The GM is very tough to beat for a fast 24,IMO. I sold mine as I use that focal length for landscapes and I have the Loxia 25, but even as a landscape lens, the 24 is very, very good.
Bokeh wise, I think it's the best 24 I've seen. My suspicion is that it's less contrasty than the newer fast GMs and I think that makes it a more interesting lens for shallow DOF photography... Its rendering is more gentle, if that makes sense, and I'm a fan of lenses like that.
Most of its faults are honestly nit picking because we're spoiled here in Sony Land, so if you find a good deal, I'd jump on it. Small, sharp, fast, light...
This chart from Marc Aldaheff at www.sonyalphablog.com provides some useful information. You can go to his website for the full review of each lens. I would definitely buy the Sony (off of FM B&S for a good price).
As a note, my GM 24mm f1.4 is really excellent in nearly every way. It does not quite meet the standards of the newer GM 35mm and GM 50mm, but it is not far off; and, IMHO, the best game in town for a fast 24mm.
I can’t speak to the other lenses mentioned, but the 24GM literally changed how I think about when and how such a wide angle can be used. The fact that it is also small and light while performing so well is just gravy.
Dave Sanders wrote:
The GM is very tough to beat for a fast 24,IMO. I sold mine as I use that focal length for landscapes and I have the Loxia 25, but even as a landscape lens, the 24 is very, very good.
Bokeh wise, I think it's the best 24 I've seen. My suspicion is that it's less contrasty than the newer fast GMs and I think that makes it a more interesting lens for shallow DOF photography... Its rendering is more gentle, if that makes sense, and I'm a fan of lenses like that.
Most of its faults are honestly nit picking because we're spoiled here in Sony Land, so if you find a good deal, I'd jump on it. Small, sharp, fast, light... ...Show more →
Yes. I have the 24mm gm for many years and still own it. There are people who say it’s good in everything but it’s just not true, at least for my copy.
It’s sharp enough but I think the newer primes are sharper. Its rendering is more gentle so I find the trade off worth it.
The biggest issue I have with it is LoCA. It is not horrible but average. Since the lens is good in so many ways, the loCA really stands out
So, I finally had both lenses at the same time (thanks to my buddy Andi for lending me his 24 GM).
Advantages of the Sigma 1.4 DN:
- superior build quality (Made in Japan!); no creaking—whereas the Sony creaks all over due to the high plastic content
- autofocus is faster and locks onto the subject noticeably quicker
- wider angle of view—this is particularly noticeable at close range, possibly due to focus breathing?
- cheaper
- better price-performance ratio
- sharper in the center and at the corners/edges
Advantages of the Sony 1.4 24 GM:
- lighter (by 75g)
- warmer colors (I prefer this look)
- less vignetting at f/1.4 compared to the Sigma
- smoother, creamier bokeh
I took 10–15 shots with each lens. In almost every image, I found the Sigma to be sharper, especially at the edges and corners. However, the Sony had the creamier bokeh, which is visibly smoother when viewed at 100% magnification.
If you were to look at an image from the Sigma 24mm in isolation, you wouldn't think, "What bad bokeh." The difference between the two is truly marginal and only visible in a direct comparison.
Nevertheless, I’m switching from the Sigma to the Sony. Why?
- lower weight (advantageous when using my DJI gimbal)
- smoother, creamier bokeh
- warmer colors
The 24 GM is the only lens that I have sold and then I realized that selling was a mistake and purchased another copy. It’s a great example of a lens that produces well balanced images.
