Snupi wrote:
Before going on the Sigma 24-70 II bandwagon I decided to give the Sony 24-70 GMII a last chance(!) and have just finished the testing. In short: this sample is great! So it's possible, a good 24-70 GMII is a marvel of a lens. Today I am a happy photographer, the 24-70 will se a lot of good use. So goodbye to Sigma this time.
You may want to try the Sony at >50mm (let's say 70mm f/8). The 3 samples I have tried had tilt issues showing a significant sharpness drop on the right side (from 2/3). Others have reported the same issue with their 24-70GMII. You can take a picture of the grass for example to check or any landscape picture (but grass makes it easier to notice sharpness). Or just enjoy the lens !
I have received the Sigma and I like it so far. Great sharpness uniformity across the zoom range from 2.8, I can't see any weak focal length when shooting at non-macro distance. Nothing to complain about the colors, rendering and contrast. A really nice alternative to the GMII for ~ half price ; the advantage of the Sony would be for sports and fast actions at > 15fps.
One note about the LoCA. It's bad at the minimum focus distance at 70mm until f/5.6 24mm gives you a better magnification but is too wide for macro anyway. 70mm f/8 works well though. I rarely do macros and have the Tamron 70-180 G2 with a better magnification at 70mm.
Fboss wrote:
You may want to try the Sony at >50mm (let's say 70mm f/8). The 3 samples I have tried had tilt issues showing a significant sharpness drop on the right side (from 2/3). Others have reported the same issue with their 24-70GMII. You can take a picture of the grass for example to check or any landscape picture (but grass makes it easier to notice sharpness). Or just enjoy the lens !
I have received the Sigma and I like it so far. Great sharpness uniformity across the zoom range from 2.8, I can't see any weak focal length when shooting at non-macro distance. Nothing to complain about the colors, rendering and contrast. A really nice alternative to the GMII for ~ half price ; the advantage of the Sony would be for sports and fast actions at > 15fps.
One note about the LoCA. It's bad at the minimum focus distance at 70mm until f/5.6 24mm gives you a better magnification but is too wide for macro anyway. 70mm f/8 works well though. I rarely do macros and have the Tamron 70-180 G2 with a better magnification at 70mm.
When I state the GMII to be great that means it's not tilted, it is very fine also in the 50-70mm range, it's not close to the behavior I have seen on previos samples of this lens.
I payed a premium of approx 40% over the Sigma 24-70II for the GMII, for me it's worth that.
Snupi wrote:
When I state the GMII to be great that means it's not tilted, it is very fine also in the 50-70mm range, it's not close to the behavior I have seen on previos samples of this lens.
I payed a premium of approx 40% over the Sigma 24-70II for the GMII, for me it's worth that.
Out of curiosity, was it built recently ? the last one I tried was from an early 2024 batch (after trying from a 2022 and 2023 batch). They may have found a way to fix it in the recent batches then. I have read many reports of that exact same issue that I thought it was related to the design. I have never found a picture, on Flickr or others, that didn't show this problem.
Anyway, with the Sigma at least no need to play the return game this time.
dpreview decided to not publish the pictures from the new Sigma 24-70, I wonder what the problem was.
Fboss wrote:
Out of curiosity, was it built recently ? the last one I tried was from an early 2024 batch (after trying from a 2022 and 2023 batch). They may have found a way to fix it in the recent batches then. I have read many reports of that exact same issue that I thought it was related to the design. I have never found a picture, on Flickr or others, that didn't show this problem.
Anyway, with the Sigma at least no need to play the return game this time.
dpreview decided to not publish the pictures from the new Sigma 24-70, I wonder what the problem was.
I guess the 24-70 GMII optical construction is on the borderline of possibility given the lens' size and weight. The lack of field curvature is astonishing.
I think the Sigma 24-70mm DG DN II is the same borderline area, there seems to eksist some sample variations in the reviews of that lens.
24-70 lenses are delicate animals, they are obviosly hard to produce with extremely small margins for optical alingments - especially when the producer sets the bar high..
Back to my sample of the 24-70 GMII: It's not perfect, if I want perfection I must reach to my 35mm 1.4 GM og 50mm 1.2 GM. But the sharpness in the sentral area of the picture frame is on the same level for the zoom on all distances. The edges are also very fine all over on near og medium far distances - all apertures and focal lenghts.
On infinity problems occurs also on my sample, there is more blur on the right side of the frame relative to the left side in the 50-70mm range (24-35mm is perfect). But it can quite easily be dealth with (in opposition to former sample) by careful positioning of the focus. Both at 50mm and 70mm I can get decent sharpness senter/edges at infinity at f2.8-4, very good at f5.6 and excellent at f8-11.
I don't know whether Sony has fixed something(?) or not, I think this maybe is related to sample variation and a very complicated lens to produce. People are generally raving about this lens, with very satisfied users. The righ hand side problem is most evident to landscape photographers I think, especially at infinity - and it is clear that the GMII can be really annoing for this kind of use. It is thinkable that Sigma 24-70mm DG DN II will be a safer alternative for some users. Time will show...?
Lenses are delicate tools, and I was reminded that today. I ran a new complete test of my 24-70mm GMII, now under perfect light conditions with camera mounted on a tripod. So far the weather has been with some rain and some haze in the air. I dialed in perfect focus at infinity using manual focus and max magnification on my A7RV in center of the viewfinder. And voala, at 70mm f2.8 the blur on the right side was gone, with fine sharpness all over.
I learned that there is absolute no room for focus error if one shall draw correct conclusions. This goes for all lenses, anyhow I learned today that the GMII has no room for focus deviation.
Nor can we trust that autofucus will obtain perfekt tecnical sharpness, at least wide open for distant landscapes. I also suspect stady shot may affect edge sharpness to some degree.
With the 24-70 GMII if you focus on the right side (at let say 70mm), it will be sharp. But the center and left may be out of focus. If you focus on the center or left, then the right side may be out of focus. My experience anyway with the 3 samples (and from others in forums)
Here is the link to flickr to my test picture shoot with the Sony FE 24-70mm GMII, 70mm f2.8, focus is on the church in center of the image. There is still som mist in the air, but still useful for the purpose - showing the lens' capability on infinity.
Then all can judge for themselves. Might be interesting both for owners of the GMII and the new Sig 24-70 II.
I'm about to return my second copy of the 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN II. The first copy was not particularly sharp and was badly decentred; the second one was better than the first but was soundly trounced by the 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN - centring was much better but it's just not that sharp.
I'm guessing - but don't know - that a decent sample of the new 24-70 would be sharper than the 28-70, but I'm getting the impression you'd have your work cut out for you to find one!
Bit disappointing, I'm afraid. I should probably say that my copy of the 28-70 appears to be a particularly good one, but even so. I'll have to see if I can dig out some test shots but from memory my copy of the 24-70 version 1 was better than this.
I don’t have any comparison shots as I don’t have the version 1 anymore but early impressions of the lens in use for indoor portraits with flash and final images are;
- the AF is definitely faster (the version 1 was very good but MKII is even better)
- Better balanced when mounted to the camera, makes holding the set up even more comfortable compared to the MK1
- Aperture ring is very welcome for the way I shoot
- Custom hold buttons are smaller and more flush to the lens (only aspect of the MK1 that is better)
- A bit sharper and more contrasty
- Noticeably lighter and a bit smaller
Another test will be how it renders colours and the corner performance for woodland photography. An area where I felt the MK1 was lacking.
SNJOps wrote:
I don’t have any comparison shots as I don’t have the version 1 anymore but early impressions of the lens
- A bit sharper and more contrasty
Both copies I've just tested were weak wide open and only produced a biting sharpness at f/5.6. I'll have to check but as I recall the first version was sharp in the centre even wide open. My copy of the 28-70 DG DN was very obviously sharper than both copies of this new lens. I can't believe it's softer by design so you'd have to suspect poor quality control. Just glancing over the handful of reviews that have appeared on the Internet, it seems DP Review binned their sample gallery because the lens was weak, and I think Dustin Abbott said his copy was obviously decentred.
Mind you, if you look around, the 28-70 seemed to get lukewarm reviews when it was first released - I wonder if Sigma's first batches tend to be poor?
Moaning aside, the image quality is the only disappointment with this new 24-70. The design, build quality, size, weight, handling... everything else is absolutely superb. It's absolutely beautiful! If you can find a copy that's straight and sharp then guard it with your life!
Otherwise, there're cashback offers at the moment on the 28-70 and the original 24-70. If you need a standard zoom right now I think I'd steer people in that direction. Get the 28-70 unless you really need 24mm.
My copy is very sharp on the A7RV, at all FLs and apertures. (compared with my "golden" Tamron 28-75 G2, that I compared with 3x copies of the 24-70 GMII at different FLs, and the 70-200 GMII at 70mm)
A few shots to show the rendering differences at 24, 35, 50 and 70mm
(no AI processing, just the usual "auto" exposure/contrast in LR, and a bit of cropping in some cases )
Fboss wrote:
My copy is very sharp on the A7RV, at all FLs and apertures. (compared with my "golden" Tamron 28-75 G2, that I compared with 3x copies of the 24-70 GMII at different FLs, and the 70-200 GMII at 70mm)
A few shots to show the rendering differences at 24, 35, 50 and 70mm
(no AI processing, just the usual "auto" exposure/contrast in LR, and a bit of cropping in some cases )
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53778591045_ba7a8f6a55_k.jpg_DSC5144 by Fred, sur Flickr
35mm f/2.8
Guard it jealously! There seem to be a lot of duffers out there. I compared directly with my 28-70 and also a very sweet copy of the Lumix 50/1.4 - the results were depressing. I wouldn't expect it to be as sharp as the Lumix but the little 28-70 was a lot better and the difference between the two copies was a bit disturbing.
It's not great at sunstars (like most zoom lenses). But overall the picture keeps good contrast.
And at the minimal focus distance / macro'ish, needs to use f/8 at 70mm (2nd example)
24mm is better at minimal focus distance wide open but the lens is almost in contact with the subject...
Fboss wrote:
You may want to try the Sony at >50mm (let's say 70mm f/8). The 3 samples I have tried had tilt issues showing a significant sharpness drop on the right side (from 2/3). Others have reported the same issue with their 24-70GMII. You can take a picture of the grass for example to check or any landscape picture (but grass makes it easier to notice sharpness). Or just enjoy the lens !
I have received the Sigma and I like it so far. Great sharpness uniformity across the zoom range from 2.8, I can't see any weak focal length when shooting at non-macro distance. Nothing to complain about the colors, rendering and contrast. A really nice alternative to the GMII for ~ half price ; the advantage of the Sony would be for sports and fast actions at > 15fps.
One note about the LoCA. It's bad at the minimum focus distance at 70mm until f/5.6 24mm gives you a better magnification but is too wide for macro anyway. 70mm f/8 works well though. I rarely do macros and have the Tamron 70-180 G2 with a better magnification at 70mm.
I almost never use this focal range, so I am thinking of parting with the GM II and grabbing one of these. Overall good lens for the price? Definitely better than the Tamron g2?
gooby wrote:
I almost never use this focal range, so I am thinking of parting with the GM II and grabbing one of these. Overall good lens for the price? Definitely better than the Tamron g2?
They are both very good.
"24mm + aperture ring + AF/MF switch" vs "lighter + cheaper"
