review: Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Lens
The 24-105mm f/4 range of lenses seem like a compromise between size & weight, and the range, and the so-so aperture. We get a great range from wide-angle to short telephoto. Perfect for travel or just any kind of general photography. But we miss out on the fast aperture. There is often a compromise in the sharpness of these types of lenses – the greater the range of a zoomoften implies a loss in lens sharpness with greater chance of optical distortion and smearing. With this review of the Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G lens (B&H / Amazon), we’re going to look at some of those things from a practical point of view – actually using the lens. I have to say upfront that I was pleasantly surprised by this lens. Optically it performed so well that I’m going to keep this as my main lens on my Sony system.
I use the Sony 24-105mm f/4 lens (B&H / Amazon) on my Sony A9 camera (B&H / Amazon) as my silent camera when I need it during weddings or corporate events. I also use it on a gimbal to shoot video. For the example photos in this review I met up with Anastasiya for a photo session in New York. I was mostly interested in seeing how this lens works in the portrait range, and specifically, when used wide open at f/4
Lens sharpness of the Sony 24-105mm f/4 G
First of all, the sharpness at 105mm at f/4 really surprised me. Below is the 100% crop of her eyes, to see the detail in her eye-lashes, with Sharpening set to a default of 20 in LR:
more: Lens sharpness
- Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G lens (B&H / Amazon)
- Sony A9 (B&H / Amazon)
- 1/200 @ f/4 @ 500 ISO — lens zoomed to 105mm
To check on the lens sharpness again, I photographed part of this wall art at 24mm and 105mm at various apertures. You can download the RAW files via this link. (These specific files are the ones named NV9.)
If you need something less subjective to see the lens sharpness, email me for photos using this test chart, photographed at 105mm and 50mm, for f/4 and f/5.6 and f/8. (Then also look at the barrel and pincushion distortion.)
Bokeh of the Sony 24-105mm f/4 G
In the main photo above, and this image below, look at the bokeh – the way the background is rendered. There are no harsh double lines or donut circles to the highlights. The Canon 24-105mm f/4 has harsh bokeh. The Sony in comparison looks remarkably smooth for a lens of this range.
I want to reaffirm again that shallow DoF isn’t directly related to a pleasant bokeh. This article has an example of harsh bokeh from a lens with a wide aperture: Bokeh vs shallow depth-of-field (DoF). So don’t fall into the trap of thinking that f/4 implies poor bokeh, and a fast aperture implies good bokeh. It doesn’t correlate like that.
more: Bokeh
Again, the 100% crop of her eyes:
- Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G lens (B&H / Amazon)
- Sony A9 (B&H / Amazon)
- 1/250 @ f/4 @ 800 ISO — lens zoomed to 105mm
Another example of the bokeh of this lens. This time, zoomed to 60mm focal length. If we look at the 50% crop of an area on the right hand side, you’ll see that the lines are rendered smoothly. I don’t see that double edges that are typical of lenses that have a harsh bokeh.
Flare
In the few images where there was a chance of flare, with a much brighter area within the frame, it looked like the lens handled it very well.
- Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G lens (B&H / Amazon)
- Sony A9 (B&H / Amazon)
- 1/80 @ f/4 @ 1600 ISO — lens zoomed to 35mm
more: Flare
Lens distortion
Most (all?) zooms exhibit barrel and pincushion at the extreme ends of the range. This is especially noticeable when the zoom range is large. Therefore with zooms in the 24-105mm range, you will see barrel distortion at the wide end, and pin-cushion distortion at the longer end. With easy correction in software, this isn’t a problem any more – although, there will be some reduction in resolution as pixels get shifted around to correct for optical distortion.
more: Lens distortion
Here are two examples – Lens distortion: Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G – to show the extent of the distortion at 95mm and at 24mm, and how it compares to the optical distortion fixed in post-production / Lightroom. To my eye, the distortion isn’t especially disconcerting with this lens. I think it is pretty mild, considering the range of the zoom. For architecture though, where we expect straight lines, this would be an issue. But as mentioned, this is easily corrected.
More images
- All images with the Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G lens (B&H / Amazon),
and the Sony A9 camera (B&H / Amazon).
Summary
The lens feels solid and well built. It gives you a wide focal range, with superb optical quality. And it has built-in stabilization via Sony’s Optical SteadyShot (OSS) Image Stabilization. The nine-blade diaphragm and optical design, gives a surprisingly pleasing bokeh. Clearly I am very impressed with this lens, and I highly recommend it.
Sony is indeed making some good glass.
Interesting to see that you have added the A9 to your kit.
Yup, I sold all my Fuji gear that I bought because I wasn’t entirely happy with the sharpness of their f/2.8 zooms. Just didn’t instill confidence in me. So I sold the Fuji X-H1 bodies to get a Sony system, starting with the A9.
Since when do you have a Sony A9 ?
I bought a Fuji system, based on two Fuji X-H1 bodies, in June 2018. I wasn’t too impressed with the sharpness of the Fuji 16-55mm f/2.8 zoom (or the Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8). Despite every glowing review, I did not see the sharpness they boasted about.
So at the end of August, I sold all my Fuji gear, and bought a Sony A9. I’m much more confident in the Sony camera and lenses than I was in the Fuji gear.
How do you like the eye-AF ? I personally find it eye opening (pun intended). Seriously, I really like it.
I don’t have the Sony 16-35/2.8 but it is reported to be quite sharp. Let us know what you think if and when you test it.
How bad could the Fuji have been to have dumped the entire system ? I know I’m in the vast minority certainly of online commentators and while I don’t want a blurry photo I’m not as obsessed with sharpness as many others seem to be. I’m surprised you left Fuji over just the issue of sharpness. It’s rare that someone (not a photographer) knocks or compliments one of my photos over sharpness except once in a while on a portrait some people felt it was too sharp (not having “model skin” and a makeup person).
I rarely see a “super sharp” photo hanging at MOMA.
About the sharpness issue (or non-issue) – I shoot for myself and my clients. I want the best that is practical at any point, and edge-to-edge sharpness is of paramount importance to me – I want group photos to be sharp edge-to-edge.
I have struggled with unsharp lenses (and poorly focusing cameras) for too long – here is some of my adventures with Canon, including 5 copies of the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II that were unusably soft toward the edges. It is embarrassing when a photograph of a bridal party isn’t sharp enough to be used as a spread in a 24″ x 12″ wedding album.
I need to have confidence in my camera gear when I walk into a job – it is comforting to know I won’t be struggling against deficiencies in the equipment that I use. Everything should rest on my creativity and perseverance … and NOT hinging on how poorly my gear might perform, and struggling against that.
Can you imagine having to deal with a client after a photo session, and they ask whether you could make the detail more clear? Untenable.
On this note, I have seen some photographers claim that there is no such thing as a bad lens anymore, and that all lenses are great … and that’s just a ridiculous claim. There is a difference. Sometimes marginal … but very often, such a big difference that one can not just summarily buy an inexpensive lens in the hope that it will perform as well as a more expensive lens that has been designed and engineered to a higher standard.
So yes, lens sharpness is hugely important to me …. but I fully embrace the idea that sometimes we want lenses that have specific aberrations and qualities – but that becomes a specific decision.
– Pixel peeping
– Portraits with vintage lenses
– Review: Trioplan 100mm f/2
Hi Neil – I am curious how the zooming was with the 24-105 f/4 lens? More specifically, was the zoom sticky and difficult to make fine adjustments to the zoom, or was the zooming smooth and easy to get any focal length in the zoom range? I ask because I tried out that zoom and a lot of other Sony gear for two weeks. The zooming was my only complaint about that lens. So, I am wondering if I had a bad copy or if it is normal for the 24-105. Zooming with 24-70 f/2.8 GM was very smooth and not jerky.
Thank you for all of the great information on your site!
Dan
Dan – no issues with the zoom ring sticking or being hesitant, but it isn’t super-slick in its movements. There is definite resistance.
Hi Neil, pleased you like your 24-105 sony lens. How are you finding the Sony colours ? Do you find the files easy to edit in L/R -P/S ?
Phil … I find it relatively easy to match the Sony A9 RAW files with that of the Nikon D5 and D810. Easier than Canon files, for sure. So the A9 fits in fairly well in my workflow.
Hi Neil, some great posts lately. I’d be really interested in a blog post about how you process Sony A9 files. I switched to Capture One as I wasn’t liking what I could get out of my A9’s in lightroom but you look to have great skin tones and colours in this set of photos.
Neil ,what Steve said,if you have some advice for how you process Sony files in general (specific instructions) in Lightroom this will be great! I switch to Capture one also but my initial trigger was the fact that Lightroom wasn;t good in handling Nikon D810 files.Much cleaner,healthier skin tones with Capture one.Lightroom still working (because i know it very well) for all other files.
Here is how I adjust the default of RAW images. The examples I used there are for Sony, but I use similar settings for my other non-Sony cameras.