The GM is at it's best as a landscape lens. Sometimes I have no idea how I make it work for low light events wide open. Not the best portrait lens though since I don't think it's consistently sharp wide open. When it hits its great, when it doesn't it's just soft focused. Am I selling it? No. The Sigma would have to be great to get that to happen. Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree with you. I’ve been reading everywhere that the 24-70/2.8 GM is a weak lens and that’s just not the case. There is some astigmatism but I see that in other GM zooms and even primes. I see it as a balanced lens with great resolution stopped down and pleasant rendering (for a zoom).
The place I found a little weak on the GM was longer than 50mm but again it’s also a lens that has seen copy variation as well. For some odd reason or coincidence Sony zooms seem to be better at the wide side. Not a proven fact but on the more wide and normal zooms seems to be the case. Just have to see when it’s released.
Yes, the GM perform best at 24-28mm and it gets weaker as we zoom in. It’s the norm for zooms to perform better at their widest range but the new Sigma 24-70/2.8’s MTF graphs shows it’s actually slightly better at 70mm! (Center)
GMPhotography wrote:
The place I found a little weak on the GM was longer than 50mm but again it’s also a lens that has seen copy variation as well. For some odd reason or coincidence Sony zooms seem to be better at the wide side. Not a proven fact but on the more wide and normal zooms seems to be the case. Just have to see when it’s released.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I’ve read $1,300 but it’s not official.
Because I am so impressed with the 14-24/2.8 DG DN, I think I will give the new 24-70 a try.
Yes I'm tempted too.
The GM is a really nice lens: as good as the very best alternatives. (I agree it's mysterious people saying it wasn't: maybe they are comparing it in their heads with the very best primes at all focal lengths, which is unrealistic for a standard zoom. Not that it doesn't compare as well as any standard zoom)
But I never got the GM because it's pretty pricey, and standard zooms don't excite me. They are (for me: if I was a pro event photographer for instance I'd think differently) a kind of convenience lens for travel. And for that money I wasn't up for that, given that a few primes for travel is fine, just with a different set of trade-offs.
But at the prices I'm hearing, and if the quality is equal to the GM (and I'm guessing it will be at least as good maybe even a touch better) and the, by Sigma standards and by fast 24-70 standards, reasonbable size and weight, then think I could deal with an 800g 24-70 as a sole travel lens for some trips; giving just enough bokeh for portraits, and plenty of resolution for landscape and general scenic work.
The GM is a really nice lens: as good as the very best alternatives. (I agree it's mysterious people saying it wasn't: maybe they are comparing it in their heads with the very best primes at all focal lengths, which is unrealistic for a standard zoom. Not that it doesn't compare as well as any standard zoom)
But I never got the GM because it's pretty pricey, and standard zooms don't excite me. They are (for me: if I was a pro event photographer for instance I'd think differently) a kind of convenience lens for travel. And for that money I wasn't up for that, given that a few primes for travel is fine, just with a different set of trade-offs.
But at the prices I'm hearing, and if the quality is equal to the GM (and I'm guessing it will be at least as good maybe even a touch better) and the, by Sigma standards and by fast 24-70 standards, reasonbable size and weight, then think I could deal with an 800g 24-70 as a sole travel lens for some trips; giving just enough bokeh for portraits, and plenty of resolution for landscape and general scenic work....Show more →
Well said. My thoughts exactly. There are times when I don’t want to bring more than one lens for a trip and a 24-70/2.8 is the perfect one lens solution for me. Throw in the CV 15 or 10 and you can shoot anything.
The GM is a really nice lens: as good as the very best alternatives. (I agree it's mysterious people saying it wasn't: maybe they are comparing it in their heads with the very best primes at all focal lengths, which is unrealistic for a standard zoom. Not that it doesn't compare as well as any standard zoom)
But I never got the GM because it's pretty pricey, and standard zooms don't excite me. They are (for me: if I was a pro event photographer for instance I'd think differently) a kind of convenience lens for travel. And for that money I wasn't up for that, given that a few primes for travel is fine, just with a different set of trade-offs.
But at the prices I'm hearing, and if the quality is equal to the GM (and I'm guessing it will be at least as good maybe even a touch better) and the, by Sigma standards and by fast 24-70 standards, reasonbable size and weight, then think I could deal with an 800g 24-70 as a sole travel lens for some trips; giving just enough bokeh for portraits, and plenty of resolution for landscape and general scenic work....Show more →
The GM is still one of the strongest normal zooms available. I have not tested the new Canon/Nikon mirrorless versions but the GM outperformed the Canon 24-70/2.8L II at most focal lengths. (Only lost at 70mm toward the edges)
Now, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 E-mount performs similarly or better than our current primes in the range. (even at 24mm and f/5.6, it performs slightly better than the FE 24/1.4 GM prime!). My Loxia 21 is only marginally better and I'd think the same goes for the Batis 18.
If the new 24-70 is on that level, I will get one for sure. Their MTF graphs are usually pretty consistent and accurate so I'm expecting outstanding performance.
The MTF charts are dandy for both the Sigma and GM especially at the tele end where most zooms fall off. Roger C’s verdict was that the Sony 24-70 GM was as good as all the other quality 24-70 F2.8 zooms although not exactly identical in every respect. However, I would like to see Roger’s MTFs of the new Sigma 24-70 for an apples to apples comparo.
The point has been made that so many that had need for a 24-70 bought their’s long ago. So then Sigma’s market could be new FF folks and prime lens owners who would favor the utility of near prime quality in a mid range zoom-at a price. However, Sigma lately has been competing upon quality and not no much price. So this new 24-70 has the promise of a best in class zoom although by how much is my concern since I own the GM already.
I tried only one copy of the 24-70 GM and I wasn't impressed. I felt it was a bit clunky and didn't see the spectacular optical quality that people are describing here, especially away from the center at 50mm and beyond. I could live with that if it was a $1300 lens. For $2200 I expected more tbh. I might have had a bad copy but again, for $2200 Sony should have better quality control.
The Sigma's MTF looks promising, but even if it is just as good as the GM (which is behind Nikon's mirrorless equivalent in terms of across the frame resolution and contrast), I would still be happy with it because it won't be $2200.
Sony made some very good zooms that are as good or better than the competition like the 100-400GM, 12-24, and 16-35GM. I personally, based on my own experience, wouldn't consider the 24-70 GM to be a "best in class" lens. It gets the job done but for the MONEY, it is not good enough.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I’ve read $1,300 but it’s not official.
Because I am so impressed with the 14-24/2.8 DG DN, I think I will give the new 24-70 a try.
How does Sigma 14-24/2.8 compare to Sony 16-35/2.8 GM? I have the latter and it 's an amazing lens. I am thinking if there is no compromise on IQ, I would switch to a Sigma 14-24/24-70 combo.
SoundHound wrote:
The MTF charts are dandy for both the Sigma and GM especially at the tele end where most zooms fall off. Roger C’s verdict was that the Sony 24-70 GM was as good as all the other quality 24-70 F2.8 zooms although not exactly identical in every respect. However, I would like to see Roger’s MTFs of the new Sigma 24-70 for an apples to apples comparo.
The point has been made that so many that had need for a 24-70 bought their’s long ago. So then Sigma’s market could be new FF folks and prime lens owners who would favor the utility of near prime quality in a mid range zoom-at a price. However, Sigma lately has been competing upon quality and not no much price. So this new 24-70 has the promise of a best in class zoom although by how much is my concern since I own the GM already. ...Show more →
LensRentals is the best source for MTF graph 'averaged' performance but I find that Zeiss, Leica and Sigma release accurate data, although based on an optimal copy. I don't trust Sony MTF graphs at all.
The 24-70/2.8 GM and 70-200/2.8 GM seem to have high variance based on the polarizing reports.
Roger C. often posts 10 sample variations of optical performance. In any case variation remains. Example: Later, but untested, copies of the 70-200 GM appear to be much better than earlier samples that Roger tested.
I am fortunate to own a later sample although those who complain about Sigma’s heavy mirrorless lenses won’t happy with the 70-200 GM. I am hoping for a later generation true mirrorless 70-200 F2.8 much like the just announced Canon LP 70-200 F2.8-much shorter than any DSLR 70-200.
GMPhotography wrote:
For events I could use it but I need the price to be low as I’m not replacing my primes in this range. Like to see our type of tests around here on FM
Rumor has it around 1300 USD.
Fred Miranda wrote:
LensRentals is the best source for MTF graph 'averaged' performance but I find that Zeiss, Leica and Sigma release accurate data, although based on an optimal copy. I don't trust Sony MTF graphs at all.
The 24-70/2.8 GM and 70-200/2.8 GM seem to have high variance based on the polarizing reports.
I wasn't thrilled with my 70-200GM either, but my 24-70GM is amazing. I don't use it much unless I'm shooting an event, as....I love my primes for just about everything else, but my 24-70GM seems pretty close in IQ and have no issues shooting portraits with it at 70mm.
SoundHound wrote:
The MTF charts are dandy for both the Sigma and GM especially at the tele end where most zooms fall off. Roger C’s verdict was that the Sony 24-70 GM was as good as all the other quality 24-70 F2.8 zooms although not exactly identical in every respect. However, I would like to see Roger’s MTFs of the new Sigma 24-70 for an apples to apples comparo.
The point has been made that so many that had need for a 24-70 bought their’s long ago. So then Sigma’s market could be new FF folks and prime lens owners who would favor the utility of near prime quality in a mid range zoom-at a price. However, Sigma lately has been competing upon quality and not no much price. So this new 24-70 has the promise of a best in class zoom although by how much is my concern since I own the GM already. ...Show more →
Tony Northrup did a head-to-head on the A7r3, and found the Canon was better. I own the Canon and use on my A7r4 and love it, but might pull trigger on the Siggy, after my experience with their 14-24. Images with that lens on the A7r4 are so sharp, I keep band-aids handy when viewing :-) By far, the sharpest wide I've used, and I own the 11-24 Canon, Nikon 14-24, Zeiss 15mm, Canon 16-35 and Sigma 14 f1.8. I still love the Sigma 14mm for astro though, because it doesn't vignette as much @ f2.8. The Sigma 14mm needs to be at f2.8 to get rid of coma, though, so the f1.8 is useless to me...
Was also VERY impressed with the 35mm Tamron SP on the a7r4, for astro.
I’m surprised Sigma didn’t release the price at the time of announcement. If it’s truly ready for sale in a few days, why wouldn’t they give the price?
mudlake wrote:
I’m surprised Sigma didn’t release the price at the time of announcement. If it’s truly ready for sale in a few days, why wouldn’t they give the price?
Maybe judging the excitement of the leaked specs. Once released...it's very hard to raise the price...much easier to lower the price. Setting price to maximize revenues is a skill onto itself.
