GMPhotography wrote:
Sad news I have not touched my 50 since I got this zoom.
Me too. Since owning the GM I haven't used either the Loxia 50, FE55 and have hardly touched my Loxia 21. It is big and heavy and goes against my ethos of 'smaller is better' but is just so good that I never really use anything else. I have though bought the Fuji X-pro 2 along with the diminutive XF35/f2 lens to work alongside my Leica q for street work
I too haven't touched my 28 f2 or 55 f1.8 for the past couple weeks since I have the 24-70. I think I will still keep those 2 in case I do want a small setup. If a month or 2 goes by though and I haven't used them, I might sell them then.
I have the 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f4, and the Rokinon 135 f2. 3 rather large lenses for my "small" mirrorless camera It's even better with the grip attached and a flash or mic on the top.
MJKoski wrote:
Interesting. Now that there is a fine lens and it is both BIG and HEAVY there are no issues with that
I think most people had faux reasons to get a tiny puny mirrorless setup.
I guess you just don't get it ir are just always have your glass half empty. Sure, putting one of these GM lenses on the A7R will make the entire kit heavy...but still lighter than when using equivalent with a DSLR...but...and this is the point you seem to stumble on...you can put a light nice lens like the Sony 28mm or the Loxia 21mm and have a light compact outfit which you can carry on your wrist for 3 weeks while traveling. Done just that...something I would not have enjoyed doing with DSLR's and their accompanying large lens.
You seem to always look for the negative extremes where if you would look just a bit further, you would see the other possibilities rather than just harping on your extreme cases.
ruffellprefley wrote:
that's my dilemma, but it's not much heavier than the 3 lenses that it would be replacing (combined), and it would be much more versatile...
i'm also thinking of keeping the 35mm 2.8 since it is so small, as a discrete walkabout lens
Sure combined the 3 lenses might be the same weight...but you don't shoot with all three primes at the same time. One of the reasons I use primes a lot is they are lighter than equivalent speed zooms and much easier to carry around especially in crowded cities of venues. Carrying the other 2 primes in a bag is no big deal and their weight is on my back rather than hanging off my wrist like it would be carrying around a heavy zoom.
chez wrote:
Sure combined the 3 lenses might be the same weight...but you don't shoot with all three primes at the same time. One of the reasons I use primes a lot is they are lighter than equivalent speed zooms and much easier to carry around especially in crowded cities of venues. Carrying the other 2 primes in a bag is no big deal and their weight is on my back rather than hanging off my wrist like it would be carrying around a heavy zoom.
this is true, but on the other hand. i got tired of constantly changing between 25 and 55mm to get the shot i wanted while walking around the city. because i wasn't always close to my subject for the 25 but didn't always have the ability to step back to get my subject in frame with my 55. especially because the further back i got, the more people were (or the higher the chance of having people) in my shots. if i had the money to get the GM and keep all my primes, it would be a no brainer.
i suppose i need to rent the GM and walk around my own city as if i was a tourist and see how it goes
p.42 #10 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
I have two setups one with the GMs and one without best of both worlds and I can mix and match given what I'm doing. Sure the 24-70 is big but most of us overlook it because the IQ is so good. Bottom line it's about IQ more than anything for most people. I bought this system for what it does that was the primary goal shaving some bulk and weight was my bonus
p.42 #11 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
This is a lens I highly recommend renting first if the weight and bulk put you on the fence about a purchase. That way you know
ruffellprefley wrote:
this is true, but on the other hand. i got tired of constantly changing between 25 and 55mm to get the shot i wanted while walking around the city. because i wasn't always close to my subject for the 25 but didn't always have the ability to step back to get my subject in frame with my 55. especially because the further back i got, the more people were (or the higher the chance of having people) in my shots. if i had the money to get the GM and keep all my primes, it would be a no brainer.
i suppose i need to rent the GM and walk around my own city as if i was a tourist and see how it goes...Show more →
p.42 #13 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
From me it's a immediate buy because it's so good. After all this testing I'm convinced of that but if your primary concern is weight and bulk and I totally understand that one than try a rental first. That's my recommendation
p.42 #14 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
I know the bulk goes up but the vertical grip is really nice in hand with this lens. Not needed but does add a great feel to it. Worth trying. I have one but don't normally use it. Depends on feel
p.42 #15 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
ruffellprefley wrote:
this is true, but on the other hand. i got tired of constantly changing between 25 and 55mm to get the shot i wanted while walking around the city. because i wasn't always close to my subject for the 25 but didn't always have the ability to step back to get my subject in frame with my 55. especially because the further back i got, the more people were (or the higher the chance of having people) in my shots. if i had the money to get the GM and keep all my primes, it would be a no brainer.
i suppose i need to rent the GM and walk around my own city as if i was a tourist and see how it goes...Show more →
I see zooms as a more 'run and gun' type of lens. Versatility, AF and quick shooting are priority, and many times they are the right tool for the job.
With primes (AF or MF), you need to visualize your composition and quickly decide what would be the optimum focal length for it. Manual focus primes slow things even further and that's why they are my favorite lenses for landscape photography. It allows me to take my time composing, nailing focus, exposure, depth of field and wait for the right light. This can be also be done with a zoom like the 24-70GM but there will be a compromise somewhere. Sometimes, the compromise is IQ depending on the focal length and other times is more bulk and bigger filter systems. The 24-70GM shortens the IQ compromise, especially at the wider range of the zoom.
I don't see anything wrong owning both zooms and primes covering similar focal lengths. Many times they are different tools for different jobs.
p.42 #16 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Here, here. It was a pure IQ decision. Weight was just a bonus. I agree, surely most people were driven by other primary needs with weight and size just sweetening the deal.
GMPhotography wrote:
I have two setups one with the GMs and one without best of both worlds and I can mix and match given what I'm doing. Sure the 24-70 is big but most of us overlook it because the IQ is so good. Bottom line it's about IQ more than anything for most people. I bought this system for what it does that was the primary goal shaving some bulk and weight was my bonus
p.42 #17 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Mine arrived today from the latest batch at B&H. Unfortunately from 35-70 the right side was not as sharp as the left. I'm not saying it was soft, but the sharpness compared to the left was noticeable. I tried several tests from targets on a fence, the the old brick wall test and a focus chart indoors. All of them showed a slight difference in sharpness on the right hand side, so it went back.
p.42 #18 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
AtomicPunk wrote:
Mine arrived today from the latest batch at B&H. Unfortunately from 35-70 the right side was not as sharp as the left. I'm not saying it was soft, but the sharpness compared to the left was noticeable. I tried several tests from targets on a fence, the the old brick wall test and a focus chart indoors. All of them showed a slight difference in sharpness on the right hand side, so it went back.
p.42 #19 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
OK I've got to ask a question after trying this lens out today...
Are you guys finding that you have to crank the contrast and saturation up a bit in your PP? I am finding this lens very sharp, extremely so for a zoom but it seems to lack punch. I did some comparisons with the Nikon 24-70 and out of the box, the Nikon has so much more vibrance. I find that I do need to play with PP with most Sony images to get them to look real good, but this lens especially seems to need it.
So, are you guys helping it along any in post processing, or do you find it good as is?
p.42 #20 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Jay968 wrote:
OK I've got to ask a question after trying this lens out today...
Are you guys finding that you have to crank the contrast and saturation up a bit in your PP? I am finding this lens very sharp, extremely so for a zoom but it seems to lack punch. I did some comparisons with the Nikon 24-70 and out of the box, the Nikon has so much more vibrance. I find that I do need to play with PP with most Sony images to get them to look real good, but this lens especially seems to need it.
So, are you guys helping it along any in post processing, or do you find it good as is?
What application are you using to view the files? Are they jpeg or raw? I briefly had this lens yesterday and when I was testing it I felt the color reproduction was accurate. I didn't even do any PP because they were all test shots. I also owned Nikon gear including the 24-70 2.8 prior to going to Sony and felt the 24-70 GM was on par, if not better as far as colors go to the Nikon.
It's even better with the grip attached and a flash or mic on the top.