Personally, I think this will be an all around work horse of a lens. The 24-70 f2.8 is my main lens and I’ve always said I wish I had an extra stop of light or a more shallow depth of field and this lens achieves that. I will sacrifice the extra 4 mm on the wide end, especially if I already have an ultra wide in my bag, like the 16-35 or 17-28 etc.
I recently purchased the 28-45 Sigma 1.8 and I find that 28 just is NOT wide enough for most situations, however the image quality out of that lens is incredible and I mean incredible. That being said the 24-70 will still be my go to lens for most events, every lens will have a trade off for sure. Even though 28 for me doesn't get wide enough in some situations it still hasn't left my camera because of how good it is, on top of that I carry around my 20mm 1.8 if I need to get wider for a certain shot. I think if you don't have a 24-70 get this 28-70 F2.
The difference between f2.8 and f2 at 28mm is actually pretty substantial if the subject is closer. If you were stood much further back with the 70mm shots, you’d have similar results as you got with the 28mm end in that the OOF areas wouldn’t look that different.
As a prime shooter, I'd much rather have the 28-70 f2. The loss of 24mm means little to me since I dont consider 24mm that wide anyways. Even if I had a 24-70 I'd still want to bring along a wider lens. I can definitely see the difference between f2.8 and f2.
I would agree, I own it as well, and it is gorgeous. I just traded in a Sony GM mark 1, a Tamron 70-180 mk 1 and a Sony 70-200 f4 (older one) in for the Sigma 70-200mm, the Sigma 24-70mk ii and the Tamron 70-180 mkii all f2.8. That Sigma 70-200mm is an absolute beast and a nice little pre Xmas sale doesn't hurt either.
Too big, too heavy and not wide enough. 24-70 GM for me all the way for a mid range zoom, and primes faster than f/2 when I need subject/background separation. Love your videos Terry!
I also stick to my 24-70mm F2.8 GM II as it is much more portable and more affordable. A zoom will never replace prime lenses even if the image quality of the zoom is close to it. The primes are more compact and still faster. Shooting with primes is another approach of photography. That's why I am not a big fan of the idea replacing primes with a single zoom lens.
I have 24-70 gm 1 and 2, 24/35/50 f1.4. Just got the 20-70 and really enjoying the extra 4mm. Got the Viltrox 28mm f1.8 and wish Sony would go the other way and make small fast primes. Was considering the 28-70f2 but the difference is nominal for the price vs 24-70
Great overview - subscribed. I had no idea how much of a difference 4mm makes at the wide end of the focal range. The 24mm vs 28mm comparison shots in your video were shocking to see. For me, I think that extra 4mm at the wide end is much more useful than an extra full stop of light. The 28-70mm f2 looks like an absolutely killer lens, but I'd rather have that extra 4mm at the wide end. I'm happy to stick with my 24-70mm f2.8.
yo dawg i think the one point which you understressed a bit is the odd filter size which will also add several hundred bucks to the gear acquisition syndrome tax just for a NiSi 1-5 stop VND and a UV filter. I think 24-70 2.8 GM2 is still a better choice for me.
Yeah I called it out in the video, 86mm isn’t uncommon but I get your point and you are correct. I’m sticking with my 24-70 either way it’s too good and a stop of light isn’t worth 4 mm of wide end field of video for me
Thank you for your honest POV! BTW - unrelated - but the new 2.0 update on the ZVE1 made it an even more awesome camera, curious to know your thoughts! ✌
It’s a no for me, dog. The F/2 comes with a penalty in size, weight, range, and price, in exchange for an extra stop of light. That’s too much compromise for me. Yeah, it’s closer to a prime, but it’s still not THAT close. If I’m wanting a lens faster than f/2.8, I’m reaching for an f/1.4 or faster, and it’s going to be a specialized scenario. For me, a standard zoom has to be a jack of all trades, and 28mm on the wide end while being bigger and heavier (and slower) than a 135mm f/1.8 just doesn’t do it for me. It would be amazing for events, but for anything else, I’d opt for the 24-70 f/2.8.
That lens is HUGE and bloody expensive. It wouldn’t be my everyday carry at that price and size. I do love the idea of f2.0 but my 2.8 is perfect for me and most. Loving my Tamron 35-150, big and heavy but shooting sports it doesn’t bother me doing video and photos with it around the court. Plus a hell of a price point. Fantastic video as always. Let’s get Terry to 100k friends. Peace & Chicken Grease FAM. 🔥
7 years later Sony finally made a F2 28-70 we saw this with Canon 6-7 years ago where is the innovation at least make it a F1.8 or F1.4 and don’t get me started on the That body
If anyone can reply to this comment that'd be great. I'm a short film maker and I'm currently deciding weather or not to go for a 24-70 gm ii or this new 28-70mm f/2. I'll be using the lens mainly for videos and occasionally for photos. What do you guys think would be more important? 4mm, or one extra stop of light? Also, I'm currently using a 24-50mm G lens, so take that into consideration with your replies. Thank you!
Not worth the size for a traveling shooter. .8 of a stop and lose 4mm in width. For alllll that extra bulk? No thanks. You’re only gonna see the aperture differences under 35mm.
![Overrated: Camera features that don't matter [ft Gerald Undone]](/img/n.gif)
Personally, I think this will be an all around work horse of a lens. The 24-70 f2.8 is my main lens and I’ve always said I wish I had an extra stop of light or a more shallow depth of field and this lens achieves that. I will sacrifice the extra 4 mm on the wide end, especially if I already have an ultra wide in my bag, like the 16-35 or 17-28 etc.
I’m glad they did it this way, can just pair a 20mm 1.8 when needed
Let's be honest, if camera manufacturers made a 24-70 at F2, regardless of price or size, people will buy it. I know I would
it would be very big and heavy
I just finished paying for the 24-70 GM2 😮
Right? Lol
I recently purchased the 28-45 Sigma 1.8 and I find that 28 just is NOT wide enough for most situations, however the image quality out of that lens is incredible and I mean incredible. That being said the 24-70 will still be my go to lens for most events, every lens will have a trade off for sure. Even though 28 for me doesn't get wide enough in some situations it still hasn't left my camera because of how good it is, on top of that I carry around my 20mm 1.8 if I need to get wider for a certain shot. I think if you don't have a 24-70 get this 28-70 F2.
The difference between f2.8 and f2 at 28mm is actually pretty substantial if the subject is closer. If you were stood much further back with the 70mm shots, you’d have similar results as you got with the 28mm end in that the OOF areas wouldn’t look that different.
As a prime shooter, I'd much rather have the 28-70 f2. The loss of 24mm means little to me since I dont consider 24mm that wide anyways. Even if I had a 24-70 I'd still want to bring along a wider lens.
I can definitely see the difference between f2.8 and f2.
don't care about the lens, just here to support Terry! Good review as per usual!
Can we give the sigma 24-70 2.8ii some praise? 1/3 the price and can’t tell much of a difference
I would agree, I own it as well, and it is gorgeous. I just traded in a Sony GM mark 1, a Tamron 70-180 mk 1 and a Sony 70-200 f4 (older one) in for the Sigma 70-200mm, the Sigma 24-70mk ii and the Tamron 70-180 mkii all f2.8.
That Sigma 70-200mm is an absolute beast and a nice little pre Xmas sale doesn't hurt either.
I don’t want to hurt your feelings, so I subscribed. Truth be told this review and analysis is excellent. Keep up the great work.
Too big, too heavy and not wide enough. 24-70 GM for me all the way for a mid range zoom, and primes faster than f/2 when I need subject/background separation. Love your videos Terry!
Same thoughts! I also just dropped my long term review of the 24-70. It’s my latest video
i'm using tamron 35-150 and its nice to know that 28-70 is shorter and lighter, albeit slightly fatter.
I’m keeping my 24-70 ii because is lighter and the F2 is not a big deal to me
Right alll that bulk for .8 stop lol. Nuts people are hype on this.
… well the 135 GM weighs more, so no big deal.
I also stick to my 24-70mm F2.8 GM II as it is much more portable and more affordable. A zoom will never replace prime lenses even if the image quality of the zoom is close to it. The primes are more compact and still faster. Shooting with primes is another approach of photography. That's why I am not a big fan of the idea replacing primes with a single zoom lens.
Good comparrison, thanks bro
I have 24-70 gm 1 and 2, 24/35/50 f1.4. Just got the 20-70 and really enjoying the extra 4mm. Got the Viltrox 28mm f1.8 and wish Sony would go the other way and make small fast primes. Was considering the 28-70f2 but the difference is nominal for the price vs 24-70
Great overview - subscribed. I had no idea how much of a difference 4mm makes at the wide end of the focal range. The 24mm vs 28mm comparison shots in your video were shocking to see.
For me, I think that extra 4mm at the wide end is much more useful than an extra full stop of light. The 28-70mm f2 looks like an absolutely killer lens, but I'd rather have that extra 4mm at the wide end. I'm happy to stick with my 24-70mm f2.8.
Is it possible for Sony to make a Sony 24-70 f1.2 which weight the same as a 50mm 1.2 😅?
Dream On. If ever possible, then people would bitch it is made with just plastic.
I’m still loving my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, great lens with a little more reach
Still love mine also!
yo dawg i think the one point which you understressed a bit is the odd filter size which will also add several hundred bucks to the gear acquisition syndrome tax just for a NiSi 1-5 stop VND and a UV filter. I think 24-70 2.8 GM2 is still a better choice for me.
Yeah I called it out in the video, 86mm isn’t uncommon but I get your point and you are correct. I’m sticking with my 24-70 either way it’s too good and a stop of light isn’t worth 4 mm of wide end field of video for me
Thank you for your honest POV! BTW - unrelated - but the new 2.0 update on the ZVE1 made it an even more awesome camera, curious to know your thoughts! ✌
It’s a no for me, dog. The F/2 comes with a penalty in size, weight, range, and price, in exchange for an extra stop of light. That’s too much compromise for me.
Yeah, it’s closer to a prime, but it’s still not THAT close. If I’m wanting a lens faster than f/2.8, I’m reaching for an f/1.4 or faster, and it’s going to be a specialized scenario. For me, a standard zoom has to be a jack of all trades, and 28mm on the wide end while being bigger and heavier (and slower) than a 135mm f/1.8 just doesn’t do it for me. It would be amazing for events, but for anything else, I’d opt for the 24-70 f/2.8.
That lens is HUGE and bloody expensive. It wouldn’t be my everyday carry at that price and size. I do love the idea of f2.0 but my 2.8 is perfect for me and most. Loving my Tamron 35-150, big and heavy but shooting sports it doesn’t bother me doing video and photos with it around the court. Plus a hell of a price point.
Fantastic video as always. Let’s get Terry to 100k friends. Peace & Chicken Grease FAM. 🔥
I think the obvious answer is forget the 24-70, buy the 28-70mm f2 AND the 20-70mm f4, that way if you need to go light or wide take the smaller lens.
24 to 70
I’m looking at my 24-50 2.8 G very suspicious
Gangsta Mode eating GOODT today!
Ordered :)
If they made a 24-70 f2 that thing would be huge and heavy. Like unbearable heavy.
7 years later Sony finally made a F2 28-70 we saw this with Canon 6-7 years ago where is the innovation at least make it a F1.8 or F1.4 and don’t get me started on the That body
I hear ya, brother.
I hear ya, brother.
Yoooooooooo .. my man, fk the lens, where can the man purchase top half physique as yous ???? Willing to travel for purchase..
called hard work lol
Just not sure it is worth it, if you already have the 24-70... seriously.... If you need more light, get a prime F1.8 or lower for less money...
I have the 24-70 gm i and gm ii i love my gm ii so i won’t be upgrading
I have mark 1 as well, thinking about trading in and upgrading to gmii....is there a significant difference?
@@rom_headshotta2647I have both and the ii is way better
If anyone can reply to this comment that'd be great. I'm a short film maker and I'm currently deciding weather or not to go for a 24-70 gm ii or this new 28-70mm f/2. I'll be using the lens mainly for videos and occasionally for photos. What do you guys think would be more important? 4mm, or one extra stop of light? Also, I'm currently using a 24-50mm G lens, so take that into consideration with your replies. Thank you!
I’d rather keep the 24mm then gain that extra stop personally.
Same
The 24-70 has better bokeh.
I’m right there with you. I wish that Nikon would make a 24-70 f2 as well, but I know it would be huge and expensive lmao. Great video.
Imagine not being subscribed. pfff.
I was ready to spend $3000 on 24-70 F2. The hypothetical size of a 24-70 F2 would not have been a deal breaker.
Meat and potatoes!!
looks meh
Not worth the size for a traveling shooter. .8 of a stop and lose 4mm in width. For alllll that extra bulk? No thanks. You’re only gonna see the aperture differences under 35mm.
I’ll stick w my slick 24-70gm v2. Its bad azz and its smaller and lighter