p.1 #1 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I bought a Sony 24-70 GM for a great, great price. My initial intent was to sell it for a profit and use that profit as a nice discount for the Sigma 24-70mm. Now that I have the opportunity to sell it I'm a bit conflicted. I always planned on getting the Sigma but the GM has, surprisingly considering the somewhat mediocre rep it has, been performing very very well for me. I'd hate to trade in on autofocus speed and accuracy just for a bit of discount (and a bit of weight saving).
Did anyone trade in their 24-70 GM for the Sigma? Or tested them side by side. What were your experiences? Does the Sigma fall apart somewhere or is it as equally jack-of-all-trades as the Sony?
p.1 #2 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
The consensus seems to be that the GM auto focuses a little bit better and acquires faces sooner (for face detect.) As far as picture quality goes, they have a few differences.
Sigma appears to be slightly wider than the GM at 24, however
The GM is a little sharper and has less distortion at 24. At the long end the Sigma seems to be slightly sharper. The Sigma also has way better macro capabilities at 24 mm. But besides that, there doesn’t seem to be a big difference.
Edit: There’s a slight difference in bokeh as well, I personally prefer the GM’s bokeh but it hardly matters IMO. derKoekje wrote:
I bought a Sony 24-70 GM for a great, great price. My initial intent was to sell it for a profit and use that profit as a nice discount for the Sigma 24-70mm. Now that I have the opportunity to sell it I'm a bit conflicted. I always planned on getting the Sigma but the GM has, surprisingly considering the somewhat mediocre rep it has, been performing very very well for me. I'd hate to trade in on autofocus speed and accuracy just for a bit of discount (and a bit of weight saving).
Did anyone trade in their 24-70 GM for the Sigma? Or tested them side by side. What were your experiences? Does the Sigma fall apart somewhere or is it as equally jack-of-all-trades as the Sony?...Show more →
p.1 #3 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
derKoekje wrote:
I bought a Sony 24-70 GM for a great, great price. My initial intent was to sell it for a profit and use that profit as a nice discount for the Sigma 24-70mm. Now that I have the opportunity to sell it I'm a bit conflicted. I always planned on getting the Sigma but the GM has, surprisingly considering the somewhat mediocre rep it has, been performing very very well for me. I'd hate to trade in on autofocus speed and accuracy just for a bit of discount (and a bit of weight saving).
Did anyone trade in their 24-70 GM for the Sigma? Or tested them side by side. What were your experiences? Does the Sigma fall apart somewhere or is it as equally jack-of-all-trades as the Sony?...Show more →
What makes you think the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM has a mediocre reputation? My impression is quite different. Below is the conclusion from a long and thorough review of this zoom at Phillipreeve.net (spoiler alert--the reviewer says he has built his entire lens kit around this lens) and here is the link to the full review: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-2-824-70mm-gm/
"CONCLUSION
"I actually rubbed my eyes in disbelief when Sony came up with another lens line when there were already three different lens lines only from Sony itself. I have hoped that they have created something really special to justify this questionable decision.
"Is this the case with the Sony FE 2.8/24-70 GM? If you look at the table above, the answer is clearly yes. This zoom lens can keep up optically with many of the best prime lenses in every regard except of speed and flare resistance. Furthermore, it is built to highest standards, offers pleasing handling, focusing and flexibility. The lens is very expensive but the price of the lens is adequate in relation to its performance and to the prices of its competitors.
"Who should buy this lens? First of all the obvious people like wedding and press photographers, lens changing haters and portrait photographers. These people would have probably bought this lens anyways, but the stunning sharpness across the frame and the ability to compose an image precisely makes this lens an attractive choice for many landscape photographers. Last but not least, portrait photographers will appreciate the decent bokeh and the great central sharpness at every aperture. To sum this up – I recommend this lens for everyone who can spend this much in a standard zoom lens and who can justify its undeniable space in his bag.
"Personally, I have always been a prime guy until my little son saw the first light of day. I have lost many shots of him in the first few months because my Loxia 2.8/21 was glued to my camera – even in the situations when I have needed a standard lens. I have built my kit around the Sony FE 2.8/24-70 GM and it is my most used lens now."
p.1 #4 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
chiron wrote:
What makes you think the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM has a mediocre reputation? My impression is quite different. Below is the conclusion from a long and thorough review of this zoom at Phillipreeve.net (spoiler alert--the reviewer says he has built his entire lens kit around this lens) and here is the link to the full review: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-2-824-70mm-gm/
"CONCLUSION
"I actually rubbed my eyes in disbelief when Sony came up with another lens line when there were already three different lens lines only from Sony itself. I have hoped that they have created something really special to justify this questionable decision.
"Is this the case with the Sony FE 2.8/24-70 GM? If you look at the table above, the answer is clearly yes. This zoom lens can keep up optically with many of the best prime lenses in every regard except of speed and flare resistance. Furthermore, it is built to highest standards, offers pleasing handling, focusing and flexibility. The lens is very expensive but the price of the lens is adequate in relation to its performance and to the prices of its competitors.
"Who should buy this lens? First of all the obvious people like wedding and press photographers, lens changing haters and portrait photographers. These people would have probably bought this lens anyways, but the stunning sharpness across the frame and the ability to compose an image precisely makes this lens an attractive choice for many landscape photographers. Last but not least, portrait photographers will appreciate the decent bokeh and the great central sharpness at every aperture. To sum this up – I recommend this lens for everyone who can spend this much in a standard zoom lens and who can justify its undeniable space in his bag.
"Personally, I have always been a prime guy until my little son saw the first light of day. I have lost many shots of him in the first few months because my Loxia 2.8/21 was glued to my camera – even in the situations when I have needed a standard lens. I have built my kit around the Sony FE 2.8/24-70 GM and it is my most used lens now."
Yeah, I know Jannik's review on it is pretty glowing, and I'm not trying to trash the GM here don't worry. Like I said, I'm very pleased with it. I was just going by what I've encountered here on the forum over the years.
p.1 #5 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
derKoekje wrote:
Yeah, I know Jannik's review on it is pretty glowing, and I'm not trying to trash the GM here don't worry. Like I said, I'm very pleased with it. I was just going by what I've encountered here on the forum over the years.
I've always thought it has an especially beautiful draw, very delicate and appealing. Joshua ( @ageojo ) has posted some beautiful work with it. My only complaint about it is the weight and the price--one is carrying and paying for a fair amount of glass.
p.1 #6 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I'm currently with the Sigma 24-70 and had the Sony for awhile. I think the biggest difference is the Sony draws a little softer in look but the Sigma is technically a more perfect lens with no weak focal lengths in it. Obviously certain preferences here as well but they both preform very nicely . Just go about it differently
In many debates comparing the 24-105 to the GM, folks referenced this chart in their reasoning to choose the 24-105. The positive reviews of the 24-105 and the comparisons to the GM led me to purchase the 24-105 with my A7RIV. But, I returned it after a couple of weeks in part due to missing the f2.8 and partly because of how the out of focus areas looked compared to my old A-mounts 24-70 f2.8 lens.
I have been very pleased with the 24-70GM and find it to be worth the price and weight. When I purchased it, the Sigma was only a rumor. My copy of the GM stands up well to my Sigma 35 f1.2 and my Sony 50 f1.4 primes, so I have no plans to trade in the GM for something else. It does what I need it to when I have it on the camera.
p.1 #11 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
My GM stays bolted to my a7r3 75% of the time despite other excellent options In and around that range including 24GM, CV 50APO, 85 Batis. Rendering is quite nice, especially in well lit scenes and outdoors. The weight is a fine trade off for what it does. It’s my go to kid shooting lens. I’ve taken it on trips before and wished I’d had a bit more range but paired with a 135 it makes a neat but heavy-ish fast two-lens kit.
I’d love to see Sony give us something a little different like a 20-65 2.8 in a GM variant. Maybe it would be a bit heavier but I could take up to 1k.
p.1 #13 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I've sold all my zooms...except the 24-70GM, it's that good and far too important for my kit. The Sigma by all accounts and from what I've seen is also good, seemingly on par if not sliiiightly ahead of the GM except for AF speed and accuracy, where it looks like it falls ever so slightly behind. If the Sigma had been available when I switched over to Sony I probably would've gone that way (or the Tamron) but they weren't. I'm happy enough with the GM though, and knowing that I have the best AF available for a 24-70 on Sony is reason enough to not sell.
If you don't absolutely need that best AF then sure, go for the Sigma. A GM could net you the Sigma and probably another piece of nice glass. Optically I don't think you'd notice much of a difference.
p.1 #15 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Like to call these lenses more work lenses than anything else. It’s really why I bought the Sigma last month was I wanted a work lens that I can still make revenue from. The Sigma and my Sony 135 are the bread winners. Now I’m working on the ME kit of primes and manual focus. If I can get away with it this maybe all I buy as far as work lenses this Covid thing has killed many businesses and I’m really not seeing I big bright light at the end of the tunnel, more a flicker . Will see
p.1 #16 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I got the Sony GM right off (when Sigma had no 24-70 F2.8). It has served me well. I too have wondered if Sigma’s grass is greener. However, with various reviews, it seems the IQ is close enough that copy variation would make the difference.
If I were buying new the Sigma would tempt me even though it weights approx 100 grams more. But to sell a trusted lens, at used prices, to get an untested new zoom to save a few $$ makes less sense to me. I have the reverse situation with the 135mm F1.8. Bought the Sigma when Sony had no 135 F1.8. Keeping the very sharp Sigma even though it’s heavier because the change over would be close to $1000.
p.1 #18 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
SoundHound wrote:
I got the Sony GM right off (when Sigma had no 24-70 F2.8). It has served me well. I too have wondered if Sigma’s grass is greener. However, with various reviews, it seems the IQ is close enough that copy variation would make the difference.
If I were buying new the Sigma would tempt me even though it weights approx 100 grams more. But to sell a trusted lens, at used prices, to get an untested new zoom to save a few $$ makes less sense to me. I have the reverse situation with the 135mm F1.8. Bought the Sigma when Sony had no 135 F1.8. Keeping the very sharp Sigma even though it’s heavier because the change over would be close to $1000....Show more →
I think this is really the best way to approach the situation. If you had an issue with the Sony it might be worth exploring the Sigma, but if it’s working for you it’s just another variation of GAS.
I bought the Sigma because I mostly use primes and absolutely did not want to pay the Sony GM premium for a zoom I wouldn’t be using that often.
I have reviewed your tests many times, and would like to say thanks for all the effort you have put into doing this. I paid most attention to f8 for landscape work. Your work did effectively squash my interest in the Z7 and Z 24-70 f2.8 as it doesn't look that great to me despite all the hype. The GM, Tamron and Sigma, all look good but without knowing the scene where they were tested, it's hard to say what performed best.
p.1 #20 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
billsnature wrote:
I have reviewed your tests many times, and would like to say thanks for all the effort you have put into doing this. I paid most attention to f8 for landscape work. Your work did effectively squash my interest in the Z7 and Z 24-70 f2.8 as it doesn't look that great to me despite all the hype. The GM, Tamron and Sigma, all look good but without knowing the scene where they were tested, it's hard to say what performed best.
Which lens did you pick as the winner and why?
Of the Sony lenses the Sigma was the sharpest. However I've had a lot of difficulty finding a well-centered copy - Sigma has swapped mine out twice so far and the third copy still shows noticeably softness at one edge of the frame for part of the focal range. It can be difficult to find a well-centered GM as well. Note this is at 60MP (A7r IV), which is brutal on the centering quality of lenses. The Z was very sharp across the focal range but difficult to compare against the others since it was on a 45MP Z7.
zz wrote: