jc75 wrote:
Well for those of us in the US, looks like BH has updated the estimated shipping date and it's moved up 1 week from June 24th to June 17th now.
Hoping I madeysin the first batch.
Any ideas what "first batch" might be? i.e ordered in the first few hours, or days, or week? probably no way of guess... unless the recent new GM's offer a clue on that. i put an order in at Adorama the first morning.
patriot wrote:
Any ideas what "first batch" might be? i.e ordered in the first few hours, or days, or week? probably no way of guess... unless the recent new GM's offer a clue on that. i put an order in at Adorama the first morning.
No idea I put my order in with B&H at 3 minutes after it went on pre-order.
My only (slight) dissapointment, is the performance at 24mm at f8 and f11. Still, considering all the variables Sony has managed to balance here, I agree with Marc: 'a new masterpiece'
An excellent lens I’m sure. But wouldn’t it be better to get reviews from people who aren’t Sony ambassadors…? It’s like Freddie Levi reviewing Levi’s jeans.
My only (slight) dissapointment, is the performance at 24mm at f8 and f11. Still, considering all the variables Sony has managed to balance here, I agree with Marc: 'a new masterpiece'
KarmaKramer wrote:
An excellent lens I’m sure. But wouldn’t it be better to get reviews from people who aren’t Sony ambassadors…? It’s like Freddie Levi reviewing Levi’s jeans.
Marc seems pretty unbiased in his reviews. In his lenses for a1 recommendations he had the sigma 24-70 over the original GM. He rated the new GM 4 stars out of 5 on sharpness. So it doesn't seem to be in the same class as the 70-200 Gm II. He did say it was better than the sigma, that he also rated at 4 stars.
But yes I would like to hear from independent people. To some extent all reviewers have some bias and may tend to give positive reviews to continue to get early samples. I like Dustin Abbot for an independent review.
So far from looking at a few full res 61 megapixel files (and knowing my own Sigma 24-70mm with same resolution), it seems the GM has a tiny bit more contrast, punch between contrasty zones then the Sigma, but for the rest they are pretty even in sharpness.
Need more research ofc. For now 24mm (my most used focal length) is a little dissapointing. (The weakest focal length of the new gmaster, probably not as bad in real life but more on test charts. If it's better at infinity then close up (24mm), then i'm fine with it.
I like reviews from photographers who offer reasons to upgrade or not upgrade. Of course the newest is “better”, I don’t need the sales pitch. Is it worth spending so much on it or stick with the latest Sigma. I’m a rare photographer who wants to actually make money not piss what I’ve earned away on new shiny (but unnesessary) toys lol
So far,all that jumps out to me is the autofocus ability in tracking and low light. Sigma misses on occasion (but not always,I still get the shot), and the size isn’t a problem. Worth 3 grand…?? Leaning no….at the moment anyway.
tschopp wrote:
Marc seems pretty unbiased in his reviews. In his lenses for a1 recommendations he had the sigma 24-70 over the original GM. He rated the new GM 4 stars out of 5 on sharpness. So it doesn't seem to be in the same class as the 70-200 Gm II. He did say it was better than the sigma, that he also rated at 4 stars.
But yes I would like to hear from independent people. To some extent all reviewers have some bias and may tend to give positive reviews to continue to get early samples. I like Dustin Abbot for an independent review....Show more →
KarmaKramer wrote:
I like reviews from photographers who offer reasons to upgrade or not upgrade. Of course the newest is “better”, I don’t need the sales pitch. Is it worth spending so much on it or stick with the latest Sigma. I’m a rare photographer who wants to actually make money not piss what I’ve earned away on new shiny (but unnesessary) toys lol
So far,all that jumps out to me is the autofocus ability in tracking and low light. Sigma misses on occasion (but not always,I still get the shot), and the size isn’t a problem. Worth 3 grand…?? Leaning no….at the moment anyway.
Whether the difference is worth a certain amount of money, will depend on his/her individual opinion. Unlike in audiophile world, where most of the difference depends more on imagination what you want to hear, the difference in optical performance is more tangible here .
Perhaps. But when finances are an issue, I’d like people to at least see the difference such an expense would make “Oh these photos are way better!”
Frankly,I don’t think any of my clients would notice. How many of them print and critique their photos to spot the sharpness difference? After editing,even the rendering and bokeh would have to be pointed out. Of course,as always,it comes down to wanting or not wanting it. I know it’ll be fantastic, but who’ll notice other than me….?
AGeoJO wrote:
Whether the difference is worth a certain amount of money, will depend on his/her individual opinion. Unlike in audiophile world, where most of the difference depends more on imagination what you want to hear, the difference in optical performance is more tangible here .
KarmaKramer wrote:
Perhaps. But when finances are an issue, I’d like people to at least see the difference such an expense would make “Oh these photos are way better!”
Frankly,I don’t think any of my clients would notice. How many of them print and critique their photos to spot the sharpness difference? After editing,even the rendering and bokeh would have to be pointed out. Of course,as always,it comes down to wanting or not wanting it. I know it’ll be fantastic, but who’ll notice other than me….?
No argument there; I am not much of a lens tester, if at all and I rely mostly on real-life images to make up my mind. Frankly, I am going for the II version of this lens is mostly for its lighter weight and more compact size. I seriously doubt that the IQ in real-life images taken with the new II lens would be any different than those taken with the Sigma DG DN. To go further, even those taken with the classic GM 24-70mm are probably indistinguishable, too. Again, real-life images are one thing but carefully done test images may reveal more of a difference there. But who cares about those…
My Sigma is so good that for the pictures I take the very very slight improvements in the new GM would make zero difference. The extra 130 grams of the Sigma isn’t enough to worry about and spend more than double on the new GM. But if money were not an issue, of course I’d get the new lens!🙂
I don’t test either,exhaustive journey that.
I had the 1st version of the 24-70 GM for 1 wedding. It was HUGE especially with a flash locked in, I returned it. BUT the images were noticeably different to me,better,much nicer skin tones and general…something. It had something, a natural depth or richness maybe. Plus the AF was crazy good at a dark dance. So,no doubt the lighter,faster,sharper version will be great. I’m on the fence…
AGeoJO wrote:
No argument there; I am not much of a lens tester, if at all and I rely mostly on real-life images to make up my mind. Frankly, I am going for the II version of this lens is mostly for its lighter weight and more compact size. I seriously doubt that the IQ in real-life images taken with the new II lens would be any different than those taken with the Sigma DG DN. To go further, even those taken with the classic GM 24-70mm are probably indistinguishable, too. Again, real-life images are one thing but carefully done test images may reveal more of a difference there. But who cares about those…
Matti6950 wrote:
So far from looking at a few full res 61 megapixel files (and knowing my own Sigma 24-70mm with same resolution), it seems the GM has a tiny bit more contrast, punch between contrasty zones then the Sigma, but for the rest they are pretty even in sharpness.
Need more research ofc. For now 24mm (my most used focal length) is a little dissapointing. (The weakest focal length of the new gmaster, probably not as bad in real life but more on test charts. If it's better at infinity then close up (24mm), then i'm fine with it.
These two unbiased? reviews, suggest the slight weakness in Marc's sample at 24mm was just sample variation:
I got mine yesterday. First non-scientific test show that at F 2.8 - and in the corners - 24mm is the „weakest“ focal length, but is improving nicely up to F8. The center remains extremely sharp from F2.8 to F8. Just mind that I am on 24 MP only…
Petegh wrote:
These two unbiased? reviews, suggest the slight weakness in Marc's sample at 24mm was just sample variation:
I put my order in with B&H at 3 minutes after it went on pre-order.