Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ken Rockwell reviewed that lens. His conclusion. Good: everything. Bad: nothing.

 

I have been thinking about that lens for sometime and would be interested in the experiences of actual users too.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it was the first lens I got for my A7iii. I find that the weight is fine, it doesn't feel like it is particularly front heavy mounted on the camera. Optical quality is very good. It's my go to lens generally. Most of the pictures in my port since the A7iii came out are taken with this lens (including the recent flower shots - I didn't have my macro with me). I would recommend it.

Edited by Steve F
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Yes, it was the first lens I got for my A7iii. I find that the weight is fine, it doesn't feel like it is particularly front heavy mounted on the camera. Optical quality is very good. It's my go to lens generally. Most of the pictures in my port since the A7iii came out are taken with this lens (including the recent flower shots - I didn't have my macro with me). I would recommend it.

+1 to Steve’s comments. I moved to Sony about 3 months ago and purchased this as my first lens. I honestly can’t fault it at as a walk around lens that covers the focal range that I use for probably 95% of my photography :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. In Montreal in July of 2018, I was trying to buy this Sony FE 24-105 f4 G OSS. They did not have one in the city. I had just sold the rent-stabilised lease on my flat on Mulberry St in NYC. I was financially stable, waiting for my Irish passport, on my way to Spain. 

 

Wim was having trouble finding the lens too. He recommended the budget Sony 28-70, amazingly good for the money. I already had a Sony 10-18 for my a6000. I bought the 28-70 and the Sony RX100/6. The 6 has been great as my go-to camera these past two years. 

 

All that worked out fine . . . but I'm ready for a change. I need something to change. But oh, this baby is so expensive. 1,099 UK pounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Hmmm. In Montreal in July of 2018, I was trying to buy this Sony FE 24-105 f4 G OSS. They did not have one in the city. I had just sold the rent-stabilised lease on my flat on Mulberry St in NYC. I was financially stable, waiting for my Irish passport, on my way to Spain. 

 

Wim was having trouble finding the lens too. He recommended the budget Sony 28-70, amazingly good for the money. I already had a Sony 10-18 for my a6000. I bought the 28-70 and the Sony RX100/6. The 6 has been great as my go-to camera these past two years. 

 

All that worked out fine . . . but I'm ready for a change. I need something to change. But oh, this baby is so expensive. 1,099 UK pounds.

Well it will definitely give you a longer reach than the 28-70. You'll be able to sell the kit lens for some ££ too. Do you feel like you're missing something with the RX100/6? I guess if your sales are ok, you can justify the expenditure like that! Although I don't think I'm ever going to break even on my kit at the rate things are going.... 😆

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

All that worked out fine . . . but I'm ready for a change. I need something to change. But oh, this baby is so expensive. 1,099 UK pounds.

 

Hmmm... let's see. That's about $1895 Canadian.

 

What do I think? Sounds like a nice lens but far too expensive for stock photography, especially these days. :huh:

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much it weighs? Possibly a bit top heavy on a crop frame body, while my experiences with other Sony lenses has not been great. Having just invested in a RX100 V probably not for me.

 

If I were a full time pro then it would make good sense on a FF body, and the price is what you pay for a decent modern lens, but, as John says, probably not a good investment for stock only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bryan said:

I wonder how much it weighs? Possibly a bit top heavy on a crop frame body, while my experiences with other Sony lenses has not been great. Having just invested in a RX100 V probably not for me.

 

If I were a full time pro then it would make good sense on a FF body, and the price is what you pay for a decent modern lens, but, as John says, probably not a good investment for stock only.

 

Don't listen to me, though. I'm frugal by design and cheap by necessity. 🤣

 

I've long admired your successful use of legacy MF lenses with your Sony cameras. Keep up the good work. There's a lot to be said for parsimony.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It weighs 1.46 lbs. Although I'm not crazy about spending the money, I'm not thinking about it as an investment. I'm getting into a rut repeating myself. I need a change, and moving from a pocket RX100 to a camera that is more like a camera is one change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bryan said:

I wonder how much it weighs? Possibly a bit top heavy on a crop frame body, while my experiences with other Sony lenses has not been great. Having just invested in a RX100 V probably not for me.

 

If I were a full time pro then it would make good sense on a FF body, and the price is what you pay for a decent modern lens, but, as John says, probably not a good investment for stock only.

 

Hmmm! When you put it like that perhaps I should reconsider the purchase of the 24 -105m f4 lens and just make do with my 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 200-600mm, 50mm and 90mm macro lenses.

 

Allan

 

Edited by Allan Bell
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness, Allan—you seem to be well covered in glass. 

 

When younger, using film, I worked with primes. I walked around with three cameras hanging on me and a few extra lenses in a shoulder bag. With digital, I use mostly zooms and now smaller mirrorless cameras, all Sonys: RX100-V, RX100/6, RX10 (24-200), a6000 with 10-18, 28-70, and a 50mm f1.8. 

 

I'm considering carrying a small shoulder bag with the a6000 and the 10-18 and 24-105 f4 with an RX100 in a pocket. Maybe I will do that. Maybe I won't. And the Sony 24-105 f4? It's still hard to find one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

And the Sony 24-105 f4? It's still hard to find one. 

 

Guess that shows it's still popular! Good luck with whatever decision you make

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

Goodness, Allan—you seem to be well covered in glass. 

 

When younger, using film, I worked with primes. I walked around with three cameras hanging on me and a few extra lenses in a shoulder bag. With digital, I use mostly zooms and now smaller mirrorless cameras, all Sonys: RX100-V, RX100/6, RX10 (24-200), a6000 with 10-18, 28-70, and a 50mm f1.8. 

 

I'm considering carrying a small shoulder bag with the a6000 and the 10-18 and 24-105 f4 with an RX100 in a pocket. Maybe I will do that. Maybe I won't. And the Sony 24-105 f4? It's still hard to find one. 

 

Those are for the serious work. For walkabout I use the RX100 mk3 mostly but also have an a6000 with Samyang AF24mm, AF35mm and AF45mm primes.

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stokie said:

WexPhotographic have them in stock, and they have a second hand one too.

 

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/search/?q=Sony+FE+24-105mm+f4+G+OSS+Lens&search_type=All

 

John.

 

You could also try MPB they have 14 SH in stock.

 

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/brands/sony/

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it at Wilkinson for the standard price. I'm about to unbox it. I won't be doing a video. Has this lifted my spirts? No. I feel sick. 🥵

 

Now I can get back to the issues of my building's new management and the MacBook Air WiFi connection. When does the fun begin? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding MPB, who I've done at lot of business with and like them:  I don't trust deliveries with my building's problems at the moment, and I don't see the savings as being enough to buy used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, what I've been carrying for 2-3 years now is a bag with a6000/10-18mm, and a6300/18-105mm.

 

The 18-105mm is a G lens, f4, with internal focus and zoom. Been working fine for Alamy purposes. It's $650 at most places; I see Walmart, of all places, has a few for $570.

 

Downsides of the 18-105 are: it's zoom-by-wire, which doesn't bother me; and if it's idle for a few minutes, it reverts to widest-angle, which I find annoying.

Edited by Bill Kuta
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did consider the 18-105 f4 G, Bill. Nothing much wrong with that lens but I decided no on it. The deed is done; I now own a FE 24-105. 

 

It will take some getting used to. The 1.5 pound weight is more than I hoped or thought. I'm going to have to change the wrist strap I have on my a6000 to a neck/shoulder strap. I think I might have one here somewhere. The a6000 with the 24-105 on and the 10-18 just fit into my smaller shoulder bag, but that might not work for a walk around. 

 

Have I done something stupid and unnecessary? Oh yeah. And not for the first time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

I did consider the 18-105 f4 G, Bill. Nothing much wrong with that lens but I decided no on it. The deed is done; I now own a FE 24-105. 

 

It will take some getting used to. The 1.5 pound weight is more than I hoped or thought. I'm going to have to change the wrist strap I have on my a6000 to a neck/shoulder strap. I think I might have one here somewhere. The a6000 with the 24-105 on and the 10-18 just fit into my smaller shoulder bag, but that might not work for a walk around. 

 

Have I done something stupid and unnecessary? Oh yeah. And not for the first time.

 

You are not alone.🤪

 

Allan

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

I did consider the 18-105 f4 G, Bill. Nothing much wrong with that lens but I decided no on it. The deed is done; I now own a FE 24-105. 

 

It will take some getting used to. The 1.5 pound weight is more than I hoped or thought. I'm going to have to change the wrist strap I have on my a6000 to a neck/shoulder strap. I think I might have one here somewhere. The a6000 with the 24-105 on and the 10-18 just fit into my smaller shoulder bag, but that might not work for a walk around. 

 

Have I done something stupid and unnecessary? Oh yeah. And not for the first time.

Kick that buyer’s remorse out and focus (pun) on the excitement of shooting with a brand new, shiny lens. Weight? Just think of the muscles you’ll build up.

Signed, 

Forever the Optimist

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

Kick that buyer’s remorse out and focus (pun) on the excitement of shooting with a brand new, shiny lens. Weight? Just think of the muscles you’ll build up.

Signed, 

Forever the Optimist

 

New stuff is always exciting, but I find that inevitably "the new wears off of your crystal chandeliers" (with no disrespect meant to Charley Pride). 😉

 

Those be expensive muscles...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the zoom for a walk—a new high in sharpness! I bought a crappy shoulder strap for too much money. I'll put that on the a6000 in the morning. The camera with this lens weighs 2.22 pounds, which is about 1 kilo, the same as the hand weights I use. 

 

It seems I'm just as invisible doing Street with this kit; it must be true that I can cloud men's minds so they cannot see me. 

 

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.