Thank you for including the side-by-side comparison to Sony’s 24-70 f/2.8. So many of the reviews have focused solely on the comparison to Canon‘s 28-70 f/2, which is understandable as that is technically the closest comparable lens, but most viewers are looking for information about lenses for their respective camera system, not for a survey of lenses across camera systems. (That’s academically interesting, but not the most critical issue.) I think so many reviewers are dabbling with so many camera systems that they lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of their audience are single-system owners. You covered all the bases (and without the overly click-baity title). Well done.
Canon's 28-70 f 2.0 is 6 years old lens and i have never heard anyone complain about image quality lol. Everyone says that it feels like a prime lens.Have you tested it yourself?
I've owned it and shot probably 50K + photos with it over the years over two copies and both were a little soft a MFD. Also, I think the caveat about "replacing primes" only applies of the Canon RF 1.8 series. Put it alongside anything more exotic and it just doesn't hold a candle to it. Plus, the focus breathing on it is absolutely terrible.
I love mine. Just shot another wedding with it today. Absolutely a go to lens for lowlight situations and high end fashion shoots. I have had it through for cameras so far and it has never failed.
I own a 28-70 F2L and an R5. I've never thought it wasn't a sharp lens. I mean, okay, a really good prime lens is sharper, but the trade-off is it doesn't zoom. It's definitely a heavy and large lens, I can understand people not wanting to use it because it's too big and heavy for them.
13:37: "The separation is decent, but nothing spectacular". Are you kidding me? Full frame and did you shoot at f/2? How more WOW do you want? :) I think the separation is FANTASTIC!
Honestly the rumor was around a 24-70mm f2. That would've been killer, but now it's just catching up with the competition. Since they're catching up, let's hope they make a 24-105mm f2.8 next. Would be killer for the Sony event shooters.
@@marcinmrzyglocki Would you actually buy it if that lens existed? If the lens you are requesting weighed 6-8lbs and cost $9,000-$10,000? That wouldn't be a practical lens for almost anyone but heavy tripod with photographic gimbal head setups for sports or nature shooters. It would be huge and very heavy. The current FE 300mm f/2.8 OSS weighs 3.25lbs and costs $6,000 and it's just a prime. A 100-300 f/2.8 would be enormous. Hardly anyone would buy the lens you requested, probably not even you.
I was excited and thinking about returning my Sigma 28-45 but now I’m not going to, the sigma is close to perfection optically and has a very nice 3D rendering. With the savings I got the GM85 1.4II 🤷🏽♂️
@@marcinmrzyglocki I still think that is a great option to go for. Traditionally it was always 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200mm f2.8 focal ranges. But if you go for a good 16-35mm and add the Tamron 35-150mm f2-f2.8 most will be able to do with a 2 lens combination, instead of 3 lenses.
I like the Canon version, excited about trying the Sony one (via rental) on the A7s3 with a gimbal. Concerning the Canon one, I was able to get it last year on a black friday sale refurbished for only $1699 so here's fingers crossed it comes to that price again.
Well, I felt the same way about the 28-70 RF f/2, that it's just a "concept lens" to show what they can do, but I was pleasantly wrong. I love that 24-27mm range for my group shots in tight spaces and I was ready to down a sharp, "low-chromatic aberration lens". Sure I'm not a fan of the size and weight, but I can say the same thing about the 70-200 F/2.8 a pros bread-and-butter lens. Now if you had use it for video, I'd agree, the RF 28-70 F/2 is a very frustrating lens to use for video due it its weight, size, lack of IS, lack of lens tripod collar, etc...
I love my 24-50mm f2.8 as a videographer for run and gun jobs and covering events. This looks great but too heavy for me. If I only did photos it would be a no brainer, tho I always seem to often miss those extra 4mm. Very excited for the future
I’m surprised you didn’t compare it to your Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8… because that lens is f2 at 35mm, f2.2 at 50mm and f2.5 at 70mm. It would have been an interesting test… I still think the usability, versatility and price just makes the Tamron a better buy, since it creates that 2 lens combo instead of the 3 lens trinity, when you travel. I think lens is gonna be great for low light event and wedding shooters.
I use it with Z9 and is hard to beat the Tamron. Beside of size and weight it balances perfectly with Z9. Balance as a professional photographer who sometimes have to cover events for straight 14hs of non stop shooting, is what make a great difference. Lights bodies are a big NO for such type of lenses... Depending on your use case of course
They could have done that and make it heavier and people would be okay … they are too anxious about people saying it will be too heavy, people will just work out and it will be nice
The only lens I want to see right now is a 24-105 F2.8 PZ OSS for video shooters, which would really complete the FX3 and FX6, then the rest of the GM II prime updates. Holding out on my prime lens purchases for GMII. Why we keep getting these weird zoom lenses with weird ranges is beyond me. I have a 16-35 F4 PZ, a 24-105 F4 OSS, and a 70-200 GM II. Yes, I want faster glass, but I don't want it in a weird range that I'm already covering with what I have, unless it gets me something like Power Zoom or OSS. None of these new lenses have either. I certainly don't want a zoom with 28 at the widest. Give the people what they want Sony!
@@NicoNice24 the 18-110 PZ was a great general purpose lens for the FS7 when it came out. Then the 28-135PZ F4 for the FX9 missed the mark at not being a 24mm in the wide end. The 16-35 F4 PZ is actually pretty good, I think, and it lives on my FX3 most of the time because the FX3 has IBIS, though of course it would be better if it was an F2.8. Now that canon has proven that a 24-105 F2.8 can be created, it’s only logical that Sony makes one, and it really is the lens that the FX6 is missing. The 24-105 F4 OSS lens that comes as a kit lens is fine 95% or the time, but I do wish it was a PZ lens, I do wish it didn’t extend, and I also wish it was faster. The only reason I have it, the 24-105 F4 OSS over the 28-135 F4 PZ, is that the 28-135 is just too darn big to run on the FX6 comfortably as a handheld lens, and I want the 24mm wide end more than I want the 135mm on the long end. And the only reason I haven’t bought a 24-70 F2.8 GM II is that it doesn’t have OSS. So to really complete the FX6 and honestly make it last a few more years and/or really draw people in to an FX6 Mark II, a 24-105 F2.8 PZ OSS lens is just the thing Sony badly needs to make!
@@billmakesmovies the 28-135 is actually even older than the fx9 , it was kit lens on the fs7 I believe , even more useless ! there was a joke that the fx9 was made to clear the warehouse full of 28-135 PZ ,s ! its an absolute dinosaur of a lens , they did a plan for 3 AF / Manual "Cine zooms " that were around $5K , but only ever made the 16-35 mm ,also were huge , sold like chocolate fire guards , and the other two , presumably 24-70 and 70-200 never saw the light of day . This seems to have burned them and they just gave up with pro video targeted zooms .
@@stivnov you don’t even understand the engineering and mechanics it would take to do that. You think it’s just easy lol? You think they just didn’t feel like making the 16-24 or 25-50 internal zooms since they are short? Google is free my friend. Go educate yourself.
@@mirrorlessmemory You don't have an engineering understanding either, don't you? Otherwise you would have said what's wrong with my point. And, please, stop being arrogant and gross, it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
They could've made it internally zooming, but in order to get the angle for the 28mm setting, the front would've become much bulkier and the filter thread accordingly. I think the point of SONY's engineers was to create something that would be embarrassingly better in every aspect and smaller than Canon's offering.
A lot of people say things like this without having a clue how glass is engineered. The front glass element would be huge (above 100mm in diameter) and bulbous if it started at 24mm with a wide aperture like f2. It’s a breakthrough that they even managed a 28mm f2 zoom at only 86mm in diameter. And your crying about 24mm 😅
No, it would not. It would be VERY big and MUCH heavier, same as significantly more expensive. You just showed you have zero knowledge about how and why lenses are designed.
I think this is ever more true for video too. All the digital stabilisation and focus breathing compensation crop in on the image, making the wider end ever more important. Sony got this right with the 20-70mm f4, which after application of these digital features is essentially a 24-75mm in field of view. It you start with 28mm, the field of view becomes close to a 35mm on the wide end.
@duvalpenny100 I I was starting over again and I I was doing more video than photo , yes. But to be honest, the only zoom lenses I still have are telephoto lenses >70mm Most of my photography is done with a prime 50 f1.2 or 24 f 1.4
@@marcback1 yeah, the only zoom lenses I have are at the ends of the spectrum. 14-24mm and 70-200mm. This lens definitely piques my interest though since the extra stop of light would be great for low light performance.
@@duvalpenny100 They are different lenses at a different price point. The 20-70 f4 is a very good all-round lens, but if you want a 2.8 you could also consider the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 version 2. The GM2 version is twice the price, and for that you get the sharpest possible 24-70 f2.8 for Sony, and the fastest that can keep up with 120 frames per second photography. The real question is, do need that? The answer will be 'no' for most, and the 20-70 f4 (and the previous 24-105mm f4 is no slouch either) or Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 version 2 the best option for most.
Loved your seemingly-longer-than-usual sample images segment. Intriguing lens for low-light gimbal use and only Sony has the AI AF to make that easy. But for the same dosh you can get a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and Tamron 35-150 f2.0-2.8.
I’m happy with my much lighter, much smaller Tamron 28-75mm. If bokeh is a big issue for a particular shoot, I’ll use my 50mm/f1.2 GM & zoom with my feet.
Same for me with the Sigma 28-70 f2.8. I would never trade that small and light powerhouse of an everyday carry for half a stop more light at twice the weight and four times the asking price. To me, these new lenses are more novelty than actually useful for the vast majority of users, hobbyists or professionals alike.
On-screen text when doing stat comparisons of multiple lenses please...I can't see your notes and keeping that in my head doesn't get me to making conclusions from just watching. Love the channel--keep up the good work!
Hi Gerald and folks...I think this lense is a very good pro lens. This 1 additional stop of light is pretty significant, but I think a vast majority of enthusiast and pro photographers will skip it and will keep the 24-70 GM 2, which is fantastic lens, this "little" additional range in the wide end is crucial for most people. I think if you really need 28 or 35 or 50 mm etc, get a prime with a really fast aperture of 1.4 (if you want 1.2 which is significantly bigger,heavier and more expensive, then go for it). I personally don't think that 28-70 f2 is so much improved overall in comparison to the 24-70 GM2. As I said, the specific needs could be fulfilled with some exceptional primes
For all the people in the comments talking about what they wish this lens was, I have to say that I'm thrilled that it's 28-70 instead of 24-70. The extra 4mm would have certainly either cost more weight, larger size, more money, or lesser image quality. I love 28mm and I'm thrilled to replace my not-bad Sigma 28-45 1.8. If you'd be happy with a 24-70 f2 that's 1.5 lbs heavier and $500 more, that's cool, but I'm not that person, and I'm really happy to see the balance they seemed to strike here.
Ideally I would need a 24-70 Q2 next year... Wondering if I should "cheap out" for the 24-70 GM2 or shell for this big boy. (At the moment I'm on the 24 and 85 GM lenses + the 28-75 Tamron that I hate) EDIT: bought it. It's good.
While I personally loathe using big lenses and I don’t enjoy shooting with zooms... I think this is a spectacularly good option for event photographers. If that was my focus, I’d try to get my hands on this lens. At weddings I run around with a dual harness and two cameras anyway. But at events that’s just not a thing, and this lens would take care of pretty much all my needs. And I think the f/2 is worth the higher price over the 24-70 f/2.8. Amazing.
@@Donbros Totally agree! Weird that I didn’t mention that in my comment. For video work, I’ve found myself regretting not having a zoom lens a few times already.
It was hotly anticipated when it was rumored to be a 24-70 at f2. But it came out as a 28-70 and now it doesnt really entice me as much as it could have.
zoom is an optical compromise from the past. from the logic of 1 camera - 1 lens. 50mm is all that 4 steps back - 4 steps forward))). at the same time, it is f1.2-1.4, sharp everywhere, no barrel and reasonable vignette, minimum chrome, lighter, smaller. there is no such criminal attention to your equipment. so what to choose? a couple of steps and efficiency, or imaginary convenience, minus the result? It is more efficient to have 2 cameras and shoot on 15-35 and 70-200. And efficiency is the main professional requirement. Not convenience.
Hmm.. many say this lens could replace 35 50 "85?" prime.. apart from the F stop. Then I had this wild idea.. I will be interested if Sony make a 24-50 F2 instead. Because now this could replace 24 35 50... and it could be smaller and lighter than this 28-70 f2.
@@andersistbesser then it will be as long as 70-200 and weight more than 1KG and price more than 28-70 F2.. if you want a 24-80F2.. Maybe you're ok with that. I'm not.
Gerald, thanks for the as always awesome unbiased test. - I am Sony user for my some good reason, equipped with the holy trinity all GM2, the 85 1.4 GM2, 300 f2.8 GM, 200-600 5.6-6.3 G, 1.4 and 2.0 TC. - But if you look at the distortion of the quite expensive Sony gear like shown at 11:04, I always envy Nikon Z users. I once could test a Z7 with the 14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, 24-70 f2.8, 35, 50, 85 all f1.8 S line myself and all of that lenses don’t have any distortion or CR issues, edge to edge tack sharp wide open. The gear is much less expensive. - So, if you don’t need the awesome Sony AF and AF speed and you are only in landscape and portrait, you may save a lot of money using a Z7 or Z7 II. If you are in wedding, get a Z8 for working silent, electronic shutter only and rolling shutter free in churches.
I can't believe that 4K recording is still subsampled or line skipped and not 8K oversampled like in the Nikon Z8 (8.3K oversampled 4K60p) or in the R5 (4K Fine oversampled from 8K up to 30p). The only oversampled 4K mode in the a1 II is the cropped APS-C mode. A flagship should be able to record full-width 8K oversampled 4K60p or at the very least 30p!
Should have taken the 4mm off the 70mm side instead of the 24mm side if they had those limitations. Could always be boosted to 70mm+ by clear image zoom or APS-C mode.
Going from 28 -> 24mm is a much more drastic engineering feat and will incur greater costs than going from 70 -> 66mm. There’s a reason why the Sony 20-70mm f4 is almost the same weight (even without OSS) as the Sony 24-105mm f4. The wider you go, the more glass and motors you need per mm of focal length.
@jeffbronson3696 24mm is not really needed very often 70+ mm are. Most of the time 35mm on the wide end are enough for my. I dont like wide angle distortion in my opinion such zooms are workhorses for people photographers.
I'm curious if anyone else agrees - but to me it seems optically incredible but lacking character? I know it's subjective and all, but particularly with the bokeh examples it just feels a bit too perfect and lacking charm. I suppose that's not unique to the lens as such as more lenses become optically impressive but weirdly even my Tamron 28-75 G2 and prior Samyang 24-70 seem to both produce shots with more feeling I suppose. Am I alone in thinking this? Bloody impressive piece of kit though, can't take that away at all! It weighs less than my Samyang 24-70 F2.8 which was about 1045g!
I would say every time I use my Tamron 28-75 g2, there’s something about the images I just love, can’t really put my finger on what it is. I’ve got the sigma 28-45 f1.8 which is great with some minor negatives (only to 45, bigger/heavier) but I don’t get that same “love” feeling with its images as I do with the Tamron, despite having nothing to complain about with the sigma image quality. It’s weird. Maybe it’s just brand bias or feel of using the lens or something.
@kingweddingmedia I completely agree! I've even had a big increase in clients going woooow at random B Roll clips since using the Tamron over my Samyang. It feels like there's a way it reacts to anything that's slightly backlit. It seems kinda dreamy without massively compromising sharpness. Do you have the same?
@ I don’t use it too much for video, i lean more towards primes for video. Most of my photography is indoors but I really don’t see weaknesses with it and find it a really fun lens to use partly due to its size and weight.
I have no issues with the flares, but why isn't it seen as artistic (creative to add a unique look to photos) than artifacts that takes away from the image quality?
At 3,000 frickin dollars, there is no reason for me to stop using the already incredible 24-70 DN II from sigma, hell, even the GM II would be a better purchase over this one..
Depends upon what you need it for. For people photography (especially weddings and events) this lens is extremely useful. The only real alternative at the moment is the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-f2.8. Since I have the Tamron and find 85mm, 100mm and 135mm more useful than 28mm (for people photography) I'll keep using my Tamron.
@@stefan_beckeri would say this is kore usefull because honestly half of shots you can do with iphone but anything f2 is far from iphone so you get unique lens that phoje camera cant keep up at all. Same with ultra zooms where phones kinda low key still sucks
@@Donbros Didn't talk about phones at all. Just that the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-f2.8 has the more useful focal range than the 28-70mm f2 - at least for me and my people photography.
@@andersistbesser You’re not wrong, that lens would be nice, but Canon and Nikon both have unique lenses that would make people switch Canon: 24-105mm f/2.8, 100-300mm f/2.8, 10-20mm f/4 Nikon: 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3, 400mm f/4.5, 70-180 f/2.8 What interesting lenses does Sony have?
@justinburley8659 i dont want to switch. I want an24-105 2.8 niche lenses are just that, niche , not for everyone 24-105 suits many photographers and filmmakers. Any brand should have a fast zoom
I like your introduction to this lens, everything is better than the Canon version 6 years later, but in the actual review video the Sony lens is alright, it is ok ... lol
I've been using the Canon 28-70 for 5 Years now and have not had any issues with the image quality. Focus speed has been good enough for most sporting events I cover. I am excited about the weight on the Sony version though. Can't wait to try it out.
Yeah… no thanks, I just purchase a A7iii and 70-180mm tamron, I was hoping this lens will fill the 24-70mm for me with that big aperture but the Sigma 28-45 is looking more pleasing now and less expensive…
@@shang-hsienyang1284 ikr. The original commenter might as well admit that they want a 12-1600mm f1.2 pancake lens at $350. Some people seriously have zero understanding of the physics and engineering that goes into these marvels of glass and motors.
I disagree, you can compare this to the 35-150 f/2.0-2.8. The transition of the aperture still puts you at f/2.2 at 75mm. So you'll lose a lot at the wide end, but win a lot at the tele side. f2.2 vs f2.0 will be hardly distinguishable?
I found the real life bokeh to be somewhat disturbing in some other web pics i've seen, especially of busy foliage....not completely pleasing....but it's tolerable.
So Sigma had chance but ended with 28-45 f/1.8 maybe thier contract with Sony didn't allow. Also it would be nice have another f/2 probably 35-85 f/2 and 70-140 f/2
I have the 24-70 f2.8 mrk2 and I don’t understand the excitement with the lens. 28mm is really frustrating in real world shooting scenarios. That extra width the a deal breaker.
![Overrated: Camera features that don't matter [ft Gerald Undone]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SlLbkeNH9to/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for including the side-by-side comparison to Sony’s 24-70 f/2.8. So many of the reviews have focused solely on the comparison to Canon‘s 28-70 f/2, which is understandable as that is technically the closest comparable lens, but most viewers are looking for information about lenses for their respective camera system, not for a survey of lenses across camera systems. (That’s academically interesting, but not the most critical issue.) I think so many reviewers are dabbling with so many camera systems that they lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of their audience are single-system owners. You covered all the bases (and without the overly click-baity title). Well done.
20-70 f4.0
24-70 f2.8
28-70 f2.0
Nice line up from Sony.
Imagine how much nice glass there will be available in the next 10 years.
Is there a 35-70 f1.4 in the future?
I would be atleast as large as 70-200 and weighs way more @@shang-hsienyang1284
@@shang-hsienyang1284 looking at the progression I would rather expect 32-70 f1.4
Still nada from 135mm - 300mm in prime telephotos. I even think a 300mm F4 would sell more than something like this.
@@lakejindsay Why? What applications does a 300 prime have?
I’m still waiting for a 24-105 GM F2.8 🤙🏾
Yeah it'll be a hard question whether to get that or stick with the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8.
@@MattTrevett if you dont have a fucking 1 billion X crop like a74 users then i wud stick with the 35 f2
Yeah i could leave 16-35 gm at home more often…
Oh wow, that's way better than my Sony 28mm - 70mm f3.5 - 5.6
I should hope a GM is better than a kit lens 😅
It costs £3K.
lol, ...uh huh, for 3k, sure
No OSS though :v
@@StYfReX 24-105 f4 G oss is the best bet at the moment, however it isn't the sharpest.
"Stabilization test for another camera" 😏😜 He has it!!!
7:38 that hip seat is a lifesaver.
Canon's 28-70 f 2.0 is 6 years old lens and i have never heard anyone complain about image quality lol. Everyone says that it feels like a prime lens.Have you tested it yourself?
I own it, it lives on my R5! Such an amazing lens.
I own it and it's the god lens. My low light theatre photos come out so clean it's like I shot them in daylight.
I've owned it and shot probably 50K + photos with it over the years over two copies and both were a little soft a MFD. Also, I think the caveat about "replacing primes" only applies of the Canon RF 1.8 series. Put it alongside anything more exotic and it just doesn't hold a candle to it. Plus, the focus breathing on it is absolutely terrible.
I love mine. Just shot another wedding with it today. Absolutely a go to lens for lowlight situations and high end fashion shoots. I have had it through for cameras so far and it has never failed.
I own a 28-70 F2L and an R5. I've never thought it wasn't a sharp lens. I mean, okay, a really good prime lens is sharper, but the trade-off is it doesn't zoom.
It's definitely a heavy and large lens, I can understand people not wanting to use it because it's too big and heavy for them.
13:37: "The separation is decent, but nothing spectacular". Are you kidding me? Full frame and did you shoot at f/2?
How more WOW do you want? :) I think the separation is FANTASTIC!
He wants it to be like fe 50mm f1.2 😅
Honestly the rumor was around a 24-70mm f2. That would've been killer, but now it's just catching up with the competition. Since they're catching up, let's hope they make a 24-105mm f2.8 next. Would be killer for the Sony event shooters.
It's quite a bit lighter than the so called competition (so called because different system).
Please add 100-300mm f2.8, I miss f2.8 reach sometimes - and would complement the other, as I'm already a long-time owner of 24-105 with f4.
24-105mm f2.8 does not cover the full frame of the Canon. Is it really needed on Sony?
@@Vantrakter 0.5kg is a huge weight saving.
@@marcinmrzyglocki Would you actually buy it if that lens existed? If the lens you are requesting weighed 6-8lbs and cost $9,000-$10,000? That wouldn't be a practical lens for almost anyone but heavy tripod with photographic gimbal head setups for sports or nature shooters. It would be huge and very heavy. The current FE 300mm f/2.8 OSS weighs 3.25lbs and costs $6,000 and it's just a prime. A 100-300 f/2.8 would be enormous. Hardly anyone would buy the lens you requested, probably not even you.
Its basically the ultimate wedding/portrait lens
Who else was excited for this but is now gonna stick with the good ol 24-70 GM2 🙋🏻♂️
I was when the rumors say it was going to be 24-70, not anymore at 28
I was excited and thinking about returning my Sigma 28-45 but now I’m not going to, the sigma is close to perfection optically and has a very nice 3D rendering. With the savings I got the GM85 1.4II 🤷🏽♂️
I feel there should be a comparison with 35-150mm as well, because of similar weight and f2 at least on part of the range.
I’m keeping my 24-70
@@marcinmrzyglocki I still think that is a great option to go for. Traditionally it was always 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200mm f2.8 focal ranges. But if you go for a good 16-35mm and add the Tamron 35-150mm f2-f2.8 most will be able to do with a 2 lens combination, instead of 3 lenses.
youre the best at what you do Gerald and its not close.
I like the Canon version, excited about trying the Sony one (via rental) on the A7s3 with a gimbal. Concerning the Canon one, I was able to get it last year on a black friday sale refurbished for only $1699 so here's fingers crossed it comes to that price again.
Almost half off?! What a deal!
1699$ is a great deal and I recently got the refurbished one for 2K
Well, I felt the same way about the 28-70 RF f/2, that it's just a "concept lens" to show what they can do, but I was pleasantly wrong. I love that 24-27mm range for my group shots in tight spaces and I was ready to down a sharp, "low-chromatic aberration lens". Sure I'm not a fan of the size and weight, but I can say the same thing about the 70-200 F/2.8 a pros bread-and-butter lens. Now if you had use it for video, I'd agree, the RF 28-70 F/2 is a very frustrating lens to use for video due it its weight, size, lack of IS, lack of lens tripod collar, etc...
I love my 24-50mm f2.8 as a videographer for run and gun jobs and covering events. This looks great but too heavy for me. If I only did photos it would be a no brainer, tho I always seem to often miss those extra 4mm. Very excited for the future
I’m surprised you didn’t compare it to your Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8… because that lens is f2 at 35mm, f2.2 at 50mm and f2.5 at 70mm. It would have been an interesting test… I still think the usability, versatility and price just makes the Tamron a better buy, since it creates that 2 lens combo instead of the 3 lens trinity, when you travel. I think lens is gonna be great for low light event and wedding shooters.
I use it with Z9 and is hard to beat the Tamron. Beside of size and weight it balances perfectly with Z9. Balance as a professional photographer who sometimes have to cover events for straight 14hs of non stop shooting, is what make a great difference. Lights bodies are a big NO for such type of lenses... Depending on your use case of course
I really really really wanted this to be 24-70. Not 28-70. I use the 24mm range a lot and don't think I'll be able to switch now.
They could have done that and make it heavier and people would be okay … they are too anxious about people saying it will be too heavy, people will just work out and it will be nice
The only lens I want to see right now is a 24-105 F2.8 PZ OSS for video shooters, which would really complete the FX3 and FX6, then the rest of the GM II prime updates. Holding out on my prime lens purchases for GMII. Why we keep getting these weird zoom lenses with weird ranges is beyond me. I have a 16-35 F4 PZ, a 24-105 F4 OSS, and a 70-200 GM II. Yes, I want faster glass, but I don't want it in a weird range that I'm already covering with what I have, unless it gets me something like Power Zoom or OSS. None of these new lenses have either. I certainly don't want a zoom with 28 at the widest. Give the people what they want Sony!
Honestly Sony's powerzooms are pretty weird overall. None of them seem attractive when you look at some third-party cine lenses
@@NicoNice24 the 18-110 PZ was a great general purpose lens for the FS7 when it came out. Then the 28-135PZ F4 for the FX9 missed the mark at not being a 24mm in the wide end. The 16-35 F4 PZ is actually pretty good, I think, and it lives on my FX3 most of the time because the FX3 has IBIS, though of course it would be better if it was an F2.8. Now that canon has proven that a 24-105 F2.8 can be created, it’s only logical that Sony makes one, and it really is the lens that the FX6 is missing. The 24-105 F4 OSS lens that comes as a kit lens is fine 95% or the time, but I do wish it was a PZ lens, I do wish it didn’t extend, and I also wish it was faster. The only reason I have it, the 24-105 F4 OSS over the 28-135 F4 PZ, is that the 28-135 is just too darn big to run on the FX6 comfortably as a handheld lens, and I want the 24mm wide end more than I want the 135mm on the long end. And the only reason I haven’t bought a 24-70 F2.8 GM II is that it doesn’t have OSS. So to really complete the FX6 and honestly make it last a few more years and/or really draw people in to an FX6 Mark II, a 24-105 F2.8 PZ OSS lens is just the thing Sony badly needs to make!
@@billmakesmovies the 28-135 is actually even older than the fx9 , it was kit lens on the fs7 I believe , even more useless ! there was a joke that the fx9 was made to clear the warehouse full of 28-135 PZ ,s ! its an absolute dinosaur of a lens , they did a plan for 3 AF / Manual "Cine zooms " that were around $5K , but only ever made the 16-35 mm ,also were huge , sold like chocolate fire guards , and the other two , presumably 24-70 and 70-200 never saw the light of day . This seems to have burned them and they just gave up with pro video targeted zooms .
Considering such a short extension for 70mm it could be internal zooming lens
Considering the year is 2025, we should have flying cars by now
You see how silly we sound saying things without knowing the engineering behind it 😅
Your argument would be true If I said it could start at 24mm. For internal zoom - no.
@@stivnov you don’t even understand the engineering and mechanics it would take to do that.
You think it’s just easy lol?
You think they just didn’t feel like making the 16-24 or 25-50 internal zooms since they are short?
Google is free my friend. Go educate yourself.
@@mirrorlessmemory You don't have an engineering understanding either, don't you? Otherwise you would have said what's wrong with my point.
And, please, stop being arrogant and gross, it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
They could've made it internally zooming, but in order to get the angle for the 28mm setting, the front would've become much bulkier and the filter thread accordingly. I think the point of SONY's engineers was to create something that would be embarrassingly better in every aspect and smaller than Canon's offering.
Wait where's the let's get undone part that used to be in the beginning? I cant watch a video from you without it man
No go for me. Need that 24.
Great video! Intriguing lens.
Were you on active stab when you tested the vignetting with the 82mm filter?
Amazing work as usual. Love your videos. Going to stick to my current selection of GM lenses.
24-70 2.8 never excited me, I feel like I would always miss my 35Gm if I used it. But this lens excites me.
Did you tested it for Video Shooting as well??? Would be very much appreciated! 🙏🙏
The future of lenses is awesome. Still, I'll keep my 24-70 and I have my 1.4 and 1.8 primes. 😃
i love my 24-70 f/2.8 GM2, but I mostly shoot concerts, and that jump from f/2.8 to f/2.0 has me wanting to sell the f/2.8 and get one of these
Watching this back to back with the A1II video is a jekyll and hyde moment. Namely because of the shirt change.
It could've been the ultimate universal zoom lens if it started at 24mm.
If at 1.5 kilo - no.
@@wingcreator And it would be only 70 grams more than the Canon 28-70mm f/2
A lot of people say things like this without having a clue how glass is engineered.
The front glass element would be huge (above 100mm in diameter) and bulbous if it started at 24mm with a wide aperture like f2.
It’s a breakthrough that they even managed a 28mm f2 zoom at only 86mm in diameter. And your crying about 24mm 😅
That would be…..huge. No thanks.
No, it would not. It would be VERY big and MUCH heavier, same as significantly more expensive.
You just showed you have zero knowledge about how and why lenses are designed.
After 20 years in photography, I will Never trade 4mm shorter for 1 stop in the 2070mm range.
Thanks for your review
I think this is ever more true for video too. All the digital stabilisation and focus breathing compensation crop in on the image, making the wider end ever more important. Sony got this right with the 20-70mm f4, which after application of these digital features is essentially a 24-75mm in field of view. It you start with 28mm, the field of view becomes close to a 35mm on the wide end.
So you prefer the 20-70 f4 over the 24-70 f2.8?
@duvalpenny100 I I was starting over again and I I was doing more video than photo , yes.
But to be honest, the only zoom lenses I still have are telephoto lenses >70mm
Most of my photography is done with a prime 50 f1.2 or 24 f 1.4
@@marcback1 yeah, the only zoom lenses I have are at the ends of the spectrum. 14-24mm and 70-200mm.
This lens definitely piques my interest though since the extra stop of light would be great for low light performance.
@@duvalpenny100 They are different lenses at a different price point. The 20-70 f4 is a very good all-round lens, but if you want a 2.8 you could also consider the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 version 2. The GM2 version is twice the price, and for that you get the sharpest possible 24-70 f2.8 for Sony, and the fastest that can keep up with 120 frames per second photography. The real question is, do need that? The answer will be 'no' for most, and the 20-70 f4 (and the previous 24-105mm f4 is no slouch either) or Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 version 2 the best option for most.
Came for the lens info and stayed for the mushroom macro tips
A stabilization test for another camera? What time might that be?
Loved your seemingly-longer-than-usual sample images segment. Intriguing lens for low-light gimbal use and only Sony has the AI AF to make that easy. But for the same dosh you can get a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and Tamron 35-150 f2.0-2.8.
I’m happy with my much lighter, much smaller Tamron 28-75mm. If bokeh is a big issue for a particular shoot, I’ll use my 50mm/f1.2 GM & zoom with my feet.
Same for me with the Sigma 28-70 f2.8. I would never trade that small and light powerhouse of an everyday carry for half a stop more light at twice the weight and four times the asking price. To me, these new lenses are more novelty than actually useful for the vast majority of users, hobbyists or professionals alike.
@
Well put.
On-screen text when doing stat comparisons of multiple lenses please...I can't see your notes and keeping that in my head doesn't get me to making conclusions from just watching. Love the channel--keep up the good work!
Hi Gerald and folks...I think this lense is a very good pro lens. This 1 additional stop of light is pretty significant, but I think a vast majority of enthusiast and pro photographers will skip it and will keep the 24-70 GM 2, which is fantastic lens, this "little" additional range in the wide end is crucial for most people. I think if you really need 28 or 35 or 50 mm etc, get a prime with a really fast aperture of 1.4 (if you want 1.2 which is significantly bigger,heavier and more expensive, then go for it). I personally don't think that 28-70 f2 is so much improved overall in comparison to the 24-70 GM2. As I said, the specific needs could be fulfilled with some exceptional primes
For all the people in the comments talking about what they wish this lens was, I have to say that I'm thrilled that it's 28-70 instead of 24-70. The extra 4mm would have certainly either cost more weight, larger size, more money, or lesser image quality. I love 28mm and I'm thrilled to replace my not-bad Sigma 28-45 1.8.
If you'd be happy with a 24-70 f2 that's 1.5 lbs heavier and $500 more, that's cool, but I'm not that person, and I'm really happy to see the balance they seemed to strike here.
I mean they exactly done that because they worried people will say it too heavy… also over 3k not a lot of people willing to pay
Sad they did not "compensate" the 24 with it going to 75mm
(Yessss I dooooo know that cropping in apps from 70 to 75 is "nooo problem")
Nice Lens 👍
This looks very cool
Ideally I would need a 24-70 Q2 next year... Wondering if I should "cheap out" for the 24-70 GM2 or shell for this big boy. (At the moment I'm on the 24 and 85 GM lenses + the 28-75 Tamron that I hate)
EDIT: bought it. It's good.
with that step-down adapter, bokeh will almost definitely cat's-eye further in from the edge
Would be awesome to review a shootout v 24-70 GMii
While I personally loathe using big lenses and I don’t enjoy shooting with zooms... I think this is a spectacularly good option for event photographers. If that was my focus, I’d try to get my hands on this lens. At weddings I run around with a dual harness and two cameras anyway. But at events that’s just not a thing, and this lens would take care of pretty much all my needs. And I think the f/2 is worth the higher price over the 24-70 f/2.8. Amazing.
I think its good for movies and documentary
@@Donbros Totally agree! Weird that I didn’t mention that in my comment. For video work, I’ve found myself regretting not having a zoom lens a few times already.
Why the person in your last photo has two right hands?
It was hotly anticipated when it was rumored to be a 24-70 at f2. But it came out as a 28-70 and now it doesnt really entice me as much as it could have.
For all that is holy, don't ever change that outro... just sayin'👏👍
zoom is an optical compromise from the past. from the logic of 1 camera - 1 lens. 50mm is all that 4 steps back - 4 steps forward))). at the same time, it is f1.2-1.4, sharp everywhere, no barrel and reasonable vignette, minimum chrome, lighter, smaller. there is no such criminal attention to your equipment. so what to choose? a couple of steps and efficiency, or imaginary convenience, minus the result?
It is more efficient to have 2 cameras and shoot on 15-35 and 70-200. And efficiency is the main professional requirement. Not convenience.
Very happy with my Canon F2 28-70 on my R5. Locked in, never looked back. Wonderful combo
Nice content as always Buddy!
Sony GM primes don't have any noticeable fringing. At least at 14/1.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.4v1, 135/1.8
i would like Gerald to get undone about that Canon pen
I love the new cranky Gerald, I doubt Sony marketing does though 😂
If you there on Wednesday. Hopefully I’ll see you.
Does Sony make any non telescoping lens? Like 24-70mm
Hmm.. many say this lens could replace 35 50 "85?" prime.. apart from the F stop.
Then I had this wild idea.. I will be interested if Sony make a 24-50 F2 instead. Because now this could replace 24 35 50... and it could be smaller and lighter than this 28-70 f2.
24-50 is laughable- a 24-80 would be great. i want a zoom bei ng able to zoom 50 is nothing
@@andersistbesser then it will be as long as 70-200 and weight more than 1KG and price more than 28-70 F2.. if you want a 24-80F2.. Maybe you're ok with that. I'm not.
Your little guy’s photos were some of the cutest photos ive seen ❤
Sweet kit lens! Kind of expensive and heavy though.
Gerald, thanks for the as always awesome unbiased test. - I am Sony user for my some good reason, equipped with the holy trinity all GM2, the 85 1.4 GM2, 300 f2.8 GM, 200-600 5.6-6.3 G, 1.4 and 2.0 TC. - But if you look at the distortion of the quite expensive Sony gear like shown at 11:04, I always envy Nikon Z users. I once could test a Z7 with the 14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, 24-70 f2.8, 35, 50, 85 all f1.8 S line myself and all of that lenses don’t have any distortion or CR issues, edge to edge tack sharp wide open. The gear is much less expensive. - So, if you don’t need the awesome Sony AF and AF speed and you are only in landscape and portrait, you may save a lot of money using a Z7 or Z7 II. If you are in wedding, get a Z8 for working silent, electronic shutter only and rolling shutter free in churches.
PS, what did you use for the cool twist + colour mix effect at the end?
I have the Canon 28-70 f/2.0 and it's awesome. I'm sure this is great too
I can't believe that 4K recording is still subsampled or line skipped and not 8K oversampled like in the Nikon Z8 (8.3K oversampled 4K60p) or in the R5 (4K Fine oversampled from 8K up to 30p).
The only oversampled 4K mode in the a1 II is the cropped APS-C mode. A flagship should be able to record full-width 8K oversampled 4K60p or at the very least 30p!
I can't believe, dude, you write this under EVERY video released after today's presentation
Should have taken the 4mm off the 70mm side instead of the 24mm side if they had those limitations. Could always be boosted to 70mm+ by clear image zoom or APS-C mode.
no should have been 10mm more
@ I meant to say 4mm not 6mm. If they made it 10mm more it would have been too big.
Going from 28 -> 24mm is a much more drastic engineering feat and will incur greater costs than going from 70 -> 66mm.
There’s a reason why the Sony 20-70mm f4 is almost the same weight (even without OSS) as the Sony 24-105mm f4. The wider you go, the more glass and motors you need per mm of focal length.
@jeffbronson3696 24mm is not really needed very often 70+ mm are. Most of the time 35mm on the wide end are enough for my. I dont like wide angle distortion in my opinion such zooms are workhorses for people photographers.
@@jeffbronson3696 It’s interesting how 1 stop of light causes all of these issues as 24-70 is so easy to make at F2.8 compared to F2.
I'm curious if anyone else agrees - but to me it seems optically incredible but lacking character? I know it's subjective and all, but particularly with the bokeh examples it just feels a bit too perfect and lacking charm. I suppose that's not unique to the lens as such as more lenses become optically impressive but weirdly even my Tamron 28-75 G2 and prior Samyang 24-70 seem to both produce shots with more feeling I suppose. Am I alone in thinking this?
Bloody impressive piece of kit though, can't take that away at all! It weighs less than my Samyang 24-70 F2.8 which was about 1045g!
I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it. I feel that the Canon lens has more character and more “pop” to the images
I would say every time I use my Tamron 28-75 g2, there’s something about the images I just love, can’t really put my finger on what it is. I’ve got the sigma 28-45 f1.8 which is great with some minor negatives (only to 45, bigger/heavier) but I don’t get that same “love” feeling with its images as I do with the Tamron, despite having nothing to complain about with the sigma image quality. It’s weird. Maybe it’s just brand bias or feel of using the lens or something.
@kingweddingmedia I completely agree! I've even had a big increase in clients going woooow at random B Roll clips since using the Tamron over my Samyang. It feels like there's a way it reacts to anything that's slightly backlit. It seems kinda dreamy without massively compromising sharpness. Do you have the same?
@ I don’t use it too much for video, i lean more towards primes for video. Most of my photography is indoors but I really don’t see weaknesses with it and find it a really fun lens to use partly due to its size and weight.
i need a 20-50 f2 or 24-50 f2 or 24-60f2.
Sigma 28-45/1.8 art for sony - great lens
imagine one day we have 16 -150 f1.2 lens well well .....
Looking at color fringing in the image center... 😮
you should test the canon 28-70 F2 yourself. Image quality has never been an issue for me, weight wise perhaps not the coolest though
can this work for us videogrpahers? cuz there is nothing affroadable whe it comes to glass for full frame
Randomly, are those bananas real?
Also, thanks for the great review.
Finally, your son is so big now!
Narrator: The bananas were in fact, not real.
Yes but does this lens have 3D Pop? 😉
I’m waiting for a 100mm f/1.1 ❤
I have no issues with the flares, but why isn't it seen as artistic (creative to add a unique look to photos) than artifacts that takes away from the image quality?
At 3,000 frickin dollars, there is no reason for me to stop using the already incredible 24-70 DN II from sigma, hell, even the GM II would be a better purchase over this one..
Depends upon what you need it for. For people photography (especially weddings and events) this lens is extremely useful. The only real alternative at the moment is the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-f2.8. Since I have the Tamron and find 85mm, 100mm and 135mm more useful than 28mm (for people photography) I'll keep using my Tamron.
@@stefan_beckeri would say this is kore usefull because honestly half of shots you can do with iphone but anything f2 is far from iphone so you get unique lens that phoje camera cant keep up at all. Same with ultra zooms where phones kinda low key still sucks
@@Donbros Didn't talk about phones at all. Just that the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-f2.8 has the more useful focal range than the 28-70mm f2 - at least for me and my people photography.
Sony needs to make a 24-105 f2.8 🫠
Sony needs to make their own creative “must have” lens instead of following behind Canon
@@justinburley8659 why? a fast 24-105 is what everyone wants
Just updated 24-105/4 would be enough. I've tested 6 new lenses on 2 cameras in 3 stores and had a strong backfocusing issue every time.
@@andersistbesser You’re not wrong, that lens would be nice, but Canon and Nikon both have unique lenses that would make people switch
Canon: 24-105mm f/2.8, 100-300mm f/2.8, 10-20mm f/4
Nikon: 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3, 400mm f/4.5, 70-180 f/2.8
What interesting lenses does Sony have?
@justinburley8659 i dont want to switch. I want an24-105 2.8 niche lenses are just that, niche , not for everyone 24-105 suits many photographers and filmmakers. Any brand should have a fast zoom
I like your introduction to this lens, everything is better than the Canon version 6 years later, but in the actual review video the Sony lens is alright, it is ok ... lol
so...
Sony 24-70 2.8 GM II or Sigma 24-70 2.8 II
OR
Sony 28-70 2.0
OR
Sigma 28-45mm 1.8?
I've been using the Canon 28-70 for 5 Years now and have not had any issues with the image quality. Focus speed has been good enough for most sporting events I cover. I am excited about the weight on the Sony version though. Can't wait to try it out.
Yeah… no thanks, I just purchase a A7iii and 70-180mm tamron, I was hoping this lens will fill the 24-70mm for me with that big aperture but the Sigma 28-45 is looking more pleasing now and less expensive…
Given the weight savings Sony was able to achieve over the Canon 28-70mm f2, I'm surprised Sony didn't just go for 24-70mm f2 to outdo Canon.
THANKYOU for pointing out the canon 28-70 f2 has issues, I thought it was just me! I hated the bulk, weight and wasnt happy with f2 performance
This will not replace my primes but my event videos just got a bump in quality.
24-70 GM II, 28-45 Sigma, 35-150 F2-2,8 better!
Now add ¨should have been a 24mm at the wide end¨ and the title would be even better...
How much size/weight would that have added?
Why stop there, why not 20-70mm?
@@shang-hsienyang1284 ikr. The original commenter might as well admit that they want a 12-1600mm f1.2 pancake lens at $350.
Some people seriously have zero understanding of the physics and engineering that goes into these marvels of glass and motors.
@@jeffbronson3696 watermelon :3
@@jeffbronson3696 lmao
I thought it would be a lot bigger and heavier. Still I would rather take the Tamron 28-75 2.8. It's so small and light.
I disagree, you can compare this to the 35-150 f/2.0-2.8.
The transition of the aperture still puts you at f/2.2 at 75mm.
So you'll lose a lot at the wide end, but win a lot at the tele side. f2.2 vs f2.0 will be hardly distinguishable?
I bought a Tamron 35-150. Great bulit, great quality, but too heavy. All those heavy lenses are for studio work and on tripod only in my opinion.
Meanwhile im still using minolta 28-70 f/2.8 G +la ea5 a 32yo lens 😢
Cool!✌️
Yeah, tech, tech, tech ... but what's up with the bananas in the background?
I found the real life bokeh to be somewhat disturbing in some other web pics i've seen, especially of busy foliage....not completely pleasing....but it's tolerable.
Not bad but also not wowed, waiting for the 24-105/2.8.
So Sigma had chance but ended with 28-45 f/1.8 maybe thier contract with Sony didn't allow. Also it would be nice have another f/2 probably 35-85 f/2 and 70-140 f/2
Sigma is much cheaper, if they came out with a 50-150 f1.8, you can pretty much fill it out with two Sigma lenses for the price of one GM lens
@JojoJoget True
@@JojoJoget 50-150 f1.8 would be such an aggressive kick in Tamron's knee.
in true Sony fashion, they made their version of one of the best Canon lenses look boring and flat.
24-70gm looks tiny beside this f2 zoom. I know this 28-70 f2 is much smaller and lighter than canon, but the size still looks too big
Maby i should sell one of my blackmagics and buy a fx3 idk
8mpx for Photos though
I was curious if my 82mm filters would work on this. THANK YOU!
Waiting for 20-150/2.0....
this lens is affiliate linker's wet dream.
But does it have "3d pop"? 😅
I have the 24-70 f2.8 mrk2 and I don’t understand the excitement with the lens. 28mm is really frustrating in real world shooting scenarios. That extra width the a deal breaker.