p.2 #2 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Took a shot of my dog today with the A7RIV after his first haircut in 8 months! I am happy with the Sigma, although I don't have the GM to do a head to head comparison. I had the GM a few years ago. IMHO, they all take great pictures, it's really splitting hair to to say one is better than the other, but being a pixel peeping Tom is the fun part of the Fred Miranda community.
I test all my lenses at infinity, which is generally where I shoot at since I'm a landscape shooter. Performance at infinity can be significantly different than at near and midrange distances.
p.2 #5 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
When are you selling the 14-24? GMPhotography wrote:
I have another really good copy. I’ve scored really well on Sigma zooms 14-24/24-70 both really good on 1st copy
p.2 #6 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
snapsy wrote:
I test all my lenses at infinity, which is generally where I shoot at since I'm a landscape shooter. Performance at infinity can be significantly different than at near and midrange distances.
Well interesting I have done both on many lenses and I have not seen anything different . They equal each other. I’ve gone head to head with a lot of lenses that Fred has tested at infinity and I keep coming up with the same conclusions. I would be more adept to do both on longer lens but let’s remember Big Bronco is a pretty big building it’s not a sign. Lenses we are talking about here at there distance is pretty much infinity anyway. I’ve tested hundreds of lenses and it honestly has never been anything significant on a good copy.
p.2 #8 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
GMPhotography wrote:
Well interesting I have done both on many lenses and I have not seen anything different . They equal each other. I’ve gone head to head with a lot of lenses that Fred has tested at infinity and I keep coming up with the same conclusions. I would be more adept to do both on longer lens but let’s remember Big Bronco is a pretty big building it’s not a sign. Lenses we are talking about here at there distance is pretty much infinity anyway. I’ve tested hundreds of lenses and it honestly has never been anything significant on a good copy. ...Show more →
My experience differs from yours but nevertheless I'm glad you're happy with your copy.
p.2 #9 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I have both (still). I like the Sigma better. Though i'm thinking my Sony is a bit of an early production dud. The sample Gordon Laing (Cameralabs dot com) tested on Sony A7RIV is certainly sharper. But it's of no use to me without.
Closer targets Sony is bit sharper.
Far targets Sigma is a lot sharper (even then Gordon Laing copy). This is even more true at 70mm, where Sigma holds much better sharpness then the Sony.
Sony is supposedly sharper at 24mm but on my copy that is not true, Sigma is actually sharper (F8).
Sigma controls chromatic aberration much better.
Sony controls vignetting a little better at 24mm.
Focus is fast on both, Sony may be a notch faster, but it's not lightnign fast (like 135mm gm for instance).
Sigma is smaller, less weight, and the weight middle point is also closer to camera.
Bokeh is slightly better on Sigma
Colours are better on Sigma imo, that Porous coating is really a nice step in getting closer so something like zeiss colours. It's still different ofc, but imo there is no reason to complain at all about colours.
Build quality both are good.
For the insane low price of 1200€ (i got it for 10% less - 1080€) it's an absolute steal.
p.2 #10 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I also don't understand how the GM has as bad reputation. When I tested it, I was very, very impressed. The copy I tested was prime sharp throughout the range.
p.2 #11 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I had a really nice Sony copy after my first one had a mechanical issue but 70mm I found was sort of weak. The Sigma is really good at 70. It's my go too work lens. If I had too say anything I think the Sony has a little more feel to it and less clinical.
p.2 #12 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Matti6950 wrote:
I have both (still). I like the Sigma better. Though i'm thinking my Sony is a bit of an early production dud. The sample Gordon Laing (Cameralabs dot com) tested on Sony A7RIV is certainly sharper. But it's of no use to me without.
Closer targets Sony is bit sharper.
Far targets Sigma is a lot sharper (even then Gordon Laing copy). This is even more true at 70mm, where Sigma holds much better sharpness then the Sony.
Sony is supposedly sharper at 24mm but on my copy that is not true, Sigma is actually sharper (F8).
Sigma controls chromatic aberration much better.
Sony controls vignetting a little better at 24mm.
Focus is fast on both, Sony may be a notch faster, but it's not lightnign fast (like 135mm gm for instance).
Sigma is smaller, less weight, and the weight middle point is also closer to camera.
Bokeh is slightly better on Sigma
Colours are better on Sigma imo, that Porous coating is really a nice step in getting closer so something like zeiss colours. It's still different ofc, but imo there is no reason to complain at all about colours.
Build quality both are good.
For the insane low price of 1200€ (i got it for 10% less - 1080€) it's an absolute steal....Show more →
Hi Matti
Thanks for the detailed analysis. This is really helpful.
p.2 #13 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Just got the Sigma yesterday to replace my Tamron 28-75mm.
This 24-70mm DG DN is very good / sharp across the FL, from f/2.8.
Did some comparisons with the Tamron, they are quite similar in terms of sharpness. The Sigma is a bit sharper in the corners, and maybe a hair sharper at 70mm in the center too.
The Sigma 70mm is equivalent to the Tamron at ~ 66mm. I read somewhere that at 24mm it was more a ~23mm which is good as my goal is to avoid switching lenses with a ~21mm.
24mm FL is really good from f2/8.
Bokeh of the Sigma is a bit smoother than the Tamron in some cases (with foliage in the background for example). But I didn't find the difference that obvious. I think the main difference is the background will never be too distracting with the Sigma.
The weight difference is significant, as expected. Not sure yet if it will bother me when using it for several hours. I will probably get used to it. The Tamron has always been easy to carry.
The MF/AF button is a nice addition. Not sure why we need a lock button on a 24-70mm (wish there was one on the 100-400 GM though)
AF seems to be about the same on both lenses.
I'm 90% decided to keep the Sigma and sell the Tamron. But it's not as easy as I expected. The Tamron offers a lot for the size , weight and price.
My other option was to add the 16-35GM and keep the 28-75mm. But used copies of the GM are still sold for >$1500 so thought I would just settle with a good 24-70mm.
p.2 #14 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Fboss wrote:
The weight difference is significant, as expected. Not sure yet if it will bother me when using it for several hours.
I'm 90% decided to keep the Sigma and sell the Tamron.
I've had the Sigma since May and sold the Tamron yesterday (after listing for about a month). I certainly won't look back at the Tamron. It's just a completely different lens in terms of quality and performance. I barely notice the weight difference myself, even after a long day. Like you said it also reduce the GAS for a 21mm of sorts. I had been looking into the CV21 3.5 for a long time.
I also never felt quite confident when it came to weather sealing on the Tamron and sometimes didn't take the camera out on rainy days. It's a lot nicer.
p.2 #15 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
zz wrote:
I've had the Sigma since May and sold the Tamron yesterday (after listing for about a month). I certainly won't look back at the Tamron. It's just a completely different lens in terms of quality and performance. I barely notice the weight difference myself, even after a long day. Like you said it also reduce the GAS for a 21mm of sorts. I had been looking into the CV21 3.5 for a long time.
I also never felt quite confident when it came to weather sealing on the Tamron and sometimes didn't take the camera out on rainy days. It's a lot nicer....Show more →
I had the CV21 3.5 that I sold recently. Very nice compact lens, but I wasn't using it often as I don't like changing lenses when outside. The only fixed FL lens I have now is the 55mm Sony Zeiss. It's so good and compact that I will probably keep it anyway.
p.2 #16 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Fboss wrote:
Just got the Sigma yesterday to replace my Tamron 28-75mm.
This 24-70mm DG DN is very good / sharp across the FL, from f/2.8.
Did some comparisons with the Tamron, they are quite similar in terms of sharpness. The Sigma is a bit sharper in the corners, and maybe a hair sharper at 70mm in the center too.
The Sigma 70mm is equivalent to the Tamron at ~ 66mm. I read somewhere that at 24mm it was more a ~23mm which is good as my goal is to avoid switching lenses with a ~21mm.
24mm FL is really good from f2/8.
Bokeh of the Sigma is a bit smoother than the Tamron in some cases (with foliage in the background for example). But I didn't find the difference that obvious. I think the main difference is the background will never be too distracting with the Sigma.
The weight difference is significant, as expected. Not sure yet if it will bother me when using it for several hours. I will probably get used to it. The Tamron has always been easy to carry.
The MF/AF button is a nice addition. Not sure why we need a lock button on a 24-70mm (wish there was one on the 100-400 GM though)
AF seems to be about the same on both lenses.
I'm 90% decided to keep the Sigma and sell the Tamron. But it's not as easy as I expected. The Tamron offers a lot for the size , weight and price.
My other option was to add the 16-35GM and keep the 28-75mm. But used copies of the GM are still sold for >$1500 so thought I would just settle with a good 24-70mm. ...Show more →
Your experience matches mine, as I've also tried out the Sigma recently after owning the Tamron.
I'd like to say that Sigma is significantly better optically, but I wasn't able to prove it (on A7iii). Tried some comparison shots and as you say the differences are there, but they do not stand out that much imho. My copy of the Tamron also seems to be either less sharp at 75mm or the AF is more error prone there as I seem to get more keepers with Sigma at the long end.
There is one area that Tamron beats the Sigma pretty convincingly (at least for me) - the handling (I don't get that "plasticky" feel many people complain about Tamron). Tamron is smaller and lighter to a degree I notice it when switching lenses (even though I do use other bigger/heavier lenses). I'd even go as far and say that the difference in handling is more tangible to me than their optical performance (I do like the photos from the Sigma a bit more but that could be recent purchase bias + better day/light ).
Ultimately, I will keep the Sigma, mostly because I want that wide end wide, but probably replace the Tamron with another Tamron (28-200) for travel/vacations ...
p.2 #17 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
It's nice to see this confirmation vs the Tamron. I had contemplated replacing my 28-75 with the Sigma, but eventually held out because for what I use it for, I have zero complaints from the Tamron, and I like the lighter weight.
p.2 #18 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
If you're not a pixel peeper, probably hard to see a convincing difference between the Sigma and Tamron especially on a 24mp sensor. On 42mp, there is a difference if you look for it.
Where the Sigma easily wins out for me having owned the Tamron in the past are: 1) Bokeh - if you like "smooth" background blur, the Sigma is superior and easily noticeable. I actually think the bokeh on the Sigma 24-70mm is better than on their Sigma 45mm f2.8 that's supposedly designed for bokeh. The Tamron background blur sorta reminds me of the Batis 85mm background blur - a bit overly harsh. and 2) AF - I always felt eye AF was never spot on with the Tamron at 75mm f2.8. The AF is a lot more on target with the Sigma zoom on both the a7r iii and a9 that I have.
Honestly, the net result of this is I just wish I had gone with the 24-70mm GM when it first came out years ago and stuck with it - assuming image quality is similar to the Sigma. Would've been cheaper once you spread the cost out over a few years and remove the frictional costs of buying/selling vs. trying out different sets of primes and mid-tier zooms instead. Biggest drawback of both lenses is weight but can't have everything.
p.2 #19 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Just sold the Tamron so I don't have to decide anymore.
The 24-70GM has never been an option at > $2k , especially when I read there is some weakness at 70mm.
I now need to take actual photos (starting tomorrow) rather than test shots looking for imperfections.
Btw, I also received the B+W 82mm Circular Polarizer MRC Filter . The rotation is very difficult. Wonder if it will loosen over time or if I should return it and get another brand. Would like to keep the budget ~ $100
Do you have some CPL filter recommendation for the 24-70 ?
p.2 #20 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I sold the GM. Got a nice profit off the resale so that turns into a great discount on the Sigma. I feel like the slight size and weight advantage without trading in IQ have settled it for me. I also like the idea of an all-Sigma setup.
But I haven’t bought the Sigma 24-70 yet. In fact I am struggling, the 24-70 F2.8 is so useful but the 24-105mm F4 is somewhat enticing too. And I cannot help but be drawn to the 14-24mm F2.8. Unfortunately I’m still such a novice to ultrawide compositions.
. 
zz wrote:
).
...