GMPhotography wrote:
I think a certain subset of members given the IQ of this will say the heck with the weight. I am getting it regardless. Yea it's a Pro lens but that means nothing to some folks they will still save weight and bulk overall . I think the more I say what you carry in your bag is what matters most that message will get through. I know I will not be buying that 28 f2 again now and maybe a few more as well. Be interesting to see what happens three months from now and we did a poll on who has it...Show more →
Sure you'll be buying back the 28/2! Not quite the IQ of the big GM zoom, but one day you'll think you'd like a tiny AF moderately wide stealth prime of decent quality with a usable wide open centre, and you'll reach for the buy button...
I was actually not that impressed with it. If anything a Batis 35 F2 for sure. If I had the money right now I would just add the Loxia 35 and 50 along with a 15,21 that be nice to travel around with
chrisgibbs wrote:
I think you're overlooking 'image aesthetic' many of us shoot faster glass for 'look' not light gathering capability. The f/4 zooms on 135 format are simply uninspiring below 70mm. Many journalists are shooting wide-open a large percentage of the time, f/2.8 is basically a staple aperture to use on the 24-70 and 70-200. ~Chris
Yes, but we were discussing using a treo of 2.8 zooms for landscape ( IE: f8 - f16 ) compared to a treo of f4 zooms. Personally, I use primes for my landscapes...zooms for street or events,
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Another possibility would be for Sony to produce a line of GM f/4 zooms at some point.
This would, I think damage their relationship with Zeiss. It would be trashing the Zeiss brand by saying "Zeiss wasn't good enough - buy GM"
The 'official' differentiation between GM and Zeiss is a tradeoff between bokeh (GM) and contrast (Zeiss) but I think that's baloney and just about trying to make sense of a slightly messy lineup. More practically the distinction seems to be GM for big and fas and high qualityt, Zeiss for smaller and high quality, G for big, tele but not super fast high quality.
So if they redo the f4 midrange zoom, which I wouldn't expect for a long time, unless something changes in their relationship with CZ, I'd expect a Zeiss MkII. But yes I'd like to see one, just don't expect to for many years - too much else to do.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Tariq,
Show me a mid-range zoom with better corners from any brand. I think the price is fair for such performance.
Keep in mind, this is a torture test for any lens. I'm showing 42MP 1:1 crops from the very extreme edges at infinity distances.
Stopped down a couple stops and the zoom is comparable to excellent prime lenses.
I wish it was more compact but there is no free lunch.
It very well may be as good or better than current zooms of this range - you would certainly know better than me as I'm strictly a prime user these days. I don't think this performance is as good as the best primes at these focal lengths though, which is my point of reference.
It's a smaller zoom range but that Sigma 24-35/2 that Guy recently tested may be superior to this zoom in the range they share. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming, rumored Sigma Art 24-70/2.8 zoom compares given what Sigma has achieved over the past few years.
GMPhotography wrote:
I was actually not that impressed with it. If anything a Batis 35 F2 for sure. If I had the money right now I would just add the Loxia 35 and 50 along with a 15,21 that be nice to travel around with
Just kidding! I don't think it makes sense for you.
I kinda like it for hiking: very light, nice informal portraits wide open or f 2.5, and it's very good indeed stopped right down - even if it's weakest of my line-up. But I don't think it makes sense if you aren't hiking with camera gear (and all the other gear you need) and if you have the GM zoom or some other way of getting good 28.
It is somewhat better stopped down than the Batis 25 cropped and then uprezzed (I tested that to see if I could get rid of it and just use the Batis for 25-28).
I was going to add the Sigma shots to my mid range test. I tend to think the Sony has less distortions at 24 and a lot less clinical in look. Bokeh balls are not great either on the sigma and I think the fall off is worse but it maybe a touch sharper in the corners. I'll put that together as it was shot in good light too I can compare the two shoots pretty easy. But you maybe right. Looking at this zoom to me just has a nicer look to it but will see. I wish the Sigma went to 50mm as it is limiting on zoom. I kind of felt that shooting it
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It very well may be as good or better than current zooms of this range - you would certainly know better than me as I'm strictly a prime user these days. I don't think this performance is as good as the best primes at these focal lengths though, which is my point of reference.
It's a smaller zoom range but that Sigma 24-35/2 that Guy recently tested may be superior to this zoom in the range they share. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming, rumored Sigma Art 24-70/2.8 zoom compares given what Sigma has achieved over the past few years.
GMPhotography wrote:
I was going to add the Sigma shots to my mid range test. I tend to think the Sony has less distortions at 24 and a lot less clinical in look. Bokeh balls are not great either on the sigma and I think the fall off is worse but it maybe a touch sharper in the corners. I'll put that together as it was shot in good light too I can compare the two shoots pretty easy. But you maybe right. Looking at this zoom to me just has a nicer look to it but will see. I wish the Sigma went to 50mm as it is limiting on zoom. I kind of felt that shooting it
p.10 #11 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It very well may be as good or better than current zooms of this range - you would certainly know better than me as I'm strictly a prime user these days. I don't think this performance is as good as the best primes at these focal lengths though, which is my point of reference.
It's a smaller zoom range but that Sigma 24-35/2 that Guy recently tested may be superior to this zoom in the range they share. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming, rumored Sigma Art 24-70/2.8 zoom compares given what Sigma has achieved over the past few years.
I also mainly shoot with primes. I'm just being objective and realistic about what's possible with a zoom design of this range. From the crops I posted, the zoom does not touch the Loxias (21 and 50) and the RX1RII but was actually better than the FE 28/2 which is considered a great prime lens by many. However, when stopping down to about f/5.6-f/8, it proved to be excellent throughout the frame (I would say f/4 very good though). I didn't test it against the Loxia 35/2 or FE 35/2.8 but can already tell by comparing crops on my database, the zoom has better corners.
On top of that you get smooth bokeh pretty much for the entire range and that can't be overlooked.
The Sigma 24-35/2 is definitely a unique design but as you said, a much smaller range. I never tried it but would be surprised if it matched this performance at infinity distances. It's also a beast on the A7 series at over 1,000 grams with adapter.
Another alternative is the Canon EF 24-70/2.8L II selling for much less right now. I used to own this lens and it performed great on the Canon 5D Mark III. I am not sure how well it's doing with the 5DSR. I remember the 'bokeh' was somewhat nervous and "onion-rings" were very visible. That's something I'm not seeing with the Sony version and it still baffles me how they got away with it.
p.10 #12 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
I'm a user of both primes and zooms. In the mid range I typically like to own a high quality zoom like the new GM 24-70 even though I have two overlapping primes typically with a 35 and 50mm. I've done this with my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and now my Sony System with the new GM. For the rest of the system I plan to keep it small using Loxia and Batis lenses where possible. Originally planned to just use f/4 zooms but the Loxia 25 and 50, and the Sony/Zeiss 55/1.8 where so easy to use I gave up the f/4 24-70. Now that the CV 15 is out and there are rumors of the Batis 18 I might choose one of these to replace my 16-35 f/4. The 70-200mm f/4 isn't getting a lot of use as well for reasons I'm not sure of. My Canon 2.8L II 70-200 is used a lot.
So in the end my Sony A7RII maybe all primes with just the one GM 24-70 f/2.8 as a zoom.
The Canon system may go the other way with primarily zooms. The TS-E 17 and 24 II and 85L II and 135mm don't count since I use them equally with both systems.
So I'm so pleased that the GM is living up to the hype. Mine so far is proving to be the lens I really wanted. Need to do more work with it though.
p.10 #13 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
chez wrote:
But with the primes you get to 21mm rather than 24mm with the zoom. You need to add the not yet releasedv16-35 2.8.
I know the Sony 24-70 isn't the most stellar lens..but let's look on the Canon side as it's got the full suite in bothb2.8 and f4.
I think you would be extremely hard pressed to see any difference in prints from a Canon outfit made up of the f4 zooms versus the 2.8 zooms. ( 16-5, 24-70 and 70-200 ). However the weight difference is substantial. I'd never lug around a suite of 2.8 zooms if I'm out shooting landscapes...they are targeted at the event photographer that requires the extra stop for dim locations. ...Show more →
Sorry I will edit my post I meant the weight of my Batis 2/25, Loxia 2/35 & Loxia 2/50 are slightly more in weight than the 24-70 GM. I would include my Loxia 21 in my kit no matter if I was going only primes or zooms.
You are probably correct with the Canon f/4 zooms being excellent and weighing much less. I'd love to see a f/2.8 16-35 GM for my Astrophotography work which would go nicely with this f/2.8 24-70 GM. The longer focal length is the real question mark right now. I really like having a nice and sharp 70-200 zoom in my bag. I may need to get the Canon 70-200 f/4 zoom and see how it compares to my Sony FE 70-200 f/4 and maybe the new Sony 70-300. I don't really need the faster f/2.8 in the 70-200 as I can always use my Batis 85 or Sony FE 90 if I need the faster longer lens. It would be great to stay native if possible.
p.10 #14 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
matched this performance at infinity distances. It's also a beast on the A7 series at over 1,000 grams with adapter.
Another alternative is the Canon EF 24-70/2.8L II selling for much less right now. I used to own this lens and it performed great on the Canon 5D Mark III. I am not sure how well it's doing with the 5DSR. I remember the 'bokeh' was somewhat nervous and "onion-rings" were very visible. That's something I'm not seeing with the Sony version and it still baffles me how they got away with it.
The story they tell about this is they have invested in a new generation of aspherical mold making machines that produce a surface an order of magnitude (literally, not just meaning lots) smoother (and that it was the ridges along the aspherical surface that caused the onion ring bokeh)
p.10 #15 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, there was shadow lifting from the the lens profile (Vignetting only).
f/2.8 has heavy vignetting that does quite not get fully corrected with the LR custom profile for the GM zoom.
I didn't correct any of the crops for distortion.
I'm guessing that the focal lengths would match up after distortion correction: the 28 is quite a bit wider than 28, designed to give the 28mm AOV after correction.
I think in the centre the prime is slightly contrastier in the centre at f2.8 than the zoom (though the zoom is much better on the edges). Still that is useful for certain kinds of images. There's also an interesting question: would the correction of the 28 harm the corner performance (because of resampling) or improve it (because you'd be seeing an area slightly more to the centre of the image circle)
p.10 #16 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
David I'm not so convinced it would have any effect on corners as when you cotterct for it with lens profile it's mostly in the center 80 percent of the frame but I'm not sure of this so it is a interesting question.
I bought this lens more for covering a range where I may not have a prime and also for a range of PR work here a 24-70 is pretty essential. During the course of looking what Fred has posted and what I have been guessing all along given the quality of the file this lens could branch out in more hardcore landscape type work. Personally I'm not as concerned about infinity corners as some maybe. My thrust here is I am seeing a lens that's has more character than any zoom I have seen. Obviously further testing will be needed but this maybe not you sharpest tool in the shed but very well maybe your most versatile tool in the shed that can take a full burden of imagery and style . It's not always about resolving power for me but the quality of look in the file. This lens could change maybe a few mindsets. I never known a zoom to have any character at all and why I avoided them at all costs. I'm seeing something different here and we have a small sample here.
p.10 #17 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Not exactly the same lighting but here is a comparison between the Loxia 35/2 and the FE 24-70GM zoom @35mm@ for the extreme corners.
There is just too much astigmatism towards the edges for the Loxia 35/2. This lens performs a little better a closer distances. Before you say this was a bad copy..unfortunately it was not. I have tested a few of them. The good news is that this lens is great at center and mid-field. (I would say 90% of the frame)
p.10 #19 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
Fred Miranda wrote:
Not exactly the same lighting but here is a comparison between the Loxia 35/2 and the FE 24-70GM zoom @35mm@@ for the extreme corners.
There is just too much astigmatism towards the edges for the Loxia 35/2. This lens performs a little better a closer distances. Before you say this was a bad copy..unfortunately it was not. I have tested a few of them. The good news is that this lens is great at center and mid-field.
If I did further I may find crops from the FE 35/2.8.
What's odd about this, is that at f2.8 if you look at the bottom right of the Loxia crop (away from the very extreme) it looks better than the zoom by far, and also as good as it ever gets - despite the fact that only a mm or so away it's not good at all.
p.10 #20 · Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Rolling Review
GMPhotography wrote:
David I'm not so convinced it would have any effect on corners as when you cotterct for it with lens profile it's mostly in the center 80 percent of the frame but I'm not sure of this so it is a interesting question.
I bought this lens more for covering a range where I may not have a prime and also for a range of PR work here a 24-70 is pretty essential. During the course of looking what Fred has posted and what I have been guessing all along given the quality of the file this lens could branch out in more hardcore landscape type work. Personally I'm not as concerned about infinity corners as some maybe. My thrust here is I am seeing a lens that's has more character than any zoom I have seen. Obviously further testing will be needed but this maybe not you sharpest tool in the shed but very well maybe your most versatile tool in the shed that can take a full burden of imagery and style . It's not always about resolving power for me but the quality of look in the file. This lens could change maybe a few mindsets. I never known a zoom to have any character at all and why I avoided them at all costs. I'm seeing something different here and we have a small sample here. ...Show more →
yes Gary I completely agree. I'm very very torn. I've only ever used zooms for hiking before - I used the f4 zoom on the basis that while not great, the effective resolution with the (then) A7 was better than M43 with best M43 glass. That was true, but even for hiking I've now switched back to primes.
But outside of hiking I haven't used a standard zoom since the eighties! But this one has me tempted. It could do serious landscape, and even for (bib wilderness) travel it's slighter than a Batis/ZA/Batis kit and only stop slower, and really good at that wide open stop (though not quite as good at f2.8 as any of that trio) But totally usable. The convenience of not changing lenses and total bag weight might well outweigh the speed and having a big heavy lens on at most times.
But I don't think I can really justify it in *addition* to my primes in the 24-85 range; and yet I don't want to part with them. Arrrggggh!
