only 2 minutes in, but your delivery and use of music is such a breath of fresh air compared to most other camera influencers. also well leveled audio!
slight oversight is not mentioning OSS on 24-105 and sigma doesnt have any optical stabilization. Which also translates to low light shooting scenarios with non IBIS cameras... and for video OSS helps a lot with fx6 etc
I agree, I have the 24-105 and 24-70 GM II and I think most people will get more out of the extra length rather than the faster lens. I think they are both great but one is significantly more costly.
Very good comparison ! I'd really like to see how the Sony lenses color cast compares to Tamron lenses. Not many youtubers does comparison like you do by giving advices of what types of content to create with what type of lens, like the wildlife, landscape, street photography stuff. I think it's the best kind of videos to watch before buying gears. Thank you for those great videos !
With oss you could slow down the shutter speed instead of cranking the iso and control the noise. As long as you’re not too slow and matching your focal length your image should be sharp.
My Lens came in today. Sony - FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS Standard Zoom Lens (SEL24105G/2) - I am currently on a business trip and have to wait a few days before I can mess with it. I'm pretty excited to use it. I've been using the 28-70mm lens and it's weak compared to the G master lens. Can't wait.
I own both the Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS and Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN lenses, and have made award-winning shots with both. Love them both, not selling either. I use them with my current Sony A1, A7RV, A9III for all subjects I photograph around the world. Cheers and thanks
@@mubarakt167 sigma is obviously sharper, but truly, they're both indifferent when not compared to each other side by side. People have to realize that nobody would spot such miniscule differences in sharpness or colour shift unless they're set beside each other. Focus on the functionality, the Sony has OSS, for video work and for slow shutter speed work, that's a bonus, Sigma focuses closer, and has a stop of additional light extra. There are wins and losses for both.
The thing I noticed was how much better the stabilization was with the 24-105 vs the Sigma. I bought the 24-70 gmii but I'm thinking about returning it for the 24-105. Yes, it's great, but it's overkill for me. I think I'd be better off with the 24-105 and 35 1.4 GM. I also have the 20 G 1.8 for UWA. I absolutely LOVE the 35 focal length and can use that for low light situations. What do you think of that set up?
First, replacing 2470GM with 24105 is a good idea. It doesn't have to be that good because you already have a fantastic prime 20mm F1.8. But if I were you I wouldn't get 35mm F1.4 because it's close to 20mm. If I have to choose some prime, it would be 50mm or 85mm.
For me, on an A7 IV body, the Sigma is the way to go. With the A7 IV APS-C crop mode you get the same effective focal range of 24-105, with 105mm at an f4.2 equivalent. With IBIS, OSS becomes less important, but I think it is possibly still a small improvement when combined? So essentially, for the price you're choosing between saving weight or having f2.8 and better optics.
I have owned both lenses. I rarely used the 24-70 because it didnt have the range that I wanted in 90% of my shooting scenarios. I would even swap it for a prime 85 just for the extra range. Now that I own the f4 I almost never take it off my camera. I could confidently travel with only the f4 lens and not stress about potentially missing shots. PLUS the low light performance is a non issue since you can recover most details in post processing.
My thing with the sigma is the dust issue. People are having issues even after it has been “fixed” and with newer models that aren’t supposed to have the issue.
I Have Both. 24-105 Mostly living in my Camera body A7III. i use Sigma 24-70 only for group photoshoot or indoor with poor lighting condition. Fact : sigma 24-70 more sharp than sony 24-105
Great review, thank you. I do wish Sony or Sigma could make this lens so that the body does not extend out. I could live with a longer lens, but when it "grows" out, it breathes and dust may come inside and it's a lot bulkier.
Good RU-vid video made for RU-vid video makers.I find most of Sony’s lenses now somewhat disappointing for what they cost .From a long time hobbyists photography A long time ago.
hello congratulations for your videos and I apologize for the translation, but I'm Italian. I wanted to ask you something, does the SIGMA 24-70 have a stabilizer? Thank you
Great content, I’m a beginner, just received my a7iv yesterday, but now I’m struggling with these two, my major purposes are traveling and shooting some photos for my families, and a bit city street shooting, which one is the best choice for me, bro?
Dude, I almost died thinking you will drop them all 😅 Great video as always, especially the bokeh comparison! If money is not an issue the 24-70 GM II looks so delicious 🤤 2.8 with the weight of the 24-105 🤤 For my Sony kit I have the 24-105 and combine it with the 35mm 1.4 GM. Got both of them used on a good deal and that 35 1.4 GM covers my low light and bokeh needs 😎 Keep rocking Kensei, really like your content!
for video shooting with sony. lens ois is essential for natural stabilizing. sony fullframe ibis is poor because there's no enough space for sensor shift control in small body.
most of the time a focal length of about 50mm is used, the 24-70 lens fits perfectly and replaces 3 prime lenses. 105mm gives us a bit of zoom but we lose sharpness, light and bokeh. If you have a sharp photo, you can always crop it a little.
Do you think the Sony 24-105 lens would be good for product photography? For something the size of a small bottle. Would put this on Sony a7 iii. If so that would be ideal to be able to have one lens to do that plus any video work.
Hi, excellent comparision. Very helpfull. I need to buy some lens to shoot wedding videos. Which one of theese two would you choose? I have a7IV, it can record in high iso quite well. More than half day I will shoot indoor. Thank you.
I have FE20 F1.8 G and I wanted to have only two lens. So please suggest me that should buy the lens below, 1) FE70-200 F4 G OSS 2) FE24-105 F4 G OSS 3) Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG DN (A) 4) Tamron 70-180 F2.8 DI lll
Ok i have a question. Why you suggest the Sony's 24-105 f4 good for Landscape or Nature photography despite of Sigma is more sharper than Sony, because if iam not wrong the sharp lens is good for details in Landscape photos.
@@ajgallegos7432 yes, though at times f1.8 would be helpful due to the low light. I use an a7siii which is pretty nice in low light, so even when I raise my ISO, I haven't needed to use noise reduction.
I'm really glad to be someone who rarely shoots under F5.6. F8 usually, F11 often. It makes these decisions SO EASY. I'll take the lighter one that in addition to being totally sharp at my F-srops... also has an extra 35mm tele and OSS, NEXT! Otherwise its incredibly hard to pick an all around lens. Tamron 28-75, Sigma 28-70, Sony 24-70, Sony 24-105, Sigma 24-70... Yeesh. And they're all good too ha.
Zooms are cool because of their versatility but i prefer always primes. If they are not to heavy zooms are also great for travelling. My zooms are all F4 (12-24, 24-105, 70-200) because less weight. 2.8 are to heavy for me and for real low light, really good subject separation or really good bokeh vou need a good prime. For this I have my GM 135 1.8, G 90m 2.8 Macro, GM 50mm 1.4, GM 14mm 1.8 for their perfect look and the Batis-Line for its colors and different character. Yes, I have GAS. I prefer to use different lenses, depending what I am doing and what is my mood. There is no lens for everything. 2.8 Zooms are for me a expensive and heavy bad compromise. But thats my taste.
Hey do you ever have issue with focusing the 24-105? Recently if I change focal lengths it won’t be able to focus. I have to mess with by changing the focal lengths or turning of the camera.
Thanks you are a least honest. Most just say get the 2.8. I have my Tamron 28-75 g2. Will stick with it for a while. What do you recommend as my second lens?
Thanks for the video. Sometimes I think about trading in the 24-105 for a 28-70 but these reviews help me keep what I have. I recently picked up the 70-200ii which is just next level. I haven't seen videos suggesting there is a 24-70 on the same level. So my next lens will likely be a fast 50mm prime. For portraits 2.8 still isn't fast enough to create totally dreamy shots. So I'll have 20mm g 1.8 24-105 f4 70-200 gmii and finally 50mm 1.2. any suggestions?
Sony 24-105mm the only one lens I have, of course I know it's not the sharpest lens, but versatility and size my priority. For low light I am thinking of purchasing 35mm f1.8.
I have a Sony A7 IV and a primary Sony 24-105mm f4 video lens, as there is much needed optical stabilization for video. As for sharpness, maybe I just got lucky with this lens, since it is not inferior in sharpness to any of my existing lenses. And I also have Sigma 14-24mm f2.8, Samyang 45mm f1.8, Samyang 85mm f1.4 and Tamron 70-180mm f2.8. So it makes little difference to me if I need to shoot video in lower light.
I have seen a Sony A74 with a 24-105 for the price of £3,149.00 UK Pounds. Which I would love to purchase. I am also looking for a Nikon D780 and Nikon Z5 with the Nikon 24-120 mm lens attached. I am currently using the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-F4 on my Nikon D5500 which is excellent. But I do also intend to purchase the Nikon 16-80mm F.2.8-F4 lens.
And finally, when you watch some movies, you realize that the f5.6 lens has a narrower DoF than the movie you're watching. But by now it seems that if you don't use an f1.4, you don't have a "cinematic" look.But any Hollywood movies use a super narrow DoF.
Sir i want crisp photos. Amazing sharpnes best dyminc range. Excilent lowlight photography and daylight . Which camera body and lense best for me 2023...plzzz guide me...
Hiii, I will get a Sony 24-105 F4 for my Sony a7 iii and I will try to work with sports photos, with low light.. I really hope some advice and hope it will be a great purchase for me! haha thanks for the awesome video! Regards from Bolivia! :) sorry for my english xD
Man, I've been just binge watching your videos and I was just stuck wondering between these two and you uploaded this video today/yesterday, lol! I still can not decide, I think I like the Sony colors better, and if I would make handheld videos the OSS for sure helps. Is lens that would be great companion with the Sony 24-105 that is for low light or street photography? Also, I keep hearing about the dust thing and the sigma 24-70 f2.8, is that common with the sony 24-105 G?
Zoom lenses get dusts in the glass in general, but it's not gonna affect the image that much. If you use the lens, that happens. Well, if you know you spend a lot on a street, I would say F2.8 is a better choice.
Unless you’re a super pro pixel peeper go with the 24-105. I’ve had both and sold my 24-70 as I rarely needed the f2.8. Besides, the A74 is super at higher ISO’s as is the A73
I mostly do travel photography and general shooting so I love the 24-105. But occasionally I’ll do portraits and wedding photography so I want the 2.8. I really don’t know what to do. Also price is a factor so I only want 1 lens
In your option and others may reply. Is the sony lens 24 to 105 sharper than a newer cellphone? I have an S21+ I shoot a lot of landscape photos when I go hiking.
That's interesting. I think Tamron's image quality is better especially in sharpness. And it has F2. But I'm going for sony24105 because of its mobility and usability.
@@KenseiAkatsu cause 8bit isnt enough .. And if you make reviews with lens ,its better to do it with 10 bit camera.. I had a7iii for 2+ years but now with a7iv its diferent story... Do it and you dont regret it! Time has come!cheers from Greece!
I find the Sony lens looks a lot more pleasant and cinematic. Probably because its not so overly sharp. Also the highlights seem softer and less harsh.
I rocked the Zeiss 24-70 F4 for several years, pretty good and my skill can compensate the lens low light shortcomings but my heart always longed for a F2.8 so when I have enough information from my research about the Tamron G2 28-75, I made the jump. Do I feel happier now? Nope 😁 but it made my life and setup a bit easier. F2.8 (the good ones) are simply for convenience.
How’d you know I’ve been thinking of these 2 exact lenses! The snob in me wants the 2.8 but based off this comparison the 24-105 is better in real world use because of the lighter weight, extra range up to 105 and the fact that the bokeh difference isn’t significant at most focal lengths. At low light at night the 2.8 didn’t really make a major difference. It seemed pretty minor. I like the sharpness of 2.8 a bit more but not enough for the weight. Ugh. I love Sigma lenses(the design, the colors) so was hoping to see it confirmed to get the Sigma 😅
If money or time is not an issue, I'd advice you to get/wait to get the Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 which seems to be the beast of E mount zoom lenses. Plus with the USB port, if you want to switch body later, they may release firmware updates for improving the autofocus capabilities. I'd really love to have that lens, but for me money is an issue..
So, what about this? Now you get Sony 24105 F4, and play around with it for a while. Then when you can afford another one, get some primes with F1.4 or 1.8.
I do find the lens to be a workhorse, but it's kind of boring. I will probably sell mine and get a f.2.8 zoom or some primes with even lower f-stop. Also, the stabilisation is kind of...bad. But over all - a great lens (but it will not be kept)
I used both lenses and I still prefer the Sigma Art today more than the Sony F/4 especially for videography. I do love the Sony for its versatility as zooming in at 105mm is amazing for close up shots. The Sony F/4 really shines in bright scenery that I dont have to worry about cranking the iso pass 3,200 as I do want less noise as possible. But its F/4 really makes it tough to use when half of my video recordings do take places in dark shots. At F/4 with an ND filter on, I would have to be at 8,000 to 10,000 iso to lit it perfectly. With the Sigma, I can go at least down to 4,000 to 6,400. The only thing i dont like about the Sigma is that its a heavy lens and does take a toll on your arms. Otherwise, I wouldn't mind picking up the Sony 24-105mm F/4 again if they make a version 2 with the new tech.
@@KenseiAkatsu True that! Both have their own usages for different situations and it does become hard to choose. It would be great to see Sony update the 24-105 lens with an F/2.8 in the future. It would be a heavier lens to use with so much glass, but definitely beats lugging around a 70-200mm. Otherwise, teh tamron 35-150mm lens will fill that void for now
@@Guyzy.c Sigma doesn't have any ibis in their lenses. Same with majority of the G-Master lenses. It's necessarily not needed anymore because the cameras are equip with 5-body axis stabilization. I actually prefer that lenses not to have ibis in them since they are heavier and more pricier. For telephoto lenses like the 70-200mm F/2.8 and 100-400mm F/4, yea you will definitely want ibis to help compensate.
@@arcticape445 You can do definitely do that as well!! It will just be up to you to decide if its worth going with the lens? When recording weddings, i tend to record in a lot of dark areas so I'm already cranking up to iso 6,400 with the ND filter set to minimum as well. If I'm going to be in the room for awhile, i'll take the nd filter off which allows me to go even lower to iso 5,000 or iso 4,000. I shoot a lot in S-cinetone so its dual native iso would be 3200. If record outside alot, then the 24-105mm would fare very well with all those extra lights. Too much factors that plays in lens buying decision but as of now i prefer an F/2.8 aperture
I had the 24-105 G, I could not justify keeping it. I liked the lens, but it made more sense for me to go with the Tamron 17-28 and 28-200 because those lenses are amazingly good for infrared photography. The 24-105 G is very bad for IR. And then the other genre I cover is low light no flash allowed event photography that demands at least 1/250 speed. With an aperture at 2.8 I can still have ISO as high as 16000 but normally it is in the range of 1000 to 8000. For this genre I have currently use the Tamron 35-150 and if I need more telephoto then switch to Tamron 28-75 G2 / 70-200 GM II. If I could afford a second A1, I probably would not get the 24-70 GM II, instead I would go with my 35 GM and use crop mode for 50.
This 24-105 G is kind of a devil. To sum it up, for my taste it is quite overpriced, but it is essentially the only lens for Sony FE that counts as a standard zoom and has got an optical stabilizer while delivering good image quality. The other 3 are all relatively old and not really great in terms of IQ ( the 28-70 kit, the 24-70 Zeiss f4 and the superzoom 24-240). I don't agree in terms of build quality which is praised by many comments in various RU-vid reviews, because both its zoom and focus rings aren't great at all. Considering that this lens is attractive especially for video people (due to the combination of OSS, 24mm and nearly no focus breathing), it is very disappointing how inconsistently the zoom ring turns; at about 70mm and above, it is way more firm, and if you turn it very slightly it stocks every couple of millimeters (over the whole range, not only 70-105 - I have heard this from other people, too, so it wasn't just my copy). The focus ring, on the other side, is the exact opposite: it doesn't really have any resistance at all, so manually focusing really to the point isn't so easy because you easily turn it too far. Plus, the rubber gasket on the mount is more a cosmetically factor. On Tamron's lenses, these are more prominent. On this lens, it is barely there. So all in all, it's more a "no alternative" than a "that's the best for my needs" for me. Concerning the Sigma, well, some people praise it a lot, but I don't know whether I would want something that big and heavy for that price. My #1 alternative if OSS doesn't count would always be the Tamron which is lighter, smaller, cheaper and nevertheless more than excellent.
