Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS

[ReeRay]

Hi All

 

I'm considering buying the above as a walk around lens and would appreciate any users reviews. I currently use a 28mm, 35mm, 55mm and 85mm on my A7r mk 1 and I'm very pleased with all but carrying them around and constantly changes lenses is becomes tedious and a zoom lens seems the obvious choice. I'm attracted to the extended focal range also of the above.

 

Would anyone care to offer their view on image quality, weight, and handling of the 24-105mm.

 

Thanks in advance

 

 

[Steve F]

Hiya, I'm very pleased with it, it is my go-to walkaround lens. Build quality is very good. Image quality is very good, slightly soft towards the edges, but only when pixel peeping and standard for zooms. Weight is fine for me, very easy to use one handed when you're holding the camera with the other hand. Switches all easily accessible and focus / zoom ring movement is smooth. 

 

Obviously it's significantly cheaper than the Sony 24-70 F2.8 GMii. And the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 fills the equivalent cheaper bracket for the Sony G lens. 

 

But as you point out, the 24-105 has a longer range, meaning less changing of lenses.

 

FYI, my other lenses are the Sony 50mm F2.5, Sony 90mm G F2.8 Macro and the Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DN OS. The 24-105 zoom is my go to, especially for stock. I've had a fair few lenses over the years. Pretty happy with the current collection.

 

Pretty sure this lens has been covered on the Forum before, either on its own, or as a Sony lens discussion. Edo did have one, but said he found it too heavy. I'm fine with it, but I'm slightly younger than Edo... I also don't use a neck strap anymore, I use a wrist strap. The camera either sits in a shoulder bag or if I use my backpack, I clip it onto the shoulder straps for easy access (looks very professional!)

Edited July 20, 2023 by Steve F

[ReeRay]

21 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Hiya, I'm very pleased with it, it is my go-to walkaround lens. Build quality is very good. Image quality is very good, slightly soft towards the edges, but only when pixel peeping and standard for zooms. Weight is fine for me, very easy to use one handed when you're holding the camera with the other hand. Switches all easily accessible and focus / zoom ring movement is smooth. 

 

Obviously it's significantly cheaper than the Sony 24-70 F2.8 GMii. And the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 fills the equivalent cheaper bracket for the Sony G lens. 

 

But as you point out, the 24-105 has a longer range, meaning less changing of lenses.

 

FYI, my other lenses are the Sony 50mm F2.5, Sony 90mm G F2.8 Macro and the Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DN OS. The 24-105 zoom is my go to, especially for stock. I've had a fair few lenses over the years. Pretty happy with the current collection.

 

Pretty sure this lens has been covered on the Forum before, either on its own, or as a Sony lens discussion. Edo did have one, but said he found it too heavy. I'm fine with it, but I'm slightly younger than Edo... I also don't use a neck strap anymore, I use a wrist strap. The camera either sits in a shoulder bag or if I use my backpack, I clip it onto the shoulder straps for easy access (looks very professional!)

Thanks for that Steve. Seems to put to rest all my doubts. Appreciate your input.

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

Hiya, I'm very pleased with it, it is my go-to walkaround lens. Build quality is very good. Image quality is very good, slightly soft towards the edges, but only when pixel peeping and standard for zooms. Weight is fine for me, very easy to use one handed when you're holding the camera with the other hand. Switches all easily accessible and focus / zoom ring movement is smooth. 

 

Obviously it's significantly cheaper than the Sony 24-70 F2.8 GMii. And the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 fills the equivalent cheaper bracket for the Sony G lens. 

 

But as you point out, the 24-105 has a longer range, meaning less changing of lenses.

 

FYI, my other lenses are the Sony 50mm F2.5, Sony 90mm G F2.8 Macro and the Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DN OS. The 24-105 zoom is my go to, especially for stock. I've had a fair few lenses over the years. Pretty happy with the current collection.

 

Pretty sure this lens has been covered on the Forum before, either on its own, or as a Sony lens discussion. Edo did have one, but said he found it too heavy. I'm fine with it, but I'm slightly younger than Edo... I also don't use a neck strap anymore, I use a wrist strap. The camera either sits in a shoulder bag or if I use my backpack, I clip it onto the shoulder straps for easy access (looks very professional!)

 

I have the Sony 90mm as well. Lovely lens, very sharp images from it, and when used on my a6500 body is 135mm equiv.  It is also my copying lens when on my Sony A7 mkII body.

 

Allan

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by Allan Bell

[Steve F]

45 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I have the Sony 90mm as well. Lovely lens, very sharp images from it, and when used on my a6500 body is 135mm equiv.  It is also my copying lens when on my Sony A7 mkII body.

 

Allan

 

 

Best image quality I've had from a lens. Also quite like the unusual push-pull arrangement for manual/auto focus.

[Phil]

I've been using this lens with a Sony A7IV for a while - mostly for video but some stills as well. 

 

Fine lens - no complaints.  Focal range is very useful and images are sharp. As it's f/4 glass and not 2.8 weight not an issue.  Note that it is an external zoom lens if that matters.

[ReeRay]

10 hours ago, Phil said:

I've been using this lens with a Sony A7IV for a while - mostly for video but some stills as well. 

 

Fine lens - no complaints.  Focal range is very useful and images are sharp. As it's f/4 glass and not 2.8 weight not an issue.  Note that it is an external zoom lens if that matters.

Thanks for the input Phil

[Ed Rooney]

On 20/07/2023 at 16:42, Steve F said:

 

Pretty sure this lens has been covered on the Forum before, either on its own, or as a Sony lens discussion. Edo did have one, but said he found it too heavy. I'm fine with it, but I'm slightly younger than Edo.

 

Everyone is slightly younger than me, Steve F.

 

However, I never owned that Sony Zoom so I could not find it too heavy. What I found too heavy was the Nikon D700 with any lens. 

Edited July 23, 2023 by Ed Rooney

[Ed Rooney]

 

I bought this lens new at John Lewis this morning. It cost just £719 and there's a payback.  😃

[ReeRay]

2 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

I bought this lens new at John Lewis this morning. It cost just £719 and there's a payback.  😃

Curious Ed- What body you using it on and what's your opinion on the combined weight

[Ed Rooney]

 

I won't take possession of the lens until tomorrow.  I'll let you know what I think of the weight and sharpness in a few days. I'll have it on a Sony FE a6000 body. I have a very good sample of the Sony 10-18 F4 on that old body now. So I'll have an effective range of 15mm to 150mm with the two zooms. Both zooms have IS.

 

Thanks for bringing this up, ReeRay. 

 

 

[Steve F]

3 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

I bought this lens new at John Lewis this morning. It cost just £719 and there's a payback.  😃

 

Cost me £1,200 new.... 🙈

But I did get it when it first came out.

[Ed Rooney]

 

John Lewis sent me the wrong lens. It was not a mistake by the warehouse. The clerk ordered the wrong zoom . . . and I failed to notice. What do I plan to do? I don't know. I now own a Sony 24-240 f3.5-6.3. It is 4.65" long (the 24-105 is 4.44"). It weighs 1.72 lbs. The 24-105 weighs 1.49 lbs. Neither Zoom will fit as I hoped into my smaller bag with my 10-18. I'm very unhappy about this. The last thing I need right now is another digital problem. I may just give up photography.

[NYCat]

No no. Not allowed to give up. You'll know what to do after a bit. I've been in a state about one of my friendships and I am waiting, waiting until the way forward becomes clear. Don't give anything up. I usually say that about rent-stabilized apartments but, of course, you had no choice.

 

Paulette

[ReeRay]

1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

John Lewis sent me the wrong lens. It was not a mistake by the warehouse. The clerk ordered the wrong zoom . . . and I failed to notice. What do I plan to do? I don't know. I now own a Sony 24-240 f3.5-6.3. It is 4.65" long (the 24-105 is 4.44"). It weighs 1.72 lbs. The 24-105 weighs 1.49 lbs. Neither Zoom will fit as I hoped into my smaller bag with my 10-18. I'm very unhappy about this. The last thing I need right now is another digital problem. I may just give up photography.

Why not just return it for the correct lens and then buy a larger bag ? Problem solved. Don't give up Ed, these problems are the things that keep us going, and don't I know it!

[sb photos]

Ed, If me I would arrange to return. It isn't your fault they shipped the wrong lens. Although the 24-240 is only slightly heavier than the 24-105, the long end might be problematic. A 24-105 or 24-120 are great general purpose lenses. I leave my Nikon 16-80 f2.8-f4 (equivalent to 24-120) on one of my D500's continuously. Often if I just take out one camera and lens it's that combination. 1.72 lbs isn't that heavy, my Nikon 80-400 is 3.46 lbs. Think it over before deciding what to do.

Edited July 25, 2023 by sb photos

[Allan Bell]

2 hours ago, sb photos said:

Ed, If me I would arrange to return. It isn't your fault they shipped the wrong lens. Although the 24-240 is only slightly heavier than the 24-105, the long end might be problematic. A 24-105 or 24-120 are great general purpose lenses. I leave my Nikon 16-80 f2.8-f4 (equivalent to 24-120) on one of my D500's continuously. Often if I just take out one camera and lens it's that combination. 1.72 lbs isn't that heavy, my Nikon 80-400 is 3.46 lbs. Think it over before deciding what to do.

 

I had the 24 - 240mm lens for a short time this year to try out on my May/June holiday. I sold it when I got back as I thought it was rubbish.  The images from it are not good at any focal length and I am still having problems trying to process those images to be suitable to upload to Alamy. So far I think I have been lucky as they all passed QC.

 

I still have over 200 images of Knaresborough taken with that lens and am thinking of dumping them as being too much trouble.

 

I have already suggested to Edo that he takes the bl****y thing back for a refund.

 

Allan

 

[Ed Rooney]

 

And that's what I will be doing tomorrow, returning the bl****y thing for a refund. I've changed my mind about getting the 24-105 f4. 

 

I have a bigger bag, ReeRay. A Domke. I also have a half-fixed broken arm. And I feel that I spent enough years carrying a weighty kit. 

[Ed Rooney]

 

By the way . . . John Lewis wants £1,099 for the 24-105 f4, with a £200 payback. 

[Allan Bell]

11 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

By the way . . . John Lewis wants £1,099 for the 24-105 f4, with a £200 payback. 

 

WEX would have been a cheaper bet then.

 

Allan

 

[Mr Standfast]

Went for a walk today with 23mm and 50mm prime lenses. Just sayin'...

[Mr Standfast]

7 hours ago, NYCat said:

No no. Not allowed to give up. You'll know what to do after a bit. I've been in a state about one of my friendships and I am waiting, waiting until the way forward becomes clear. Don't give anything up. I usually say that about rent-stabilized apartments but, of course, you had no choice.

 

Paulette

+1

[John Mitchell]

42 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

Went for a walk today with 23mm and 50mm prime lenses. Just sayin'...

 

These days, I usually walk around with my compact Sony a6000 and two lightweight kit lenses -- tiny Sony 16-50 (4.1.oz) and a Sony 55-210 (12.2 oz). They fit into a small Tamrac bag that I've had for eons. Admittedly, they aren't superb lenses, but they do the job most of the time. No point in breaking the bank or the back... 😝

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by John Mitchell

[Rebecca Ore]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

These days, I usually walk around with my compact Sony a6000 and two lightweight kit lenses -- tiny Sony 16-50 (4.1.oz) and a Sony 55-210 (12.2 oz). They fit into a small Tamrac bag that I've had for eons. Admittedly, they aren't superb lenses, but they do the job most of the time. No point in breaking the bank or the back..

 

My own 55-210 developed fungus as your first one did, and I've sent it to one of Luis's friends who may be able to clean it.   As you say, not a superb lens, but I've licensed at least one photo from it, and anything that could do better would be both heavier and considerably more expensive.   B&H has them new for around $300.  I bought mine used from them many years ago. 

 

Interesting Tin House video where Scott says that compelling photography isn't about technical excellence but about the emotional connections of the photo itself, the story. 

 

But looked at another photo of mine, and I may roll the dice again for another a7.  Sharp can be part of the story. 

[John Mitchell]

3 hours ago, Rebecca Ore said:

 

My own 55-210 developed fungus as your first one did, and I've sent it to one of Luis's friends who may be able to clean it.   As you say, not a superb lens, but I've licensed at least one photo from it, and anything that could do better would be both heavier and considerably more expensive.   B&H has them new for around $300.  I bought mine used from them many years ago. 

 

Interesting Tin House video where Scott says that compelling photography isn't about technical excellence but about the emotional connections of the photo itself, the story. 

 

But looked at another photo of mine, and I may roll the dice again for another a7.  Sharp can be part of the story. 

 

Interesting that yours also developed fungus. I guess the 55-210 isn't sealed very well. As I mentioned somewhere else, I bought a used replacement (later version), and it's much better in every way -- sharpness, contrast, OSS, and build quality -- than the old one. Try to get one of the newer versions if you're shopping around for a replacement. I'm wondering if my original was a fake of some kind. Be careful if you get the lens cleaned. Apparently it's easy to infect the camera body and other lenses if there are still spores. I decided to ditch mine. I've licensed a fair number of images captured with this lens.

Edited July 26, 2023 by John Mitchell