9iii or A1ii or a7rvi.
I just switched from Canon dSLR to Sony mirrorless, and this lens was the first one I bought for the Sony, as my previous "can't do without" Canon lens was... the Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0. 😁
Your'e nearly right 🙂. For me 24mm wide angle is not wide enough, so I added a Sigma F2.8 14-24mm an a Samyang F2.8 12mm fisheye lens to my collection.
I had this lens on my Sony A7iv and was happy with results but still needed a second lens resulting in more weight. Net result sold it and purchased a Tamron 28-200 which gives me more flexibility and less weight to carry.
I considered this lens but since im not a full frame shooter and have no plans to be, the 18-105 G was a better choice. It is has constant f4 and internal zoom which I do love. It lives on my 6400 and occasionally I take the old nex 7 out for a spin.
Honestly IMO the best lens for everything right now is the Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 lens. If I hadn't already started down the G Master lineup from the get go I would have bought this lens right away.
Thanks for the interesting comments on this lens. This lens is one of the best. When I bought into the Sony system a few years back, the 24-70 2.8 version 1 was not quite as good as this lens (according to research I did at the time) and so the 24-105 was given the sheer performance, weight and cost a very good buy. I also bought the 16-35 2.8 which is an amazing lens if you are interested in wide angle shots.
I love this lens. It’s almost always on my A1, and A7 IV. It is a bit heavy, but it’s sharp and fast. If I could only have one lens on my camera for a worldwide trip, the 24-105 would be it……
I´ll second that! Doing mostly handheld run-and-gun I use this lens 90-95 % of the time. For low light I use the 35mm f1.8 and for tele I use the 200-600mm. And for macro the 90mm f2.8 - I consider the new Viltrox 16mm f 1.8 for wideangle - as the 24-105mm as you also mention - is not so wide for all shots. The 16-35mm f2.8 would be nicer but also a lot more expensive.
The G line does not refer to semi-pro glass. It is actually professional grade, the equivalent of Canon's L line. I believe G stands for 'Gold' or 'Grand'. It originates from the pre-mirrorless era where you had G glass for the Minolta and Sony A-mount. You had no G master back then, this is a recent thing to identify the cream of the cream.
I picked one up after purchasing my FX-6. For two reasons: 1. The FX-6 has no IBIS because of the internal ND filters. 2. I use my 24-70 F/2.8 G-Master for my FX-3 and dedicated for my A7IV for all of my commercial photography work. I wanted a dedicated lens on my FX-6 . Rarely, do I use another lens on that camera and I always have it in the bag with the lens and accessories mounted and ready to go.
@@SightseeingStan Of course using F/2.8 and F/1.4 lenses I was worried about an F/4 not letting enough light in….but I forgot about that 12,800 ISO and it sooo clean! No noise at all…..
@@csmvideoproductions7359 Yep totally.. 👍 it really depends on how your camera deals with low light. But for sure everyone has differents needs, so there's not a "one-for-all" solution!
How I shoot, I need the F2.8. From the current options out there 24-70mm Sony and sigma, Tamron 35-150mm, and Tamron 28-75mm. The Tamron 28-75mm g2 wins for its weight. For projects 24mm prime gm, 50mm prime gm, and 70-200mm gm ii.
For APS-C users, 18-105 is the golden gem, although Tamron also makes an 18-300 for even more versatility bit not as fast. Faster Focal Ratio is better in low light, not just shallow depth of field.
I'm not on sony - I'm on panasonic after selling off my canon stuff and opted for the 24-105 because I travel and have a toddler and can't be lugging a backpack full of glass around anymore and swapping lenses while my child is running off. I will say though that one reason to get the 24-70 GM II is it's insanely sharp and has great optics maybe the best of any standard zoom ever made. Being said, do you need that? I think your photos with the 24-105 look amazing - so obviously the answer's no especially for landscape/travel type photography. Maybe for mid to high end commercial work where you can justify the cost or maybe as an established wedding photographer. For a lot of us pro-sumer type folks who I think make up a lot of the market flirting that line of higher end enthusiast who takes paid gigs once in a blue moon - the IQ of most your major manufacturers' 24-105 is going to be plenty good to put out portfolio worthy images.
I have this lens now since 4 weeks too and uploaded a video too 🎥 for me the perfect all in one lens for my small ZVE1 👍 best cinematic greetings from germany
Agree! First lens I bought for Sony and only one I had for a while. I use it less these days as my collection has grown, but if I had to pick one… this might be it.
I only own 5 lenses, and it does all i need it to do. 1, Sony FE 24-70 f2.8 GM ( everyday workhorse 2. Sony FE 16-35 f2.8 GM ( landscapes, real estate. 3. Sony FE 70-200 f4 G OSS (wildlife, portraits. 4. Sony FE 90 Macro f2.8 G OSS (insects, flowers, etc. 5. Sony FE 50 f1.8
Thanks for this video Stan, I'm currently usingbthe 28 - 70 kit lens (started my photo journey in February) and although it's a great starter, I feel I want that little bit more reach to get certain shots in the streets that I feel to uncomfortable getting closer to subject and shooting. I've been looking at thos lens and your video has convinced me that it's what I want to couple my camera before looking at primes in future. Awesome video - informative and answered all the questions I've been asking myself. Subbed and look forward your videos. Oh and nice shots by the way 👍
DXO mark and various TH-camrs have rated the sharpness of this lens on par or better than the 24-70 GM (gen 1). I’ve had this lens for 3 years and my copy is sharp as balls. I actually tone it down with a Tiffen Glimmer Glass diffusion filter. It’s a fantastic lens and the OSS and reach make it worth it. (I used to have the 24-70 and I do like the rendering on that lens slightly more). On my FX6 and A7Siii the extra stop of light is a nice to have not a need to have. As for bokeh, tons! You just need to step back and zoom in.
I do not have the 24-105 G, but the18-135 F3.5-5.6 OSS lens that actually comes as a kit lens. It is not the sharpest or fastest, and it wasn't worth that much on the used market so I kept, and I find it basically lives on my camera. It is only specific situations that I need specific focal length + aperture.
When I moved to full frame Sony, the budget would only allow for one single OP lens. If I could only pick one lens it would be a 24-105 f2.8 but all they make is an f4, so I chose the 24-70 f 2.8 but would sell it in a heart beat if I could get my hands on on imaginary 24/105 f 2.8.
Totally! I’ve used this lens with a7s3 for 6 months. A7s3 high iso def justifies the F4. Also love the oss. But!! Personally I like lumix color more so sold all of them yesterday.
It's OK, but the 20-70/4 G is better; both optically and in terms of the focal range. 20mm is more useful than 70mm simply because you CAN shoot portraits at 70, but you cannot really get expansive interiors or dramatic landscapes with 24. More importantly, when you graduate to a 2 lens setup, you will be very happy a 20-70/4 with a 85mm prime. You don't really need wide apertures at 20mm and an 85/1.4 or 1.8 will give you the background blur even a 2.8 zoom can't. On the otherhand, pairing a 24-105/4 with a 20/1.8 or 14/1.8 leaves you with a big iris ultra wide whose aperture you don't really need while your portrait work is still hamstrung by the 24-105's F4 aperture. -- I was an all prime shooter, but I moved to the 20-70/4 as my walkabout. I kept the 85 and 135 for portraiture. I honestly think that is a much better kit than a 24-105/4 with 12-24 or 14/1.8 or 20/1.8. Fast ultra wides are the most useless lenses to lug around. Almost all of my ultra wide shots are done at 5.6~8 anyway.
This is the only lens I've had for years. Its met every style I've needed for it, it's always quality. Yes, I'd love a quality 50mm lens, but the price they are these days is ridiculous.
I love it. I paired the 24-105 f4 with 16-35 PZ f4, and this combo is great for my needs. I just need a 100-400 GM + 2x converter, but that will have to wait :D
It depends on the users application... I used a Tamron 28-105 F/ 2:8 for years as my walk around lens; I’ve since stop using it and went back to Prime lens for my application…
Great video, what do you recommend between A6700 + sigma 17-70 2.8 And A7iv + this lens you reviewed For someone who wants to shoot mostly cinematic videos on hikes, travels, motorcycles, cars and potentially make mini films ?
... and, you could try out the Minolta AF version (f3.5 - 4.5), in manual mode with a cheap adapter, just to see what happens when you photograph within these lens lengths. I find that my eyes see certain pictures that reflect the focal length of the lenses I currently use.
While comparing to 24-70 gm surely makes pricing stand out, I wonder if Sigma 24-70 2.8 wont be actually a better alternative? Bokeh will be nicer on Sigma, but obviously you loosing a bit on far end.
Guess what - a lot of amateurs realised that years ago. Before that there were incremental improvements to the "mother of all 24-105's, the 35-70 mm lenses of the 1980's. 28-70 mm, 28-85 mm, 24-85 mm ... and finally the 24-105. On my APS-C camera, I use a 16-70 mm which corresponds almost precisely to 24-105 mm on FF. They're almost glued together - except when I need more reach (70-350 mm), greater angle of view (10-20 mm) ... or noiseless zooming (18-105 mm/10-20 mm). I definitely don't need only one lens.
@@SightseeingStan true, but a lot of Sony cameras have IBIS so the Lens stabilization it's not so much needed when you have in body stabilization. If you look at Canon cameras, you will notice that the lens stabilization works in collaboration with the In body stabilization, Sony cameras don't work like that. For Sony, the lens stabilization override the camera stabilization. I'm pretty sure thats the case. Correct me if I'm wrong. Enjoy the video though.
thankfully the APS-C alternative is cheaper, smaller and partially better: the 17-55 2.8 types. And for a good reason nobody talks about a standard zoom on full frame, because its either a standard lens in their lineup so not worth mentioning, or they dont use/need it at all. If something is the "only lens you really need", its something like a 24-70 2.8 or even 2.0 on full frame with higher MP count to crop in for the missing 35mm focal length.
If you're going to do macro, landscapes or specific then a sony or zeiss f2ish for serious pics. Or even an adapted lens. But for speed and versatility either this or the dinky little plastic 28-60 is very pleasingly sharp and snappy. Even if it has zero switches or buttons.
So right Stan, I like the G lenses, having the 24-105, 70-200/f4 and 200-600 I wish that Sony makes a 24-240 II G OSS F4 , had the 24-240 oss...to heavy, big and slow... focus distance was bad to...
Whats this lens like for keeping focus when zooming in and out? Im looking for a zoom lens for filming football matches and the current lens i have loses focus when zooming in and out quickly. Cheers.
Pretty much any photography lens will change focus when zooming. What you are referring to is called a "parfocal lens". These lenses don't change focus as you zoom in or out. Typically these are cinema lenses.
I don't own this lens, but from what I've seen and heard it is a beautiful all-round lens. Personally the lens that lives on my camera is the 28-75mm 2.8 from Tamron. It's marginally longer than the 24-105 and a fair bit lighter. I use the 2.8 aperture a lot and especially after getting an A7R IV I find that I rarely bother carrying longer lenses, since I can easily crop in post.
Would you recommend the A7III for an amateur? And would this lens be a good choice for sports photography? And if not or if there is a better one specifically for that which one would you recommend?Thanks!
Yes, I can definitely recommend the A7iii unless you have the funds for the a7iv. It depends what kind of sports photography, but I would say the range on this lens is too short for sports. I would recommend something longer like a 70-200 or even longer.
So i shoot concerts, and I own the 70-200 2.8 gm ii, which I chose to spend the extra money since i shoot really close up shots with it. Now I’m looking for either this one to add or the 20-70.. i lean towards this one cause price is really good. But at concerts, shooting in low lighting is hard so I’m doubting if the 2.8 is a better option… sharpness wise I don’t really have a fav since I will shoot mostly wide overview shots with it and no insane close ups.
Furthermore Stan, u have just blown your cover: A Belgium Photographer living in Germany. No such person exists because if there was such a photographer, he would never choose a F4 lens living in dark & dreary Germany. So now, the gig is up. We know you really are a CIA Operative shooting in Arizona. Don't feel bad, we'll still keep listening to the lens lecture till the end. 😎😎
Its all about your style and type of photography. Its nothing to do with the only lens you need. On my MFT body I have a 12 -50mm ( 24 - 100 l) with a button set for 2X maginification! It suits what I take.
I think there's enough foreground/background separation from 50mm or so for F/4, but it would've been really nice to have F/2.8 on the wide end, maybe a 24-105 F/2.8 to 4.5 or something, that would be so useful!
The sigma 24/70 f2.8 is at the same price than the 24/105, and it is almost as good as the GM. So in terms of price I’ll go with sigma. And that extra light step it’s a huge deal for me, because in order to have the same exposure you will have to double the amount of ISO. And that’s maybe the deal breaker for me. Of course a Sony a7iv can handle higher ISO, but it still isn’t the same 1250 than 2500, or 2500 than 5000. I was just about to buy the 24/105 but I tried the sigma and it changes my mind, maybe you should try it too! And make another awesome video like this comparing them both!
Would definitely be interesting to try out the Sigma and do a comparison. And I do get the importance of that stop of light when you're dealing with very dark situations and having to really push your ISO as high as something like 5000. But I would say that for most people these are more out of the ordinary situations.
@@SightseeingStan, Question. With the OSS turned on, couldn’t you slow down the shutter speed to make up for that one stop loss but still have that extra reach of 70 to 105?
I had 24-105, but the image quality did not suit me. Poor autofocus and sharpness, I specifically looked at the photo and found that accurate autofocus on the eyes is only a few percent, in general soap. Then I looked at offers on the market for used lenses, 24-105 was among the market leaders. When I saw in tests that the maximum resolution at a covered aperture is about 3300 lines at 35 mm, (the sensor length is indicated here), and the new 24-70 already has 4900 lines at 35 mm at aperture 2.8, I immediately decided to buy this lens. I'm still impressed with the image quality. color and autofocus.
My copy was not sharp compared to all my other zoom lenses .Best focal range Sony wants to try and produce a version 2 with a more sharp image . The original version wasn’t sharp on photos or videos .Really soft unfortunately.
I agree 1000% with your assessment.
I only own 4 lenses, and they cover everything for my needs.
#1 - Sony 24-105 f4 - (Best all around lens for walking around, travel, etc. great do-all workhorse)
#2 -Sony 100-400 GM - (Best all around 'outdoors', in the wild, or sports, nature, etc. has great minimum focus distance)
#3 -Sony 16-35 F2.8 GM - (low light, tight places, landscape, and astro shots)
#4 - Sony Zeiss Batis 85 F1.8 - (creative, low light, street, portraits etc.)
(I also have a 1.4 Teleconverter for the 100-400 for wildlife, birds, etc.)
To be honest . . . If I was forced to have ONLY 1 lens, it would be the 24-105 . . . with the 100-400 a really close second.
Great review.
Cheers.
Nice setup! And I agree with the 100-400 coming in second! What an amazing lens that is!! 👍
Actually, the blur on the background is directly proportional to the aperture's opening in mm.
Because of this, the 105mm at F:4 will get you a (infinitesimally) blurrier background than a 70mm at F:2.8 ( 105/4 = 26mm, 70/2.8 = 25mm) 🙂
But should you compare 105mm with 70mm, or 70/4 and 70/2.8...
@@Tom-tz9hi Read again slowly :-)
I learned something extremely valuable today. Thank you!
I totally agree. Bought this lens recently on eBay brand new for less than $900. I chose this lens because I wanted Sony native lenses, it's weather sealed plus F4 keeps the size, weight, and price down. OSS and focal range (even further when I programmed the button on the lens for APS-C mode) on this lens had a lot to do with my decision. I have it on my A7IV and pair it with my 50mm 1.2 GM for wedding and travel. I take 90% of my pictures with these 2 lenses. Great stuff. Sub
Thanks so much! 👍
Question please: I have an A7 IV as well, and use Sigma lenses. But I get the feeling there is zero stabilization in camera with them. Will this lens, the 24-105 in question, give me much improved stabilization for run and gun video? As I have a Sigma 24-70 now, the descision is really all about stabilization. Thanks!
underrated?! i've never heard anything but glowing reviews about that glass, which is why I own it and love it! I like your photos, nice work!
Thanks a lot 👍
I own the equivalent lens for my Canon R mirrorless camera & it really is a beauty.
f4 makes portraits / group shots sharp & the extra zoom up to 105 allows you to capture candid shots without intruding on your subject.
I will always carry this focal length lens, no matter what.
Recently my 70-200 went in for service, leaving me with just this lens to shoot sporting events. It's amazing how creative you can be when forced to use only this lens. Loved it..!
If you can afford this lens on any system (not just Sony), then get it.. You'll not be disappointed.
Totally agree! Happy to hear you are enjoying this lens so much as well 👍
This is the first lens i bought with my Sony A7IV… since then I bought other lenses… but still… most of the time, the 24-105 is the one on the camera.
So in general… I totally agree with what you’ve said
Yep thats exactly my point. There can always be a specific situation that requires a specific lens. But the 24-105mm will have you covered most of the time!
This is one of the few lenses that works with A7R5 latest firmware for 8stop stabilization ....one of the main reasons why i have not replaced it with the new lighter 20-70f4
What are the other reasons? Iìm tossing between the two lenses . thanks in advance!
My Sony Lens roster includes the 14mm GM...35mm GM...Sony 55mm Sonnar Zeiss...and the 24-105mm G. Love them all.
Nice set of lenses 👍
I loved this lens but as I get older, I found carrying weight harder. Even though this is a light lens, the new 20-70 F4 is lighter. Have swapped the 24-105 for this newer lighter one, and have not regretted it. As you say, each to their own.
Have to agree. That 20-70 is something of a lens. On a Sony A7CR or R5, it's easy to go into crop mode and stretch the long end to 105mm and still maintain great image quality.
Can’t agree more. Hesitated about the new 24-70 GM2 but didn’t take the step. Went for a second hand 12-24f4 lens. The same remark for the “less sharp” corners vs the f2.8. But use it at f10 most of the time on my 7r V (landscape) and the extreme corners are a little less sharp but have to pixel peep at 200%.
Enjoy a lot doing focus stacking (finally available) with this lens. Will certainly do it with the 24-105 as well. Gives me new challenges. And indeed for astrophotography I’m using f1.4 or f2 lenses, also easy to find on the second hand market.
The perfect pairing for my 200-600. I recently picked up the 50mm 1.4gm for more low light stuff.
Thats a nice setup! 👍
My travel lens! Mine is super sharp at both ends and in between. Started using it on my A73 and now on my A74. Fast focusing and super quiet as well.
Agreed. Sharp, stabilized, sensably priced, sensational, one to have. I like mine.
Heck yes! 🙌
I agree with your main statement. Being a mFT-guy, my all-in-one lens is the Olympus 12-100mm F4 PRO on my OM-1. It corresponds to a 24-200mm full frame lens, and therefore it ist extremely versatile for nearly everything. I shoot about 75% of my images with it.
24-200 is a pretty nice focal range yep! 👍👍👍
My experience as well, just came back form Japan and used that one for more than half of my shots, the rest using the 7-14 and 100-400 (and the Leica DG 9mm f1.7, a fantastic street lens). Now you know my travel kit...
Before I started to shoot Sony, I checked out their lens lineup to see what they offered. For me weight was a major concern and video usage was another. While I liked how the 24-70 GM2 felt on the A7R V, I also wanted a lens with a bit more reach. What I really wanted was the E 70-350 f/4 lens, for use out in nature. The 24-105 along with the A7R V is a good match for everyday use for video and when I want t bit more reach, for photo use, I can switch to APSC mode and get closer. This lens should be a bit sharper and I hope Sony updates its motors in the future. It’s not bad but, testing it against their newer lens with the XD motors, it feels like an update is warranted.
Tamron 28-200
@@m4rcin847 I have the Z8 with the 24-120 f4 as my daily walk around lens and it works really well.
I got lucky and bought this lens for $700 in mint condition. Wow what a lens! I’m very content with its sharpness and that extra bit of focal length, however I put it back in the camera bag once the sun sets. Overall great lens and one of the few Sony native lenses that I’ll spend the extra cash on.
The 24-105 f4 G is my most used lens. Recently I‘ve done some comparisons to figure out how sharp it is on landscapes and it performs very well at all focal lengths at 42 MP. I‘ll definitely continue using it for travel and general purpose.
Nice one 👍
I have an old apsc 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3... Nobody needs it, but I never go out without it. It makes me feel safe and secure.
sure for outside during daytime and studio - it's a great lens, however, as I am mostly in very low light situations in clubs and on festival during night-time, I really need f2.8. Also 24mm is not wide enough by far. If I had to go with one lens and one lens only, it would choose the Sigma 16-28 f2.8... and this is the long end.
On my b-cam, I have my 12mm Fisheye.
For sure if you have more specific needs there are other options! 👍
I initially bought this lens for my A7Riii as a travel lens but found it so good that I left it on the camera most of the time. Wasn't expecting the Sony 24-105 to be as sharp as it is. Back when I had a Canon 6D I upgraded the 24-105 f4, which was quite soft, for the 24-70 f2.8 and regretted it. Image quality was much better but lost so much versatility.
Super advice
I have this one, 16-35 Cz, and 100-400
These three sort me completely
I have stopped buying prime lenses for years now
Nice one Nadeem 👍
Very nice video man! I got myself the 35-150 Tamron, not exactly sure if I made the right choice. Sometimes its a little too heavy and not wide enough - I'll certainly miss the F2 at 35mm and F2.8 at 150mm though...
Glad you liked the video Stefan! I think there's always something that one lens does better than the other or something that could be improved on every lens. The perfect lens perhaps doesn't exist. Unless someone figures out how to build a 14-600mm f1.4 😅
This is the one lens to rule them all. Definitely wish it was a little wider. But otherwise it kicks the 24-105 arse. Not even close.
I agree with you. I have same camera and lens for 5 years. I took many photos and videos and uploaded many videos on my TH-cam channel. I love this combination. I am waiting a9iii or A1ii or a7rvi.
Nice one! Yep it's a great combo 👍👍
I just switched from Canon dSLR to Sony mirrorless, and this lens was the first one I bought for the Sony, as my previous "can't do without" Canon lens was... the Canon EF 24-105 f/4.0. 😁
Nice one! Good choice 👍😁
Your'e nearly right 🙂. For me 24mm wide angle is not wide enough, so I added a Sigma F2.8 14-24mm an a Samyang F2.8 12mm fisheye lens to my collection.
I had this lens on my Sony A7iv and was happy with results but still needed a second lens resulting in more weight. Net result sold it and purchased a Tamron 28-200 which gives me more flexibility and less weight to carry.
I'm looking at this lens for travel, but initially I was attracted to OSS. I'm looking for the lens for video, as well as, travel/walkabout.
The tamron 17-70 f2.8 is almost the exact equivalent for aps-c
True, I have that lens for my ZV-E10, it's awesome 👍
And now Canon just announced a 24-105 f/2.8. If it is as good as the rest of their RF glass that may be the best single lens yet.
Is that so? Wow, that will be amazing 👍
I recently purchased this lens in 2023, it's a absolute beast and one lens solution for smaller creator like myself!
I considered this lens but since im not a full frame shooter and have no plans to be, the 18-105 G was a better choice. It is has constant f4 and internal zoom which I do love. It lives on my 6400 and occasionally I take the old nex 7 out for a spin.
Honestly IMO the best lens for everything right now is the Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 lens. If I hadn't already started down the G Master lineup from the get go I would have bought this lens right away.
sigma doesn't have such lens
@@travelpatron Sorry. You are correct. I meant Tamron. I fixed it.
Thanks for the interesting comments on this lens. This lens is one of the best. When I bought into the Sony system a few years back, the 24-70 2.8 version 1 was not quite as good as this lens (according to research I did at the time) and so the 24-105 was given the sheer performance, weight and cost a very good buy. I also bought the 16-35 2.8 which is an amazing lens if you are interested in wide angle shots.
I love this lens. It’s almost always on my A1, and A7 IV. It is a bit heavy, but it’s sharp and fast. If I could only have one lens on my camera for a worldwide trip, the 24-105 would be it……
I´ll second that! Doing mostly handheld run-and-gun I use this lens 90-95 % of the time. For low light I use the 35mm f1.8 and for tele I use the 200-600mm. And for macro the 90mm f2.8 - I consider the new Viltrox 16mm f 1.8 for wideangle - as the 24-105mm as you also mention - is not so wide for all shots. The 16-35mm f2.8 would be nicer but also a lot more expensive.
The G line does not refer to semi-pro glass. It is actually professional grade, the equivalent of Canon's L line. I believe G stands for 'Gold' or 'Grand'. It originates from the pre-mirrorless era where you had G glass for the Minolta and Sony A-mount. You had no G master back then, this is a recent thing to identify the cream of the cream.
I looked it up. It does mean gold. Kinda silly considering the copper ring Sony cameras feature. And the orange GM logo
@@lucabarbagallo7313 Yes - but imagine the cost if the ring and logo were made of gold! ;-)
@@adamadamis orange hue slider +76
I picked one up after purchasing my FX-6. For two reasons: 1. The FX-6 has no IBIS because of the internal ND filters. 2. I use my 24-70 F/2.8 G-Master for my FX-3 and dedicated for my A7IV for all of my commercial photography work. I wanted a dedicated lens on my FX-6 . Rarely, do I use another lens on that camera and I always have it in the bag with the lens and accessories mounted and ready to go.
Nice one! Sounds like an amazing setup 👍
@@SightseeingStan Of course using F/2.8 and F/1.4 lenses I was worried about an F/4 not letting enough light in….but I forgot about that 12,800 ISO and it sooo clean! No noise at all…..
@@csmvideoproductions7359 Yep totally.. 👍 it really depends on how your camera deals with low light. But for sure everyone has differents needs, so there's not a "one-for-all" solution!
How I shoot, I need the F2.8. From the current options out there 24-70mm Sony and sigma, Tamron 35-150mm, and Tamron 28-75mm. The Tamron 28-75mm g2 wins for its weight. For projects 24mm prime gm, 50mm prime gm, and 70-200mm gm ii.
Crazy how light that Tamron is! I couldn't give up the extra focal length though 😅
Heck yeah. We have two and they never come off our FX3s. Amazing lenses.
Oh yea! Nicec👍👍👍
For APS-C users, 18-105 is the golden gem, although Tamron also makes an 18-300 for even more versatility bit not as fast. Faster Focal Ratio is better in low light, not just shallow depth of field.
I'm not on sony - I'm on panasonic after selling off my canon stuff and opted for the 24-105 because I travel and have a toddler and can't be lugging a backpack full of glass around anymore and swapping lenses while my child is running off. I will say though that one reason to get the 24-70 GM II is it's insanely sharp and has great optics maybe the best of any standard zoom ever made. Being said, do you need that? I think your photos with the 24-105 look amazing - so obviously the answer's no especially for landscape/travel type photography. Maybe for mid to high end commercial work where you can justify the cost or maybe as an established wedding photographer. For a lot of us pro-sumer type folks who I think make up a lot of the market flirting that line of higher end enthusiast who takes paid gigs once in a blue moon - the IQ of most your major manufacturers' 24-105 is going to be plenty good to put out portfolio worthy images.
Yes totally agree with this 👍
I have this lens now since 4 weeks too and uploaded a video too 🎥 for me the perfect all in one lens for my small ZVE1 👍 best cinematic greetings from germany
Agree! First lens I bought for Sony and only one I had for a while. I use it less these days as my collection has grown, but if I had to pick one… this might be it.
I only own 5 lenses, and it does all i need it to do.
1, Sony FE 24-70 f2.8 GM ( everyday workhorse
2. Sony FE 16-35 f2.8 GM ( landscapes, real estate.
3. Sony FE 70-200 f4 G OSS (wildlife, portraits.
4. Sony FE 90 Macro f2.8 G OSS (insects, flowers, etc.
5. Sony FE 50 f1.8
That is definitely a nice kit list 👍
Thanks for this video Stan, I'm currently usingbthe 28 - 70 kit lens (started my photo journey in February) and although it's a great starter, I feel I want that little bit more reach to get certain shots in the streets that I feel to uncomfortable getting closer to subject and shooting. I've been looking at thos lens and your video has convinced me that it's what I want to couple my camera before looking at primes in future. Awesome video - informative and answered all the questions I've been asking myself. Subbed and look forward your videos. Oh and nice shots by the way 👍
Glad you enjoyed the video! You can't go wrong with this lens I think 👌
I use that on the RF and yeah it’s amazing they need to make a 24-105 2.8
That would be a dream lens yep! 😍
First lens I bought for my Sony A7S III...a keeper for so many reasons.
Good choice!
I agree with everything
I have canon rf 24-105 and love it
Nice one 👍
DXO mark and various TH-camrs have rated the sharpness of this lens on par or better than the 24-70 GM (gen 1). I’ve had this lens for 3 years and my copy is sharp as balls. I actually tone it down with a Tiffen Glimmer Glass diffusion filter. It’s a fantastic lens and the OSS and reach make it worth it. (I used to have the 24-70 and I do like the rendering on that lens slightly more). On my FX6 and A7Siii the extra stop of light is a nice to have not a need to have. As for bokeh, tons! You just need to step back and zoom in.
I do not have the 24-105 G, but the18-135 F3.5-5.6 OSS lens that actually comes as a kit lens. It is not the sharpest or fastest, and it wasn't worth that much on the used market so I kept, and I find it basically lives on my camera. It is only specific situations that I need specific focal length + aperture.
I just wish it was 2.8, ugh, it’s never leave my camera! Especially with some APSC crop in.
My main glass from the beginning of its released in 2017. More usable for allround lens ...
Nice 👍
Would you choose this over the 20-70 F4 G thanks for the video
Yes, more range!
Again, the best review out there. Thank you Stan. 👏
I appreciate that!
When I moved to full frame Sony, the budget would only allow for one single OP lens. If I could only pick one lens it would be a 24-105 f2.8 but all they make is an f4, so I chose the 24-70 f 2.8 but would sell it in a heart beat if I could get my hands on on imaginary 24/105 f 2.8.
Oh yea 24-105 f2.8 would be pretty awesome 😍
Totally! I’ve used this lens with a7s3 for 6 months. A7s3 high iso def justifies the F4. Also love the oss. But!! Personally I like lumix color more so sold all of them yesterday.
Ok wow thats a major decision! Did you go for the S5ii?
What Panasonic camera do you use? I loved my g80 , but now use Sony.
It's OK, but the 20-70/4 G is better; both optically and in terms of the focal range. 20mm is more useful than 70mm simply because you CAN shoot portraits at 70, but you cannot really get expansive interiors or dramatic landscapes with 24. More importantly, when you graduate to a 2 lens setup, you will be very happy a 20-70/4 with a 85mm prime. You don't really need wide apertures at 20mm and an 85/1.4 or 1.8 will give you the background blur even a 2.8 zoom can't. On the otherhand, pairing a 24-105/4 with a 20/1.8 or 14/1.8 leaves you with a big iris ultra wide whose aperture you don't really need while your portrait work is still hamstrung by the 24-105's F4 aperture.
--
I was an all prime shooter, but I moved to the 20-70/4 as my walkabout. I kept the 85 and 135 for portraiture. I honestly think that is a much better kit than a 24-105/4 with 12-24 or 14/1.8 or 20/1.8. Fast ultra wides are the most useless lenses to lug around. Almost all of my ultra wide shots are done at 5.6~8 anyway.
I used to have a 24-105 on canon RF system and it was great. I have a 28-70 2.8 sigma and its great too. I do miss the reach.
100%! This is my most used lens by a country mile.
Nice one 👍
This is the only lens I've had for years. Its met every style I've needed for it, it's always quality. Yes, I'd love a quality 50mm lens, but the price they are these days is ridiculous.
Thats a great range staying portable. But one other thing to be mentioned is 24 is a really great wide angle focal length if used on full frame only.
I love it. I paired the 24-105 f4 with 16-35 PZ f4, and this combo is great for my needs. I just need a 100-400 GM + 2x converter, but that will have to wait :D
Nice! How is the 16-35 PZ? Was looking at that lens but recently ordered the Tamron 17-28 f2.8
The extending design is a deal-breaker. Also, them saying it's sealed when it extends is an oxymoron.
It depends on the users application... I used a Tamron 28-105 F/ 2:8 for years as my walk around lens; I’ve since stop using it and went back to Prime lens for my application…
Great video, what do you recommend between
A6700 + sigma 17-70 2.8
And
A7iv + this lens you reviewed
For someone who wants to shoot mostly cinematic videos on hikes, travels, motorcycles, cars and potentially make mini films ?
... and, you could try out the Minolta AF version (f3.5 - 4.5), in manual mode with a cheap adapter, just to see what happens when you photograph within these lens lengths. I find that my eyes see certain pictures that reflect the focal length of the lenses I currently use.
While comparing to 24-70 gm surely makes pricing stand out, I wonder if Sigma 24-70 2.8 wont be actually a better alternative? Bokeh will be nicer on Sigma, but obviously you loosing a bit on far end.
Yes the Sigma would be a nice alternative to the Sony 24-70. I don't have any experience with it though...
Guess what - a lot of amateurs realised that years ago. Before that there were incremental improvements to the "mother of all 24-105's, the 35-70 mm lenses of the 1980's. 28-70 mm, 28-85 mm, 24-85 mm ... and finally the 24-105. On my APS-C camera, I use a 16-70 mm which corresponds almost precisely to 24-105 mm on FF. They're almost glued together - except when I need more reach (70-350 mm), greater angle of view (10-20 mm) ... or noiseless zooming (18-105 mm/10-20 mm). I definitely don't need only one lens.
I currently have the 24-70 f2.8 G master. In my opinion it is very sharp and is a bit sharper than the 24-105 f4 G. I prefer that G master
Yes there is a quality difference for sure, also a reasonable price difference! What I don't get is that the 24-70 doesn't have OSS...
@@SightseeingStan true, but a lot of Sony cameras have IBIS so the Lens stabilization it's not so much needed when you have in body stabilization. If you look at Canon cameras, you will notice that the lens stabilization works in collaboration with the In body stabilization, Sony cameras don't work like that. For Sony, the lens stabilization override the camera stabilization. I'm pretty sure thats the case. Correct me if I'm wrong. Enjoy the video though.
@@hopeindesperatetimes74 Wrong, they collaborate: Lens tilts - IBIS shifts.
@@peterrothfels3301 ok, I didn’t know that. Thanks!
thankfully the APS-C alternative is cheaper, smaller and partially better: the 17-55 2.8 types.
And for a good reason nobody talks about a standard zoom on full frame, because its either a standard lens in their lineup so not worth mentioning, or they dont use/need it at all.
If something is the "only lens you really need", its something like a 24-70 2.8 or even 2.0 on full frame with higher MP count to crop in for the missing 35mm focal length.
If you're going to do macro, landscapes or specific then a sony or zeiss f2ish for serious pics. Or even an adapted lens. But for speed and versatility either this or the dinky little plastic 28-60 is very pleasingly sharp and snappy. Even if it has zero switches or buttons.
So right Stan, I like the G lenses, having the 24-105, 70-200/f4 and 200-600 I wish that Sony makes a 24-240 II G OSS F4 , had the 24-240 oss...to heavy, big and slow... focus distance was bad to...
Yes that would be amazing! How is the 200-600??
@@SightseeingStan ,its great on my A9 and I use it on the A6600 to...I use a 1.4x TC with 200-600 +A9 works wel also👍greets from the Netherlands
Whats this lens like for keeping focus when zooming in and out? Im looking for a zoom lens for filming football matches and the current lens i have loses focus when zooming in and out quickly. Cheers.
Pretty much any photography lens will change focus when zooming. What you are referring to is called a "parfocal lens". These lenses don't change focus as you zoom in or out. Typically these are cinema lenses.
@@SightseeingStanso is this lens a photography lens ?
@@GeekyStuff The lens I'm talking about in this video is considered a photography or stills lens yes.
thank you for the video. I'm not confused anymore.
I don't own this lens, but from what I've seen and heard it is a beautiful all-round lens. Personally the lens that lives on my camera is the 28-75mm 2.8 from Tamron. It's marginally longer than the 24-105 and a fair bit lighter. I use the 2.8 aperture a lot and especially after getting an A7R IV I find that I rarely bother carrying longer lenses, since I can easily crop in post.
Would you recommend the A7III for an amateur? And would this lens be a good choice for sports photography? And if not or if there is a better one specifically for that which one would you recommend?Thanks!
Yes, I can definitely recommend the A7iii unless you have the funds for the a7iv. It depends what kind of sports photography, but I would say the range on this lens is too short for sports. I would recommend something longer like a 70-200 or even longer.
So i shoot concerts, and I own the 70-200 2.8 gm ii, which I chose to spend the extra money since i shoot really close up shots with it. Now I’m looking for either this one to add or the 20-70.. i lean towards this one cause price is really good. But at concerts, shooting in low lighting is hard so I’m doubting if the 2.8 is a better option… sharpness wise I don’t really have a fav since I will shoot mostly wide overview shots with it and no insane close ups.
In low light situations, the 2.8 aperture could be beneficial that's for sure...
Furthermore Stan, u have just blown your cover: A Belgium Photographer living in Germany. No such person exists because if there was such a photographer, he would never choose a F4 lens living in dark & dreary Germany. So now, the gig is up. We know you really are a CIA Operative shooting in Arizona. Don't feel bad, we'll still keep listening to the lens lecture till the end. 😎😎
Ahh dang it, the jig is up!! 🕵️♂️
This is what I believe LTT uses on all their standard shooting setups. It's a perfect length.
Its all about your style and type of photography. Its nothing to do with the only lens you need. On my MFT body I have a 12 -50mm ( 24 - 100 l) with a button set for 2X maginification! It suits what I take.
And turn your camera to APC and it is more tele. For work is best, for travel it is a bit haevy.
Yes so true! 👍
I have the Sigma version on my Nikon. Great lens. The 24-70 is also useful.
Yep I bet the Sigma also does a great job! And the 24-70 definitely has its uses, but if I have to choose, I'd choose the 24-105
Thanks for the review!
My pleasure!
I think there's enough foreground/background separation from 50mm or so for F/4, but it would've been really nice to have F/2.8 on the wide end, maybe a 24-105 F/2.8 to 4.5 or something, that would be so useful!
The sigma 24/70 f2.8 is at the same price than the 24/105, and it is almost as good as the GM. So in terms of price I’ll go with sigma.
And that extra light step it’s a huge deal for me, because in order to have the same exposure you will have to double the amount of ISO. And that’s maybe the deal breaker for me. Of course a Sony a7iv can handle higher ISO, but it still isn’t the same 1250 than 2500, or 2500 than 5000.
I was just about to buy the 24/105 but I tried the sigma and it changes my mind, maybe you should try it too! And make another awesome video like this comparing them both!
Would definitely be interesting to try out the Sigma and do a comparison. And I do get the importance of that stop of light when you're dealing with very dark situations and having to really push your ISO as high as something like 5000. But I would say that for most people these are more out of the ordinary situations.
@@SightseeingStan,
Question. With the OSS turned on, couldn’t you slow down the shutter speed to make up for that one stop loss but still have that extra reach of 70 to 105?
@@nomad0714 Yes of course for photography there's more flexibility there. If you're doing video it's a different story.
I still own the one from Minolta ... just a pity they did'nt keep the same mount ...
I had 24-105, but the image quality did not suit me. Poor autofocus and sharpness, I specifically looked at the photo and found that accurate autofocus on the eyes is only a few percent, in general soap. Then I looked at offers on the market for used lenses, 24-105 was among the market leaders. When I saw in tests that the maximum resolution at a covered aperture is about 3300 lines at 35 mm, (the sensor length is indicated here), and the new 24-70 already has 4900 lines at 35 mm at aperture 2.8, I immediately decided to buy this lens. I'm still impressed with the image quality. color and autofocus.
Which lens did you buy and when you refer to 24-70 are you referring to the gm 2 version?
@@bijosn Yes, of course Sony 24-70 f2.8GM-II. I see no reason to take mediocre optics.
what does its means xXX lines ? how did you get this information ?
What is this guy talking about?... 24-105 is beautiful and the 24-70 is awesome. 2 great lens, I love them both.
@@humain_humain1465there are plenty of tests out there..
Tamron 17-70mm f/2 .8 for APS-C 🤩
What do you think about Tamron 28-200mm? I'd figure this is perfect balance of price/performance with amazing zoom
My copy was not sharp compared to all my other zoom lenses .Best focal range Sony wants to try and produce a version 2 with a more sharp image . The original version wasn’t sharp on photos or videos .Really soft unfortunately.
What about Sony's own 18-105?
I really love your photos. Good stuff.
Thanks so much!
I understand all the pros of the lens. But what if you want to shoot a foto in low light situations?
i got the 20-70g, because its sharper, and adds better to the 70-200 gmII. sold the 24-105g.❤
Some people sully their cameras with unclean zoom lenses.
Others heed the dire warnings about what happens to such wretches and their stained cameras.
Do you recommend mounting this lens on Sony a 6400?
Does it work well with a 2x telescope lens adapter? I was looking at the 24-240mm lens but might this be better with the 2x adapter?
Thanks for this video. I'll pat myself on the back for making a good buy
Nice one 👍
Its good for normal work but not accurate job. Take portarait with F/1.2 than you can see the difference. F/4 is fantastic for 400~600 mm lens
Had both and 20-70 G is much more useful range, smaller, sharper and faster AF....