p.3 #1 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Something i forgot to say, The gmaster is tack sharp at 35-46mm. 35mm it kills many primes in sharpness. It's not Sigma 35mm F1.2 art level, but certainly sony 35mm F1.8. It just drops immediately at 28mm a bit, and cleary 24mm, same for longer zoom 50mm sets the trend for very weak 70mm.
This copy was sold twice in used state, and not used much, i suspect it's early production sample. Weither that affects the sharpnes i don't know but Sony a7RIV didn't exist yet. Luckely i only payed 1500€.
Still i use 24mm a lot (a reason i will never consider the Tamron), and the Sigma is clearly better.
Sigma is sharp from wide open, but has some softness outside DX circle (very logical, even for most primes). But what is impressive is how much the corners sharpen up at F5.6-f8. Most lenses keep some form of astigmatism or other lens errors all the way stopped down preventing good sharpness. This is not the case with Sigma at any focal length. For instance DSLR Sigma/tamron 24-70mm were never tack sharp f8, nikon 24-120mm on long end, didnt get much improvement. Nikon 24-70mm VR was actually very good at F8 (softer wide open for sure), but still lags behind how good the Sigma is at F8.
So for landscape sigma is joy to use, if you keep stopped down if you want everything sharp (enough depht of field and sharpness in corner).
I honestly wish Id never seen that chart! Generally I shoot with adapted old MF primes, but every time I think about buying AF glass that chart kills me. I know in a few years I will end up with a 2nd hand A7rIV, so I can't help but check against that chart. If it weren't for that I would have had the 16-35 F4 months ago, instead Im lenless in the wide area and still agonising over whether to get the F2.8 instead...
p.3 #3 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Actually that chart tells how good a work Sigma has done with their mirrorless lenses, basically all of the newer ones are either "Outstanding" or "Excellent", and I'm expecting that the new 100-400 will fall in there also. I had my 24-70 F2.8 DG DN for some time now and totally loving it on my A7RIII.
Tamron is no slouch either usually for the price and for now I think this is a huge advantage for us Sony ML shooters compared to Canon and Nikon ones: native quality third party glass that rivals OEM offerings at much more affordable prices
p.3 #4 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I have lately tested Sony GM 24-70/2.8 against Sigma 24-70/2.8.
Sigma is a clear winner in every respect (sharper across the frame with better corners,especially at 24 and 70mm.Contrastier,less LoCA and LCA,smaller,lighter,cheaper).It has however pronounced distortion at 24mm and loud clunking from the insight when shaken only after 2000 shots approximately.Also there is a bit of a longitudinl loose on the zoom ring,but zoom doesn't creep and all feel tight.
I still consider keeping GM 24-70 for it's colour rendition,smooth oof blurr and solid built.A very decent lens overall it is,but seems slightly dated on a 42 MPX FF sensor.
p.3 #5 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I just finished comparing two copies of the sigma 24-70 2.8 dg dn (one from B&H and one from samy's camera) vs two copies of the sony 24-70 2.8 GM from B&H. Ended up keeping the sigma from B&H which was a better copy compared to the other one at 50mm especially where the other one was softer in almost all apertures (2.8 to 11). And yes that was a very expensive purchase
My conclusion is same as what another person reported. The sigma tends to render things in distance better than the GM which is important for me because it will be my landscape lens. The AF speed and accuracy is pretty much on par with GM. Maaaaaybee the GM is just a tiny bit faster but really not noticeable (all lenses were on latest firmware, I checked). Also I really love the colors of the sigma and contrast. From almost all the focal ranges I tested (24, 35, 50, 70), the sigma did better in center to mid area especially and was pretty much on par with the GM. I really had no flare issues either with both lenses.
The GM was slightly better at 50mm (tested against the worse copy, didn't retest against the 2nd sigma copy which was much better than the 1st sigma copy so I am confident it will be on par if not beter than the GM). A sunset I took where I used both lenses clearly showed me how much better the sigma did at 24, 35 and 70mm. Very impressed by the sigma. So glad I got to actually test the GM. It's a great lens but seriously for half the price you get even better performance....that is really hard to say no to unless all you will do is use the lens for video and you need that faster video AF.
p.3 #7 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Anyone have opinions or comparative pictures of the Sigma 24-70 vs the Sony 24-105 for landscape stuff? I sold my 24-70 GM a while back as I thought the 24-105 was better at landscape distances, and that seems to be validated in this thread. I continue to wonder if the Sigma would be better still.
p.3 #8 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
billsnature wrote:
Anyone have opinions or comparative pictures of the Sigma 24-70 vs the Sony 24-105 for landscape stuff? I sold my 24-70 GM a while back as I thought the 24-105 was better at landscape distances, and that seems to be validated in this thread. I continue to wonder if the Sigma would be better still.
I tend to shoot more with the 24-105 then the Sigma 24-70, but they are both great lenses.
Looking at them now I realize I haven't edited and downloaded most of my 24-105 shots, but you should be able to find some decent data in both.
Best,
Brian
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the links. It is always hard to compare lenses when the subjects are not identical, but it seems like the Sigma may have much more pop in the colors over the 24-105. Maybe not as much as a Loxia, but clearly better color than the Sony. That would be consistent with comments in the thread about Sigma colors being better than the GM. Is that your experience?
I like the weight and convenience of the 24-105, but if that color pop in the Sigma is real, it may be worth a change.
p.3 #10 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
billsnature wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the links. It is always hard to compare lenses when the subjects are not identical, but it seems like the Sigma may have much more pop in the colors over the 24-105. Maybe not as much as a Loxia, but clearly better color than the Sony. That would be consistent with comments in the thread about Sigma colors being better than the GM. Is that your experience?
I like the weight and convenience of the 24-105, but if that color pop in the Sigma is real, it may be worth a change.
Bill
Bill, I had Fred's tested copy of the 24-105, sold it after I got the Sigma 24-70. I am not one who does direct comparison. But to my untrained eyes the Sigma is definitely more contrasty and shall I say, has the similar color signature of the Voigtlander lenses. What bothers me a bit with the Sony is the dark corners (not vignetting) at 24mm. The Sigma gets internal dust easily, if that is a concern for you. I think I read somewhere the Sigma is actually a bit wide than 24mm, a good thing in my book. If I remember correctly, I bought my first ever Sigma lens from YOU, some years ago, it was the Sigma 35mm Art and we met at the White Marsh Mall.
Here is a picture taken with the Sigma this Tuesday at your neck of the wood.
p.3 #11 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
I realize that much has changed with my purchase of an A7r IV which (during the lockdown) I bought as an alternate to my four A9 bodies. My specialty is extreme low light dance action in performance at medium distances. The A9 with the 24-70GM was a revelation (from a Nikon D5) with its fast, silent shutter but F 2.8 was barely fast enough at ISO 6400/12800.
Eventually, because focusing on the mirrorless sensor is so accurate, I settled on multiple bodies with the fastest primes since it‘s really difficult to change lenses in the dark venue with my fixed position in the front row. Often the 24-70 was in the mix however, the fast primes, on my A9 bodies, give me more IQ with up to two stops more speed (2.6X with the 35 F1.2).
I haven’t tested the 61 mP body yet but for critical shooting my impulse would be to use one of my primes and crop to frame up a bit. Since the A7r MkIV is slower in my hands than the A9 i have bought a complement of MF primes for deliberate work. There, again, I have considered up to the APS C crop for my 9mm F5.6 and 35mm F 0.95 because 24 mP has served me well before.
Obviously, for 61 mP resolution of inanimates at a distance a sturdy tripod and remote release coupled with my sharpest lenses is my idea. That can likely include the 24-70 @ F5.6-8 when light/time permits.
p.3 #12 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Both lenses are very good. I just posted some pics I took with the 24-105G on the 24-105G thread from Mongolia, very nice colors. That being said, I would say this:
Colors and contrast: Sigma
Sharpness and AF: Sony
If I could only have one, personally, I would probably keep the Sony. For me, the difference in the AF is the key one.
p.3 #13 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
billsnature wrote:
Anyone have opinions or comparative pictures of the Sigma 24-70 vs the Sony 24-105 for landscape stuff? I sold my 24-70 GM a while back as I thought the 24-105 was better at landscape distances, and that seems to be validated in this thread. I continue to wonder if the Sigma would be better still.
To me 24-105/4 G has less microcontrast vs Sigma 24-70/2.8 DG DN.This is a main difference,but not a very significant one.
I like it's solid built and IS as well.
Sigma is solid either,but after taking 2000 pics approximately,it started to clunk and rattle inside when shaken,which annoys me a bit.Also zoom ring has some sagittal play.None of my 9 GM/G lenses behaves like this.
p.3 #15 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
The first Sony lens I bought was the GM mid zoom. No Sigma competition back then. The question posed by someone wishing to buy now might “be do I pay up for a new Sony or buy Sigma and then what do I lose?”
p.3 #16 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
SoundHound wrote:
The first Sony lens I bought was the GM mid zoom. No Sigma competition back then. The question posed by someone wishing to buy now might “be do I pay up for a new Sony or buy Sigma and then what do I lose?”
I have just upgraded from Sigma fo Sony GM,despite that Sigma is slightly sharper and contrastier,especially at 24/70mm ends plus much cheaper and lighter.However It does not have that Sony's colour rendition so pleasant to my eyes as well as it lacks Sony's firm precision of mechanisms (wobbly zoom ring and excessive rattling when shaken from the inside after about 2000 shots in Sigma).It is of course a matter of taste,subject to personal preferences,which to choose.
I chose to stay with Sony and let Sigma go after getting some experience with both.
p.3 #17 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
My biggest concern with the Sigma lens is how much dust many people report gets inside the lens. If I'm spending $1000 on a lens, even if it's half the price of the GM I still want to know that it's durable and going to last me a long time.
p.3 #18 · Sigma 24-70 F2.8 Art vs Sony 24-70 F2.8 GM
Teo Rey wrote:
My biggest concern with the Sigma lens is how much dust many people report gets inside the lens. If I'm spending $1000 on a lens, even if it's half the price of the GM I still want to know that it's durable and going to last me a long time.
That's what I'm reading about and honestly I'd be okay paying more for a better build quality. I switched from Canon to Sony last month (A7III) and the GM has been on my wishlist for quite a while. Just wondering if I should wait for a possible MarkII version.
