I would not do it if you are intending to use the zoom for architectural and landscape photography, having tested 3 samples of the 24-70 GM II from very different batches and after hearing from other owners, and also having owned version I.
There seem to be many specimens with a tilt problem from 50mm to 70mm on the right side regardless of aperture setting, varying from barely acceptable to severe.
Then there is a lesser known issue at 24mm in terms of a strong midfield dip in sharpness, again regardless of aperture setting. I believe this centering issue is a "hallmark" of the 24-70 GM since even my first version out of the very first (and great) production batches had that defect but not as severe when stopped down to F8. Most owners have probably never noticed anyway
I finally bought two Loxia's on sale instead: the 25/2.4 and 85/2.4. Perfectly centered and very sharp from center to corner, especially the 85/2.4 which is astonishing already at F2.4.
pwpub wrote:
There seem to be many specimens with a tilt problem from 50mm to 70mm on the right side regardless of aperture setting, varying from barely acceptable to severe.
Then there is a lesser known issue at 24mm in terms of a strong midfield dip in sharpness, again regardless of aperture setting. I believe this centering issue is a "hallmark" of the 24-70 GM since even my first version out of the very first (and great) production batches had that defect but not as severe when stopped down to F8. Most owners have probably never noticed anyway
I bought (and returned) one that had the tilt issue between 50-70mm. It was quite severe. Also the sharpness at 70mm f/2.8 was Ok, not great . I thought it was just a bad sample and I was going to order another one soon. It's concerning that it's a common issue with this lens.
As others said, a 24-70 with a 35 will be a great combo but it really is up to you on what FL you gravitate towards more. I tend to love 20/35(40)/50 for landscapes and then often shoot with the 70-200 GM II between 100-200 FL. If you like shooting shallow FL you just cant compare a 35 1.2/1.4 prime against a 35 2.8 zoom. Two different tools. That's how I look at my lenses. I often times like having a prime that my zoom has as well.
I had to go through 3 copies of the 24-70 GM II to get a really excellent (store I go to had just a terrible batch, so I went with adorama and was super happy) one that I tested against my sigma 24-70 DG DN. It definitely was better than the sigma in most FL especially longer ones and had better infinity performance. It really is an awesome lens no lie! If I didn't have the GM or GM II I would get the sigma for sure. The sample variation is a god damn nightmare. I am actually thinking of buying the sigma 24-70 again just because I loved it's rendering, flare performance and so adored that lens since I've taken some amazing pictures with it. Yeah call me crazy but I am ok with two 24-70 2.8's, just my crazy obsession.
I like mixing a 12-24 + 24-70 along with primes. I am just a sucker for primes. The recent GM zooms are so damn good it makes you not regret not taking your primes out but I have my days where I just go out to shoot with my primes, and days where I go with my zooms. I like the 20 1.8 G + 24-70 GM II combo a lot lately and am still debating on getting the 35 APO or 35 GM since I already have the CV 21 1.4, 50 APO and 50 1.2 GM. At first I was shooting with the 21 and 50 APO but I keep wanting a 35/40 often so I am not sure. Also been really wanting that zeiss loxis 25 2.4 for the colors and sunstars even tho I have the CV 21 1.4 nokton. Darn it first world problems.
Just like doc4x5, I sometimes struggle forever trying to decide what to take with me. For events I always take primes and zooms just in case I want to do some nice portraits with a 1.2/1.4. My never ending GAS gets the best of me
I will tell you one lens that always amazes me every time I take it out but it will cost you an arm and leg The 12-24 GM is absolute marvel of a lens. Literally THE main reason I got it is due to the way it handles flare so well while not loosing contrast shooting into the sun which I often do. Since I own the 24-70 GM II and had the sigma 24-70 dg dn I can also say that the sigma might have a slight edge on flare but it is slight. The sigma also had not so great sample variation but I tend to have had really bad luck with the recent GM lenses expect the 70-200 GM II which is a god of a lens (first copy was perfect). I'll be buying from adorama going forward probably anyway. Since you like to shoot architecture this lens will be a dream but NOT cheap!
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
Current owner of the A7RV along with the 35 gm 1.4 and sigma 85 1.4. I got this combo after using the a7iii and tamron 28-200 for a few years and wanting something more. I got lots of good pictures with my old combo, but lots that left me wanting more (namely image quality). I’ve been using the new a7rv + 35/85 combo for a little while and I’m having mixed thoughts on it. When the focal lengths are right (or things are crop-able) some of the pictures I get are incredible, however it’s often the case that the focal lengths aren’t right or the set up is inconvenient. Often the 35 isn’t wide enough or long enough. The 85 is often too zoomed. I’ve gotten used to switching lenses on the fly, trying to stitch images, etc but it is annoying for those around me and I’ve definitely missed shots as I switch from the 35 back to the 85 or vise versa. I’m starting to wonder if my little prime experiment isn’t working as well as I’d like it to and if I should just use a high quality zoom instead. The main reasons I went for the primes in general were the smaller size (although the f/1.4 aren’t that small), and great image quality. F/1.4 is cool and all but I wonder how much I need it in a day to day shooting situation. Sometimes it adds a lot to shots, but often I find that the f/1.4 just ‘obliterates’ everything that isn’t in focus which can be good, but can also not be ideal for many shots. It’s also great for low light, but 2.8 probably isn’t bad either.
This leads me to thinking about the 24-70 gm ii. From what I’ve read on here and in other places, good copies are very good with most of the focal range (especially the wider end) being close to prime sharpness. I’m wondering for myself if the loss of 1.4 will be made up by the convenience of having all these focal lengths IF the image quality is there. Do I really need 1.4 or is 2.8 more than enough with modern bodies? With the exception of bokeh will anyone be able to tell between the 24-70 gm ii and a prime without extreme (ie inconsequential) pixel peeping?
I realize this is more of a personal question and people value different things. Some would be quite fine with f/8 and others wouldn’t dare use something that wasn’t f/1.2. Maybe a 24 + 50 combo would be better (actually I think it would especially with the r series cropping) but then I’m still left with one moment being right for a lens and then a second later that same lens not being what I need.
I shoot a wide variety of things including landscapes, portraits, Astro, travel, architecture, so I’m really looking for a do it all solution in the truest sense excluding real telephoto stuff or ultra wide ...Show more →
Sounds like convenience is more important for you than any particular optical effects found in your primes. A zoom would make more sense in that context. Look at your image catalog. Do you actually shoot at f/1.4? Do you work in extreme low light or need super fast shutter speeds? I'm usually more of an f/2.8 zoom kind of person as I find the overall convenience fits me better. I'll use a prime for one of two reasons: size or uniqueness. Small primes are great when I want to travel light. Big primes are great if they do something that a comparable zoom just can't do like extreme background separation.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
Current owner of the A7RV along with the 35 gm 1.4 and sigma 85 1.4. I got this combo after using the a7iii and tamron 28-200 for a few years and wanting something more. I got lots of good pictures with my old combo, but lots that left me wanting more (namely image quality). I’ve been using the new a7rv + 35/85 combo for a little while and I’m having mixed thoughts on it. When the focal lengths are right (or things are crop-able) some of the pictures I get are incredible, however it’s often the case that the focal lengths aren’t right or the set up is inconvenient. Often the 35 isn’t wide enough or long enough. The 85 is often too zoomed. I’ve gotten used to switching lenses on the fly, trying to stitch images, etc but it is annoying for those around me and I’ve definitely missed shots as I switch from the 35 back to the 85 or vise versa. I’m starting to wonder if my little prime experiment isn’t working as well as I’d like it to and if I should just use a high quality zoom instead. The main reasons I went for the primes in general were the smaller size (although the f/1.4 aren’t that small), and great image quality. F/1.4 is cool and all but I wonder how much I need it in a day to day shooting situation. Sometimes it adds a lot to shots, but often I find that the f/1.4 just ‘obliterates’ everything that isn’t in focus which can be good, but can also not be ideal for many shots. It’s also great for low light, but 2.8 probably isn’t bad either.
This leads me to thinking about the 24-70 gm ii. From what I’ve read on here and in other places, good copies are very good with most of the focal range (especially the wider end) being close to prime sharpness. I’m wondering for myself if the loss of 1.4 will be made up by the convenience of having all these focal lengths IF the image quality is there. Do I really need 1.4 or is 2.8 more than enough with modern bodies? With the exception of bokeh will anyone be able to tell between the 24-70 gm ii and a prime without extreme (ie inconsequential) pixel peeping?
I realize this is more of a personal question and people value different things. Some would be quite fine with f/8 and others wouldn’t dare use something that wasn’t f/1.2. Maybe a 24 + 50 combo would be better (actually I think it would especially with the r series cropping) but then I’m still left with one moment being right for a lens and then a second later that same lens not being what I need.
I shoot a wide variety of things including landscapes, portraits, Astro, travel, architecture, so I’m really looking for a do it all solution in the truest sense excluding real telephoto stuff or ultra wide ...Show more →
You could try different focal lengths. 28 + 65mm for instance. Imo 35&85mm aren't ideal for all the reasons you described.
You could also try two bodies and three primes. I'm using a 50mm on one body and either a 28 or 105mm on the other. It's pretty effective to minimize lens changes, as most of the time I'm fine with just two of the three focal lengths. Maybe others would like other focal lengths, 24+40+85mm for instance, but despite all possible variations the concept would be the same.
When you need all the immediacy you can get to change perspective nothing beats a zoom though. The disadvantage: the focal length changes are stepless. You will have increments for aperture changes, but not for focal length changes, which makes it harder to be conscious about perspective. It's easier to keep your eye trained for just two or three focal lengths.
No right answer, unless you want to buy a body for each lens (Sony wishes). Personally I love the look of 1.4 and the zooms just don’t come close. But, I love the new Sony 70-200 for what its good for, plus its lightweight and provides great photos. After this wedding season we’ll see how much I use it. My shorthand thinking is 24/50 indoors and 35/85 outdoors works pretty well…the long zoom for sports and reach reasons. It’ll make your head hurt trying to fit them all in.
I have F1.2/F1.4 primes, F2.8 constant and F4 constant zooms. I believe if someone owns fast primes then they should skip F2.8 zooms all together and get F4 for versatility like 24-105, 16-35 PZ, 20-70 etc. Spend the extra and carry the heavier F2.8 zooms only if you are not planning to have F1.2/F1.4 primes. Once it goes darker, doesn't matter if it's F2.8 or F4 both are not up to the task. F4 lenses with newer Sony bodies is totally workable, With A7R5 you can do handheld 1/13 and slower. Improved IBIS is very noticeable. I never fell in love with F2.8s, they are neither here nor there. Only time F2.8 zoom makes sense is 70-200 as we don't get fast primes in this focal range other than 135mm. For video shooters especially, F4 paired with A7SIII/FX3 at 12800 ISO is squeaky clean.
F2.8 Zoom makes sense if it's gonna be your one and only lens, if you travel a lot and carry only 1 lens it's a no brainer.
Outstanding wrote:
I have F1.2/F1.4 primes, F2.8 constant and F4 constant zooms. I believe if someone owns fast primes then they should skip F2.8 zooms all together and get F4 for versatility like 24-105, 16-35 PZ, 20-70 etc. Spend the extra and carry the heavier F2.8 zooms only if you are not planning to have F1.2/F1.4 primes. Once it goes darker, doesn't matter if it's F2.8 or F4 both are not up to the task. F4 lenses with newer Sony bodies is totally workable, With A7R5 you can do handheld 1/13 and slower. Improved IBIS is very noticeable. I never fell in love with F2.8s, they are neither here nor there. Only time F2.8 zoom makes sense is 70-200 as we don't get fast primes in this focal range other than 135mm. For video shooters especially, F4 paired with A7SIII/FX3 at 12800 ISO is squeaky clean.
F2.8 Zoom makes sense if it's gonna be your one and only lens, if you travel a lot and carry only 1 lens it's a no brainer. ...Show more →
I'm almost always skipping the 70-200mm f/2.8, but despite the primes in my bag my standard zoom is still f/2.8.
In cases you need a bright zoom a bright prime doesn't do anything for you.
KarmaKramer wrote:
No right answer, unless you want to buy a body for each lens (Sony wishes). Personally I love the look of 1.4 and the zooms just don’t come close. But, I love the new Sony 70-200 for what its good for, plus its lightweight and provides great photos. After this wedding season we’ll see how much I use it. My shorthand thinking is 24/50 indoors and 35/85 outdoors works pretty well…the long zoom for sports and reach reasons. It’ll make your head hurt trying to fit them all in.
This is what I did… mainly because I get new bodies. I have a9, a73 and a74. I mount 14mm gm, 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.4 on them. To cover 14 to 85mm you need minimum 2 lens even with zooms. I hate changing lens so if I go zoom, it will be 2 zooms 2 bodies which is not much lighter.
Did anyone really get a great copy of the 24-70 GM II ?
Received the 2nd copy yesterday and it shows the same flaws as the 1st one and what @pwpub has described : tilt issues in the right side at 50-70mm and midfield dip at 24mm (all apertures ) it’s a different batch from the 1st one.
I wonder if I’m really unlucky (@pwpub@ saw this on 3 samples), or it’s just the way the lens is designed. In which case I will just give up on it and go with primes.
Fboss wrote:
Did anyone really get a great copy of the 24-70 GM II ?
Received the 2nd copy yesterday and it shows the same flaws as the 1st one and what @pwpub@ has described : tilt issues in the right side at 50-70mm and midfield dip at 24mm (all apertures ) it’s a different batch from the 1st one.
I wonder if I’m really unlucky (@pwpub@@@@ saw this on 3 samples), or it’s just the way the lens is designed. In which case I will just give up on it and go with primes.
Mine is a great performer, at least for real-life images. I don’t do lens testing and I am not tallking you down nor disputing what you asserted, just stating my own experience.
I noticed the tilt issue on the right side while taking real life images. Visible for example when shooting landscapes at 70mm (any aperture ). But I have a 60MP body and zoom in sometimes. On a lower resolution body it may be less noticeable.
An issue is that there are not many good, AF, small primes that are significantly faster than f2.8 in this range. Most are either f2 of f1.8 - only a stop more, or they are large f1.4/1.2s.
A little input to this thread. I just returned the Sony 24-70 GM II. It had exactly the same issue others have described: softness at the right edge at 50 - 70mm (really bad at 70mm!), and mid zone softness - visible but not serious - in the wider range. Bought i Norway, and regarding batch - produced in april 2023.
My Sigma 24-70 DG DN Art is the better lens optically in my test, and stays in my bag.
Regarding the "real life" discussion: my returned sample of the GM II was no fun to use in landscape photography and arcitecture. For other genres: portrait and people, street photography for instance, I guess more ok.
I also have the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM, and it is a splendid lens! I have no negative remarks about it.
I also agree with the f4 zooms and fast primes mentioned above,
If you break down your photography you can normally identify where you will need or want the primes, the form factor of the f4 makes them a joy to use vs their 2.8 counterparts, then you have the prime for where it counts,
I don’t switch between zooms and primes much, it’s normally one or the other, the light drops you go with a prime and it stays on, same with people photographing, there are a few exceptions but generally this works,
There are many times when I am happy swapping between primes but know there is a zoom in the bag if I can’t be bothered,
Also you tend to be selective with your accompanying prime choices when you go out, you may have 6 or more covering the 15-70 focal range, I will typically choose 2 depending on what I am expecting
This is certainly a question to which there is not a single answer!
In a similar vein to the suggestion from @tzhang4284, you might consider the 24-105mm f/4 — and keep at least one of your primes. The 24-105 is, in my view, excellent value. The additional 35mm above 70mm can be really useful for landscape. Although it’s obviously quite a bit heavier than the 24-70 f/4, I would always take it rather than the 24-70 (which my wife has). Whether f/4 would be adequate depends entirely on how you would be using it, of course.
I share, by the way, @sismailian ‘s admiration for the 12-24mm GM. In any practical sense, it is absolutely the equal of just about any prime. Expensive, for sure (I was really lucky to get an absolutely mint, essentially unused, second-hand copy), but the IQ is worth it.
One final thought: if landscape is one of your main things, consider the CV 50mm f/2 APO ….
Snupi wrote:
A little input to this thread. I just returned the Sony 24-70 GM II. It had exactly the same issue others have described: softness at the right edge at 50 - 70mm (really bad at 70mm!), and mid zone softness - visible but not serious - in the wider range. Bought i Norway, and regarding batch - produced in april 2023.
My Sigma 24-70 DG DN Art is the better lens optically in my test, and stays in my bag.
Regarding the "real life" discussion: my returned sample of the GM II was no fun to use in landscape photography and arcitecture. For other genres: portrait and people, street photography for instance, I guess more ok.
I also have the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM, and it is a splendid lens! I have no negative remarks about it. ...Show more →
My 2nd one was also produced in April 2023.
I wish I didn't sell my 35mm 1.4GM a couple of months ago. I thought I would be fine with the 24-70 GMII but I'm not going to keep a lens at >$2k that has sharpness issues. I own the 70-200 GMII that has no compromise, great at everything, and expected the 24-70 GMII to be in the same category.
Now I'm thinking of getting the 50mm GM 1.4 and a wide angle prime (or zoom). The new Viltrox 16mm 1.8 has great reviews.
