sony FE 24-240mm ( thoughts please )

andy759

andy759

Messages
74
Name
andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
hi
as tittle suggests is there anybody out there using this lens ,
I have just got a Sony a7 & was looking for a wide to mid range zoom one lens (might fit most situations ) if im lucky , I appreciate there would be some compromises but from the reviews this lens seems a bit more miss than hit , really want something to use on say trips/vacations etc to save on lugging all the other gear with me , im no way a brilliant photographer but I do like my pics to be sharp not soft , 7 as a Florida trip might be looming with some night photography thrown in I need to make the correct choice , any thoughts please

andy
 
andy759 said:
hi
as tittle suggests is there anybody out there using this lens ,
I have just got a Sony a7 & was looking for a wide to mid range zoom one lens (might fit most situations ) if im lucky , I appreciate there would be some compromises but from the reviews this lens seems a bit more miss than hit , really want something to use on say trips/vacations etc to save on lugging all the other gear with me , im no way a brilliant photographer but I do like my pics to be sharp not soft , 7 as a Florida trip might be looming with some night photography thrown in I need to make the correct choice , any thoughts please

andy
Click to expand...


It wouldn't be a lens I personally would buy as you are sacrificing a lot of performance for the focal length.

A Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is £600 at the moment with the black friday offers. I would much rather have and do without the extra reach.
 
Last edited:
Jase said:
Terrible lens, the 24-105 is much better.
Click to expand...

It isn't terrible, its actually not to bad for a super zoom do all type lens, but yeah none of those are great from any manufacturer, you can't beat physics.

The 24-105 isn't without issues either there is a large amount of them with back focusing issues which Sony have issued a recall for.
 
f/2.8 said:
It isn't terrible, its actually not to bad for a super zoom do all type lens, but yeah none of those are great from any manufacturer, you can't beat physics.

The 24-105 isn't without issues either there is a large amount of them with back focusing issues which Sony have issued a recall for.
Click to expand...

He asked for thoughts I gave him mine, and that is it’s terrible and quality was not acceptable for me.
 
Last edited:
I used to have one and didn't like it much. I feel the 24-105mm is a much better lens for travel (used to have tamron 28-75mm too)

as for 24-105mm focus issues please refer to - https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/support/articles/00195906
There is a serial number checker, so if you are buying used just check it on that website. If buying new it shouldn't be a problem.
 
I was looking for a practical option when holidaying with the 3 year old. I love it, AF is snappy enough on the a7RII and whilst it may not be Zeiss 55mm sharp, it's perfectly decent.

Lots of these from NYC were taken with the lens: https://flic.kr/s/aHskws7jAG
 
I suspect it's a bit better than a typical superzoom, but the quality of native lenses for the A7 series is a fair bit higher than a lot of systems with older legacy lenses and *by comparison* it's not a great lens. It's also not particularly cheap by 3rd party superzoom standards, though it's not bad against typical FF mirrorless lens prices.

I'd second the recommendation of the 24-105 - it's what I use - but it's not a cheap lens, even 2nd hand. The Tammy 28-70 is the best bargain for super quality, but range of focal lengths is restricted slightly.

If you're not fussed about eye AF or having the best image quality then you could do worse than pick up a used LA-EA4 adapter for about £150 and an A mount Sigma or Tamron 28-200 for about £50-£70
 
I suppose I also have a natural suspicion of super-zooms and IQ - but is this largely a pixel-peeping question? I wonder if those that didn't like this lens could post links to photos showing the flaws?

(It would possibly be a useful lens for me, with a couple of faster primes - wide+portrait - for a minimal setup.)
 
ukaskew said:
I was looking for a practical option when holidaying with the 3 year old. I love it, AF is snappy enough on the a7RII and whilst it may not be Zeiss 55mm sharp, it's perfectly decent.

Lots of these from NYC were taken with the lens: https://flic.kr/s/aHskws7jAG
Click to expand...

Considering you seemed to shoot nearly everything wide open, I'd say image quality is pretty good, and not far behing the Nikon 28-105 that was my previous walk-about lens.
 
I think some lens opinions have parallels with those in the hi-fi world (where there's an ounce of truth and a ton of snake-oil).
 
thanks everyone for taking the time to reply to my post , reading the comments this looks like I will be avoiding this particular lens . will definitely be looking at the other suggestions though might mean a few months wait for the funds to build up though if I go 24-105 route,
might have to consider a 2 lens set up which I was trying to avoid hence the initial question

andy
 
goldtop said:
I think some lens opinions have parallels with those in the hi-fi world (where there's an ounce of truth and a ton of snake-oil).
Click to expand...
I think there is truth in some lenses are much better than others but where the issue often lies is there are a range of abilities or expectations of the photographers using those lenses. That can make a big difference as one persons opinion can differ from another.

It also depends on what the person viewing the photo feels or notices. I’ve said for a long time that only photographers obsess about noise whereas general viewers don’t even notice it!

To the OP, superzooms are always a compromise. I’d hire one (or buy a well price used copy that you may be able to sell on) and make up your own mind if it’s good enough for your needs. The fact your thinking of a super zoom means your probably willing to overlook so points of lower performance for the space and weight saving over two lenses.
 
Some very good points above. There are very, very few poor lenses these days on a simple technical level and even fewer that are objectively 'terrible'.

I think some lose sight of what their photos are for and how they are going to be viewed, couple that with the explosion of technical reviews and it's a perfect storm of nitpicking over what in reality are almost imperceptible differences. . Did taking the 24-240mm to NYC with my son actually have a negative impact on my photography? Absolutely not. Did it make my life one hell of a lot easier? Absolutely. We have a massive print on our wall from that lens wide open, it looks incredible.

I went to Hong Kong a few months later with a Sigma 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. On any level a 'better' set up, but it was a pain in the butt and barely noticeable in my images.
 
ukaskew said:
Some very good points above. There are very, very few poor lenses these days on a simple technical level and even fewer that are objectively 'terrible'.

I think some lose sight of what their photos are for and how they are going to be viewed, couple that with the explosion of technical reviews and it's a perfect storm of nitpicking over what in reality are almost imperceptible differences. . Did taking the 24-240mm to NYC with my son actually have a negative impact on my photography? Absolutely not. Did it make my life one hell of a lot easier? Absolutely. We have a massive print on our wall from that lens wide open, it looks incredible.

I went to Hong Kong a few months later with a Sigma 35mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. On any level a 'better' set up, but it was a pain in the butt and barely noticeable in my images.
Click to expand...
Those are very good points. I've owned a few superzooms over the years, and some have been usable, some (like the Nikon 28-200) we're not. The Sony version looks better than average based on your NYC pictures.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Those are very good points. I've owned a few superzooms over the years, and some have been usable, some (like the Nikon 28-200) we're not. The Sony version looks better than average based on your NYC pictures.
Click to expand...

I didn't look at all his pictures but the ones I looked at were shot at the wider end. The lens progressively gets worst towards the long end and at it's worst at 240mm.
 
Seeing some examples of the problems you found would certainly help me decide whether to skip it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top