DPReview TV: Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM II Review

Or at Best Buy ☺️

The first Generation lens survived a 200+ foot tumble down an icy ski slope with only a cracked lens hood. I expect the new one would perform similarly.

https://petapixel.com/2022/02/08/the-sony-camera-that-tumbled-down-an-olympic-ski-slope-survived/

As others have stated you’d have to do this test yourself.

Canon have their 28-70mm f2, but it's a really heavy lens... Maybe a nice option for weddings... I prefer a pair of f1.4 primes...

@photography-lover -- in your world -- perhaps, in mine -- it means nothing.

Well, those extra 4mm cost about $1500.

I am wondering if one wouldn't be better off with the Tamron and supplement with a Zeiss Loxia 21. Same total price tag and even stronger wide angle option. Unless one is totally allergic to lens changes.

Would be nice, I'd like to see a "macro" shooting comparison at wide/tele as well.

It does make the older one worse in relative terms. "Worse" suggests some sort of comparison. It isn't worse than itself at an earlier point in time. But you can now compare it to the new lens, and the result is that it's worse.

This new 24-70 GM 2 shouldn't be significantly better than Canon's 24-70 II optically. Maybe better flare resistance since coatings seem to always get better over time.

But having other improved usability features like better tuning with IBIS, better AF, smaller construction, more switches and buttons, etc. may be worth the cost.

@gameshoes: I’m kinda old school - sharpness first, then AF, then the rest (for a 24-70). And from the sharpness perspective, well… I really got a “special” copy. I wonder how it will perform with 70 Mp+ sensors, but we are not there yet. As for the new Sony lens - well, it has all the bells and whistles, but these are the expectations.

The EF 24-70mm f2.8 II is a good lens but it was already behind the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 VR optically although it lacked stabilization.

It is IMHO significantly behind the mirrorless versions of those lenses from the 3 brands. Whether that matters for your applications is something only you can decide.

Lenses are getting better and targeting more detailed sensors. It's almost certain that this new 24-70mm exceeds an older L zoom.

Since this lens is sharper than the previous version you might be able to find a review that compares the first GM to your L and extrapolate from there.

Whether or not your camera body can record the differences may of course be a factor.

The OP brings up an important point that I am sure many users and the companies grapple with: the idea that past products are so good, and so what constitutes a meaningful reason to upgrade?

After what point do advancements become so incremental that you hit diminishing returns? That's a question for each individual to answer for themselves.

Diminishing returns? I think we are far from that here at dpreview. Clearly lenses are sharper and better in nearly all ways outside of subjective rendering. The thing about this lens is that it is smaller, in a way that is diminishing but not in the sense your speaking of, and that is a huge return.

There is also the concept of 'good enough'. I love a super-sharp super-fast lens, but a lot can be acheived with quite basic glass - at the end of the day the photographer in their choice of subject and composition has the greatest effect on how good a photograph is produced.

@ Bob Janes: I have had a bright 24-70 mm zoom, but now this lens is replaced with the Sony G 40 mm f:2.5 prime - a very sharp and beautiful lens that is bright enough for almost everything.

How can this prime replace the zoom lens? I had knowledgeable people around me early in my career, photographers and visual media theorists that willingly shared their knowledge. After advice on how angle of view can be used to strengthen story telling, I have mostly worked with primes - one wide angle lens, one normal lens, and a short telephoto lens. Some years ago I was tempted to try a 24-70 mm zoom. A nice lens, but it did not add anything to my working style where angle of view is determined first, then framing and everything else that will affect how the subject or scene is represented. ;-)

Everyone is missing the point that the OP believes he has an exceptionally sharp copy.. he isn’t wanting to compare an average Sony 24-70GMII to an average EF 24-70.. he is wanting to compare to HIS above average copy. Of course it would be relevant for him, but a mostly academic discussion for anyone else.

@MILC man lightness isn't everything, it's probably not as rugged as a Nikon or Canon L lens and I doubt you get 8 stops of IS like on the Canon system ;-)

@jay jay02 - idle speculation and false claims don't trump actual facts.

@ jay jay02: Not even Canon say 8 stops. They say "up to 8 stop", with a long string with *******, pointing at one zoom lens at a certain focal length, at a given shutter speed, used at room temperature, etc. ... for real world tests, there is not much difference between the full frame systems.

Heavier might be more prone to damage if dropped. Depends on structure more than mass.

Let jay jay feel happy that his canon is the best at everything.
The reality is in real world applications Sony and canon IBIS performance gap is more like 1 stop or less.

@Magnar W have you compared both systems? I have and believe me Canon's IS is much much better. Clever fast lens communication and a huge lens mount is the key..

@ Kandid: There is more energy involved when more mass hits the ground.

@jay jay02: There are plenty of tests out there, and I find even the weaker tests more to trust than what you personally might feel. Not even this "huge lens mount" argument seems to be valid from what is offered from the two brands.

Oh no - so my 70-200 f2.8 is doomed - pity anyone who carries around a 600 f4 - for Pete’s sake don’t drop it….!

Obviously this is a ridiculous discussion as robustness depends on build materials and build quality as well - but to suggest an object has the edge in this area simply because it has less mass is nonsense. If it weren’t then they should make it out of cardboard…..

Jay jay brought up the ruggedness argument. And of course the materials and construction method and design are primary factors.

But jay jay is the one who said ruggedness is related to mass, and he is wrong. Heavier objects have more energy to dissipate when they hit the ground at a given speed compared to lighter lenses.

Anyway jay jay is wrong. And as you said it is more related to materials, construction process and design. Your comment seemed directed at Magnar but you two are in violent agreement.

@ Kandid: My argument is that construction and structural strength, not only weight, will affect how much abuse a certain lens can take. Should not be controversial at all.

Well - I think what he is was implying is that rugged build quality usually comes with a mass penalty (Abrams tank vs Ford Pinto…). However I would fully concede that there is no reason to suspect that this new lens is not sufficiently robust for proper pro use….and may indeed be more durable than its competitors.

@ MILC man --- please stop make so many boring comments about how bad Nkon 24-70 focus is ( I guess you never own one )
Is great you are super impressed with new Sony lens light weight, how about Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S lens at 1.4 lb / 650 g. It was done before by Nikon, Canon and others and will be done again in a future
Can't wait to see all your award winning photos with your new lens

Hey guys, this has gotten old over the years. Are your egos so fragile that they depend upon the camera system you own? I remember this nonsense from the sixth grade! Competition drives innovation and quality improvements, and this is a very good thing. Be thankful.

Realistically the 24-70's of all 3 -- Nikon, Canon and Sony -- are now fantastic. It depends on which system you shoot.

No one is going to switch systems over this one lens. As most reviews show, the main competition is primarily from Sigma and Tamron, and the earlier Sony version, because that is what those who may purchase this lens will be considering.

Anyone who has used the Z 24-70 knows it’s not crippled in any area. It focuses extremely fast and silently. “Crippled this… crippled that” is just uninformed drivel.

see the dpr z24-70/2.8 review, they repeatedly pointed out how slow nikon stepper motors are:

"RF 24-70mm F2.8 has... far speedier nano USM autofocus motor in place of the Nikon's dual stepper motors... We felt that despite its dual-motor autofocus drive, AF performance [z24-70] lagged just slightly behind the F-mount optic... The result is that, despite a sophisticated AF system, we still felt focus performance was slightly slower than Nikon's AF-S DSLR lenses.
...Cons:
-Autofocus isn't as speedy as peers
-No linear focus response for video"
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s-field-review

I guess it's uniformed Dpreview dribble?

I can do that too:
“focus incredibly fast, but also deliver superb AF accuracy that we have never previously seen from Nikon before.“ - photographylife

“ It performed very well in all of my tests regarding …. focus speed and reliability” - cameralabs

“Focusing is very quick and accurate, locking onto the subject with ease” -photography blog

“ Out in the field, the lens focuses very quickly. ” - imaging resource

“ felt fast and responsive.” - digital camera world

“ Autofocus overall performed right where we’d expect a pro-level lens, locking onto subjects in most scenarios quickly” - digital trends

“The focusing motor is very prompt when tasked with focusing on subjects at different distances“ - tech radar

“In 233 ms, the AF goes from infinity to 1.5 meters: fast, but not extremely fast.“ - camera stuff

“ Quick, silent autofocus.” - pc mag

There’s also 1000+ user reviews to get a sense on the lens af performance.

What I like to do is draw from personal experience, something I’m 100% sure you have not. I’ve used both canon and Nikons mirrorless 24-70s and there’s no noticeable difference in the field. I also know the f mount version is NOT faster lol. If I had to guess the slowness they noticed is attributable to the camera body used rather than the lens.

Again even DPR’s words don’t suggest the lens is “crippled” and your views are either hyperbole or as I said bias drivel.

@ mferencz
*drivel

it's a $2300 milc lens that has slower focus speed than obsolete dslr glass, and it also focuses slower than what both canon and sony have.

crying about the facts won't change it, and trying to hide the truth is platform fanaticism at it's worst; nikon decided that they weren't going to spend r&d on developing linear ultrasonic focus motors and voice coil linear af, people need to know about that.

canon and sony stepped up to the plate, and didn't go with cheap stepper motors.

Again not true. Go out and use them both feel free to pick the D6 and Z9. Or just continue to be uninformed and talk out ya behind lol

it's 100% true, if stepper motors had comparable performance canon and sony would be using it... but they aren't.

nikon is putting voice coil af in the 400/2.8 because it's better; sony explains why here:

"Weir: When we started developing mirrorless lenses we were using rotational stepping motors which needed their motion turned into linear motion. That’s pretty much where other lens and camera manufacturer of mirrorless are at today.

But one of the things we discovered around 2014 was that we had to rethink the way autofocus actuators worked. That’s when we started creating linear actuators which have no translation from rotation motion to linear motion – there’s no gears and no friction.

Even today, most the recent lenses introduced by mirrorless camera manufacturers or third party lens manufactures are using rotary actuators. The helical mechanism or gears required to convert rotary to linear movement slow them considerably and can induce error and noise.

We shifted to linear actuators 4-5 years ago."
https://sonycine.com/articles/why-sony-s-hybrid-autofocus-technology-is-so-reliable/

it's funny to watch nikon owners trying to argue against what nikon itself says, lol

"The speed and silence of Silky Swift VCM:
Nikon’s new Silky Swift Voice Coil Motor (VCM) uses magnets instead of gears to move the lens focus groups. This design simultaneously delivers higher initial speed, higher accuracy and the smoothest, most silent operation of any Nikon AF drive system.
Additionally, vibration within the mechanism has been reduced with an innovative guide bar and minimal space between moving parts, allowing for maximum speed during autofocus."
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-lenses/nikkor-z-400mm-f%252f2.8-tc-vr-s.html

It’s good when Nikon does it. But it’s not important when Sony does it.

It’s funny how times have changed. It used to be the Nikon and Canon articles overrun by the Sony fanboys…. Now it’s just the reverse.

Literally nobody is saying that @Mike. I’m not saying linear motors are same speed. Labeling one approach as crippled is incorrect IMO or maybe that language is just troll vocabulary.
Please provide something concrete that shows an example of a scenario only linear motors could excel at. Please change my mind.

Nikon is telling you all the ways linear motors excel.
Anyway in 3 years when Nikon is producing linear motors for all of their lenses y’all will be singing a different tune.

You didn’t complete the task Mike. Reread my previous response.

Nikon did my homework for me.

“This design simultaneously delivers higher initial speed, higher accuracy and the smoothest, most silent operation of any Nikon AF drive system.
Additionally, vibration within the mechanism has been reduced with an innovative guide bar and minimal space between moving parts, allowing for maximum speed during autofocus.”

Raindrop. I must be thinking nba playoffs

this nonsense that stepper motors don't matter is deja vu from 2017, when nikon owners kept insisting that dslrs have better af than the a9.

now that nikon _finally_ got the z9, people are dumping d5/d6/d850 for peanuts :-/

it'll be harder for 'em to dump stepper motor lenses tho, because that's nearly the entire z-mount lens lineup, including the $6500 800pf lens :-0

see the panasonic s24-70/2.8: "a double focus system with both linear and stepping motors", vs one stepper motor in the z24-70/2.8

@milc feel free to show what Mike can’t. Linear motors are consistently faster… I'm surprised someone hasn’t demonstrated that difference in practice or maybe someone has in the worldwide web and I haven’t seen it. Maybe DPR can put together an practical AF test instead of “feels” from a trade show.
Is this like upgrading a car’s engine that’s capable of 200mph so it can go 210mph? I’m legit curious.

And not that it matters but there’s more than one stepper in the Z 24-70

All the indications are there. You are just ignoring them.

@mike I guess there’s nothing more to say, if you’re going to continue to skate around the question. There’s tests for sharpness, vignette, CA, etc would love somebody devise one for lens af speed. Of course there’s the variable of camera body but you’d at least be able to limit that variability. I’d love to see something like that and surprised nobody has devised a decent test.

I’m not denying the usefulness of a well designed test method for that. It would no doubt show what most of us already understand (including Nikon, Sony, and Canon) but you seem to be in denial of.

watching a nikon owner try to argue that nikon is wrong makes me laugh :-)

And y’all still can’t deliver lol. Bye.

@RaindropDroptop has a point: he's actually has used the Nikon lens and can vouch for its performance. No one here criticizing it has any experience with the lens. So it's absurd to think that one can argue against his experience.

Also WRT to the focusing motor speed, I do think it's more a matter of small incremental differences...as he puts it, comparing a 210 mph car vs a 200 mph car.

Lens speed: turns out someone has actually done some analytical tests rather than just relying on 'feeings'. Have a read and draw your own conclusions based on the brand you choose to use.

If you don't want to read the analysis the conclusion was: Canon is fastest, Sony second, Nikon a very close third to Sony. So the concept that Sony is way faster than Nikon is seemingly flawed.

Of an interesting note, the analysis reports on how the cameras report the subject is in focus, with Sony showing the green focus aquired box much sooner than Canon or Nikon do. However, Sony shows the green box even before final focus is acheived - this could easily give the impression it is quicker than it actually is.

Anyway, have a read :)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65802601

Take it for what you will, but at least the sony test uses AF-S.
And I will tell you practically noone uses AF-S on a modern sony because AF-C is so much faster and just as accurate.

I guess all of them are using AF-S.. However, I believe anyone that is most concerned about AF speed is using AF-C or servo AF anyhow.

Oh and the 70-200GM used in the test is 6 years old. And it still outperformed the Nikon in AF-S. even with the post PDAF CDAF cycle (which the other cameras don't employ?) Yeah, that's pretty fast.

Talk about debating how many angels can dance on a pinhead…..🙄

that failed "test" is a good example of what happens when the operational characteristics of gear is not understood.

"The CDAF confirmation cycle for AF-S that follows a PDAF acquisition can be visually observed by watching the LV feed during focusing. It's especially noticeable on slower-focusing lenses such as the FE 50mm f/1.8. You'll see a quick front-to-back focus warble that follows the PDAF acquisition - that's the telltale sign of the CDAF confirmation." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1620775/0

basing a lens focusing speed "test" on sony af-s functionality makes it about the camera not the lens, but the fact that nikon was slower than sony af-s is further proof just how slow nikon really is.

dpr testing the Techart TZE-01 adapter: "What was most striking was the speed of focus: Sony's FE 35mm F1.8 comes with faster AF motors than Nikon's own Nikkor Z 35mm F1.8 S, and the difference is absolutely noticeable regardless of your AF settings."

Exactly.

yes, the fact that sony lenses on a 3rd-party adapter focus faster than native z-mount glass on a z-mount body pretty much says it all :-)

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7004460162/choose-your-own-adventure-with-techart-s-e-mount-to-z-mount-adapter

OOF…

I have used the 35 1.8S and can confirm it’s not a fast focusing lens and definitely the slowest of the Z lenses I’ve used including the budget 40mm. However it’s still plenty fast enough, let’s not pretend it’s a sports or wildlife lens. It’s great optically which is more important for that focal length.

Regarding the DPR af frame analysis…. Not even worth paying attention to on both sides of the argument for reasons stated above, in that link and a multitude of other factors that weren’t even discussed and I won’t waste time mentioning.

I recently had the opportunity to compare Z9 + 100-400S and A1 + 100-400GM. Surprisingly the crippled, slow steppers in the Z lens seemed at least as fast as Sony’s linear implementation. Go figure.

Hilarious to see the level of confusion here…
- AF speed results from many complex factors including raw speed of the motors, lens construction, camera control,…
- the raw speed itself is a technological topic and the type of motor is only one aspect. There are many others.

Claiming that lenses equipped with linear motors focus faster is akin to saying that bikes are faster than cars,.., or an infinite number of equally completely meaningless statements.

I thought you guys knew better. And some of you claim to be engineers. Well I wouldn’t want to trust my life to something you designed.

Anytime we hit the point to where a debate over technical specifications comes down to minute details, and different tests get different results, then we know we have hit the point where the meaningful differences are negligible.

If there were any meaningful differences, we would not need to have this debate over arcane details. One could just look at at the output and see that one system is capable of results that the other one is not. But we don’t see this. All of the systems are so competent that it gets to be absurd to argue on such small matters.

Yep. Just pointing out it was the Nikon Fan-boy (PL) that started this argument about the minute details with the original comment that generated all of these replies.

And you just know you guys are out of arguments when you bring up 8K 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 in a comment thread about autofocus speed, on an article about a lens.

Absolutely not Mike.

I didn’t write a word about AF until my last reply highlighting how meaningless the supposedly technical arguments brought forward about AF speed are.

You choose to read things in my original statement and then blame your interpretation on me… not an impressive display of intelligence if I may say.

@RaindropDroptop - "I have used the 35 1.8S and can confirm it’s not a fast focusing lens and definitely the slowest of the Z lenses I’ve used"

hmmm....

"Autofocus actuation from the stepping motor isn't as fast as Nikon's snappiest F-mount zooms with more powerful ring-type AF motors, but it's at least as fast as most of the company's older primes and good enough for rapid acquisition of most subjects. The Z 50mm F1.8 S focuses slightly faster than the Z 35mm F1.8 S but there's not much to choose between them." https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1point8-s-lens-review

@RaindropDroptop - "I recently had the opportunity to compare"

that sounds like another failed "test", that doesn't even attempt to establish scientific methodology.

now that we agree that z-mount steppers are slow; many reviews have stated that they are non-linear, which is bad for video; not what you want in a z9 that is blindly promoted as being "superior" only because of 8k raw.

PL you brought the comparison with your beloved Nikon into the Sony article at the very first comment. Then you get discussion…. And you don’t like it. Shocker. You opened the door.

@MILC why’d you quote me with a quote that agrees with what I said about the 35mm lol. Put the drinks down again. :)

“that sounds like another failed "test", that doesn't even attempt to establish scientific methodology.“
No different than everything you have quoted from DPR about af speeed 😂😂😂😂😂

And no we’ll never agree that steppers are slow.

@RaindropDroptop - "that agrees with what I said about the 35mm lol"

no, you inferred that it's the only slow stepper motor lens, when in fact there is proof of several slow z-mount stepper motor lenses.

@RaindropDroptop - "we’ll never agree that steppers are slow"

too late, you already did that when you stated "definitely the slowest of the Z lenses I’ve used" lol

and now you are trying to argue with what nikon said, again :-0

@photography-lover - "I didn’t write a word about AF until my last reply highlighting how meaningless the supposedly technical arguments brought forward about AF speed are."

"meaningless"?? except when it's you making unsubstantiated claims about 800pf af speed, of course ;-)

@photography-lover - "The 800mm was designed from the ground up with a price and weight target in mind and the whole lens was architectured so as to be able to focus very fast with affordable stepper motors." https://www.dpreview.com/news/7524133119/nikon-reveals-its-new-6-500-800mm-f6-3-super-telephoto-lens-for-z-mount-cameras?comment=8541290780

@MILC
Now you’re just being childish.
The new 70-200 II is faster than many previous linear driven Sony lenses that I’ve used. Does that mean those other Sony lenses are slow? 😂😂
Quit being a clown.

@RaindropDroptop brings up a good point. There is a world of difference between "Product A is better than Product B in some metric" and "Product B is a poor performer in that metric."

As he notes if that is true, then anytime any company, including Sony comes out with a new and improved version, that would render their past versions obsolete,

Both of these can be true: Lens A is faster focusing than Lens B. Lens B is still fast focusing.

It's a propagandist technique to try to paint the competition as somehow inadequate. Unfortunately we've seen mostly with some Sony fans that they so rely on spec sheets to make their arguments, that they will take any small advantage of Sony in one spec and use that to try to paint another brand as wholly insufficient. There's no perspective or context.

So that we get Sony users who've never used a Nikon lens trying to convince a happy Nikon owner who has used the lens that it somehow is deficient.

The only thing raindrop’s comment reminds us that if the 6 year old version 1 70-200GM beats the Z 70-200 S even with Sonys extra CDAF step, then the new GMII will absolutely destroy the nIkon.

But y’all keep digging.

This sounds silly. Right? Yeah. This waste of time has gone on way too long. You guys are so desperate in a Sony article to promote your favorite brand you simply can’t stop talking.

Some people here like new technology not brands. But is funny to listen all this garbage talk how much better Sony is compare to others
Sorry but I don't care that your Sony is so much better than my boring Nikon Z7II with 70 -200 attached
If I think Sony stuff will improve my photography I will go tomorrow an buy A1 with some best lenses (I hope there is some good from this 1 million choices)

Mike, the issue isn't that one lens "beats" another one; they are all more than adequate. It's simply lacking perspective to pretend otherwise.

If anyone has used the Z 70-200 they know that it works great...ditto with the Nikon 24-70. Nikon owners are not complaining.

This whole in lens motor speed is a phony issue. If it makes Sony users feel better than so be it. But Sony really doesn't have any real lead in mirrorless tech any longer; that's evaporated.

I swear I think one day Sony will come out with a new lens or camera and declare that the paint they used in their logo is somehow better on a nano scale, just so their users can feel that they have some tech edge for a bit longer.

Anyone writing that a competing lens “destroys” the 70-200mm f2.8 S simply has zero credibility. However good the new Sony may be, and I think it’s an excellent lens.

Especially when there are no test results confirming this highly biased opinion.

But Mike has a solid track record of not letting facts come in the way of his delusions. No real surprise here.

" we've seen mostly with some Sony fans that they so rely on spec sheets to make their arguments"
Are you saying that most sony users reply on spec sheets or that some sony users (possibly a minority) spend most of their time relying on spec sheets? Are you saying that this sets Sony users apart from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic or Fujifilm users?
I don't think any of these is true. You seem to be using spec sheets as much as anyone else in these comment sections - you have made comparisons between different ways of doing things and made declarations about which is superior...

Bob: what I'm saying is that if you read many comments of some Sony users in these discussions, it often seems like speaking to a robot. It's just a regurgitation of spec sheets, and sometimes cherry picked quotes from other reviewers out of context.

And yes, Sony users are most guilty of this...just cherry picking a spec where Sony may have a minor advantage, then extrapolating from that the idea that another brand is basically useless or in a major way deficient. It's a very common tactic.

We see that in this thread. Their reasoning is that Sony has these faster focusing motors, therefore Nikon lenses are way too slow, or that Sony "destroys" Nikon.

It's a poor attempt to try to position the Sony brand as somehow vastly superior when it's not. This new lens from Sony is excellent, but that doesn't make other brands similar models somehow less or even far less, which is what some are suggesting.

Thoughts R Us wrote: "And yes, Sony users are most guilty of this ... "

Without proof or statistics, sheer nonsense. Defining a group from what you think, is just about personal bias. Your claim has most likely nothing whatsoever with reality to do, but it might work as rethoric. I am not convinced, though.

The single post that mentions 'destroy' was posted by one person (not exactly representative) and speculated that a future lens may be better than an existing lens.
No specs involved anywhere.

I used the word "destroy" and then wrote about how silly it sounds. I guess you guys all missed that part. "destroy" was hyperbole. Read the whole comment again. (Or don't.)

Anyway, this whole thread has gotten silly.

The sillyest part is the Canon and Nikon guys not even realizing they're doing exactly the same thing they say only the Sony guys do.

@Mikeran
You used the exact same word “destroy” to describe your view of the relationship btw the new Sony 70-200 snd the Nikon a few weeks ago in another thread also.

I will take your word for it and assume that it was tongue in cheek then also.

I don’t expect you to acknowledge that you didn’t display the same level of kindness when you gave me hell in several posts after I wrote ironically that birding was the most practiced type of photography and later clarified that it was meant as a tongue in cheek comment…

Please share a link. It’s possible I did but I doubt it.

I try to project a balanced tone except when you guys get all crazy with your pro Nikon or Pro Canon hysteria.

Oh I thought you were reading DPR. Not shooting. Anyway. Sorry I don’t trust your memory. You should be more careful making accusations of such specifics using only your memory as the basis.

@mikeran
You never fail to disappoint…

‘A balanced tone’ - amusing self delusion. Being relatively polite (however welcome) is not the same as ‘balanced’. This would mean occasionally agreeing that something another brand does was better than something Sony does……there are some examples - really…

“what I'm saying is that if you read many comments of some Sony users in these discussions, it often seems like speaking to a robot. It's just a regurgitation of spec sheets, and sometimes cherry picked quotes from other reviewers out of context.”

do you even read quarter of the stuff that you write?

@Handsome90: I stand by what I have written: some Sony promoters on sites like these and other social media have pushed the narrative of judging by specs to the extreme.

But the worst point is this: they take an area where Sony may have a small advantage in the specs, but then use that to insinuate or just flatly state that another brand is totally inadequate.

For instance with this lens focus motor speed issue, the reality may be that some Sony lenses focus a tiny bit faster that most would not notice. But some Sony promoters than accuse another brand of having "slow" focus. It's a classic propagandist technique.

There's no perspective, just a desire to use one spec taken out of context as a cudgel to bludgeon another brand. That is mostly done by some Sony promoters.

Now of course when another brand has a spec advantage, then Sony promoters declare that it doesn't matter. But we are all guilty of that bias. What is unique to Sony is this desire to trash other brands.

TRU you are exactly describing how some canon guys talk about IBIS performance. You still don’t see that..

You think the Sony guys are somehow different? You’re wrong about that. But you have been an anti Sony guy for so long you don’t see it.

@Thoughts R Us - "What is unique to Sony is this desire to trash other brands"

pot calling the kettle black, lol

@Thoughts R Us - "The real loser is Sony. Canon will crush Sony from here on out. And Sony gets no more converts from Canon or Nikon. Maybe a few switching back. To new users, they will no longer see Sony as the only game in town if you want smaller high quality FF mirrorless. They will see the names of the giants and many will choose them over Sony.
Nikon will outsell Sony. I can guarantee you that Canon will outsell Sony by a very wide margin. Sony will be consigned to small share of the FF mirrorless market; they've had 100% with no competition. Now they will are going to get besieged by all sides. Even Panasonic will swoop in and take away the video shooters from Sony." https://www.dpreview.com/news/8428210001/rumors-point-to-imminent-canon-full-frame-mirrorless-system-launch?comment=2677548079

most people would be embarrassed to have been so totally wrong...

@MILCman: LOL. First thanks for taking the time to look over my past comments. I'm honored, esp by the fact that you went back about 4 years to find something that you think is relevant. Of course it's not relevant, since in that comment I am simply making a market prediction, and one where I've long since admitted that I was in error.

Do you not make any mistakes? I'm sure I could go back through your comments and find some big ones, but I don't want to take the time/effort to do that. I'm sure you have made other mistakes that were not documented on this site as well.

But here I am talking about taking a minor spec advantage and turning it into a way to demean an entire brand. So your quote doesn't apply.

We all have our own biases, but there is an earned reputation online that Sony users have been the most aggressive and antagonistic against other brands. Obviously this doesn't mean every Sony user for those that need that explained.

@MILCman: Cont'd: in fact your post shows that same antagonistic attitude, whether towards another brand or towards those who disagree with you.

It's not surprising that you use the same tactic: cherry pick something and then over extrapolate and use that as a cudgel against a brand or in this case, a person, namely me.

Your behavior shows the same bias to attack and demean.

@tru
Perhaps he learned these skills on the Canon Cyprus website…..😀😀😀😁😁😁

@Thoughts R Us

"For instance with this lens focus motor speed issue, the reality may be that some Sony lenses focus a tiny bit faster that most would not notice."

Not only is it noticeable it's been commented on multiple times by DPreview, who evaluate this stuff for a living. They have that thing you respect above all else; personal experience with the gear - in this case ALL brands.

"But some Sony promoters than accuse another brand of having "slow" focus. It's a classic propagandist technique."

There are no 'Sony promoters' - defending our gear and our brand from the nonsense you write is not 'promotion'. And it's not 'propaganda' if it's true - and it is true.

The amount of energy Nikon and Canon users spend trying to pretend Sony achievements and innovations in everything from image capture to optics didn't happen is incredible. It's almost an illness.

"First thanks for taking the time to look over my past comments. I'm honored,"

All this was needed because if someone pointed it out to you without receipts you would say that i am neutral and it never happened.

@Kandid, has your cheque arrived on time from canon?

The key isn't bigger or smaller, but what works for the individual user overall.

Size can matter, but regarding cameras so do things like control layout, grip, durability, battery life, balance with large lenses, etc.

There's no one size fits all approach. And the different sizes can complement each other.

I do believe that in general I'd rather have reductions in size/weight in the lenses than the camera body.

"I do believe that in general I'd rather have reductions in size/weight in the lenses than the camera body."

What you need to understand is that this is not a matter of choosing one or the other. Reductions are possible in both.

there's one manufacturer that doesn't understand this: Panasonic: S1, S1R, S1H, their lenses, OMG...

and Canon is also very stubborn with their heavy big lenses: RF 15-35 f/2.8, RF 24-70 f/2.8... they had to incorporate OIS in most of their lenses because their cripple hammer policy doesn't allow them to put IBIS in all cameras... you have to pay for your OIS in each lens you buy.

OIS in lens is generally better than IBIS in camera. With Canon their IS works in tandem with their IBIS to achieve even greater stabilization. That's one reason why Canon generally is considered to be among the leaders in IS tech.

"OIS in lens is generally better than IBIS in camera. "
For longer focal lengths, possibly. IS in lenses does force certain design constraints that might require undesirable compromises (greater weight, greater cost or compromised image quality). One isn't exclusively better than the other, they are two different approaches with different benefits and downsides.
They both work and that is all you really need from a stabilization tool.

@Becksvart -- screw some dumbbells to the tripod mount, is your camera now more comfortable to hold?

@Becksvart -- ok, let me make it easier. Do you need a hammer handle to be made of steel to make it more comfortable?

@TRU... your last comment looks like you are saying Canon is better than Sony, again. When you said: "With Canon their IS works in tandem with their IBIS to achieve even greater stabilization".

Once again you are misinformed, and spreading misinformation regarding how Sony cameras & lenses work. Sony cameras do the exact same thing. Try to educate yourself before making false statements in the future.

One in-camera lens correction is for focus breathing, but right now that is only available for the A7IV. Even Gerald Undone criticized Sony for not adding that feature yet in a software update for what is supposed to be their flagship model.

Come on, Sony ...you can do it.

As to "life" or "vibe" or "soul" ...yes, that's hard to quantify...but yes that is part of art and being human. Steve Jobs said he wanted to place Apple at the intersection of technology and the humanities/liberal arts. He understood.

Sony would do well to adopt that credo.

@Thoughts R Us
I figured you would cling on any criticism on this fantastic lens, not matter how silly that might be.

@Thoughts R Us
the lens has relatively low breathing to start with, not all that necessary to correct.

I agree that the focus breathing on the lens is not that bad...but it's still there. Sony user and A1 owner Gerald Undone is the one asking for Sony to give that focus breathing correction to the A1 in a software update. It should have been done a while ago...as he notes, the A1 is supposed to be Sony's flagship camera and it lacks some features of the A7IV that they could easily bring over in a software update.

BTW, armandino, I do agree that this appears to be a fantastic lens. But my commentary was simply that there are things outside the realm of test charts and scientifically quantifiable when it comes to the art of photography. Those cannot simply be dismissed.

I do believe that Sony in many cases masters the tech but needs to pay more attention to the human factors. Great tech products need both.

When you adapt Sony lenses to Nikon Z body is when you see amazing results.

@ Thoughts R Us: Look & feel descriptions like "Nothing special, just a lot sharpness and no life, I believe it's because Sony makes too much incamera corrections, which kills some vibe" is just bla bla bla.

I am sure the OP will have a very hard time pointing out how this has something with reality to do, outside his own imagination and belief, and the need for defending the brand he use himself ...

10 years ago:
"Sony lenses aren't sharp enough"
"Sony's lens lineup is too small"

Today:
"Sony lenses are too sharp"
"Sony's lens line up is too large, I do not know what to choose, fewer lenses are enough"

People often talk about soul regarding vehicles but after owning said expensive vehicle, I’m convinced its just BS people tell themselves to justify the cost.

@ Thoughts R Us: If there is nothing more than like or dislike, then it is not a property of the lens or camera. If people can't argue factual for such "feelings", it is worth nothing, except for pointing out personal and extremely subjective preferences.

Using such a "criteria" for describing the qualities of gear is just nonsense. But it is okay for describing subjective bias ...

To me, the 'emotionally satisfying' bit should be in creating the photograph - being there and interpreting the subject. It is nice to have nice tools, but i'd be a bit concerned about a painter who was waxing on about their fansatic brush rather than using it to create something.

@Thoughts R Us
as by TRU book, you will take from Gerald Undone only criticism to Sony, and the more nitpicking it is the more your efforts to bloat it. Rest assured that when Sony will release a firmware for the A1 it will have such feature that BTW only Sony offers at the moment.
You only need to blame yourself for having ZERO credibility around here.
On a different note Jared baseball pictures look fantastic. laminat is full of it and you take any opportunity to bash Sony even if you have no idea of what you are saying. And then you go around saying that Sony users are the worst. What a clown.

@Thoughts R Us
1) You are criticizing the A1 in a completely out of context thread for a non-issue.
2) you are criticizing Sony for making products that lack a soul, based on what?
3) you did not spontaneously "wrote that this is indeed a fantastic lens" but you "do agree that this appears to be" just to bash it immediately after. You never make a genuine positive remark of a Sony product. You simply cannot bring yourself down to do so even just to prove me wrong.
If you are not acting as clown you are acting as a child. Sorry if I am not your safe space, but I call what I see. You should thank me for that. Maybe time to look at a mirror.

Whilst it is everybodies perogitive to talk about "vibe","feel" or "soul" such conversations should be treated as feelings not as facts.
They can not be argued against nor confirmed. Which can make them a powerful statement in a debate. This then makes them a very useful tool when some on wants to re-affirm a bias. It simply cannot be argued with because it is a feeling and if the person making the statement has a team of like minded people with the same bias to motivate them then the statement starts to sound like a fact.
The often repeated statement about sony having poor colours was an example. There have been many blind tests where people couldnt tell which camera an image came from. But people will swear sony has poor colours and that is a fact. Probably to re-affirm their bias.

@Thoughts R Us

*assuming there was a good faith argument going on

armandino: Arguing with Mr. TRU is a complete waste of time, he will never stop spewing his endless anti-Sony propaganda.

TRU: Just type "I HATE SONY !!!" at the top of your posts. It will save you a lot of unnecessary typing and us a bunch of unnecessary reading. 😁

@Thoughts R Us
as usual you get it wrong. I just enjoy calling you out every time you are off on your anti-Sony crusade. Shocking you haven't figure that one out after all these years, or maybe you do, but it is an inconvenient argument and you try to play a different game. I hope it is the second, it would be a display of higher inteligence.

My vibe is that Thoughts R Us is less emotionally satysfying than a good bath.

"...But if you’re looking for something with more soul,..."

"Soul" in this context is simply a fancy term for optical flaws. Whether an image has "soul or not" on the other hand is completely up to the photographer's skills. Do artists also argue about the "soul" of their paint brushes, or whether brush maker A's brushes are soul-less, I wonder?

Yes, when people talk about too clinical or lack of soul, I know an excellent lens has come out.

I doubt Steve Jobs meant Apple products should be technically flawed for people to like them.

Which mirrorless brand would give you the image quality that is the photographic equivalent of a vinyl record?

in the days of digital and PP, this is moot.
People spend more time perfecting their PP skills than actually taking ideal images.
you can make your images to look like whatever you want.
just make sure your framing, focus is right and in some cases get your ligthing right.

If the "artistic" means soft, there are plenty of crappy cheap lenses for that purpose :-)

@Tester_v: Blaming a lens that it's not "artistic" enough, just means that the photographer doesn't have a clue of what he's doing. If you want something more "artistic", why don't you go and play with some Lensbaby lenses?

@Tester_v if you don't like the Sony lens rendering you can go and buy from a whole host of 3rd party manufacturers if you shoot Sony E mount.

However I suspect if you were presented with a portrait taken with this lens and the same shot taken with, say, the Tamron 28-75 MkII in a blind test you would not be able to pick which was which or even tell the difference.

@Tester, I think a Vivitar, or Lens Baby, or seran wrap placed in front of the camera would produce the artistic image you would like.

You can soften in post, the reverse is just bad.

"However I suspect if you were presented with a portrait taken with this lens and the same shot taken with, say, the Tamron 28-75 MkII in a blind test you would not be able to pick which was which or even tell the difference."

I generally agree with that statement...but it raises the question...why spend the extra money and buy the Sony lens in the first place then?

@TRU: "...but it raises the question...why spend the extra money and buy the Sony lens in the first place then?"

Under your logic it also raises the question: Why buy into the Canon system and spend the extra money? With Sony you get at least some other options in terms of lenses, whereas with Canon you don't have any alternatives unless you want to use adapters... which most people don't.😉

I'm talking about the engineering direction between Sony and Canon. Sony could have matched Canon but decided to sacrifice OIS in pursuit of a lighter lens.

Canon finally matched Sony by finally releasing a camera with IBIS in 2020.
Sony not including OIS in this lens and it’s predecessor is easy to understand when you look at the system as a whole.

Canon including OIS in their lenses at the time of their releases is also easy to understand when you look at the system as a whole.

This isn’t rocket science.

Mike, in lens stabilization is often more effective than camera IBIS. Also lens IS can work together with camera IBIS to produce a more effective result.

Neither you nor I know for sure why Canon chose the route they did with adding IS to their 24-70. My guess is that it was a more long term play than just catering to EOS R owners. After all their 28-70 does not have IS ( a fact that ironically some Sony users criticized Canon for...)

Not a Canon fan, but to be fair, Canon's implementation of OIS is the best in the world. I would take Canon's OIS instead of IBIS in a heartbeat. I think IBIS will eventually be dropped by all camera manufacturers.

papa: I don't think it's a blanket thing. OSS is generally more useful at longer focal lengths, which is why all Sony's FE telephotos have it. I think it makes sense not to include it in something like this lens in order to keep the cost at a sane level. I don't know where Sigmas and Tamrons and Voigtländers FE prices would be if they were all stabilized.

OIS, OSS’s efficacy is dependent on the focal length, shorter FLs hardly needs it, lighter lenses for gimbals is better though.

Canon's older EF mount didn't have OIS either, but I would definitely not go without IS today. I can get crazy low shutter speeds with the R5 + RF 24-70 2.8

Completely irrelevant. Again. The comparable Canon lens was released when Canon’s IBIS was good for zero stops.

@jay jay02

"even with a non OIS lens you get up-to 8 stops, something Sony can only dream about.."

Actually Canon only claims to get 8 stops of IBIS with just the ONE non OIS lens - the 28-70/2.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/news/5-lenses-that-get-8-stops-of-stabilization-on-the-canon-eos-r5-and-r6

I've no idea whether it delivers on its promise but Gordon Laing from Cameralabs tested the 24-105 and the 50/1.2 on the R5 and got 5 and 4 stops with Canon claiming 8 and 7 :)

https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-eos-r5-review/

"Now Canon quotes up to 8 stops of compensation when using the RF 24-105 at 105mm, although in my tests I actually managed closer to 5 stops with this lens on the day." 10:57 in.

"Now Canon quotes up to 7 stops of compensation with the RF 50/1.2 on the R5, although in my own tests I only managed around 4 stops." 11:46 in.

Because the canon lens you were talking about was released well before 2022.

No doubt you understand the point I made. You just gonna fight just to fight.

@Becksvart -- even in wide angle lenses Canon OIS works better than IBIS in Sony cameras. A cheap Canon RF 35/1.8 IS lens on a cheap EOS RP camera w/o IBIS is a lot more stable than the Sony 35/1.8 on the most expensive A1. I was taking a street video on Canon at night handholding the camera and it was smooth with no noticeable shaking. I can't achieve that with my Sony even in daylight.

This is a reason why I like to watch what Sony, Canon, and others brands are doing. Better lenses from one brand push other brands to release better lenses for their system

"After watching this video and Gerald's video I don't see anything ground breaking"

What exactly are you expecting, the lens to jump out your screen and tap dance for you?

There is no such thing as a ground breaking lens at this point, it's all been done before. But if it's characteristics are class leading there is nothing wrong with acknowledging that. I don't see anyone in here claiming this lens will revolutionize photography. You sound a little bitter.

I wasn't expecting anything ground breaking in optics (all wide to tele zooms are a compromise after all) but it *is* the lightest 24-70/2.8 by a considerable margin, that's not nothing. I was expecting them to hit 775g or maybe 750g just as they could claim that, but it ends up being 100g+ lighter than any other 24-70/2.8...

In fairness, I think the new 800mm f6.3PF could very well be considered groundbreaking...

Not really worth buying unless you need the best 24-70 f2.8 .

Not worth buying unless you are a pro or a soccer mom.

I have to agree with 4sofnature, a bit anyways: The most important reason for this lens is speed, so this excellent GM-II should be most useful on A1 and A9.

I know it also is the sharpest of all 24/28 - 70/75 zooms, but not by a huge margin compared to the Sigma. And don't get me started on the weight; the difference might be close to 20% but that is less than 10% of the whole setup including camera.

This GM-II is a GORGEOUS lens, but I believe for A7-owner the Sigma is still champion of bang for buck. By far.

Is any lens worth buying unless you actually want/need it?

Yeah let’s all agree on everything, we most not have any individual opinions and preferences.

I could care any less how many this is the bread and butter for, It don’t make it anymore exciting for me.

the problem with 24-70 f/2.8 lenses are:
- is it wide enough ? No
- can it close focus for macro ? No
- is it telephoto enough for isolating a subject ? No
- is it bright enough for astro/low light ? No
- can it do portrait ? No
- can it do wildlife ? No

I really don't see the utility of a 24-70, it's just the typical smartphone / iPhone range that we already have in our pockets 24/7

@ Funny Valentine: You maybe should try working with reportage or documentary type stuff, where moderate focal lengths play a major role for how the work communicate.

for professional/production there may be some utility, but for the average hobbyist/enthusiast the 24-70 will mostly bring frustration and make them wish they bought bright primes instead.

The national TV broadcast in my country uses camcorders for their documentary btw.

Magnar

We need pro lenses that cover ranges that is more suitable for different styles other then reportage, we lack a portrait oriented, we lack the versatility of a 20-50mm etc. The only thing we get so far is a Landscape/ indoor 12-24 (that at least was refreshing), 24-70 reportage and 3 sport and wildlife lenses. But there are fields out there who really could use a lens that cover a more portrait oriented range, a street/landscape etc. 20-50ish lens but no we keep on beating on ranges that might have been meaningful 20 years ago but it’s just not enough in 2022.

That’s why some of us find it boring. Because we want to see innovation in ranges.

the big three all make 24-70/2.8 lenses because it's what the majority of the market wants.

The main reason they make it is because of tradition more then anything.

If you actually gave people the option other then this dead horse I’m not so convinced these will be as big sellers as they are now, it’s not exactly like we had abundant of choices now is it. If Sony offered a 35/50-135/150 for portrait a 20-50 etc. This for sure would sell in far fewer numbers, a lot buy it because it’s the only choice they have but I can guarantee you many dream for something else. There reason why the Tamron 35-150 is impossible to get.

Funny V makes an interesting point though - also why are these lenses as expensive as the much bigger more demanding 70-200 f2.8???

@ Malling: So it would be better if they did not upgrade this lens?

I am pretty shure that other focal lengths will be covered. I can really understand why they keep the GM range up to date.

For lots of professionals the 18-35, 24-70 and 70-200 covers almost everything - completed with a bright 50 mm prime, just in case. You can earn for a living, doing many genres, with these lenses.

no doubt that 35-150 proves that there is room for obscure focal lengths, but i think that it also wins because it's f/2 at the wide end, has voice coil linear af, etc., it's just a very compelling overall package.

sony is on the cutting-edge with things like power zooms, which no other manufacturer offers in ff, it's absolutely essential for eng/efp/event work so why doesn't canikon make it.

16-35 GM with crop-mode makes a very fine 16-52mm. My most used lens when I travel. I also use a 70-180 f2.8 (270 in crop-mode) as a secondary lens. With those two lenses I can cover almost anything except for very wide architecture or wildlife. Just my two cents.

the idea that 24 isnt wide enough for reportage is outlandish. if anything, it's more often than not, wasted wideness, hence so many people are ok with 28-xx zooms.

I have the 20-50 equivalent on m43, the extra wideness is really nice, but I'd be lying if I told you it was a game changer.

I don’t get how focal lengths could be boring, some would find sitting in the woods with a 800mm on a tripod boring but how is it being 800mm fun?

TRU I did watch Gerald’s video and he said it is the best lens out of all, in all aspects. It’s just the price that make him pause, but how does being the best lens available make it a “not that great” of a lens to you? Man your language use is weird when it comes to your anti Sony narrative.
If Canon made this same lens for the same price, you would be saying canon just made the best 24-70 lens in the world, so of course it will be worth every penny for those who want the best

Edit: Sorry, I read your last post wrong, I thought your were saying it's not that great a lens. I should really learn to read before replying :(

True
-Lightest 24-70 on the market
-According to other reviews sharpest 24-70 on the market

Chris: meh

Hey, you try to convey excitement on a soggy, icy, grey late winter day in Calgary!! That would require some special medication…!

why do you need Chris to gush over it? if you like it and can afford it, go buy it.

I need Chris to gush over it the way they did over a little firmware update last week, or else I swear, I’m going to leave and never come back, and you’ll all miss me!

In all seriousness though, I would ask, what more could Sony have done? 24-70 2.8 lenses are staples when it comes to statement lenses, and just like the 50mm1.2, Sony is leading. It just seems like the review wants to not acknowledge that Sony has set a new bar

Excellence can be boring... :p I'm not particularly interested in a 24-xx so it would be pretty meh for me regardless, but I think they still deserve credit for making something compelling without obvious downsides that still stands out one regard (weight) while being priced at about the same as the lens it replaces (in the US).

The rival that needed stabilization because they didn’t have any bodies with in body stabilization when those lenses were released.

The Nikon Z mount 24-70/2.8 lens is not stabilized. Please check your facts.

This lens is impressive, esp for its size/weight. I always place more priority on saving size/weight on lenses rather than cameras, as IMHO it makes the most difference.

BTW, for those interested, here is a video from Gerald Undone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFJpxIM1zt0

Also, @MILCman may want to realize that the tiny gains in speed for lens of this type with those newer motors will generally not matter that much to users of lenses of this type. Watch the GU video.

Also, as both DPR TV and GU do, the real comparisons for most users will be with the other FE lenses. Very few will switch systems just for this lens. Sony's main competition is with Sigma and Tamron.

But yes, well done Sony.

@Thoughts R Us may want to realize that this is a professional lens that has cutting-edge fast autofocus for shooting sports.

congrats on proving that people who don't shoot sports clearly don't understand why that matters.

this lens is further proof that sony has the best lens lineup in the industry, by a huge margin, which is why so many canikon owners have bailed out for sony... that's a bitter pill for some people to swallow ;-)

@Jeff_0000
According to this review also in optical performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PrBAAYiWp0

@panther fan Sorry but I don't trust this guy when it comes to lens review. I would rather wait for other people who has access to different brands and has credibility to do the comparison (e.g. Christopher Frost or Thomas from cameralabs)

Edit: Since Gordon Laing has tested the mark 2 version, that means I can't see the photo samples shot from Thomas, that is a shame!

@Jeff_0000
Well the samples in his video don't lie.

But good news for both of us. Lenstip has the lens already in testing: https://www.lenstip.com/155.1-article-Sony_FE_24-70_mm_f_2.8_GM_II_%E2%80%93_first_impressions_Introduction.html
So in a few days we will have very objective comparisons with the Nikon

@panther fan good to hear. I am fine with lenstip results.

@MILCman: it’s a great lens but come on it’s not a lens for shooting cutting edge sports action. GU says the same.

And it’s not even that much faster. We’re talking incremental gains.

It’s a great lens without having to exaggerate minor points.

I don't believe Nikon's 24-70 2.8, or any of their Z lenses, was ever in first place. For some reason their lenses use ancient last-gen AF technology.

@Thoughts R Us - no need to keep proving that you don't shoot sports, o.k.? we got that already.

see the dpr z24-70/2.8 review, they repeatedly pointed out how slow nikon stepper motors are:

"RF 24-70mm F2.8 has... far speedier nano USM autofocus motor in place of the Nikon's dual stepper motors... We felt that despite its dual-motor autofocus drive, AF performance [z24-70] lagged just slightly behind the F-mount optic... The result is that, despite a sophisticated AF system, we still felt focus performance was slightly slower than Nikon's AF-S DSLR lenses.
...Cons:
-Autofocus isn't as speedy as peers
-No linear focus response for video"
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z-24-70mm-f2-8-s-field-review

@MILCman: the only way anyone will shoot "cutting edge sports action" with a 24-70 lens is if they are a player on the field with it :)

The only way any 24-70 lens is used by sports photographers is either in pre or post game portraits, team shots, interview shots, etc.

I'd say you are showing your naïveté about sports photography.

Or under the basket in basketball, near the net in volleyball…. There are plenty of opportunities. Thanks for continuing to reinforce that you don’t shoot sports.

@MikeRan: come on...no one uses a 24-70 even in those situations. You really are stretching things...

You know that a 24-70 is hardly the lens of choice for any sports photographer during the contest...it's primarily used by wedding/portrait photographers, as well as just a walk around lens.

It’s clear you have never shot basketball. That’s okay. Stick to birds.

I was thinking of the Sigma 90/2.8 when wishing for my Sony 90/2.5. I don't know what size it would turn out but the existing 85mm F1.8 isn't particularly big so I'd expect smaller than that.

I have been tempted by the Sigma but the little Sony G's have features the Sigma lacks such as the function button but more importantly weather sealing. So I live in hope Sony will bring out my 90mm F2.5 G. It would be great to have a trio of 24, 40 & 90 G's all styled the same way. A 135mm F2.8 G would also sell like hot cakes I think.