24-70mm 2.8 G-Master Experience

upgrader · Sep 25, 2016

The lens is on the market since quite a time now, how is your experience? I think to sell the 16-35mm f4 and the 35mm 2.8 (Got still the 55mm 1.8 for light excursions) Can the G-Master compete with the 35mm 2.8 regarding IQ? Generates the G-Master any pop-effect? Did this zoom replace any of your primes? Many questions ;-)

I am very satisfied with the 85mm G-Master and if the IQ of the GM-Zoom comes close to this excellent prime I would be really happy. So, it would be great if you could share some experience with the G-Master Zoom. (Pros/Cons?)

Sidath Senanayake · Sep 25, 2016

I presume you're getting rid of your 16-35/4 because you don't use the wider focal lengths?

Bershatsky · Sep 25, 2016

It's very sharp! This reminds me, I still need to write about this for my blog. I'll work on that this weekend and post a link later. The only thing I have against it is it's size - very large!!!

terryreid · Sep 25, 2016

I used it yesterday at a car show it is very sharp but very heavy. There is a tread on here where a guy went to Europe with just a 25 Batis and cropped and his photos are great.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58397647

It really makes a person wonder about just taking one extra lens I normally only take one if I have an idea what I want to shoot.

Batis 25 and 90 Macro thinking I can crop out to 85

Batis 25 and 55 1.8 or Batis 85

Heck a person could probably take a Batis 18 and 55 even

Today is my last day to take the 24-70 GM back and I think I will keep it but only because they claim the new sensors in the next cameras and beyond will really show what this lens can do. I find it hard to believe it can ever top the Batis or 55 1.8 or 90mm Macro primes though. It is handy obviously when you do not want to change lenses but say what you may it cannot equal the primes.

I was thinking about getting the 16-35 GM but I cannot imagine my Batis 18 cannot equal anything the upcoming lens can do. Sure maybe at 30-35 it may not be quite as good but it will be plenty good enough on a a7rII and especially the III or whatever it will be called.

I believe it really depends upon the person and the situation. I can afford it so I will probably keep it but I have seldom owned something I have as much indecision on whether or not to keep it?

Any advice?

SilvanBromide · Sep 25, 2016

upgrader said:
The lens is on the market since quite a time now, how is your experience? I think to sell the 16-35mm f4 and the 35mm 2.8 (Got still the 55mm 1.8 for light excursions) Can the G-Master compete with the 35mm 2.8 regarding IQ? Generates the G-Master any pop-effect? Did this zoom replace any of your primes? Many questions ;-)

I am very satisfied with the 85mm G-Master and if the IQ of the GM-Zoom comes close to this excellent prime I would be really happy. So, it would be great if you could share some experience with the G-Master Zoom. (Pros/Cons?)

It's a stellar zoom. It's IQ is very good, and especially so at the wider focal lengths and renders beautifully throughout the range, with great color and contrast. Still very useable at 70mm, though not quite as tack sharp out to the corners, but still pretty consistent throughout.

Despite what some have said, granted it's not a small lens, but it's very manageable and (IMO) balances well on the second generation a7 series bodies.

I don't own the 35mm 2.8 so I can only go by images I've seen posted by others - but from those second-hand observations I'd say the 24-70 GM at 35mm is at least as sharp and otherwise comparable.

The best primes will always have the edge on the best zooms (of which this is definitely one) in terms of IQ - as they are optimised for a single FL - and compactness. An excellent zoom such as the GM has the advantage in terms of flexibility, while requiring minimal compromise in IQ. Both have their uses! ; )

Bobo Hodls · Sep 25, 2016

terryreid said:
I used it yesterday at a car show it is very sharp but very heavy. There is a tread on here where a guy went to Europe with just a 25 Batis and cropped and his photos are great.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58397647

It really makes a person wonder about just taking one extra lens I normally only take one if I have an idea what I want to shoot.

Batis 25 and 90 Macro thinking I can crop out to 85

Batis 25 and 55 1.8 or Batis 85

Heck a person could probably take a Batis 18 and 55 even

Today is my last day to take the 24-70 GM back and I think I will keep it but only because they claim the new sensors in the next cameras and beyond will really show what this lens can do. I find it hard to believe it can ever top the Batis or 55 1.8 or 90mm Macro primes though. It is handy obviously when you do not want to change lenses but say what you may it cannot equal the primes.

I was thinking about getting the 16-35 GM but I cannot imagine my Batis 18 cannot equal anything the upcoming lens can do. Sure maybe at 30-35 it may not be quite as good but it will be plenty good enough on a a7rII and especially the III or whatever it will be called.

I believe it really depends upon the person and the situation. I can afford it so I will probably keep it but I have seldom owned something I have as much indecision on whether or not to keep it?

Any advice?

I feel the same. I can get by w/o a fast/quality mid-range zoom, but there are times I just don't want to, and I'll tolerate that particular mass for the convenience.

I didn't intend to get that lens until a certain even came up, however. But now that it's in hand it will get enough use to justify retaining it. And if later I find otherwise I doubt the lens will lose considerable value for resale purposes.

If the indulgence can be rationalized, it's just nice to have the convenience of a flexible AF focal range once in a while, as an alternative to a MF prime lens field practice.

--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.

DFPanno · Sep 25, 2016

terryreid said:
I used it yesterday at a car show it is very sharp but very heavy. There is a tread on here where a guy went to Europe with just a 25 Batis and cropped and his photos are great.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58397647

It really makes a person wonder about just taking one extra lens I normally only take one if I have an idea what I want to shoot.

Batis 25 and 90 Macro thinking I can crop out to 85

Batis 25 and 55 1.8 or Batis 85

Heck a person could probably take a Batis 18 and 55 even

Today is my last day to take the 24-70 GM back and I think I will keep it but only because they claim the new sensors in the next cameras and beyond will really show what this lens can do. I find it hard to believe it can ever top the Batis or 55 1.8 or 90mm Macro primes though. It is handy obviously when you do not want to change lenses but say what you may it cannot equal the primes.

I was thinking about getting the 16-35 GM but I cannot imagine my Batis 18 cannot equal anything the upcoming lens can do. Sure maybe at 30-35 it may not be quite as good but it will be plenty good enough on a a7rII and especially the III or whatever it will be called.

I believe it really depends upon the person and the situation. I can afford it so I will probably keep it but I have seldom owned something I have as much indecision on whether or not to keep it?

Any advice?

... I'd send it back.

If you don't love it you won't use it.

It becomes just an expensive paperweight that you have to dust.

Rey66 · Sep 25, 2016

upgrader said:
The lens is on the market since quite a time now, how is your experience? I think to sell the 16-35mm f4 and the 35mm 2.8 (Got still the 55mm 1.8 for light excursions) Can the G-Master compete with the 35mm 2.8 regarding IQ? Generates the G-Master any pop-effect? Did this zoom replace any of your primes? Many questions ;-)

I am very satisfied with the 85mm G-Master and if the IQ of the GM-Zoom comes close to this excellent prime I would be really happy. So, it would be great if you could share some experience with the G-Master Zoom. (Pros/Cons?)

I sold mine.. its a very good lens but not close to prime...

alextardif · Sep 25, 2016

I've shared some of my recent experiences with this zoom recently, but to recap:

Delivers all the IQ it's been hyped up to deliver. Will it rival the best primes? No. Can it compete with the best zooms across any system? Absolutely, and then some. You can find all kinds of feedback from respectable sources, including scientific "proofs". Just remember - it's simply a high quality premium zoom, nothing magical about it.
Usability is a different matter, depending on who you ask. Personally I found it be an awful parting on A7Rii. It's not just the weight and bulk but where that imbalance occurs, which is at the very front. Also, while the zoom ring is very smooth, it's also very tight: a side effect is the whole lens moves at the mount back and forth as you zoom in and out - this drove me nuts. I hate to keep saying it, but it does need a larger and more robust body to be mounted on. I no longer own this lens and will revisit it again if/when such a body comes out in the future (unless I pull the trigger on the A99ii with the CZ 2.8 zoom in the meantime).

The ability to go from from wide to mid tele with a single twist is hard to beat, of course, and that might trump all else for some...

Zeiss or GM "pop" are what I'd call and immeasurable quality appreciated only by the most qualified experts (they also dine with unicorns on regular basis, from what I hear), but 2.8 on such a zoom is a must for me and would be worth paying the extra $$...

--
Alex

Viramati · Sep 25, 2016

If you want to use the A7rII and you need a 24-70/2.8 zoom then IMO there is no question that this is a superlative lens. Yes it is big and heavy but personally I have no problems with the balance as the lens fits nicely in my left hand (you wouldn't want to use this combo single handedly).

here are some examples: https://www.flickr.com/photos/viramati/albums/72157666969013344

terryreid · Sep 25, 2016

I am keeping it, I will regret it if I return it. There are times a person is not setting out to get the absolute finest possible photos. 90% of my best photos I could have spent ten times longer trying every angle camera, setting, technique, right time of day, got up at sunrise and so on and I don't. I see something I think is or can be interesting and do my best and shoot about a five to ten strings of 3 on continuous with different focus, apertures angles etc. and end up with what I wanted. Not perfect but good enough.

There have been and will be times I do not feel like choosing what lenses to take or feel like changing lenses. I got too caught up in the absolute best when it really doesn't matter to anyone but me and that is just in my own mind. Also the lens is pretty damn good it is not like you are slumming with a G Master lens.

It reminds me of concentrating too much on all the nuances of different stereo cables or video characteristics of high end equipment flat panel TV's when the joy is in the music and the movie.

NikonJ · Sep 25, 2016

terryreid said:
I am keeping it, I will regret it if I return it. There are times a person is not setting out to get the absolute finest possible photos.

It has been my experience that some of the finest photos I have seen could have been taken with a range of lenses and it would have made no difference to the quality of the photo. Mostly because no one scrutinizes amazing photos for the things we obsess about as gearheads, like the slight improvement in sharpness from shooting a prime versus a modern day zoom like the GM.

Jay

Astrophotographer 10 · Sep 25, 2016

I am finding my Batis 25 and 85 cover almost all of my imaging needs. A Loxia 21completes them for nightscapes.

Batis lenses on my A7r2 give me a level of amazing images beyond what I have ever been able to get before.

I wanted to get the A7r2 on the basis of it could satisfy me for several years. So far it is doing that although a 75mp A7r3 may be tempting!!

Greg.

Scrollop · Sep 25, 2016

Dpm't know much about "Lenscore", but am going to throw it into the ante, anway:

http://www.lenscore.org/ (The site doesn't give direct links to the scores so goto "scores" on the left and find the two lenses).

Sony version score: 685

Canon version score: 735.

Higher is better. Better than DXO? No idea.

Make of that what you will.

SilvanBromide · Sep 26, 2016

Scrollop said:
Dpm't know much about "Lenscore", but am going to throw it into the ante, anway:

http://www.lenscore.org/ (The site doesn't give direct links to the scores so goto "scores" on the left and find the two lenses).

Sony version score: 685

Canon version score: 735.

Higher is better. Better than DXO? No idea.

Make of that what you will.

Lenscore do not appear to have rated the Fe 24-70 f2.8 GM lens that is the subject of this thread.

The Sony lens that you are quoting as having been scored at 685 is the A-Mount offering from Sony (Sony Vario-Sonnar 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM) which is SAL2470Z2, not SEL2470GM.

I don't think anyone would argue that the A-mount SAL2470Z2 reaches the same standard as the GM. FWIW, here is the DxOMark comparison of the two:

DxOMark comparison of SAL2470Z2 and SEL2470GM

Meanwhile, I was not previously aware of Lenscore either.

Two things I noticed are that there are many widely available lenses that don't appear in their ratings (even more than are missing from the DxOMark ratings), and the ratings that are there don't always match up to my own experience, nor to published measurements or reviews elsewhere.

For example, according to Lenscore the FE 24-70mm f/4.0 beats the FE 16-35mm f/4.0. Not my take at all based on experience, and I don't think I've seen anyone else rate them in that way.

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

KingTing · Sep 26, 2016

alextardif said:
I've shared some of my recent experiences with this zoom recently, but to recap:

Delivers all the IQ it's been hyped up to deliver. Will it rival the best primes? No. Can it compete with the best zooms across any system? Absolutely, and then some. You can find all kinds of feedback from respectable sources, including scientific "proofs". Just remember - it's simply a high quality premium zoom, nothing magical about it.

Usability is a different matter, depending on who you ask. Personally I found it be an awful parting on A7Rii. It's not just the weight and bulk but where that imbalance occurs, which is at the very front. Also, while the zoom ring is very smooth, it's also very tight: a side effect is the whole lens moves at the mount back and forth as you zoom in and out - this drove me nuts. I hate to keep saying it, but it does need a larger and more robust body to be mounted on. I no longer own this lens and will revisit it again if/when such a body comes out in the future (unless I pull the trigger on the A99ii with the CZ 2.8 zoom in the meantime).

The ability to go from from wide to mid tele with a single twist is hard to beat, of course, and that might trump all else for some...

Zeiss or GM "pop" are what I'd call and immeasurable quality appreciated only by the most qualified experts (they also dine with unicorns on regular basis, from what I hear), but 2.8 on such a zoom is a must for me and would be worth paying the extra $$...

--
Alex

Definitely agree with the above.

I tried out both GM lens last week in the show room.

Image quality wise I simply cannot complain. Great colour, sharpness and bokeh even compared against the fe55 and loxia.

But the massive weight and size imo defeat the whole purpose of having a zoom.

I can easily carry a few primes and have a much lighter footprint. And it's not like I am that constrained if the focal length is 2470 range.

--
Welcome to have a look at my gallery:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7740447566

Still new and learning, any tips would be GREAT

Scrollop · Sep 26, 2016

Oh, you're right. Didn't notice they were the a-mount versions. Not the most intuitive website.

alextardif · Sep 26, 2016

SilvanBromide said:
I don't think anyone would argue that the A-mount SAL2470Z2 reaches the same standard as the GM. FWIW, here is the DxOMark comparison of the two:

DxOMark comparison of SAL2470Z2 and SEL2470GM

I wouldn't discount the A-mount CZ 24-70 F2.8 based on the above. For one, the sensors are completely incomparable between A99 and A7Rii. Though this really is an exercise is futility at the moment, you can spend some time comparing something like the following:

A99 vs 5DMk3 - you will find that the results aren't that far off, and then...
A7Rii vs 5DSR - where you'll find that the Canon is actually rated with higher sharpness and getter distortion results

From that, you can reasonably infer that the CZ 24-70 F2.8 will perform significantly better on the new A99ii and thereafter you can have a much more accurate comparison of how that lens performs against the GM on A7Rii.

In fact, that's precisely the sort of thing I'll be looking at in the near future: A99ii w/CZ 24-70 F2.8 vs. A7Rii w/GM 24-70 F2.8...

My experience with CZ 24-70 F2.8 was extremely positive... sharpness was never an issue, and unlike the GM, it had fantastic handling. Also it was very well built and even the Mk1 was very robust - it put it through hell over 2yrs and it looked new when cleaned up... addition of claimed weather sealing on Mk2 makes it an even more attractive option right now. I even used it for some quick portraits when CZ 85 1.4 and CZ 135 1.8 were too long:

--

Alex

upgrader · Sep 26, 2016

Thanks for all your input so far. Decided to proceed with my A7RII and the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 (when I get a good copy) A zoom is anyway a compromise and I plan the 24-70mm for general purpose / walk around kit where I do not care about the very last IQ. Had the RX100IV for this but it didn't work. (4K Stabilizer is poor in that camera, the batteries are a nightmare, for every shot the hole lens group drives out first...)

So the f4 Zeiss should do it, the GM Zoom just kills the complete advantage of the A7(x) Series IMHO. For everything else I will use the 55mm 1.8, 85mm 1.4 GM which is already big and heavy enough but I just love this glass, and the Batis 18mm (Plan to sell the 16-35mm f4 to fund the Batis) The 16-35mm I used mainly around 16mm-20mm. Also the Batis is lighter and more compact.

So the actual plan looks like this: A7RII - 18mm Batis - 24-70mm f4 - 55mm f1.8 - 85mm f1.8 GM

Maybe somebody here carries the same package...

SilvanBromide · Sep 26, 2016

alextardif said:
SilvanBromide said:

I don't think anyone would argue that the A-mount SAL2470Z2 reaches the same standard as the GM. FWIW, here is the DxOMark comparison of the two:

DxOMark comparison of SAL2470Z2 and SEL2470GM

Click to expand...

I wouldn't discount the A-mount CZ 24-70 F2.8 based on the above. For one, the sensors are completely incomparable between A99 and A7Rii. Though this really is an exercise is futility at the moment, you can spend some time comparing something like the following:

A99 vs 5DMk3 - you will find that the results aren't that far off, and then...

A7Rii vs 5DSR - where you'll find that the Canon is actually rated with higher sharpness and getter distortion results

From that, you can reasonably infer that the CZ 24-70 F2.8 will perform significantly better on the new A99ii and thereafter you can have a much more accurate comparison of how that lens performs against the GM on A7Rii.

In fact, that's precisely the sort of thing I'll be looking at in the near future: A99ii w/CZ 24-70 F2.8 vs. A7Rii w/GM 24-70 F2.8...

My experience with CZ 24-70 F2.8 was extremely positive... sharpness was never an issue, and unlike the GM, it had fantastic handling. Also it was very well built and even the Mk1 was very robust - it put it through hell over 2yrs and it looked new when cleaned up... addition of claimed weather sealing on Mk2 makes it an even more attractive option right now. I even used it for some quick portraits when CZ 85 1.4 and CZ 135 1.8 were too long:

--

Alex

Interesting observations, and I thanks for adding your perspective on this, Alex.

I agree that it will be interesting to see what comparisons between lenses on the a99II and a7RII will reveal, given the apparent similarity of their sensor technology (including but not limited to their resolution).

From the DxOM comparison charts, it appear that sharpness is the measurement that sets the two apart, primarily, and it's true that that's significantly sensor-dependent.

--
Former Canon, Nikon and Pentax user.
Online Gallery: https://500px.com/raycologon

24-70mm 2.8 G-Master Experience

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts