What do you think of a 24-240 mm lens on an A1?

[DrJohn]

Right now I'm carrying the 70-300 mm G and 24 mm G lenses for wildlife and landscape photography. I'm also hiking several miles with the equipment, so weight is important especially at age 74.

Often, I miss a wildlife shot because I cannot switch lenses fast enough. So, I'm thinking of the 24-240 mm lens. It is a step down in image quality and doesn't do the A1 justice. Then, a missed shot doesn't do the A1 justice either.

I've been agonizing over this for many months now. I was hoping a better lens would come out. I think it may be an interesting discussion.

What do you think?

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Right now I'm carrying the 70-300 mm G and 24 mm G lenses for wildlife and landscape photography. I'm also hiking several miles with the equipment, so weight is important especially at age 74.

Often, I miss a wildlife shot because I cannot switch lenses fast enough. So, I'm thinking of the 24-240 mm lens. It is a step down in image quality and doesn't do the A1 justice. Then, a missed shot doesn't do the A1 justice either.

I've been agonizing over this for many months now. I was hoping a better lens would come out. I think it may be an interesting discussion.

What do you think?

Hi Dr John,
understand the challenges of weight over long hikes but looking at the specs for the 70-300 and 24-240 it seems the weight of the 24-240 at 780 g is not much lighter than your 70-300(850 gm i believe) and the MTF charts seem to indicate the 24-240 may be soft at the long end....... the comparison charts i have seen come down quite heavily in favour of the 70-300 over the 24-240, the 70-300 which also has more favourable MTF charts - I do not own either of thee lenses so cant give practical analysis/ comparison.

Not sure the 24mm poses any major weight challenge and is ok for landscapes, the challenge is achieving a 300mm long end (or more)with weight reduction. The 70-200 f2.8 GM II at 1000g(if within your budget (after trade in of your 70-300) will get you to 280-420mm employing a x1.4 TC plus ASC but increases your weight to carry with an additional TC.....which it seems is certainly not what you are looking for.

You could consider a second camera, not necessarily another A1 to mount your 2 lenses and avoid having to switch lenses in the field but again will add weight but it doesn't need to be excessive dependant upon the camera you select....an A9Ii weighs 670 g so will add weight but eliminates the lens change over.

It is difficult to cover your required range with a single lens and quite frankly if you are walking long distances I would certainly recommend a second camera in any event as insurance if your primary camera malfunctions whilst you are out in the field.

Maybe others on the site have other options they can suggest but the above would be my initial comments.

Maybe an ASC or 4/3 camera might suffice with a suitable lens to cover the range 24-70 mm.....?

Hope this helps......

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Hi Johnny! You could have an RX100 in your pocket as a good utility, then keep the A1 set up with the 70-300, but still have the 24mm lens there for the A1 for those special landscape shots where you have plenty of time though. Would be a good way to save weight and never miss a shot...

Personally, I'm just not a real fan of that 24-240. That focal range just seems too compromising to accomplish to me.

 

[DrJohn]

I have an A7C. Maybe mount the 24 mm on that camera.

john

 

[Boojum]

I use my 24 - 240 almost exclusively on my A7M III. It's a great lens. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[DrJohn]

Ken Rockwell review of the 24-240 lens:

Sony 24-240mm Review

www.kenrockwell.com

John

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Ken Rockwell review of the 24-240 lens:

Sony 24-240mm Review

www.kenrockwell.com

John

Hi Dr John,
i note the above comments and am very familiar with Ken Rothwells lens reviews who was a previous Nikon supporter and more recently Sony.....I will say no more on that as to my opinions on his review integrity.

In considering a move to the 24-240mm it is clearly a significant decision and in the light of that i would refer you to Youtubes Christopher Frost and Dustin Abbot reviews of the 24-240, both of who review many manufacturers lenses.

The key take away from both those reviews are abnormal levels of pin and barrel distortion closed down even after applying in camera correction, very poor corner sharpness throughout the range(note impact on landscapes..particularily images with vertical and horizontal lines/horizons), a degree of chromatic aberration, no significant weather sealing although center sharpness is not great but just "OK"... Dustin Abbot's review is very much a condemnation of this lens, even so he is a regular Sony reviewer, whilst Christopher Frosts tends to be a little less pointed, Dustin Abbot who states he does not think this lens is value for money against others in the market.

It is not my intention to influence your decision, as ultimately that lies with yourself , but as you raised Ken Rothwell's review I would suggest looking at the above further youtube reviews and yes you may also come across shooters of this lens that find its sharpness acceptable, but as you asked a question in the forum I think by taking in the above video reviews will provide you with a more balanced pre purchase review.

Good Luck.

 

[DrJohn]

Hi Dr John,
i note the above comments and am very familiar with Ken Rothwells lens reviews who was a previous Nikon supporter and more recently Sony.....I will say no more on that as to my opinions on his review integrity.

In considering a move to the 24-240mm it is clearly a significant decision and in the light of that i would refer you to Youtubes Christopher Frost and Dustin Abbot reviews of the 24-240, both of who review many manufacturers lenses.

The key take away from both those reviews are abnormal levels of pin and barrel distortion closed down even after applying in camera correction, very poor corner sharpness throughout the range(note impact on landscapes..particularily images with vertical and horizontal lines/horizons), a degree of chromatic aberration, no significant weather sealing although center sharpness is not great but just "OK"... Dustin Abbot's review is very much a condemnation of this lens, even so he is a regular Sony reviewer, whilst Christopher Frosts tends to be a little less pointed, Dustin Abbot who states he does not think this lens is value for money against others in the market.

It is not my intention to influence your decision, as ultimately that lies with yourself , but as you raised Ken Rothwell's review I would suggest looking at the above further youtube reviews and yes you may also come across shooters of this lens that find its sharpness acceptable, but as you asked a question in the forum I think by taking in the above video reviews will provide you with a more balanced pre purchase review.

Good Luck.

I looked at those reviews and you are right. Also, I posted this because I DO want to be influenced in my decision. You saved me a lot of time and money.
Thank you,
John

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I looked at those reviews and you are right. Also, I posted this because I DO want to be influenced in my decision. You saved me a lot of time and money.
Thank you,
John

Thanks for that John, I am pleased to have provided my opinions to help you reach an appropriate decision.

 

[Clix Pix]

One strategy which some wildlife shooters employ is to use an APS-C camera body with a longish lens and because of the so-called "crop factor" due to the APS-C vs full-frame 35mm, there is seemingly longer reach. I know your concern is about weight, rather than reach, but since you already have the 70-300mm and since the 24-240mm lens would be a step down in image quality and also weighs just about as much as the 70-300mm anyway, probably a good idea to skip that lens.

At one point when thinking about a trip I was planning and which would involve a lot of walking , standing around and shooting at a distance in a beach/ocean area environment, I thought about buying myself an A6600 and a 70-300mm to use instead of taking my A1 and my beloved 100-400mm. The combination of the APS-C camera body and that lens would be lighter weight and because of that "crop factor" I would still be able to get images in about the same range as I have been accustomed to doing. As things turned out, that particular trip was canceled so I didn't go forward with my idea. In the past, though, back in my Nikon days I used a D3 full-frame and a D300 DX (APS-C), and the D300 was the body of choice for shooting birds and wildlife.

Why was I thinking of that particular combination of Sony lens and camera body? Because the 70-300mm would also work with my A1 and there might be times when I'd prefer to carry it than my heavier, larger 100-400mm. It makes a nice travel lens. Why the A6600? Because it uses the same battery as the A1, which is always a plus. At the moment I have no trips planned, but very well one day may go ahead and get the 70-300mm anyway, as it seems to be much more portable than my 100-400mm.

So that's something to consider, using an APS-C body for the smaller dimensions and lighter weight with your 70-300mm lens.....

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

One strategy which some wildlife shooters employ is to use an APS-C camera body with a longish lens and because of the so-called "crop factor" due to the APS-C vs full-frame 35mm, there is seemingly longer reach. I know your concern is about weight, rather than reach, but since you already have the 70-300mm and since the 24-240mm lens would be a step down in image quality and also weighs just about as much as the 70-300mm anyway, probably a good idea to skip that lens.

At one point when thinking about a trip I was planning and which would involve a lot of walking , standing around and shooting at a distance in a beach/ocean area environment, I thought about buying myself an A6600 and a 70-300mm to use instead of taking my A1 and my beloved 100-400mm. The combination of the APS-C camera body and that lens would be lighter weight and because of that "crop factor" I would still be able to get images in about the same range as I have been accustomed to doing. As things turned out, that particular trip was canceled so I didn't go forward with my idea. In the past, though, back in my Nikon days I used a D3 full-frame and a D300 DX (APS-C), and the D300 was the body of choice for shooting birds and wildlife.

Why was I thinking of that particular combination of Sony lens and camera body? Because the 70-300mm would also work with my A1 and there might be times when I'd prefer to carry it than my heavier, larger 100-400mm. It makes a nice travel lens. Why the A6600? Because it uses the same battery as the A1, which is always a plus. At the moment I have no trips planned, but very well one day may go ahead and get the 70-300mm anyway, as it seems to be much more portable than my 100-400mm.

So that's something to consider, using an APS-C body for the smaller dimensions and lighter weight with your 70-300mm lens.....

 

[AlphaWorld]

One strategy which some wildlife shooters employ is to use an APS-C camera body with a longish lens and because of the so-called "crop factor" due to the APS-C vs full-frame 35mm, there is seemingly longer reach. I know your concern is about weight, rather than reach, but since you already have the 70-300mm and since the 24-240mm lens would be a step down in image quality and also weighs just about as much as the 70-300mm anyway, probably a good idea to skip that lens.

At one point when thinking about a trip I was planning and which would involve a lot of walking , standing around and shooting at a distance in a beach/ocean area environment, I thought about buying myself an A6600 and a 70-300mm to use instead of taking my A1 and my beloved 100-400mm. The combination of the APS-C camera body and that lens would be lighter weight and because of that "crop factor" I would still be able to get images in about the same range as I have been accustomed to doing. As things turned out, that particular trip was canceled so I didn't go forward with my idea. In the past, though, back in my Nikon days I used a D3 full-frame and a D300 DX (APS-C), and the D300 was the body of choice for shooting birds and wildlife.

Why was I thinking of that particular combination of Sony lens and camera body? Because the 70-300mm would also work with my A1 and there might be times when I'd prefer to carry it than my heavier, larger 100-400mm. It makes a nice travel lens. Why the A6600? Because it uses the same battery as the A1, which is always a plus. At the moment I have no trips planned, but very well one day may go ahead and get the 70-300mm anyway, as it seems to be much more portable than my 100-400mm.

So that's something to consider, using an APS-C body for the smaller dimensions and lighter weight with your 70-300mm lens.....

There is an additional consideration to using an APS-C body with a full-frame lens.

Virtually all lenses have their best performance towards the centre of the lens, getting weaker as you go out to the corners - witness every MTF chart, where peak sharpness is at, or very near, the centre, and falls away as you move to the edges.

By using an APS-C sensor, you are effectively "cropping away" the worst part of the lens's field of view. It won't turn a poor lens into a top-ranked performer, but it may turn a so-so lens into an OK one. You might want to look for a review of the 70-300 on an APS-C body.

And as Clix Pix points out, the APS-C body can be smaller and lighter. Even the heaviest APS-C body (the A6600) is a few grams lighter than the A7C (well, it's 6g lighter :-D ), but it's a bit bigger in some dimensions.

 

[Boojum]

My general opinion of all this is when you are overfocussed on the detail of feathers and not the whole image you may have missed the point. I have a few very sharp prime LTM lenses as well as the fabulous Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8. My Cooke Amotal is a better lens in rendering and just as sharp. Pixel peeping is not the crux of a good photo. It is a minor diversion. Look at the whole photo. If it is a good picture it will stand on its own. If it is also really sharp, well, that is nice but not necessary.

If you need pixel peeping to justify your GAS, go for it.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Admittedly, it is a good quote. Speaking with 38 years of experience, being a perfectionist is counter productive in many circumstances. It doesn't stop me though...