Les Numeriques have started their Imatest investigation of the new 24-70/2.8 GM II lens with a few comparisons: it blows the old version out of the water at 70mm; its performance at 70mm is very close to the new 70-200/2.8 GMII; its performance at 24mm is not quite up to the 12-24/2.8GM @ 24mm (I don't agree with their assessment of similarity here); also, there appears to be a mid-field dip at 24mm.
It really depends on what the person shoot, on my lens shopping list IQ is only number 4, to me:
Focal Length
AF
Aperture
IQ
I'm not saying I would buy a lens with trash IQ, but the fact is most of the lenses with best AF and Aperture in each focal length have more than good enough IQ for me. A few of my friends already placed order on the new 24-70GM II mostly because the new AF system in it, I would totally buy it if I'm still on the 24-70 + 70-200 setup, but I like the focal range of my 16-35 + 35-150 much better.
trstahly wrote:
I just watched five videos on the lens from the usual suspects. Not one of them really sold me on the amount of improvement over the GM. I sold mine due to dissatisfaction two years ago and none of them said run out and buy this lens like they have on the other GM releases.
It appears to be lackluster upgrade in terms of IQ than it's predecessor, the MTF charts are not very impressive compared to the orig GM. Sure it is better in most departments but IQ is the meat and potatoes for me. Reduced size, and other improvements in operation are nice but the only noticeable improvement over a not so hot GM 1 is at 70mm it leaves me cold and I will not be pre ordering.
Added after my earlier post
I ordered it but only because at times it's nice to have one lens with you and it is a great lens just not mind blowing IQ like I was hoping fo. So I will still use my primes 90% of the time but there will be occasions like car shows and other where I will use this lens.
Maybe the lens is good enough after all that I may use it more than 10% of the time we shall see that would be ok with me....Show more →
EdwardDye wrote:
It really depends on what the person shoot, on my lens shopping list IQ is only number 4, to me:
Focal Length
AF
Aperture
IQ
I'm not saying I would buy a lens with trash IQ, but the fact is most of the lenses with best AF and Aperture in each focal length have more than good enough IQ for me. A few of my friends already placed order on the new 24-70GM II mostly because the new AF system in it, I would totally buy it if I'm still on the 24-70 + 70-200 setup, but I like the focal range of my 16-35 + 35-150 much better.
I think we can eliminate focal length from this list because, well, everyone starts there. I think nuts and bolts lens comparisons take place after deciding on focal length. But you're right with the next two...generally, if AF is fast and it has a fast aperture...it's IQ isn't likely going to be anything to worry about for most uses.
Now, my issue, of course, is that I can't (or won't) afford the latest lenses with fast AF and large apertures
EdwardDye wrote:
It really depends on what the person shoot, on my lens shopping list IQ is only number 4, to me:
Focal Length
AF
Aperture
IQ
I'm not saying I would buy a lens with trash IQ, but the fact is most of the lenses with best AF and Aperture in each focal length have more than good enough IQ for me. A few of my friends already placed order on the new 24-70GM II mostly because the new AF system in it, I would totally buy it if I'm still on the 24-70 + 70-200 setup, but I like the focal range of my 16-35 + 35-150 much better.
chez wrote:
Size and weight also play an important role for me.
Yes, I thought about this shortly after I posted. I'm quite a bit more sensitive to size as my shoulder bag and backpack have a fixed amount of space. The Loxia 25 and 85 are good examples of lenses that aren't very large but have some heft; they're my main landscape kit and I love that I can carry them pretty much anywhere in anything.
But I'm not generally going to notice a few hundred grams here or there. But, I'll take smaller AND lighter if there's not obvious drawback
So, small first, light second. Lenses that can fit in a shoulder bag...added bonus, people pay less attention to small kit.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Yes, I thought about this shortly after I posted. I'm quite a bit more sensitive to size as my shoulder bag and backpack have a fixed amount of space. The Loxia 25 and 85 are good examples of lenses that aren't very large but have some heft; they're my main landscape kit and I love that I can carry them pretty much anywhere in anything.
But I'm not generally going to notice a few hundred grams here or there. But, I'll take smaller AND lighter if there's not obvious drawback
So, small first, light second. Lenses that can fit in a shoulder bag...added bonus, people pay less attention to small kit. ...Show more →
For me it’s not the extra couple hundred grams in my pack that is the issue, it’s that extra weight hanging off my wrist all day long that really gets noticed at the end of the day.
EdwardDye wrote:
It really depends on what the person shoot, on my lens shopping list IQ is only number 4, to me:
Focal Length
AF
Aperture
IQ
I'm not saying I would buy a lens with trash IQ, but the fact is most of the lenses with best AF and Aperture in each focal length have more than good enough IQ for me. A few of my friends already placed order on the new 24-70GM II mostly because the new AF system in it, I would totally buy it if I'm still on the 24-70 + 70-200 setup, but I like the focal range of my 16-35 + 35-150 much better.
Chez usually finds it necessary to disagree or poke holes in my posts it must be something I said and I get a kick out of it. It seems like the only time he refrains is when he doesn't see one lol
I might be more of a perfectionist than many and it tends to be my nature in everything I do. IQ is first and foremost with me and the lenses that are truly spectacular are the ones I tend to use.
I.e Sony 12-24, 14 24, 35, 50 135 400 & 600GM's along with three Voigtlanders 40 1.4, CV110, 50 2.0 APO are the lenses that deliver the most stunning images for me. The rendering on some of these is something special and beyond reproach.
Granted IQ is just the foundation but when you start with the best, the end result tends to end up better.
The 24-70GM is as good of a 24-70 as a person can buy today hence the reason I ordered it for versatility not because it is better than the primes I usually use.
Petegh wrote:
Les Numeriques have started their Imatest investigation of the new 24-70/2.8 GM II lens with a few comparisons: it blows the old version out of the water at 70mm; its performance at 70mm is very close to the new 70-200/2.8 GMII; its performance at 24mm is not quite up to the 12-24/2.8GM @ 24mm (I don't agree with their assessment of similarity here); also, there appears to be a mid-field dip at 24mm.
I had the G1 Tamron and what killed the deal for me was the rendering. Ugh. How is the rendering on the G2? Although my Sigma is noticeably heavier, I am always pleased with the rendering and results. The AF has more misses to be certain but I tend to shoot my fast moving targets with longer Sony glass like the 70-200GM ii and 200-600G
Albert
Fboss wrote:
do you find your 24-70 DN better optically than the 28-75 G2 ? I had the Sigma before the Tamron, and while I can't compare both now, I think the 28-75 is at least as good (and maybe a bit better after 50mm) than the Sigma. Maybe I didn't have a great copy of the Sigma. AF is definitely faster on the Tamron.
I expect the Sony v2 to be similar or better than them, but it's going to be by a very small amount given the good performance of these 2 lenses.
Newenglandrocks wrote:
I had the G1 Tamron and what killed the deal for me was the rendering. Ugh. How is the rendering on the G2? Although my Sigma is noticeably heavier, I am always pleased with the rendering and results. The AF has more misses to be certain but I tend to shoot my fast moving targets with longer Sony glass like the 70-200GM ii and 200-600G
Albert
Rendering is improved, I no longer see the busy/nervous background that was distracting with the G1. That was my main issue with the G1. I no longer have the Sigma but from memory it wasn't smoother than the G2. The AF is definitely faster and more reliable on the G2, compared to the Sigma.
Also did some comparisons at 75mm 2.8 between the G2 and the 70-200GMII, the sharpness and rendering are about the same. Very difficult to tell which picture is from the Sony or Tamron at this FL.
The G2 is generally very sharp across the zoom range, from f/2.8.
Can't wait to see how it compares with the new 24-70 GM2.
Basing on my very positive experience with GM 70-200/2.8MK2 vs MK1,having looked at the reviews of 24-70/2.8 MK 2 and being an extensive user fo the GM 24-70/2.8 PLUS Sigma ART DG DN 24-70/2.8 and Tamron 28-75/2.8 FE I will get the GM 24-70/2.8 MK2 AS SOON AS IT IS POSSIBLE.I know the price already,but it is worth it.
Yeah I feel same way. My 70-200 gm ii is just so amazing makes me want the 24-70 gm ii. I am still thinking about it not 100% sure yet. I just gotta avoid going to the camera store so my GAS doesn't come back again 😂 Maybe bit later as I had some unexpected expenses on our new home.
I sold my GM 1 and since switched to an a6600 + 16-55mm f/2.8 G
So far it's good - light and small enough
But I am afraid when the GM ii comes out, I'll get tempted again ... haven't cancelled my minute 1 order yet
