Peire wrote:
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.
I'd like to know what drove you to keep in parallel use the GM 1 and the Sigma DG DN 24-70mm.
In case of the Tamron I reckon it's because of its smaller bulk an lighter weight.
Maximilian wrote:
I'd like to know what drove you to keep in parallel use the GM 1 and the Sigma DG DN 24-70mm.
In case of the Tamron I reckon it's because of its smaller bulk an lighter weight.
I started with Tamrons,getting f2,8 trio at first (17-28/2.8,28-75/2.8,70-180/2.8).I was not lucky,as three subsequent copies of 70-180/2.8 that I used to have were badly decentered.I did not like also the overall plastic feeling of the trio,but first of all didn't like their colour rendition.All that made me shift to Sigma (14-24/2.8 Art,24-70/2.8 Art,Contemporary 100-400/4.5-6.3).This was better combo overall,yet after sometime 24-70/2.8 developed rattling inside,which i could not accept and 100-400/4.5-6.3 had poor image stabilization and contrast at 300-400mm.All of the above Sigmas fared better than Tamrons for me,yet despite all their merits I was not satisfied with their colour rendition still.Finally I decided to change them for Sony GMs 12-24/2.8+24-70/2.8+70-200/2.8 Mk1 and this was a good move.I like Sony GMs most.Upgrading from GM 70-200/2.8 MK1 to MK2 increased my satisfaction even more (better overall IQ+lower weight).
Peire wrote:
I started with Tamrons,getting f2,8 trio at first (17-28/2.8,28-75/2.8,70-180/2.8).I was not lucky,as three subsequent copies of 70-180/2.8 that I used to have were badly decentered.I did not like also the overall plastic feeling of the trio,but first of all didn't like their colour rendition.All that made me shift to Sigma (14-24/2.8 Art,24-70/2.8 Art,Contemporary 100-400/4.5-6.3).This was better combo overall,yet after sometime 24-70/2.8 developed rattling inside,which i could not accept and 100-400/4.5-6.3 had poor image stabilization and contrast at 300-400mm.All of the above Sigmas fared better than Tamrons for me,yet despite all their merits I was not satisfied with their colour rendition still.Finally I decided to change them for Sony GMs 12-24/2.8+24-70/2.8+70-200/2.8 Mk1 and this was a good move.I like Sony GMs most.Upgrading from GM 70-200/2.8 MK1 to MK2 increased my satisfaction even more (better overall IQ+lower weight).
I'm surprised you say colour was a reason to change to GM's. First of all you have very good postprocessing (i would love to know the basic of it, i have a different style, but i wanna have as much power over colours in postprocessing as you have). As a result both your Sigma and GM results are beautiful.
Secondly, the 24-70mm GM is my biggest dissapointment lens. It aint sharp except at 35-46mm (my copy), the colours are boring, it was a complete first production copy though (like 1 year after release), i bought it used way below new price. But it didnt fall or have decentering. The colours were meh. 24mm GM has waaay better colours, 100-400mm gm as well, and as such even the Sigma 24-70mm dg dn has better colours.
But yes i agree the GM II are amazing zoom (well 24-70mm GM II we must see yet but i'm hopefull it will).
Is your 12-24mm GM sharper then Sigma 14-24mm dg dn? At 24mm the sigma is incredible sharp (same as GM 24mm) but at 14mm i'm having mixed results, sometimes asigmatism or something else. In theory 12-24mm gm is prime sharp at 18mm and little softer at both ends but this could be different in practise. One review has incredible sharpness at 12mm F4, so i'm curious.
Matti6950 wrote:
I'm surprised you say colour was a reason to change to GM's. First of all you have very good postprocessing (i would love to know the basic of it, i have a different style, but i wanna have as much power over colours in postprocessing as you have). As a result both your Sigma and GM results are beautiful.
Secondly, the 24-70mm GM is my biggest dissapointment lens. It aint sharp except at 35-46mm (my copy), the colours are boring, it was a complete first production copy though (like 1 year after release), i bought it used way below new price. But it didnt fall or have decentering. The colours were meh. 24mm GM has waaay better colours, 100-400mm gm as well, and as such even the Sigma 24-70mm dg dn has better colours.
But yes i agree the GM II are amazing zoom (well 24-70mm GM II we must see yet but i'm hopefull it will).
Is your 12-24mm GM sharper then Sigma 14-24mm dg dn? At 24mm the sigma is incredible sharp (same as GM 24mm) but at 14mm i'm having mixed results, sometimes asigmatism or something else. In theory 12-24mm gm is prime sharp at 18mm and little softer at both ends but this could be different in practise. One review has incredible sharpness at 12mm F4, so i'm curious....Show more →
Thank you.
I am very sensitive to colour and although I can achieve proper colour redition in PP,I prefer to have it rather quicker than later with possibly little PP.Sigma colour rendition was cooler and"shallower".And I prefer warmer and deeper,i.e. more Zeiss or Leica like rendition of 24-70/2.8 GM.This lens was not as sharp and contrasty as Sigma 24-70/2.8 ART,especially at 24 and 70mm in my case ,but it does not matter in real life photography.Beside colours,Sony is also more solid,with no rattling after some use,not prone to catch dust and fully compatible with all Sony bodies.
As for Sigma 14-24/2.8 versus Sony GM 12-24/2.8 - Sony is very sharp throughout the range and across the frame plus being marginally sharper here and there than Sigma, again with no discernible differences in real life.Sigma's color rendition were again cooler than sony and my preference goes to warm.I chose Sony for colours and 12mm.
BTW:I have all GM primes save 100/2.8 STF to compare colour rendition
I will be selling my 35 gm and going with this zoom instead. While the 35 is nice stepped down for landscapes wide-open there is too much purple fringing for my astro photos compared to my 24 and 14 gm. On top of that it fills the gap between my 24 gm and 70-200 gm just well. Hopefully it performs better wide open in terms of fringing and is just as sharp and contrasty stopped down.
In my use 35 GM and a std zoom compliment each others very nicely. I would never sell my 35 GM! It is fairly small and light lens that does things no 24-70mm can do.
Zayne12 wrote:
I will be selling my 35 gm and going with this zoom instead. While the 35 is nice stepped down for landscapes wide-open there is too much purple fringing for my astro photos compared to my 24 and 14 gm. On top of that it fills the gap between my 24 gm and 70-200 gm just well. Hopefully it performs better wide open in terms of fringing and is just as sharp and contrasty stopped down.
tuomkok wrote:
In my use 35 GM and a std zoom compliment each others very nicely. I would never sell my 35 GM! It is fairly small and light lens that does things no 24-70mm can do.
If money weren't an issue I'd have a zoom and prime kit.
12-24 gm, 24-70 gm ii, 70-200 gmii.
14 gm, 24 gm, 35 gm, 50 gm, 85 gm, 100 gm and 135 gm. That would be my kit and the A1 would compliment this kit, unfortunately this is way far of and while my kit is still awesome it's a bit more humble than what I have as a dream kit.
Bokehddicted wrote:
Mine is about to ship in Germany. Anyone has theirs already?
That lens is scheduled to ship in June, I believe even during the 3rd week of June over here in the US. For whatever reasons, we are behind Europe and Asia. Oh, well…
I am prime shooter for decades. Well, apart from 2.8/70200 models, which are just too versatile to miss IMHO.
Look forward to see, whether this 2.8/24-70 will have the vigor to charm me.
Bokehaddict is kind of a misnomer, since that addiction is settled long ago. I would say i am more of a Depthaddict these days. Dont care who sees depth, 3d, pop, what not. For me its the center of my longings in GAS.
Having depth in a picture makes me feel emotionally attached and reliving the moment. Flat images leave me completely cold.
Like some others here, i dont think the GM lenses have enough depth. For whatever reasons. Maybe its just Sony Nano Coating 2 vs Zeiss T* Coating and what others like Voigtlaender achieve in some lenses.
Anyway. If the new GM2 24-70 has depth, i am likely to use it quite a bit.
To settle this, i would love to make a shootout:
2470GM2 vs GM24 vs Lox25
2470GM2 vs GM35 vs Lox35
2470GM2 vs GM50 vs Lox50
Have all of these except GM24 and Lox50, which i sold a couple of month ago.
Anyone in Stuttgart, Germany capable of helping me out by providing these two: Contact me via PM.
When we reflect on lenses having more or less ‚3d‘ or ‚pop‘ qualities, what we mean is that the picture has a certain ‚depth‘ or ‚sense of dimensionality‘ to it.
Whether this is due to the scene itself, the lighting, the microcontrast or color characteristic of the lens.
You name it. Dozens of threads in here. Never an agreement 😇
For me this is not only ‚a thing‘ that really exists, but really important. To the point that these days, every other characteristic is typically ‚good enough‘ for me. The depth is the decisive factor.
Problem for someone with this priority like me: All other characteristics can be tested ans mostly agreed upon (see reviews of sharpness, field curvature, flare…).
But depth? Seems to be super subjective, so i kinda need to test it out myself. Which is a pity 😔
NJPhotographer wrote:
"i dont think the GM lenses have enough depth." -- What exactly does that mean?
I have this on preorder and am looking for it to replace my very good 24-105 as my travel EDC. While I love the 70-105 reach the ability to shoot 2.8 is more appealing for me.
Wish it was shipping in the US as early as Europe or that I could arrange for it to be held in Amsterdam for me. I’ll be there June 14
Bokehddicted wrote:
I am prime shooter for decades. Well, apart from 2.8/70200 models, which are just too versatile to miss IMHO.
Look forward to see, whether this 2.8/24-70 will have the vigor to charm me.
Bokehaddict is kind of a misnomer, since that addiction is settled long ago. I would say i am more of a Depthaddict these days. Dont care who sees depth, 3d, pop, what not. For me its the center of my longings in GAS.
Having depth in a picture makes me feel emotionally attached and reliving the moment. Flat images leave me completely cold.
Like some others here, i dont think the GM lenses have enough depth. For whatever reasons. Maybe its just Sony Nano Coating 2 vs Zeiss T* Coating and what others like Voigtlaender achieve in some lenses.
Anyway. If the new GM2 24-70 has depth, i am likely to use it quite a bit.
To settle this, i would love to make a shootout:
2470GM2 vs GM24 vs Lox25
2470GM2 vs GM35 vs Lox35
2470GM2 vs GM50 vs Lox50
Have all of these except GM24 and Lox50, which i sold a couple of month ago.
Anyone in Stuttgart, Germany capable of helping me out by providing these two: Contact me via PM.
I agree with you view of lenses and would love to see the results of your proposed tests. The one zoom I have and can't part with despite the bad ergonomics is the Contax 35-70 f3.4. I would love to see that lens added to your test as from a landscape prospective it has all of the Zeissy depth I crave, and can't find in another zoom.
Bokehddicted wrote:
Having depth in a picture makes me feel emotionally attached and reliving the moment. Flat images leave me completely cold.
It this "depth" is a real characteristic of lenses, and it has such a dramatic impact (feeling emotionally attached & reliving the moment vs. leaving me completely cold), then it should be very easy to demonstrate it with a side-by-side comparison, shooting the same subject with the same focal length, from the same position, with the same composition, with the same lighting, and all camera & lens settings fixed. The "depth" of a lens that has it vs. the lack thereof in another lens should be very apparent, instantly creating an emotional impact vs. no emotional impact. It should be so visible that one can't miss it, and can't help but feel the "depth" or lack thereof. Photography is visual, so a visual comparison would be the only direct way to show the "depth" thing.
Naturally, people don't all see the same way, so there may be subjective differences in perception and emotion. But if someone can't immediately see it, they should still be able to see it once the specific depth difference is identified and shown to them in the side-by-side comparison photos.
Bokehddicted wrote:
When we reflect on lenses having more or less ‚3d‘ or ‚pop‘ qualities, what we mean is that the picture has a certain ‚depth‘ or ‚sense of dimensionality‘ to it.
Whether this is due to the scene itself, the lighting, the microcontrast or color characteristic of the lens.
You name it. Dozens of threads in here. Never an agreement 😇
For me this is not only ‚a thing‘ that really exists, but really important. To the point that these days, every other characteristic is typically ‚good enough‘ for me. The depth is the decisive factor.
Problem for someone with this priority like me: All other characteristics can be tested ans mostly agreed upon (see reviews of sharpness, field curvature, flare…).
But depth? Seems to be super subjective, so i kinda need to test it out myself. Which is a pity 😔
I get it. I have the same feeling of the “depth” on many of my lenses. I feel the race for the utmost sharpness is just missing the boat if this 3d depth is not considered.
Yeah. Sony Korea started to sell 2470gm2 at May 19 and Many of Koreans got their hands on this at May 20. So far it looks like It has great sharpness and contrast through all focal length and flare control and CA looks well controlled. Even though zoom click switch was at smooth, zoom ring felt bit tough at first handling But after using it few time it became or felt smooth. Maybe I just got adapted to it's feeling I was especially happy taking video with this lense, since it covers wide and semi-tele range.
