Anyone compared the Canon FD 35-105mm F3.5 vs EF 24-105 F4 L

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>Hello!<br>

I was going to get the Canon FD 35-105mm 3.5 again for my Sony A7ii but I am thinking that maybe spending the extra money on the adapter for EF and a 24-105mm F4 L will be a better option IF it is optically similar to the quality of the 35-105mm.<br />By getting the EF I will not only get some AF (I dont mind MF but it comes in handy when you want someone else to take your picture!), but also my camera will be able to do the full 5 axis stabilization which is really good.<br />Thanks!<br /><br /></p>

[trey_cartwright]

Isn't there a comparable Sony/Minolta

lens available for your camera? The EF

24-105L is a good lens price to

performance wise but that is mostly

due to the IS which you won't even

use.

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>The Sony A7ii is emount not the A-mount for the Alpha cameras. I will need to buy an adapter either for the EF or the Alpha so this lens got my attention having that lovely L red ring :D<br>

My camera has 5 axis stabilization so IS is not a problem for me in this case.</p>

[savagesax]

It's a good question. I like the Canon 24-105L-IS a lot. However it's not Canons sharpest lens. The Sony cameras

are pretty special. I would suggest staying with a quality Sony lens or better the Sony Zeiss lenses. There's also a

new Sony camera coming out with around a 44 megapixel sensor. (I think there is)

 

If Sony made a camera that let you use 2 SD cards in the camera I would buy one, just because of the safety

factor and the quality of their Zeiss lenses.

 

If the Canon 24-105 lens was one of the finest lenses on the market I'd say to go for it.

[orly_andico]

<p>Sony has a 24-105/3.5-4.5 which is native E mount. About $600 used at KEH.<br>

Echo the observation that the Canon 24-105 is not one of the best of the L lenses.<br>

Depending on your requirements (ultra-wide or long) the 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, or 70-200 are all sharper than the 24-105.</p>

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>Are you referring to the Sony SAL-24105 ? That is for A-Mount. I dont recall seeing any native E full frame lenses that are 24-105mm. I doubt I have missed it.<br>

I do want at least 24mm on the wide one so I will look at that 16-35 and 24-70 you mentioned.<br />Thanks</p>

[ruben leal]

From your initial post I understand you

already used, and liked, the FD 35-

105mm f/3.5. While I hadn't use that

lens, I would think the EF 24-105mm

f/4 L should be a "better" lens. (Better is a subjective adjective, so it may mean something different for everyone.)

 

My reasoning is that the FD wasn't a L

lens, then it should compare in quality

to some of the EF 28-105/135mm

lenses, and the 24-105 L is definitely

better than those. Also, every new lens

is usually better than older designs.

 

The other lenses suggested are very

fine, but also very expensive lenses. If

you are to consider such f/2.8 L lenses,

then you should look into the Sony

Zeiss f/2.8 lenses designed specifically

for your camera.

[angkordave]

<p>Putting a Canon Lens on a Sony is a bit mad; Look at Sigmas 24-105 F4 ART. if you can get one in a Sony Mount that will be better. I have had both lenses and I reckon the Sigma is better built and in my opinion IQ is a little improved too. I think the Sony Version does not have IS. Also its compatible with the Sigma USB dock and can may be convertible to Canon or Nikon Mount if you change systems.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009624-REG/sigma_635_205_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html</p>

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>"Putting a Canon Lens on a Sony is a bit mad" Really? Guess you are not very familiar with the Mirrorless world. ;)<br>

I checked the Sigma but looks like the prices are quite a bit more than the Canon unfortunately.<br>

Thanks</p>

[angkordave]

<p>Maybe I'm not familiar with Mirror less; but I do know that the Sony A7 is a stellar camera. I've handled one and it would offer a lighter weight alternative to the lumpy Canon Full Frame cameras.<br />How does the Converter work, Does it keep all the a/f functions? and how expensive is the converter? I might even consider doing the "mad thing" and buying an A7 if I get full functionality with Canon mount lenses with it.<br>

I am suprised that the Sigma is more expensive than the Canon. The retail price of $900 approx is slightly cheaper than the Canon 24-105L.</p>

 

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>That was just for used prices I looked for..I will check further just in case as I was expecting the same to find the Sigma cheaper.<br>

I do not own the EF adapter yet but the ones I am looking at go for $100 (not even going to consider the Metabones) and they do have AF (very slow from what I have read) and you can control the Aperture with the camera so I like having that info on my EXIF. <br />There is a new EF adapter coming up that will have tranlucent technology so AF should be much better but no idea on price.<br>

Basically i have been debating if I go with the EF adapter or a Sony A-mount adapter mainly for one lens..the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 which is a lot cheaper than the Emount 70-200 F4 and faster of course. <br />But since I am not sure I will buy that many lenses for either, I want to keep costs are low as possible.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>When you add $100 for the Adapter the Sigma 24-105 for Sony makes more sense than crippling the good a/f performance of the Canon 24-105 using a slow a/f performing adapter.<br />To do this on The Tamron 70-200 F2.8 would be even worse; faster aperture but slow focus does not make any sense to me. Can't you buy a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 F2.8 in a Sony mount?</p>

[gabriel_gerena]

<p>First, I mostly shoot with FD lenses so AF is not really a big concern for me. Mostly I want the Focus Distance and Zoom to be reported to the camera so that the IBS can adjust accordingly.<br>

Second, either way I WILL need an adapter but the Alpha one is more expensive. <br>

No those are for A-Mount not E-mount which is what Sony mirrorless cameras use. I hope they eventually start releasing faster glass not just trying to keep them smaller now that size is not the only selling point of mirrorless but in the meantime, I might get away with a not so expensive setup. At least that is my goal.</p>