First pictures taken with Sony GM 24-70/2.8 Mk2

Malling said:

Dspider said:

look at the distortion ;-)

Click to expand...

You won’t find a zoom in this range without some rather noticeable distortion, the distortion I seen of this GM has been less then any other 24-70 lens. It’s a inherent problem in the 24/28-70mm lens, the Tamron discussed in here is even worse then this. I seen Nikon Z and Canon RF again both had some very obvious distortion.

Also any slightly distortion is going to look funky on building that are hundreds of years old as these aren’t straight to begin with, I seen similar images thousands of times before some even worse even with renowned primes. Let’s not forget North America doesn’t have many old buildings as the country is so young.

Click to expand...

the image was shot at 30 mm ;-) not 24mm and its not gradual it falls off fast .

Ds

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Dspider said:

Malling said:

Dspider said:

look at the distortion ;-)

Click to expand...

You won’t find a zoom in this range without some rather noticeable distortion, the distortion I seen of this GM has been less then any other 24-70 lens. It’s a inherent problem in the 24/28-70mm lens, the Tamron discussed in here is even worse then this. I seen Nikon Z and Canon RF again both had some very obvious distortion.

Also any slightly distortion is going to look funky on building that are hundreds of years old as these aren’t straight to begin with, I seen similar images thousands of times before some even worse even with renowned primes. Let’s not forget North America doesn’t have many old buildings as the country is so young.

Click to expand...

the image was shot at 30 mm ;-) not 24mm and its not gradual it falls off fast .

Ds

--
The confusion starts when the scientists can't agree amongst themselves. Henry F

Click to expand...

Every 24/28-70 has distortion at 30mm no exceptions , this isn’t a top class prime lens with minimum distortion (yes even the best photography primes are very slightly distorted, no real exceptions)

valuation of distortion should never be done on old European buildings! As you can not objectively valuate on something that has often not one single straight line, that lean in one or several direction that bend outwards etc. it’s an incredible bad practice.

Glad that Sony seem to have improved markedly on the original GM24-70 which was never great, getting old, and a weak spot in the line up.

I bought the Sigma 24-70 not just because it was cheaper than the GM but because it was optically as good or better, with excellent AF.

From what I've seen the new GM is a step up in class, which is just as it should be: the choice should be better a better lens for more money, or a less good lens for less money.

As consumers we are in a great position: Tamron, Sigma and now Sony have excellent offerings at 24(28)-70 which provide us with real choice. The idea that one (or another) is brilliant and one (or another) is terrible... well I guess it provides fuel for internet forums but it's just not true, is it?

dronahill said:

Glad that Sony seem to have improved markedly on the original GM24-70 which was never great, getting old, and a weak spot in the line up.

I bought the Sigma 24-70 not just because it was cheaper than the GM but because it was optically as good or better, with excellent AF.

From what I've seen the new GM is a step up in class, which is just as it should be: the choice should be better a better lens for more money, or a less good lens for less money.

As consumers we are in a great position: Tamron, Sigma and now Sony have excellent offerings at 24(28)-70 which provide us with real choice. The idea that one (or another) is brilliant and one (or another) is terrible... well I guess it provides fuel for internet forums but it's just not true, is it?

Click to expand...

Even the old GM wasn’t bad if you had put it next to a sigma and done triangular test I doubt you would have had much success in picking the odd one out… and even then it was still the fastest focusing 24-70mm! The weakest part of the lens was at the long end a general issue with zooms at that time, the being great throughout the range is a relatively new phenomenon.

The difference in IQ is mostly nitpicking where one has slightly better sharpness mostly in the corners, quality of out of focus area, transition, distortion, aberration control etc. but it’s rarely night and day difference, the biggest difference today is found in the AF-C department etc.

Vertumnus said:

Please read carefully my short text with understanding.I don't care about convincing anyone.Especially the ones who think that the cheaper is the better.My post is directed to a few people on a certain level of experience,who may benefit from that.

Besides,the main difference between me and you with this respect is that I used to have all that crappy,plasticky,decentered,softish here and there Tamrons 17-28/2.8+28-75/2.8+70-180/2.8 with poor colour rendition and have all Sony GM lenses save the 100/2.8.Same with Sigmas DG DN for Sony E ,that are better that Tamrons.So I know what I'm saying.

Click to expand...

Snobbery here, I suspect, but ok. I have one very cheapo Tamron that I like, because it is pretty sharp and I don't worry about putting a filter on it or being real careful with it due to its being cheapo. I am looking at some possibilities for full frame zooms, so was interested, although I thought and I think you confirm it, that you are primarily showing off that you managed to snag this lens. Enjoy it.

Malling said:

Euell said:

They look fine, but how would we know from these whether the lens is any better than, say, the Tamron 28-75, which is much, much cheaper?

Click to expand...

The Tamron doesn’t go till 24mm and it doesn’t do 30fps and you will definitely loose some hair bit speed and precision, but it’s a fine lens on a budget. But if you don’t need that as a consumer it’s probably not worth the additional cost if your on a budget. If you need 24mm then the Sigma Art is a fine compromise although you have to accept the additional 135g and noticeable slower AF, no 30fps, poor weather sealing

If money is not an obstacle I would always go with OM, in that case value for money is irrelevant. if your a pro the difference is less significant as you don’t pay VAT meaning the difference is smaller and you can account it as an expense meaning what they actually pay for GM isn’t that bad and you end up paying less tax. I once calculated the difference and the effect of the budget wasn’t more then max. €400 differences for what a Consumer in Europe pay for Tamron and what a pro pay for a GM.

Click to expand...

In my view, money is always an obstacle, whether you can afford it or not, under the principle that a fool and his money are soon parted. From my observation there are a lot of "lens collectors" in these forums, sort of like a poor man's Leica club. Of course, there are also serious photographers. I have a good friend who recently bought himself a quarter million dollar plus Bentley and probably drives less than 20 miles per week. But, he enjoys having the car, despite the exorbitant price tag. So, I suppose it is worth it to him and he can afford it, just as many of us can afford to indulge in expensive GM lenses, whether we really need them or not.

Vertumnus said:

My dear genius.You probably live in America,so you see very old buildings very seldom.What you wrongly call "distortion" is a 14th century building and the wall is just leaning.As for the convex roof, it is from the 17th century and has deformed with age.Both have nothing to do with optical faults of the lens.Learn,observe,think,get experience and then write.

Click to expand...

Maybe accurate, but don't you think the tone was a bit nasty?

Malling said:

dronahill said:

Glad that Sony seem to have improved markedly on the original GM24-70 which was never great, getting old, and a weak spot in the line up.

I bought the Sigma 24-70 not just because it was cheaper than the GM but because it was optically as good or better, with excellent AF.

From what I've seen the new GM is a step up in class, which is just as it should be: the choice should be better a better lens for more money, or a less good lens for less money.

As consumers we are in a great position: Tamron, Sigma and now Sony have excellent offerings at 24(28)-70 which provide us with real choice. The idea that one (or another) is brilliant and one (or another) is terrible... well I guess it provides fuel for internet forums but it's just not true, is it?

Click to expand...

Even the old GM wasn’t bad if you had put it next to a sigma and done triangular test I doubt you would have had much success in picking the odd one out… and even then it was still the fastest focusing 24-70mm! The weakest part of the lens was at the long end a general issue with zooms at that time, the being great throughout the range is a relatively new phenomenon.

The difference in IQ is mostly nitpicking where one has slightly better sharpness mostly in the corners, quality of out of focus area, transition, distortion, aberration control etc. but it’s rarely night and day difference, the biggest difference today is found in the AF-C department etc.

Click to expand...

I agree.

The IQ differences are most needed by full time pro's using R series cameras who print very large and/or crop to meet their clients demands.

The focusing capabilities are needed by pro sport's photographers using A1/A9 cameras.

A fine line separates the difference between needing and wanting. If cost is not a big deciding factor, might as well buy the GM. If cost matters to you, the Sigma and Tamron are very capable alternatives that will satisfy most photographers.

--

ronscuba said:

Malling said:

dronahill said:

Glad that Sony seem to have improved markedly on the original GM24-70 which was never great, getting old, and a weak spot in the line up.

I bought the Sigma 24-70 not just because it was cheaper than the GM but because it was optically as good or better, with excellent AF.

From what I've seen the new GM is a step up in class, which is just as it should be: the choice should be better a better lens for more money, or a less good lens for less money.

As consumers we are in a great position: Tamron, Sigma and now Sony have excellent offerings at 24(28)-70 which provide us with real choice. The idea that one (or another) is brilliant and one (or another) is terrible... well I guess it provides fuel for internet forums but it's just not true, is it?

Click to expand...

Even the old GM wasn’t bad if you had put it next to a sigma and done triangular test I doubt you would have had much success in picking the odd one out… and even then it was still the fastest focusing 24-70mm! The weakest part of the lens was at the long end a general issue with zooms at that time, the being great throughout the range is a relatively new phenomenon.

The difference in IQ is mostly nitpicking where one has slightly better sharpness mostly in the corners, quality of out of focus area, transition, distortion, aberration control etc. but it’s rarely night and day difference, the biggest difference today is found in the AF-C department etc.

Click to expand...

I agree.

The IQ differences are most needed by full time pro's using R series cameras who print very large and/or crop to meet their clients demands.

The focusing capabilities are needed by pro sport's photographers using A1/A9 cameras.

A fine line separates the difference between needing and wanting. If cost is not a big deciding factor, might as well buy the GM. If cost matters to you, the Sigma and Tamron are very capable alternatives that will satisfy most photographers.

Click to expand...

Even if you can easily afford the GM, why would you buy it if you didn't need its capabilities? Because you like to throw away money?

Euell said:

That's probably too simple a formula. The newer Tamron is said to have fast AF. Does that Tamron have significantly inferior IQ. Probably not, at least stopped down. I love the 24mm GM I have, but the question on the zoom as in all things is how much more bang will you get with the GM. In other words, would the experience with an alternative to the GM be significantly less for what I need it for, which is mainly travel photography? If the Tamron is a bit soft wide open, for example, that would be a downside. Tristimulus above had the best response. My guess is the nice shots produced by OP's new GM for this website could probably be closely matched by the Tamron because of the nice light. But, I could be wrong. Oh, and while there is something to pride of ownership, I suppose, cameras and lenses are not jewelry, but tools.

Click to expand...

It's not fast AF that's the issue, it's that 3rd party AF isn't as reliable - e.g. I had the Sigma 24-70mm DG DN before and it would not lock as well on the eyes as a Sony native lens in my experience. It was also much heavier which meant it got less use from me.

As for do you need the Sony 24-70mm GM to get ops shot? Probably not, but you also don't need the Tamron either. The $250 Sony 28-60mm can also get the same shot done but maybe with slightly inferior color rendition and corner sharpness. Why draw the line at the Tamron?

I also don't think most people here (including you probably) need the camera gear they own. Why own the 24mm GM for example? It's a hobby for most people, so what's the big deal? The Tamron I'm sure is good enough but the Sony is better if you can afford it. It gets to 24mm, has some better color rendition if you like it (I do), and faster and more reliable AF.

If the decision is between cheap and more expensive one does whatever they will do

photography is an expensive hobby if you don’t have the income to support it. Or if one has the money does not mean it matters on certain purchases

If the question for quantity or results are that uncertain better to demo the lens in person or rent the gear

what I can say personally with all my years my preference is to match the manufacture lens’s brand to the body. Every time I have entertained 3rd party glass and did my side by side comparison I just never liked tamron or sigma. Unless money is the driving decision. There was a time I had no choice as Nikon glass was costly back in the 90’s

I have to ask myself based on the lenses I have now is it really worth selling my 24-105 f 4 just to get one stop of light for a constant 2.8. Do I want to lose reach and potentially need two lenses if nothing past 105 mm matters for the given day. I do have super telephoto lenses. Just saying what am I photographing at this time

I think if the decision is close a GM lens may matter a tad less on a non a7R body or the A1 class. If I had any plans to make body upgrades then sure more stuff to think about so far as what will I lose on selling the item used. So buy tamron to sell it just to buy Sony when it can be done upfront. How much does it matter one way or the other.

ultimately your own eyes and final edit matter. The name of the lens does not matter. Sometimes you get what you pay for in photography as a whole gear wise from tripods to bags to lenses and bodies etc

Euell said:

Malling said:

Euell said:

They look fine, but how would we know from these whether the lens is any better than, say, the Tamron 28-75, which is much, much cheaper?

Click to expand...

The Tamron doesn’t go till 24mm and it doesn’t do 30fps and you will definitely loose some hair bit speed and precision, but it’s a fine lens on a budget. But if you don’t need that as a consumer it’s probably not worth the additional cost if your on a budget. If you need 24mm then the Sigma Art is a fine compromise although you have to accept the additional 135g and noticeable slower AF, no 30fps, poor weather sealing

If money is not an obstacle I would always go with OM, in that case value for money is irrelevant. if your a pro the difference is less significant as you don’t pay VAT meaning the difference is smaller and you can account it as an expense meaning what they actually pay for GM isn’t that bad and you end up paying less tax. I once calculated the difference and the effect of the budget wasn’t more then max. €400 differences for what a Consumer in Europe pay for Tamron and what a pro pay for a GM.

Click to expand...

In my view, money is always an obstacle, whether you can afford it or not, under the principle that a fool and his money are soon parted. From my observation there are a lot of "lens collectors" in these forums, sort of like a poor man's Leica club. Of course, there are also serious photographers. I have a good friend who recently bought himself a quarter million dollar plus Bentley and probably drives less than 20 miles per week. But, he enjoys having the car, despite the exorbitant price tag. So, I suppose it is worth it to him and he can afford it, just as many of us can afford to indulge in expensive GM lenses, whether we really need them or not.

Click to expand...

Well if you have enough then GM glass isn’t really all that expensive, not even the 400 & 600mm.

Ever been in a rich persons house? You would be surprised what they spend money on.

Euell said:

ronscuba said:

Malling said:

......

The difference in IQ is mostly nitpicking where one has slightly better sharpness mostly in the corners, quality of out of focus area, transition, distortion, aberration control etc. but it’s rarely night and day difference, the biggest difference today is found in the AF-C department etc.

Click to expand...

I agree.

The IQ differences are most needed by full time pro's using R series cameras who print very large and/or crop to meet their clients demands.

The focusing capabilities are needed by pro sport's photographers using A1/A9 cameras.

A fine line separates the difference between needing and wanting. If cost is not a big deciding factor, might as well buy the GM. If cost matters to you, the Sigma and Tamron are very capable alternatives that will satisfy most photographers.

Click to expand...

Even if you can easily afford the GM, why would you buy it if you didn't need its capabilities? Because you like to throw away money?

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that professional photographers have equipment needs in order to do their job and get paid.

If photography is not a big source of income, then needs are a matter of what quality level the photographer wants. That is the fine line I was describing.

One could say that if you don't make enough $ from photography to cover the cost of everything you bought, then you threw away money.

tonyz1 said:

Euell said:

That's probably too simple a formula. The newer Tamron is said to have fast AF. Does that Tamron have significantly inferior IQ. Probably not, at least stopped down. I love the 24mm GM I have, but the question on the zoom as in all things is how much more bang will you get with the GM. In other words, would the experience with an alternative to the GM be significantly less for what I need it for, which is mainly travel photography? If the Tamron is a bit soft wide open, for example, that would be a downside. Tristimulus above had the best response. My guess is the nice shots produced by OP's new GM for this website could probably be closely matched by the Tamron because of the nice light. But, I could be wrong. Oh, and while there is something to pride of ownership, I suppose, cameras and lenses are not jewelry, but tools.

Click to expand...

It's not fast AF that's the issue, it's that 3rd party AF isn't as reliable - e.g. I had the Sigma 24-70mm DG DN before and it would not lock as well on the eyes as a Sony native lens in my experience. It was also much heavier which meant it got less use from me.

As for do you need the Sony 24-70mm GM to get ops shot? Probably not, but you also don't need the Tamron either. The $250 Sony 28-60mm can also get the same shot done but maybe with slightly inferior color rendition and corner sharpness. Why draw the line at the Tamron?

I also don't think most people here (including you probably) need the camera gear they own. Why own the 24mm GM for example? It's a hobby for most people, so what's the big deal? The Tamron I'm sure is good enough but the Sony is better if you can afford it. It gets to 24mm, has some better color rendition if you like it (I do), and faster and more reliable AF.

Click to expand...

Why own the 24GM you say? Well, for low light shots indoors, obviously. But, the other thing I noticed after I acquired the lens is that it's hard to take a bad shot with it. It's a honey, at least for me. It's also particularly great for appealing landscape and fall foliage shots. Its rendering has a certain sine qua non. Pretty good against the light, etc. But, while the GM label signifies certain design attributes, such a great build and decent bokeh, the GM label doesn't mean that all are equal. And, Sony is constantly improving the line.

Malling said:

Euell said:

Malling said:

Euell said:

They look fine, but how would we know from these whether the lens is any better than, say, the Tamron 28-75, which is much, much cheaper?

Click to expand...

The Tamron doesn’t go till 24mm and it doesn’t do 30fps and you will definitely loose some hair bit speed and precision, but it’s a fine lens on a budget. But if you don’t need that as a consumer it’s probably not worth the additional cost if your on a budget. If you need 24mm then the Sigma Art is a fine compromise although you have to accept the additional 135g and noticeable slower AF, no 30fps, poor weather sealing

If money is not an obstacle I would always go with OM, in that case value for money is irrelevant. if your a pro the difference is less significant as you don’t pay VAT meaning the difference is smaller and you can account it as an expense meaning what they actually pay for GM isn’t that bad and you end up paying less tax. I once calculated the difference and the effect of the budget wasn’t more then max. €400 differences for what a Consumer in Europe pay for Tamron and what a pro pay for a GM.

Click to expand...

In my view, money is always an obstacle, whether you can afford it or not, under the principle that a fool and his money are soon parted. From my observation there are a lot of "lens collectors" in these forums, sort of like a poor man's Leica club. Of course, there are also serious photographers. I have a good friend who recently bought himself a quarter million dollar plus Bentley and probably drives less than 20 miles per week. But, he enjoys having the car, despite the exorbitant price tag. So, I suppose it is worth it to him and he can afford it, just as many of us can afford to indulge in expensive GM lenses, whether we really need them or not.

Click to expand...

Well if you have enough then GM glass isn’t really all that expensive, not even the 400 & 600mm.

Click to expand...

No. Those lenses are expensive regardless of how much money you have. Having plenty of disposable cash makes those lenses affordable, but not less expensive. You see what I mean? Just like my prior example of the hugely expensive Bentley car, it was affordable to my friend, but was it more expensive than other luxury cars? Oh yes.

Member said:

Ever been in a rich persons house? You would be surprised what they spend money on.

Click to expand...

I don't think I would actually and it might surprise you to know that some live rather modestly despite their wealth. Ostentation is the hallmark of a parvenu.

ronscuba said:

Euell said:

ronscuba said:

Malling said:

......

The difference in IQ is mostly nitpicking where one has slightly better sharpness mostly in the corners, quality of out of focus area, transition, distortion, aberration control etc. but it’s rarely night and day difference, the biggest difference today is found in the AF-C department etc.

Click to expand...

I agree.

The IQ differences are most needed by full time pro's using R series cameras who print very large and/or crop to meet their clients demands.

The focusing capabilities are needed by pro sport's photographers using A1/A9 cameras.

A fine line separates the difference between needing and wanting. If cost is not a big deciding factor, might as well buy the GM. If cost matters to you, the Sigma and Tamron are very capable alternatives that will satisfy most photographers.

Click to expand...

Even if you can easily afford the GM, why would you buy it if you didn't need its capabilities? Because you like to throw away money?

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that professional photographers have equipment needs in order to do their job and get paid.

If photography is not a big source of income, then needs are a matter of what quality level the photographer wants. That is the fine line I was describing.

One could say that if you don't make enough $ from photography to cover the cost of everything you bought, then you threw away money.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know. I think photography is not a great way to make a lot of money. There are certainly more promising ways.

Euell said:

ronscuba said:

Euell said:

ronscuba said:

Malling said:

......

The difference in IQ is mostly nitpicking where one has slightly better sharpness mostly in the corners, quality of out of focus area, transition, distortion, aberration control etc. but it’s rarely night and day difference, the biggest difference today is found in the AF-C department etc.

Click to expand...

I agree.

The IQ differences are most needed by full time pro's using R series cameras who print very large and/or crop to meet their clients demands.

The focusing capabilities are needed by pro sport's photographers using A1/A9 cameras.

A fine line separates the difference between needing and wanting. If cost is not a big deciding factor, might as well buy the GM. If cost matters to you, the Sigma and Tamron are very capable alternatives that will satisfy most photographers.

Click to expand...

Even if you can easily afford the GM, why would you buy it if you didn't need its capabilities? Because you like to throw away money?

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that professional photographers have equipment needs in order to do their job and get paid.

If photography is not a big source of income, then needs are a matter of what quality level the photographer wants. That is the fine line I was describing.

One could say that if you don't make enough $ from photography to cover the cost of everything you bought, then you threw away money.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know. I think photography is not a great way to make a lot of money. There are certainly more promising ways.

Click to expand...

I agree. I make very little $ from photography. My regular job is what pays the bills and supports my hobbies.

I am sure many people work very hard. Those lucky enough to have some extra $ leftover, are free to spend it on whatever they want. Watches, jewelry, fancy food, hobbies, GM lenses.

Euell said:

Why own the 24GM you say? Well, for low light shots indoors, obviously. But, the other thing I noticed after I acquired the lens is that it's hard to take a bad shot with it. It's a honey, at least for me. It's also particularly great for appealing landscape and fall foliage shots. Its rendering has a certain sine qua non. Pretty good against the light, etc. But, while the GM label signifies certain design attributes, such a great build and decent bokeh, the GM label doesn't mean that all are equal. And, Sony is constantly improving the line.

Click to expand...

Ha, I had the opposite experience with the 24 GM - I thought it had beautiful bokeh but wasn't as sharp as I hoped for so it didn't stick around in my kit. This is my point - value is subjective.

I think the Sony 24-70mm GM II is great if you want a general purpose mid-range zoom with excellent image quality and can afford it. I've tried almost all of them and found them all lacking in some way so I've always sold it off quickly or returned it.

I'm also guilty of spending too much on this hobby - if I ever needed the money, I'd probably sell everything and just get the Sony A7C and a few small lenses. However, I think there's no real line here - everyone has a view on what they can afford and are happy with. My philosophy now is have fewer lenses and try to make the most of them. Probably 5 is my number - the "trinity" of f2.8 zooms, 200-600mm, and the 50mm f1.2 (amazing portrait lens).

tonyz1 said:

Euell said:

Why own the 24GM you say? Well, for low light shots indoors, obviously. But, the other thing I noticed after I acquired the lens is that it's hard to take a bad shot with it. It's a honey, at least for me. It's also particularly great for appealing landscape and fall foliage shots. Its rendering has a certain sine qua non. Pretty good against the light, etc. But, while the GM label signifies certain design attributes, such a great build and decent bokeh, the GM label doesn't mean that all are equal. And, Sony is constantly improving the line.

Click to expand...

Ha, I had the opposite experience with the 24 GM - I thought it had beautiful bokeh but wasn't as sharp as I hoped for so it didn't stick around in my kit. This is my point - value is subjective.

Click to expand...

Too bad. Must have gotten a lemon or, as you say, didn't like the focal length.

Dspider said:

Vertumnus said:

My dear genius.You probably live in America,so you see very old buildings very seldom.What you wrongly call "distortion" is a 14th century building and the wall is just leaning.As for the convex roof, it is from the 17th century and has deformed with age.Both have nothing to do with optical faults of the lens.Learn,observe,think,get experience and then write.

Click to expand...

Im a builder i know exactly what im looking at distortion

Ds

Click to expand...

Well bugger me! I never knew this was distortion. For the past 48 years I thought this was just what happened with very old buildings… Thank you for your builder’s expertise and putting me right! :-D



--
Cheers, John