Honestly what I would do is rent both if you can or loan one from friend to use for a week or two. Sample variation will also effect your evaluation a bit. Would suck if you get the sony 24-70 GM and it's a worse copy than the one you rented or borrowed. That's why I rather buy from a store that I can easily exchange at. You should check out fred miranda sony forums as there is a discussion like this happening over there.Sevan, thanks for your thoughts. I live in Northern India now, and rental is not possible. For this reason I may go with the Sigma through local Amazon and hope for the best, or maybe wait to get a 24-70 GM when I go back to Canada in the spring. I will have to use my instincts on this one!I am in the same dilemma and this is very interesting to read. I actually do have the 24-70 GM that I have sorta as a long term loaner from family relative and I've taken it out to landscape shots and have done some portraits. Has left me impressed by not prime level impressed as I primarily shoot with a voigtlander 21 F/1.4 nokton + 50 APO F/2 + sigma 35 1.2 + zeiss milvus 25 f/1.4 zf.2 and different set of portrait lenses like sony 135 GM + sigma 105 1.4.
I haven't given the 24-70 GM good enough run to really be able to evaluate it better. My worry about the sigma 24-70 is the lens flare during sunset shots from what I've seen from dustin abbot review (though the sun was much higher in the sky). Almost no reviewer on youtube shows this aspect of lens flare performance (at least none that I have seen so far). From a sunset shot I shot with the sony 24-70 GM it left me not too happy with the bad flare in the frame but then again it was terrible weather boring blue sky.
My voigtlander 21 1.4 has become my golden landscape prime with sunset/sunrise shots (the rendering, sharpness, sunstars). I also do have the 16-35 GM that I really love but I still use my primes more often. I am actually going to valley of fire in like 2 weeks with the 24-70 GM so that is where I will use it a lot alongside of the 16-35 GM and 21 1.4 + 50 APO. I tend to find 24-70 zooms boring a bit but pretty versatile. What's interesting is that when I start to zoom past 50mm and get to 70mm... I rather at that point just have a 100-400 for those unique landscape compositions in the longer telephoto range. I am actually waiting to see how the sigma 100-400 will be
So far from using the GM I will say I am not sure I am convinced to spend $2k+ on it. I do really like it's bokeh and color rendition at portrait distance. Infinity range is good but not prime level good. There is much to love about the lens though in general. Actually the sigma 14-24 has really impressed me as well especially in the infinity range which is what I care more about (okay i am kind of a gas addict haha)
Anyhow my two cents
Thanks Jeff. Environmental portraits are my main focus (at 45-70mm). Why do you say the Sigma wins hands down for this type of imaging?
Sounds good! I would try to not fuss too much and just be happy being outdoors shooting beautiful images with either lens. You really can't go wrong with either honestly. I eventually always end up owning multiple lenses of same focal length or overlapping focal lengths usually.Sevan, thanks for your thoughts. I live in Northern India now, and rental is not possible. For this reason I may go with the Sigma through local Amazon and hope for the best, or maybe wait to get a 24-70 GM when I go back to Canada in the spring. I will have to use my instincts on this one!I am in the same dilemma and this is very interesting to read. I actually do have the 24-70 GM that I have sorta as a long term loaner from family relative and I've taken it out to landscape shots and have done some portraits. Has left me impressed by not prime level impressed as I primarily shoot with a voigtlander 21 F/1.4 nokton + 50 APO F/2 + sigma 35 1.2 + zeiss milvus 25 f/1.4 zf.2 and different set of portrait lenses like sony 135 GM + sigma 105 1.4.
I haven't given the 24-70 GM good enough run to really be able to evaluate it better. My worry about the sigma 24-70 is the lens flare during sunset shots from what I've seen from dustin abbot review (though the sun was much higher in the sky). Almost no reviewer on youtube shows this aspect of lens flare performance (at least none that I have seen so far). From a sunset shot I shot with the sony 24-70 GM it left me not too happy with the bad flare in the frame but then again it was terrible weather boring blue sky.
My voigtlander 21 1.4 has become my golden landscape prime with sunset/sunrise shots (the rendering, sharpness, sunstars). I also do have the 16-35 GM that I really love but I still use my primes more often. I am actually going to valley of fire in like 2 weeks with the 24-70 GM so that is where I will use it a lot alongside of the 16-35 GM and 21 1.4 + 50 APO. I tend to find 24-70 zooms boring a bit but pretty versatile. What's interesting is that when I start to zoom past 50mm and get to 70mm... I rather at that point just have a 100-400 for those unique landscape compositions in the longer telephoto range. I am actually waiting to see how the sigma 100-400 will be
So far from using the GM I will say I am not sure I am convinced to spend $2k+ on it. I do really like it's bokeh and color rendition at portrait distance. Infinity range is good but not prime level good. There is much to love about the lens though in general. Actually the sigma 14-24 has really impressed me as well especially in the infinity range which is what I care more about (okay i am kind of a gas addict haha)
Anyhow my two cents
-Charles
The Sigma is notably sharper (f2.8) at 70mm... particularly off-center, where eyes are often placed.
I see. Thanks for letting me know that. I usually shoot at f4 or f5.6. Rarely wide open. Does the advantage still maintain itself, say with broken?
I hear mixed reviews about the sharpness of the Tamron lens. So I hesitate to consider it. What is the bokeh like?
How sharp? It's very sharp.
