shot this with my 5th copy of FE24-105mmf4G on a A7R3
personally, I consider this lens as an OK-ish 27-105mmf4 lens and I now never use the 24mm end of it. So I think I would replace it with the Tamron again.
All reviews and forum consensus/opinion on any lens are useless, maybe not just useless but also dangerous or harming to some.
We should not trust any one else even so-called expert.
I think the Batis 40mm f2CF is the best example case for this.
It is a great lens in many ways, but most of those forum experts and reviews see only one aspect of its minor flaw and completely dismiss anything good about it.
We may not need all focal ranges completely covered with our lens system:
I learned this in a very hard way, by spending a lot of money on buying too many lenses, spending too much time reading many lens snob forums online and talking with many people in the field.
I used to visit many camera forums online and read and write about many things , now I think most of things discussed about at those forums were plain stupid lies or at best their personal opinions or experiences that no other people would actually need to care about.
One of those myths is you must need all basic focal ranges covered with your lens system.
We find many lens snobs talking about how great Lens A is but it is not their favorite focal length and considering selling it to get something more practical for them over many many lens fanatics forums.....and some others that happened to like or love the Lens A try to convince the guys did not use it to keep it because the Lens A is a fantastic lens.
We also hear many guys talking about PROPER lens gaping or need to keep replacing your set of lenses as any new star lens is announced, kind of an idea.
But is this line of thinking actually helping people building up a really practical lens kit on a limited budget ?
Well it definitely does not help, and I no longer think most of us really need all the major focal ranges covered with our lens system..
I used to try to cover almost all focal lengths with the best possible optics at every specific focal length.
So I was mostly into primes with the well balanced lens gaping strategy that many of lens snob forum denizens support..
Initially, I bought a set of 18, 21, 25, 35, 40, 50, 55, 65, 85, 90, 135 primes and 70-200mm and 100-400mm zooms.
But I quickly figured out that I did not like any of long focal lenses or more accurately I never actually used these, and the 18 widest option I had at the time not wide enough for me.
So I sold my 100-400mm zoom that I never used in any mount system I owned in the past and got a 16-35mm f2.8GM zoom and a 12mm prime, and I think it was the best lens related changes I have ever made in my life.
I mean I really did not or never needed the 100-400mm zoom, I just got it because it was rated very very highly and respected at many lens fanatics forums.
I think there are many people like me that never use a long zoom , not just it's very heavy and space occupying, but they just do not like the compressed AOV.
I also dislike any type of 70-200mm zooms, but I used to believe I needed it and it should be in every one's lens kit to make it a COMPLETE kit.
But the question we must ask ourselves is, does it have to be really COMPLETE?
Sure many of us need a 70-200mm type of zoom or 200mm prime for works, but outside of those works, how often do we need to use these heavy and obnoxiously conspicuous white zooms? And if one is shooting architecture or flower or people or anything do not need to capture a super AF action camera plus a 70-200 or any long zoom , those long zooms might be pretty much useless for him or her.
Sure rarely but still sometimes I want to go longer than say 85mm , but I really rarely want to go any longer than 85mm or maybe 105mm. In fact, I think I went out of my usual 12-100 shooting range 7 times or so in the last 8 months. And these 7 times were only in the summer festival event season.
I was paid to shoot a few summer festivals here in every summer for a local corporation or a university (as my university was in the long summer break time).
So I know when I actually need something actually longer than my 85mm f1.4 lens or 110mm f2.5 lens, that means I can easily rent it and cover the events and after that I do not need anything longer than 110mm for many months again.
Also, I know many people who tend to shoot in long focal range, say over 100mm or even 135mm or longer and almost never shoot anything wider than 28 or 24mm.
For those people , wide lenses especially anything really wide are useless.
But those forums tend to tell any one who are developing their own lens system to buy or he or she needs to get at least one or two wide lenses.....and the sad part is those people who do not actually need any wide lens or any long lens believe the forum consensus or forum experts and eventually get that just to prove they (them sevles) and their gut feeling are right and sell these unneeded lenses later to lose some big money.
It has happened too many times to me, I thought I needed it and bought it and a few weeks later or a few months later I realize I did not or never needed it.
The 100-400mm GM was really a lens in the above kind of category for me , I never needed it but I bought it because of the forum consensus on it and great raving reviews for it.....it was a huge mistake, I never used it outside of our studio and sold it and lost about 500 USD immediately.
The 70-200mm f2.8 GM was also a lens like that, and even worse,I though it did not even deserve the high premium price Sony was asking for it.
The 100-400mm GM was a good lens if you need that kind of a zoom, and it is not overpriced in my humble opinion. But the the 70-200mm f2.8GM , on the other hand, is about a several hundreds or more overpriced and it is the worst lens of its category , not because it is optically horrible but built horribly bad. It is a hyper sensitive lens, very fragile , and reported to break very easily in airplane or in a cold environment shooting, etc.
Even optically, the FE70-200mm f2.8GM is not a superb lens unlike the 100-400mm GM , which is probably the best in its class compared to the Canon and the Nikon rivals.
For me , the 90mm f2.8G lens was in the same a great lens but I never needed category.
It was a huge mistake to buy it and tried to convince myself I should really love it since it was such a sharp lens.
Yeah it was a great lens optically, but if it happened to be not a very useful focal length as a macro lens for your type of macro or closeup work, then would it still be a great choice for you kind of works?
Obviously not......IMHO.
For me closeup work means shooting foods or some dishes or computer chips, that means the 90mm focal forces me to stand up and shoot foods at a fancy restaurant or even a cheap crowded noodle or cake shop, and it is actually very difficult to do it here.
A 50mm or even a 40 or 35mm macro lens may be the best lens for my particular kinds of closeup works, but the usual forum consensus goes like this you need a longer lens with a longer working distance for your macro or closeup works.
So many people who are not macro experts themselves buy those recommended longer macro lenses like the Sony FE90mm f2.8G, the Voigtlander 110mm f2.5 macro, or the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro just because they think these forum consensus is always right.
But if you do not shoot tiny bugs or fungus or anything like that , chances are you most likely never need a long macro lens or even a true 1:1 macro lens.
For my needs, I guess the Batis 40mm f2CF is a perfect closeup lens , if that does not work due to the aperture automatically close up issue or the Eye AF related issue, then the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is more than GOOD ENOUGH for my types of closeup works.
So I replaced my FE90mm f2.8GM with a Sony FE50mm f2.8 macro lens first and many people derided my decision as a stupid money wasting switch.
But it worked better FOR ME. Sure the 50mm macro was not optically as sharp or good as the 90mm G, but it was the more useful practical focal length for my needs and that is more important than a bit better resolution in the extreme edges in an extreme enlargement.
Also, the Batis 40mm f2 CF is a great lens even with the well known infamous Eye AF issue.
The condescending forum pundits always try to push their views onto others and many of them have already concluded the Batis 40mm f2CF to be a failed lens. But in reality it is one of these best selling lenses, it is hard to even order it now......and if you could order it now you may be able to get it sometime in this coming summer or later. It is such a huge success for Zeiss in terms of sells.
I know I love mine and I definitely choose it one of these my lens of the year candidate lenses for this year.
If I listened to those forum pundits, I would have missed out that amazing Batis 40mm f2CF......
