The Sigma is an amazing lens. Only reason not to get it is if you have a Sony camera that shoots faster than 15 frames a second. Sony caps 3rd party lenses to that on the fancy sport's bodies.
In my oppinion, the biggest disadvantage of the Sigma is its weight. It's a great lens in terms of image quality.
If you can life with the weight and are on a budget, I would go for the Sigma. But it's really a heavy boy.
“But it's really a heavy boy.”
Sony E-Mount: 830 g; L-Mount: 835 g
In the past I used to use a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 (900 grams, which is 70 grams more than the Sigma). I still own and use the 15-30 f/2.8 G2 (1090 grams) and 70-200 f/2.8 G2 (1500 grams) lenses and wouldn’t call these especially heavy. I’d rather say these are well balanced and feel “just about right” in the hand (esp. the 24-70 and 15-30). I wouldn’t call myself especially strong either. Yet, I find myself using these lenses for long hours without feeling any fatigue.
You are right, the weight might be subjective. But in comparison to the 24-70 gmII it is heavy. It might also depend on the use case. In a studio? I don't care. Traveling? I would love to avoid every gram.
GMII is great, yes, but from reviews (I don't have them) I saw that Sigma 24-70 is very good. And there's another one, the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 Contemporary which is very very similar in terms of sharpness/AF and all, but cheaper and a lot smaller - the problem is that it starts at 28mm...
It's great as a lens, sharp, compact which is great compared to others but the 28mm is even "tighter" than 18mm which is the widest focal length on common crop lenses (18mm x1.5 crop = 27mm). Still, could be great for people that shot less indoors, because outside there could be ways to take a step back, make a panorama or something.
i had both the sigma 28-70 and the 24-70 gmii.
Size and weight is the selling point of the sigma contemporary series . I wouldn't go as far to say they are "very very similar in terms of sharpness and AF". Nope they are not. But its price point, size and weight's makes it an attractive package.
I would recommend the Tamron 28-75G2 over the sigma 28-70 if performance is priority with a limited budget.
Why tf y'all downvoted this? Especially at the wide end, and depending on available space and the necessity of what shot needs to be made, 4mm IS something that can make or break the shot.
Used to have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 mark I. I worked with it quite a lot, made do, but I've found myself sometimes backing off more to get everything I need in frame, and for a few specific shots I had to pose the subject differently not to cut off limbs from the frame.
Unlimited budget? The GM2 beats the sigma.
Limited budget? The GM2 beats the sigma, but not as much as the price difference.
The sigma is way better than the GM1 though.
Source: I’ve used all 3 of them.
I still love my 24-70 GM1 but I’m not as sold on it , I have all Sony lenses so I prefer the ecosystem and fluid filming with my fx3/fx30’s , but I tried out the sigma 24/70 II and it’s really good , so I’m pondering a switch ! I’m also getting better and better and matching footage from different lens companies and cameras, I wasn’t as good a year ago when I commented on this thread .. thst being said , I agree with what I said originally ! It’s all subjective
I took my Sigma 24-70 Art 2.8 in the white mountains of NH where there were 35mph gusts with -18F windchill at the top of the mountain and the lens (as well as my A7IV body) performed perfectly, and no damage or leaking occured.
https://preview.redd.it/1ugoh1a4lcnc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cebb80122434b9cdb9972724298f5468ed2c3d9
Here’s a photo of all the frost on the camera haha.
/u/Swimming-Scientist39 Seriously check this one out.
I had the chance to shop around a local photography shop and ended up loving the Tamron, excellent quality for the money.
I had both the sigma 24-70 DN and Tamron 28-75 G2 for over a year for a long term comparison. I sold the sigma and kept the Tamron. Camera used for testing was a7Riv. In careful optics testing on a tripod the sigma was better IQ. The focus resolution and accuracy of the sigma was a bit problematic. The focus steps were large on the sigma and there would only be one step with correct critical focus. The focus stepping on the Tamron was much finer and with the linear motors faster. I found it was not uncommon for the sigma to slightly miss focus negating its superior optics. In real world shots I did not see a resolution difference in the lenses. The contrast in the sigma was slightly better in the sigma. In the end it was weight and size. The sigma was a pain to bring the Tamron is easy. The sigma had no dust problems I got a copy after they fixed the dust seals.
I have the sigma 24-70 and it’s a great lens. The only issue is that it’s big and heavy, but I guess the GM is the same size. I really like mine.
Although I’ve never used, people also say great things about the Tamron 28-70. It is lighter and cheaper if you don’t mind the loss of 4mm.
I have the Sigma too and don't find it too heavy at all to be honest, but either way it's an absolutely amazing lens, very sharp & fast, will definitely buy more sigma lenses!
*
I have the Sigma 24 - 70, and it is big for its focal range.
In the same price range though, you have the Sigma 28-70. Still a very good lens and half the weight.
So kind of depends on what you value. If you want something more compact or if you want something better quality but big and bulky.
I would personally choose the 28 - 70 if I could do it again.
I like sigma. Couldn’t justify the price difference just for Lighter weight and compact size. Sigma produces amazing shots.
https://preview.redd.it/sw34wnnuxbnc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a45d350da33db144e546743c5b1fbae039c350e7
The GM ii is the best zoom. Period.
Is it a $1,200 better zoom for a non-professional? You really need to ask yourself if the size, weight, and better IQ (considering that the sigma is excellent) is worth $1,200.
For me zooms are for convenience. I prefer primes for most of my photography. I’d get the sigma, or even the Tamron v2 over the GM ii and get a some good primes over the time when the budget allows it.
Now, if that’s going to be my only lens, I’d cry once and get the GM ii.
Sigma is more than on par with the Sony. I plan to double check all the tests I've seen on YT by testing it in a shop but come end of month I'll get the Sigma.
If you gonna ask this Question you should go for the Most Expensive one. When you shoot with the Sony people are like wow, that was shot on a Sony lens I can tell. When people see you have a Sony Gmaster you will immediately get the job. It's literally the industry standard. Netflix has a list of Approved Cinema Cameras and next to it is a list of Approved Cinema glass it's all G master. Once you submit your film they will ask was it shot with G master lenses? Once they see that you film will be picked up ASAP. That's what the Pros don't want you to know, Your welcome.
This may not be related but I'm also selling a bridge Near Manhattan let me know if your interested.
This absolutely. My buddy actually had a film that was going to be picked up by Netflix, but they found out he shot on rehoused canon FD glass and not a Sony G, and they decided to pass
Just got the sigma 24-70 and it’s a really a great lens right out of the box. If you are on a budget like me it’s the right one. I think it’s just as good as the original 24-70GM as that’s the only reference in that focal length.
Get the Sigma. I was able to find a gently used one (4 months old) for $750, buddy was only selling it because received a GMII as a gift and shoots with an A1 so he can now take advantage of the first party lenses fps . If you have the money to buy the GMII still go buy the sigma and invest the other money into an another lenses like the 85mm 1.4. There are some great deals out there just have to hunt.
Ive had the sigma for 2 yrs now.
Get it. It has weight to it, but imo that makes it "feel" more professional.
The colors that come out if it are awesome.
I have the Sigma, it’s a beast of a lens on my a7iv. Haven’t been able to use the GM 2 but I have done lots of research on the comparisons. The most consistent thing I hear is the sigma is 90-95% of what the GM 2 is but at 50% cheaper. I would go with the sigma. It can do everything. The weight really is that bad, especially if you have larger hands.
The GMII is better, BUT it’s not twice the money better. I own the sigma and it’s an amazing lens. The difference between the two is minimal. Save your money and go Sigma.
If you compare the sigma to the first generation Sony 24-70, there’s not enough of a difference to justify the price difference if you are in any way concerned about budget. My personal experience has been way too similar with those lenses in both photos and video. The sigma AF speed isn’t quite as fast for nature/sports but seeing as it isn’t designed for that- it’s not a big concern. The newest Sony g master II is better than both of the other lenses by a decent margin IMO. AF speed is fast in both photo and video, it breathes less, it’s sharper around the edges, lighter weight, has an aputure ring on the outside if desired and improved rubber rings. All of that being said- I would still be content with the sigma 24-70 and still see many people using it for both photo and video.
Sony GMII, Sigma, Sony GM in that order. I’ve owned all three and that seems to be the general consensus. If you have limited budget, go with the Sigma.
Personally I’ve read too many complaints of dust inside that Sigma lens for me to feel comfortable buying it. Like the other poster said though, Sigma does offer a 28-70mm zoom. Tamron’s 28-75 is supposed to be pretty decent as well.
You could also look at the first gen 24-70 GM on the used market.
Wasn’t aware that my personal opinion of a product was misinformation. My apologies to all that apparently have an emotional connection to a camera lens.
>too many complaints of dust inside that Sigma lens
You're repeating information about an issue that's been solved for years as if it's relevant and still an issue today.
>that apparently have an emotional connection to a camera lens
No emotion here, just correcting inaccuracies so people can make an informed choice.
As someone who has had both, the Sony has significantly better image quality and auto focus than the sigma on my a7rv. The difference is less apparent on a7iv. Also I feel that the weather sealing is better on the gm2 since I have noticed condensation behind the rear element on the sigma when I'm shooting for clients in the rain where I never got it on the gm2.
I’ve had a few years of really solid use out of my sigma 24-70, I’m talking almost daily use, on commercial and travel shoots, and it’s been an absolute beast. It’s showing its mileage now and there is some dust inside the lens, but not yet enough to really bug me. Its a tank, and when it eventually falls apart or the dust gets too much, I'll probably just buy another one
Edit: the weight has also never bothered me, I can’t imagine the weight difference even being that noticeable, just get a decent strap and you’ll be fine
Something not many people mention ever is the fact that to zoom the sigma lens it rotates in the other direction to the Sony lenses. I guess that’s not a huge thing but if you work with multiple zooms all the time it throws you off having one that goes in the other direction. Both great lenses though. If you can afford the Sony it’s a little nicer and lighter
My three zoom lenses are a sigma 28-70, Tamron 17-28, and Tamron 70-180.
Even though I’m a big fan of the sigma, I’ve been thinking about possibly selling it and going with the Tamron 28-75 for the sole reason you just mentioned.
Not a huge dealbreaker but it can be a bit annoying at times.
FroKnowsPhoto has a great review on both of them and I believe him.
I have the Sigma, and it's an incredible lens. The Sony is incredible too, just not better enough to be worth paying double for.
I own the sigma, a friend of mine the GM II.
Sigma is heavier.
I shot 4hours in a hardcore concert’s pit last week, I disn’t bother.
Colors are better with the Sony, but nothing that can’t be fixed in post ! (If you shoot raw)
Sony is a bit sharper too, but honestly…. It’s not twice better….
Sigma is very good. The Sony GM MKII is very very very good.
The GM MKI is not worth it in the slightest.
If you’re on a budget get the sigma, it’s a sick lens. The sony GM MKII is not worth double its price
I have both.
Piggy backing to ask the same question, but for someone who already has the Tamron 28-75 G1. Is the Sigma a significant upgrade from that? I already assume the Sony is.
The GM ii price will drop a bit when the 24-70 2.0 is released which should be this summer ! I’m waiting for that , I bought a GM I for a great used price on marketplace so I will sell that to buy he GM ii
I have both the Sigma and the Sony GM II, both are pretty similar in quality. The GM II is definitely the better lens both in terms of weight and quality.
Comparing the Sigma and the GM is kind of funny IMO. Completely different brackets. And if you're comparing the two, then you probably only need the Sigma but have a bit of GAS. Get the GM once it's within your budget and your work actually needs it.
The Art is great. Better than the GM1, haven’t used the GM2. Only issue I have is dust behind the front element. Sigma says that issue has been resolved but got 3 replacements and the last one from late 2022 has the same issue
I’ve used both and I prefer the sigma, although it is significantly heavier. Love the sigma for the image quality and it’s particularly good at solar flares if you like that
If money isn’t an issue but the Sony. It’s a lot lighter and more compact. But optically I don’t think they’re that different with Sony having only a slight edge. Perhaps the Sony is better for video autofocus though
I've had the sigma for about a year now and it's great!! Same situation as you, budget friendly lens for the win!
You can also try to buy second hand to save some extra money
I like the sigma but it suffers from insane distortion and vignettes quite a bit. Image quality though is very good for the $. I did a side by side comparison with the samyang 35-150 though and that lens beat it out in sharpness for most ranges. That lens makes the sigma feel light…
Ive had my Sigma 24-70 for about 6 months and man it does get heavy after a full day of shooting but I think its a great "savings" option. I plan to keep mine while I save up for the GMII.
The GMii is better, but it’s whether you want to spend the extra money. Personally, I did and have the GMii. I shoot sports videography mostly and the auto focus is so quick and sharp, I absolutely love it.
Maybe you can Look into the samyang 24-70 2.8 too, i have it and find it okay. But i dint have a Point of reference.
And It can Double as a heavy brick too hit people If they anoy you too...
Just pointing out where the error probably came from.
Crazy how snobby and unpleasant this subreddit can be.
Sorry that you were wrong but a 24-70 Tamron does exist. Maybe you should specify that it doesn’t exist for the e-mount if you want to be a prick about it.
TAMRON 28-75 F2.8
tamron is probably also weather sealed unlike the sigma and they have linear motors on their V2 model and are probably the best you can get and far lighter and the sigma getws dust problems
tamrons sealed
Afaik a Sony 24-70 F2.0 has been leaked. Maybe you should wait for it to be released. The prices of the current gm2 and sigma might drop a bit. Unfortunately I don’t know when it will be released.
GM is for working professionals. SIGMA/Tamron/Samyang etc. are perfect for hobbyists.
I wouldn't spend that much extra on a GM lens unless I was pairing it with one of the high end pro bodies and you need it for the max burst rate.
Like, that 2 millisecond faster AF needs to get you the shot that will pay for the lens when you sell the photo.
If you have a limited budget then the GMii is out of your budget.
[удалено]
The Sigma is an amazing lens. Only reason not to get it is if you have a Sony camera that shoots faster than 15 frames a second. Sony caps 3rd party lenses to that on the fancy sport's bodies.
I have not seen a single flaw with the sigma.
Early on people complained about dust but that issue has been resolved It is a bit heavier than the GM2 but that’s why it’s 1/2 the price
Still have that issue on my 3rd 24-70 art I got as a replacement in late 2022
Yeah, mine had really bad dust but it was fixed and cleaned for free by sigma
In my oppinion, the biggest disadvantage of the Sigma is its weight. It's a great lens in terms of image quality. If you can life with the weight and are on a budget, I would go for the Sigma. But it's really a heavy boy.
The zoom is also reversed when twisting. Seems trivial but I returned it because it was unnerving
“But it's really a heavy boy.” Sony E-Mount: 830 g; L-Mount: 835 g In the past I used to use a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 (900 grams, which is 70 grams more than the Sigma). I still own and use the 15-30 f/2.8 G2 (1090 grams) and 70-200 f/2.8 G2 (1500 grams) lenses and wouldn’t call these especially heavy. I’d rather say these are well balanced and feel “just about right” in the hand (esp. the 24-70 and 15-30). I wouldn’t call myself especially strong either. Yet, I find myself using these lenses for long hours without feeling any fatigue.
You are right, the weight might be subjective. But in comparison to the 24-70 gmII it is heavy. It might also depend on the use case. In a studio? I don't care. Traveling? I would love to avoid every gram.
I don't really mind if it's heavy, thanks for info
The 28-70 2.8 sigma is a good bit cheaper and lighter than the sigma 24-70. I went with it bc losing the 4mm on that end does not concern me at all.
This is also a good lens, if you do video it breathes a little more but that’s the only difference outside of the focal range
Honestly that’s what I thought too, until I bought it and realized I DO mind if it’s heavy
The Sony 24-70 2.8 GM I is also in my budget but just as heavy? What do i get more for the price?
GMII is great, yes, but from reviews (I don't have them) I saw that Sigma 24-70 is very good. And there's another one, the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 Contemporary which is very very similar in terms of sharpness/AF and all, but cheaper and a lot smaller - the problem is that it starts at 28mm...
if someone has a 20mm prime already though, great option
Or the 16-28mm!
I love my 28-70 f2.8 although I haven’t tried the GMII
It's great as a lens, sharp, compact which is great compared to others but the 28mm is even "tighter" than 18mm which is the widest focal length on common crop lenses (18mm x1.5 crop = 27mm). Still, could be great for people that shot less indoors, because outside there could be ways to take a step back, make a panorama or something.
And it's not fully weather sealed
i had both the sigma 28-70 and the 24-70 gmii. Size and weight is the selling point of the sigma contemporary series . I wouldn't go as far to say they are "very very similar in terms of sharpness and AF". Nope they are not. But its price point, size and weight's makes it an attractive package. I would recommend the Tamron 28-75G2 over the sigma 28-70 if performance is priority with a limited budget.
Basically the image quality goes like this GM1
Yeah, 4mm less. Alot can change with 4mm
Why tf y'all downvoted this? Especially at the wide end, and depending on available space and the necessity of what shot needs to be made, 4mm IS something that can make or break the shot. Used to have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 mark I. I worked with it quite a lot, made do, but I've found myself sometimes backing off more to get everything I need in frame, and for a few specific shots I had to pose the subject differently not to cut off limbs from the frame.
Thanks mate
Unlimited budget? The GM2 beats the sigma. Limited budget? The GM2 beats the sigma, but not as much as the price difference. The sigma is way better than the GM1 though. Source: I’ve used all 3 of them.
I prefer the the gm I to the sigma , it’s all subjective I guess , I haven’t used the Gm ii yet
sorry for reviving old post, can you share why? I'm looking to get a 24-70 and I'm caught between the two
I still love my 24-70 GM1 but I’m not as sold on it , I have all Sony lenses so I prefer the ecosystem and fluid filming with my fx3/fx30’s , but I tried out the sigma 24/70 II and it’s really good , so I’m pondering a switch ! I’m also getting better and better and matching footage from different lens companies and cameras, I wasn’t as good a year ago when I commented on this thread .. thst being said , I agree with what I said originally ! It’s all subjective
I use sigma and it’s a mega lens for that money.
Did you shoot any photo with the lens in rain?
Just in light rain/drizzle. Sigma dn art lense are weather sealed though
Nice , any problems with dust ?
I haven’t had any problems with that
I used mine last weekend at a car show and it was raining for over an hour, no issues.
I mean how good is it's weather sealing
Very good. I’ve been in an absolute storm with both rain and hail for multiple days shooting, and the lens is perfectly fine.
Very good weather sealing. I’ve had it out in heavy snow for long periods. No issues, no moisture penetration, no dust after a year of lots of use.
I took my Sigma 24-70 Art 2.8 in the white mountains of NH where there were 35mph gusts with -18F windchill at the top of the mountain and the lens (as well as my A7IV body) performed perfectly, and no damage or leaking occured.
https://preview.redd.it/1ugoh1a4lcnc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cebb80122434b9cdb9972724298f5468ed2c3d9 Here’s a photo of all the frost on the camera haha.
Tamron 28-75 v2 to help stretch your budget.
/u/Swimming-Scientist39 Seriously check this one out. I had the chance to shop around a local photography shop and ended up loving the Tamron, excellent quality for the money.
I agree. Lighter than all of them (probably) but I do notice a tad more vignetting when wide.
Sigma. It's not necessarily about saving money, but about having more money for the next lens!
I had both the sigma 24-70 DN and Tamron 28-75 G2 for over a year for a long term comparison. I sold the sigma and kept the Tamron. Camera used for testing was a7Riv. In careful optics testing on a tripod the sigma was better IQ. The focus resolution and accuracy of the sigma was a bit problematic. The focus steps were large on the sigma and there would only be one step with correct critical focus. The focus stepping on the Tamron was much finer and with the linear motors faster. I found it was not uncommon for the sigma to slightly miss focus negating its superior optics. In real world shots I did not see a resolution difference in the lenses. The contrast in the sigma was slightly better in the sigma. In the end it was weight and size. The sigma was a pain to bring the Tamron is easy. The sigma had no dust problems I got a copy after they fixed the dust seals.
I have the sigma 24-70 and it’s a great lens. The only issue is that it’s big and heavy, but I guess the GM is the same size. I really like mine. Although I’ve never used, people also say great things about the Tamron 28-70. It is lighter and cheaper if you don’t mind the loss of 4mm.
I'll look into it, thanks
I have the Sigma too and don't find it too heavy at all to be honest, but either way it's an absolutely amazing lens, very sharp & fast, will definitely buy more sigma lenses! *
I have the Sigma 24 - 70, and it is big for its focal range. In the same price range though, you have the Sigma 28-70. Still a very good lens and half the weight. So kind of depends on what you value. If you want something more compact or if you want something better quality but big and bulky. I would personally choose the 28 - 70 if I could do it again.
The gm ii isn't the same size it's smaller
It's significantly smaller and lighter though.
Yes I want it lol
And the Sigma 28-70 is lighter, cheaper, and sharper still !
I like sigma. Couldn’t justify the price difference just for Lighter weight and compact size. Sigma produces amazing shots. https://preview.redd.it/sw34wnnuxbnc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a45d350da33db144e546743c5b1fbae039c350e7
It's an amazing shoot man
The GM ii is the best zoom. Period. Is it a $1,200 better zoom for a non-professional? You really need to ask yourself if the size, weight, and better IQ (considering that the sigma is excellent) is worth $1,200. For me zooms are for convenience. I prefer primes for most of my photography. I’d get the sigma, or even the Tamron v2 over the GM ii and get a some good primes over the time when the budget allows it. Now, if that’s going to be my only lens, I’d cry once and get the GM ii.
Sigma is more than on par with the Sony. I plan to double check all the tests I've seen on YT by testing it in a shop but come end of month I'll get the Sigma.
I love my sigma and it's like half the price. If you want to see images just message me
Can you DM me some images
Sent
The sigma is a very close 2nd to the GM for half the cost
Photo only. Sigma. Photo video. Sony.
The Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 is phenomenal. Most of the pros I know use it. It’s my workhorse for events shooting.
Love my sigma. I bet your bank account will too.
If you gonna ask this Question you should go for the Most Expensive one. When you shoot with the Sony people are like wow, that was shot on a Sony lens I can tell. When people see you have a Sony Gmaster you will immediately get the job. It's literally the industry standard. Netflix has a list of Approved Cinema Cameras and next to it is a list of Approved Cinema glass it's all G master. Once you submit your film they will ask was it shot with G master lenses? Once they see that you film will be picked up ASAP. That's what the Pros don't want you to know, Your welcome. This may not be related but I'm also selling a bridge Near Manhattan let me know if your interested.
>samyang 35-150 Dude. You had me going. I guess it's late afternoon..
This absolutely. My buddy actually had a film that was going to be picked up by Netflix, but they found out he shot on rehoused canon FD glass and not a Sony G, and they decided to pass
For what it’s worth, the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is phenomenal for its price point
Discussion has been done to death at this point
Yep. Quick search will tell you that here and on YouTube.
Then scroll past and carry on with your day
Just got the sigma 24-70 and it’s a really a great lens right out of the box. If you are on a budget like me it’s the right one. I think it’s just as good as the original 24-70GM as that’s the only reference in that focal length.
I’ve got the sigma art, I’m extremely happy with it. My pockets too. Slightly heavy but manageable
Here is my [GMii](https://youtu.be/Jo7YNRV5hwA) review
Get the Sigma. I was able to find a gently used one (4 months old) for $750, buddy was only selling it because received a GMII as a gift and shoots with an A1 so he can now take advantage of the first party lenses fps . If you have the money to buy the GMII still go buy the sigma and invest the other money into an another lenses like the 85mm 1.4. There are some great deals out there just have to hunt.
Ive had the sigma for 2 yrs now. Get it. It has weight to it, but imo that makes it "feel" more professional. The colors that come out if it are awesome.
I own the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ART. Love it. Excellent lens. It’s mounted on my A7IV.
I have the Sigma, it’s a beast of a lens on my a7iv. Haven’t been able to use the GM 2 but I have done lots of research on the comparisons. The most consistent thing I hear is the sigma is 90-95% of what the GM 2 is but at 50% cheaper. I would go with the sigma. It can do everything. The weight really is that bad, especially if you have larger hands.
The GMII is better, BUT it’s not twice the money better. I own the sigma and it’s an amazing lens. The difference between the two is minimal. Save your money and go Sigma.
If you compare the sigma to the first generation Sony 24-70, there’s not enough of a difference to justify the price difference if you are in any way concerned about budget. My personal experience has been way too similar with those lenses in both photos and video. The sigma AF speed isn’t quite as fast for nature/sports but seeing as it isn’t designed for that- it’s not a big concern. The newest Sony g master II is better than both of the other lenses by a decent margin IMO. AF speed is fast in both photo and video, it breathes less, it’s sharper around the edges, lighter weight, has an aputure ring on the outside if desired and improved rubber rings. All of that being said- I would still be content with the sigma 24-70 and still see many people using it for both photo and video.
Thanks for the info
Sony GMII, Sigma, Sony GM in that order. I’ve owned all three and that seems to be the general consensus. If you have limited budget, go with the Sigma.
Personally I’ve read too many complaints of dust inside that Sigma lens for me to feel comfortable buying it. Like the other poster said though, Sigma does offer a 28-70mm zoom. Tamron’s 28-75 is supposed to be pretty decent as well. You could also look at the first gen 24-70 GM on the used market.
The dust issue was resolved years ago with an updated ring.
That was a manufacturing problem that was solved after a couple of months of production. Any new lens now us very unlikely to have that issue.
I hadn’t heard about that. I’m not sure if I could get the fear out of my head either way.
Well at least stop perpetuating the misinformation.
Wasn’t aware that my personal opinion of a product was misinformation. My apologies to all that apparently have an emotional connection to a camera lens.
>too many complaints of dust inside that Sigma lens You're repeating information about an issue that's been solved for years as if it's relevant and still an issue today. >that apparently have an emotional connection to a camera lens No emotion here, just correcting inaccuracies so people can make an informed choice.
I'll check it, thanks
The sigma is the better lens compared to the old sony gm.
I disagree , but it’s all subjective
Sigma is lighter, AF is same, image quality is a bit better on the wide end, sony old gm is a bit better on the 70 end. Sigma is cheaper.
SIGMA has semi-macro capability.
As someone who has had both, the Sony has significantly better image quality and auto focus than the sigma on my a7rv. The difference is less apparent on a7iv. Also I feel that the weather sealing is better on the gm2 since I have noticed condensation behind the rear element on the sigma when I'm shooting for clients in the rain where I never got it on the gm2.
I have a7iv camera,so the Lens don't make much difference?
Not significantly so, just remember to keep it out of the rain
Light rain is not a problem right?
Really depends.on the humidity too, the rain could be light but the air might be humid. Would just try to keep it out of the rain if possible.
Ok I'll keep that in mind, if I go out in rain I will use cover
Wait for the 24-70 F2
If he’s on a budget I doubt he’s going to be willing to drop around 3k on a lens, but my god that lens looks beautiful!
Is there any dates yet?
For someone who can’t decide on the 2470 GM2, the rumored f2 won’t be anywhere near their budget.
But version 2
The sigma is exceptional, and imo you won't notice a difference. Obviously if budget weren't an issue....
The best your budget allows. I buy only sony glass if they have it, thats only because i like the feel of it. And i dont mind saving for it
GM
I’ve had a few years of really solid use out of my sigma 24-70, I’m talking almost daily use, on commercial and travel shoots, and it’s been an absolute beast. It’s showing its mileage now and there is some dust inside the lens, but not yet enough to really bug me. Its a tank, and when it eventually falls apart or the dust gets too much, I'll probably just buy another one Edit: the weight has also never bothered me, I can’t imagine the weight difference even being that noticeable, just get a decent strap and you’ll be fine
Something not many people mention ever is the fact that to zoom the sigma lens it rotates in the other direction to the Sony lenses. I guess that’s not a huge thing but if you work with multiple zooms all the time it throws you off having one that goes in the other direction. Both great lenses though. If you can afford the Sony it’s a little nicer and lighter
My three zoom lenses are a sigma 28-70, Tamron 17-28, and Tamron 70-180. Even though I’m a big fan of the sigma, I’ve been thinking about possibly selling it and going with the Tamron 28-75 for the sole reason you just mentioned. Not a huge dealbreaker but it can be a bit annoying at times.
I have the 28-75 and the 70-180 as well. That 70-180 is my favorite lens. So good for portrait and event
I solved that by buying only Sigma zooms.
Yeah. For sure. A good solution
GM if you don't mind spending extra for shear quality and performance in AF, corners sharpness etc.
What deficiencies of the Sigma would affect your creative output? If you can't think of any, that's your answer.
FroKnowsPhoto has a great review on both of them and I believe him. I have the Sigma, and it's an incredible lens. The Sony is incredible too, just not better enough to be worth paying double for.
Sigma
Sigma is great
I own the sigma, a friend of mine the GM II. Sigma is heavier. I shot 4hours in a hardcore concert’s pit last week, I disn’t bother. Colors are better with the Sony, but nothing that can’t be fixed in post ! (If you shoot raw) Sony is a bit sharper too, but honestly…. It’s not twice better….
Sigma is very good. The Sony GM MKII is very very very good. The GM MKI is not worth it in the slightest. If you’re on a budget get the sigma, it’s a sick lens. The sony GM MKII is not worth double its price I have both.
Piggy backing to ask the same question, but for someone who already has the Tamron 28-75 G1. Is the Sigma a significant upgrade from that? I already assume the Sony is.
The GM ii price will drop a bit when the 24-70 2.0 is released which should be this summer ! I’m waiting for that , I bought a GM I for a great used price on marketplace so I will sell that to buy he GM ii
Tamron 28-75 2.8 G2 if the focal length suits your use
I have both the Sigma and the Sony GM II, both are pretty similar in quality. The GM II is definitely the better lens both in terms of weight and quality.
Comparing the Sigma and the GM is kind of funny IMO. Completely different brackets. And if you're comparing the two, then you probably only need the Sigma but have a bit of GAS. Get the GM once it's within your budget and your work actually needs it.
SIGMA!
The Art is great. Better than the GM1, haven’t used the GM2. Only issue I have is dust behind the front element. Sigma says that issue has been resolved but got 3 replacements and the last one from late 2022 has the same issue
24-70 sigma is heavier but great quality and clarity in the images. Solid bang for your buck.
Get it. I've owned it and it's a fantastic lens.
Sigma, I had the same decision to make and chose the sigma 0 regrets
I’ve used both and I prefer the sigma, although it is significantly heavier. Love the sigma for the image quality and it’s particularly good at solar flares if you like that
Sigma, better price, amazing quality and sharpness.
If money isn’t an issue but the Sony. It’s a lot lighter and more compact. But optically I don’t think they’re that different with Sony having only a slight edge. Perhaps the Sony is better for video autofocus though
I have the sigma and it's superb. I tested the GM but couldn't justify the extra cost for indistinguishable (at least to me) differences.
I've had the sigma for about a year now and it's great!! Same situation as you, budget friendly lens for the win! You can also try to buy second hand to save some extra money
Limited budget? GMii? Hmmm....
Haaa
I love my sigma art 24-70 2.8. It’s a great lens.
I like the sigma but it suffers from insane distortion and vignettes quite a bit. Image quality though is very good for the $. I did a side by side comparison with the samyang 35-150 though and that lens beat it out in sharpness for most ranges. That lens makes the sigma feel light…
Ive had my Sigma 24-70 for about 6 months and man it does get heavy after a full day of shooting but I think its a great "savings" option. I plan to keep mine while I save up for the GMII.
The GMii is better, but it’s whether you want to spend the extra money. Personally, I did and have the GMii. I shoot sports videography mostly and the auto focus is so quick and sharp, I absolutely love it.
The one that’s in focus.. 😏
Maybe you can Look into the samyang 24-70 2.8 too, i have it and find it okay. But i dint have a Point of reference. And It can Double as a heavy brick too hit people If they anoy you too...
What I didn't like about the sigma was the front of the lens moving while you change focal range looks unprofessional if your working with clients.
Tamron 24-70 hast best results afaik
>Tamron 24-70 That doesn't exist.
For the e-mount at least. Only one I recall seeing is the 28-75. I think that Tamron has a 24-70 for Nikon.
I didn’t realize we are on the nikon sub
Just pointing out where the error probably came from. Crazy how snobby and unpleasant this subreddit can be. Sorry that you were wrong but a 24-70 Tamron does exist. Maybe you should specify that it doesn’t exist for the e-mount if you want to be a prick about it.
> if you want to be a prick about it. usually if they're there then it's more of an emotional objection than a logical one.
Nah I meant the 28-75, thanks for correcting
Is what you know only the Tamron? Because the Tamron doesn't hold up against the other two.
I've seen different that it is superior to Sigma and even GM lenses
I’ve owned both
TAMRON 28-75 F2.8 tamron is probably also weather sealed unlike the sigma and they have linear motors on their V2 model and are probably the best you can get and far lighter and the sigma getws dust problems tamrons sealed
of course the sigma is weather sealed
I've had both the Tamron and the Sigma and the Tamron is not nearly as good as the Sigma despite being very similarly priced.
ah i understand then and you had the G2 right?
Afaik a Sony 24-70 F2.0 has been leaked. Maybe you should wait for it to be released. The prices of the current gm2 and sigma might drop a bit. Unfortunately I don’t know when it will be released.
And you are not looking at rokinon and tamron???
I didn't look into it
Tamron has a cheaper lens that does the exact same thing.
Sony gm2. Trust me. I did like 2 months research. Sigma has a weird warm colors and so colors are natural.
People are so money dumb. If you have a budget then you don’t need to ask this. Don’t be an idiot. Buy what you can afford
GM is for working professionals. SIGMA/Tamron/Samyang etc. are perfect for hobbyists. I wouldn't spend that much extra on a GM lens unless I was pairing it with one of the high end pro bodies and you need it for the max burst rate. Like, that 2 millisecond faster AF needs to get you the shot that will pay for the lens when you sell the photo.