Matti6950
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #12 · Sigma art 24-70 vs Sony 24-70 GM II | |
TL;DR Sigma is surprising good even compared to Gmaster. Price/performance of the Sigma is outstanding (better then can be expected) if 24mm if must have (it is for me, no clue how people can frame cityscape on 28mm).
I still have both (couldn't resist on the GM II for 2000€ instead of 2400€).
A lot of people don't like the Sigma colours, but personally love their DG DN colours are epic imo. A tiny touch of vividness without ever going extreme, easy to go any direction with em still, but much easier then some bland lenses to get vivid (sunset etc) out of it. The 24/35mm GM have also vivid (but of course different) style. I own the 24mm GM, no problems there. The 24-70mm GM II has a... rather very neutral (even more then GM I first one that i owned). Now make no mistake you can push it quite in most directions, but imo, Sony missed the boat here, i think for black and white filming, and for portraits they went for almost to neutral. Even the 100-400mm GM has better colours (more vivid, without exagerrating).
Sharpness needs more test but i'm not all to impressed with the Sony GM II. While it definitely is good, very stable, Astigmatism better then ever fixed, quite flat focus field... The sharpness is, 'not that much' better then Sigma, it might even be a wash. Especially the 70mm 'omg it's amazing' parade is meh. Sure it's better then Mark 1 but that lens completely sucked at 70mm hard. Sigma was way better, and well, Sony follows but doenst improve (if only a little).
The weight is amazing. I don't dislike heavy lenses (i love my Sigma 35mm F1.2), but it's a really nice package, and while give lot of security for future like airplane bagage limitations. And for hiking any gram counts. This thing Sony did really amazing. The best thing imo is that the hard to grab thing near the mount is gone. The barrel is much more thin, making it nowhere near the mount 'closed' off for your fingers. Another nice thing is, for being 'the best in class' lens (together with Sigma), having such a small lens makes it less intrusive to other people, i noticed almost no 'omg that guy is shooting us with a telelens' look using this lens.
The bokeh falls of very fast, good for any bokeh image, bad for 70mm landscape shots, very hard to get F8 front to back sharp images.
Focus is incredible fast. Perhaps this is the biggest difference with Sigma. I do not dislike Sigma focus, but here the Sony has the most to gain. Also in accuracy and close focus.
Anyone thinking of 'upgrading' to Mark II gm for image quality from the Sigma 24-70mm DG DN should not do this. Period. The Sigma is an incredible optical design, that keeps price very low and image quality absolutely high. Shoot F8 at infinity (and some F-stops lower depending on Scene) and the sharpness really matches A7RIV. Yes primes are sharper, but at least every pixel provides details, wich a lot of standard zoom lenses don't (like the Zeiss 24-70mm F4.) Even the bokeh is amazing on Sigma.
Oh forgot about Flare, this seems really good on Sony but rarely had problems with my Sigma.
I'm actually considering keeping my Sigma (and probably Sony too). Standard zoom is my go-to for travelling, all day on camera, so that is for me the 'money' (without making it) lens.
|
