I have the Tamron 28-75 and it comes in at pretty light ~550 grams and I love that zoom range. Pretty much lives on my A Cam 100% of the time during weddings. Had no idea Sony's 24-70 was so much beefier at 887 grams. I've been wanting to get the Tamron 17-28 to pair with my 28-75 to get a little more FoV when Bride/Groom prep is in smaller rooms.
Yup I might have traded my 20 for a 20-50 but no way for a 24-50. Of course they know that's too good so need to hold out longer and release it in 10 years. (Light weight being the key selling point). Or trade for the a75 so I don't have a crazy crop
Wait, did I miss it? I don’t think I saw you answer the question on if it’s good enough to sell my primes. I currently have a 35mm f2 and a 50mm f1.4 and wondered if this was good enough to replace both outside of the wider apertures.
I am Canon guy but I love video/photography, so I watch relate what I can to what I do. It’s the eye and creativite perspective that will always be more than the gear. Anyway, I have always enjoy the how and why of your videos. It’s also insteresting that you choose these two focal lengths. They are great focal lengths and they make the most sense as far as gear for the day. I just love some 100 macro, 135 and 85 shots too. I downloaded the tips and I think you have covered some great points! Anyway, thanks for everything that you do! I love watching, learning and listening to another perspective from a creator I respect.
I now have this lens but I’m not a video shooter. Using in a compact travel kit on an A7CR/II. It’s not only a 24mm and 50mm but as a stills shooter it’s also a 28mm, 35mm, and 40mm. All focal lengths I enjoy using. Take care.
Do you miss the longer focal lengths while using this lens and travelling. I want to buy this but just wonder whether I will be missing on the longer focal lengths.
@@somnayak1 Not yet but also bought a mint used FE 70-200/4 MACRO G OSS II for my travel kit and can take either the SigmaI-Series 65mm f/2 or an 85/1.8 Zeiss Batis that can fit in my travel bag. Funny since my bigger bag with either my A1 or A7RV has both the FE 24-70/2.8 GM II and 70-200/2.8 GM II..
So i was partially right regarding what your con was gonna be... despite the weird zoom....... i like internal zooming... having it extend out is a hard pass for me.. yeah balancing on a gimbal in the middle works... but no thanks.. tamron 17-28 is great for the internal zoom..
Do you think this is better the the 24-70 I ? I have that and rarely use 50-70 range so would love to have a lighter setup , but I don't want to lose quality , and considering that lens is pretty old , this one should have better quality one would think
Should have been 20-50 F2.8 for it to make any sense as an all around lens for travel. 24 is often not wide enough and unless you want to save money then 24-70 F2.8 makes more sense all around. This was a miss as far as I’m concerned as it’s targets very narrow type of travel people who care about a few less grams than 24-70.
And for those using cameras with 16x24 mm (also named "Super 35") sensors, there's a superb, sharp, pro-level 16-55 mm G f/2.8 zoom lens (equivalent to a 24-83.5, in the 24x36 mm world of sensors). And, after a full year of use, I can say it matches prime lenses quality in all aspects. But is a huge plus for report/event/wedding film-makers... group portraits, indoor images, landscapes, solo portraits, tight frames in the crowd, night-time imagery, close-ups (with a proxi add-on front lens, it becomes a decent macro lens), etc. it does so many things I really don't see myself in need for another lense unless specific needs or requests arise. Plus : it really is very discrete, with its compact size and "everyday lens" appearance. This marvel of optics also ticks several boxes, making it a perfect choice for the above-mentionned use cases, and probably also travel-filming (that I haven't tested yet).
Hmm. First, lightness is super, but only for the photographer. The client couple counts more, isn't it ? Losing 2 stops of light and blur can't be an option just for a lighter lense. Second: With active ibis and breathing comp there is a crop on the crop what makes the 20mm 1.8 G the right lense for the gimbal and Sigmas 24-70 2.8 for the photos. Add the 35 1.4 GM and the 85 1.8 to the bag and you're save for standard weddings.
Testing this lens against the 20-70 f4, tough call. It's lighter and smaller than the 20-70 f4, which is nice. I actually like the 50mm focal length at the shortest length. But the 20mm is noticeably wider than 24mm, more than I anticipated. Also, the difference in bokeh between f2.8 and f4 at these focal lengths is not a big difference. Much less than we're lead to believe, and the 20-70 can be extended to 70mm f4 which produced more bokeh than 50mm f2.8. Now the stop difference, is just that, a 1-stop difference. So at f2.8, you get (for example) shutter speed of 1/60 vs f4 at 1/30. In some cases, that could be the difference between shaky or blurred images and stopping the action. But the images between them look near identical at the same focal lengths, not the huge difference in bokeh we're lead to believe because of the 'fast' f2.8. Now an f1.8 or f1.4, yes very noticeable difference in bokeh. So at the moment, I think the 20-70 f4 is definitely the better zoom lens. The 24-50 f2.8 feels like a convenient way to carry a 24, 35 and 50mm focal lengths. That's interesting to me because those are 3 of my 4 favorite focal lengths, 85mm being the fourth. But as others have said here, wish this was a 20-50. That extra 4mm is a big deal. Without it, I see I will have to carry my 16-35. With the 20-70, I can leave that lens home. But for low light situations, I would need something like a 35mm f1.8/f1.4. Not sure f2.8 is enough to negate that need. It's closer but is it enough?
I hope this one isn't as horrible at CA performance as the 24-105. What I like about this 24-50 G: 1) It covers 24, 35 and 50 mm > 3 very useful focal lengths at f2.8 in one lens ... 2) ... while being very compact and lightweight 3) 24mm is very nice on 7R bodies for shooting 4K in crop mode to get less rolling shutter and full pixel readout while giving you a more or less 35mm field of view. 4) 50mm 2.8 with a MFD of 30 cm is really a good compromise to do close-ups. However, 1300€ is quite a bit of money if you take into consideration that you can have an excellent Tamron 28-75 G2 for 500-600€ less. I don't know whether 24vs28mm and 2,6 cm in length are really worth this additional money.
the weight wont matter much on top of gimbal with a camera body and hand held the extra bit of weight of 24-70 helps surely. if you have one lens you need the 24-70 in most cases, I have the sigma e mount and it's been rock solid for over 2 years
I feel like this is the best studio vlog/youtuber lens and it finally hits all of the boxes most of us have needed for a while. I don't really /want/ to wait for this, but I don't want to buy the 20-70 F4 because this definitely hits way more boxes for me so i'll have to :P
Here’s an idea…..How great would it be if they made a 24-70gm without it physically zoom. I would take a prime lens with two options. Switch from 24 and 70 with one click.
Seems a little silly - the V2 of 24-70 isn't as big as the V1 of that same lens, so it's already small, compact and lightweight, both for handheld and gimbal work. I don't see a reason why this lens would fill a gap that doesn't seem to be missing.
I personally would rather keep the Sigma 24-70 2.8. The extra 20mm is worth the double weight for me. I’m also not handheld 24/7 though so I imagine for long handheld days I would feel differently about it.
Anyone like me who can’t get used to standard zooms because I always tend to double think my shots between 24-50/70? The weird feeling of zooming in or out from having too many ‘options’. I don’t seem to get this conundrum when using a 16-35 or 70-200. Within this standard range I’d rather be restricted to 24/35/50… less is more
Would you recommend this lens (Sony 24-50mm) or the Sigma 28-70mm/Tamron28-75mm lens for an all-in-one, compact lens? I know the Sony is a tiny bit smaller and shorter than the others and you get the extra Sony in-body features (focus breathing compensation, etc.), but you also lose 20ish extra mm of reach and it is a few hundred dollars more. Just wanting an extra opinion!
This lens will fit in well with those who do street photography. Same as the 20-70mm f4. I'd go with the 20-70 for the extra wide angle to short telephoto and eat the loss of one stop of light. Most of the time we are shooting at f4 and above.
Thanks for this video. I'm considering to buy either this lens or the 24mm f1.4 GM for traveling. Do you think the 24mm GM is significant better than the 24-50 at 24mm or just a little bit better?
I have the GM 24mm and believe me when I say it that this G 24-50mm is can't be compared to the GM prime. Two completely different things. The GM is superior in every way. I would suggest to get the GM 100% bro cause f2,8 is f2,8
I have both and I can say they GM is crazy good...one of my favourites. But I am completely taken aback by how sharp this new 24-50 is! It's better than my GM 24-70 MARK I. So unless you absolutely need that F1.4, the 24-50 is a fantastic option.
7 หลายเดือนก่อน
Nah, they better release a 24-105 F2.8, like Canon. I have the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8, great lens, but 35 ain’t wide enough. I’d trade a bit of the tele end for a wider end, as you can always zoom in post, but you can’t zoom out past the 35mm.
Having the lenses sent to you by the manufacturer or a Distributor indicates that you have a bias, as to receive more products, you need to give a positive review. I have been burnt in the past following such reviews. But thanks for the disclosure. Oh, by the way, I am a fan of primes. For a number of reasons.
The Tamron 20-40mm 2.8 is the reason I choose Sony system for Video / gimbal works. Love it, very cheap. This sony 24-50 is a bit short on wide end 24mm. Should have 20-50mm or at least an F2.
Sony is so annoying. Just give us what we want and need! Instead they give us the choice of either gain a wide angle, but it's an f4. Or gain 2.8, but lose a whole 20mm. 😡 I just want a 20-70mm 2.8! I'll take a bigger lens if it means I can have all the useful focal ranges at 2.8, and so I can just have a 1 and done lens. And a 1.4 prime lens for super low light conditions. (Non wedding usages in my case) The less lens I have to carry the better. And it doesn't need to be a GM lens. I'll take a G if it means it'll cost less.
24-70 2.0 is what we need!
Agreed! They should've gone for a faster lens in this focal length. I don't mind a little more weight. 28-70 2.0 or 24-50 2.0
looking at the Canon 28-70 f2, , a Sony version would be HUGE lol
who are "we"? no sane person would want a monster like that
Like 95mm+ diameter.. no thanks.
Thats impractical size and price. This lens is perfect in size,
20-50 f2.8 or a 24-50 f2.0 would have been much better suited for a release
I have the Tamron 28-75 and it comes in at pretty light ~550 grams and I love that zoom range. Pretty much lives on my A Cam 100% of the time during weddings. Had no idea Sony's 24-70 was so much beefier at 887 grams. I've been wanting to get the Tamron 17-28 to pair with my 28-75 to get a little more FoV when Bride/Groom prep is in smaller rooms.
The Tamron 17-28 is amazing
would have been great if it was 20-50 (hence id have to stay with the tamron 20-40). -- it zooms/extends like the tamron 20-40 too
a tamron 17-50 f4 full frame exists :D i have it and it's amazing!
yeah, 20-50/2.8 would be a dream
Yup I might have traded my 20 for a 20-50 but no way for a 24-50. Of course they know that's too good so need to hold out longer and release it in 10 years. (Light weight being the key selling point). Or trade for the a75 so I don't have a crazy crop
Love this lens for its compactness. Add a 85 1.8 for portraits and you’re set.
Wait, did I miss it? I don’t think I saw you answer the question on if it’s good enough to sell my primes. I currently have a 35mm f2 and a 50mm f1.4 and wondered if this was good enough to replace both outside of the wider apertures.
I am Canon guy but I love video/photography, so I watch relate what I can to what I do. It’s the eye and creativite perspective that will always be more than the gear. Anyway, I have always enjoy the how and why of your videos. It’s also insteresting that you choose these two focal lengths. They are great focal lengths and they make the most sense as far as gear for the day. I just love some 100 macro, 135 and 85 shots too. I downloaded the tips and I think you have covered some great points! Anyway, thanks for everything that you do! I love watching, learning and listening to another perspective from a creator I respect.
I now have this lens but I’m not a video shooter. Using in a compact travel kit on an A7CR/II. It’s not only a 24mm and 50mm but as a stills shooter it’s also a 28mm, 35mm, and 40mm. All focal lengths I enjoy using. Take care.
Do you miss the longer focal lengths while using this lens and travelling.
I want to buy this but just wonder whether I will be missing on the longer focal lengths.
@@somnayak1 Not yet but also bought a mint used FE 70-200/4 MACRO G OSS II for my travel kit and can take either the SigmaI-Series 65mm f/2 or an 85/1.8 Zeiss Batis that can fit in my travel bag. Funny since my bigger bag with either my A1 or A7RV has both the FE 24-70/2.8 GM II and 70-200/2.8 GM II..
So i was partially right regarding what your con was gonna be... despite the weird zoom....... i like internal zooming... having it extend out is a hard pass for me.. yeah balancing on a gimbal in the middle works... but no thanks.. tamron 17-28 is great for the internal zoom..
my thoughts exactly.
Do you think this is better the the 24-70 I ? I have that and rarely use 50-70 range so would love to have a lighter setup , but I don't want to lose quality , and considering that lens is pretty old , this one should have better quality one would think
Seems like this would be right up your alley and save you some space. I'd say go for it
Should have been 20-50 F2.8 for it to make any sense as an all around lens for travel. 24 is often not wide enough and unless you want to save money then 24-70 F2.8 makes more sense all around. This was a miss as far as I’m concerned as it’s targets very narrow type of travel people who care about a few less grams than 24-70.
24-50 falls between 16-35 and 24-70, either of which is a lot more useful. The only thing that goes for it is the weight and price.
@@USGrant21st 20-50mm would fall between those two lenses you mentioned. 24-50 is a just a chopped off 24-70! No bueno!
Also the lens isn't listed in the description xx
Lowkey shook to see you haven't hit 1m subs yet! wtf! Thanks for all you do.
I’m waiting on the rumored Tamron 20-50 2.8
Cannot wait until Sony makes a 28-30mm f/2,8 Lens.
Look inside a 24-70mm lens while zooming out. I recall seeing internal optical elements move forward when changing from 50mm to 24mm.
I was sold on this and ready to switch away from my Sigma 24-70 until I saw the barrel is extended at 24mm, unfortunately that's a dealbreaker for me.
No offense but why? Aesthetic only? Maybe this lens doesn't have premium sealing
I have 20-70 and will get this lens if it is 20-50. Too bad sony got this lens wrong.
And for those using cameras with 16x24 mm (also named "Super 35") sensors, there's a superb, sharp, pro-level 16-55 mm G f/2.8 zoom lens (equivalent to a 24-83.5, in the 24x36 mm world of sensors).
And, after a full year of use, I can say it matches prime lenses quality in all aspects. But is a huge plus for report/event/wedding film-makers... group portraits, indoor images, landscapes, solo portraits, tight frames in the crowd, night-time imagery, close-ups (with a proxi add-on front lens, it becomes a decent macro lens), etc. it does so many things I really don't see myself in need for another lense unless specific needs or requests arise. Plus : it really is very discrete, with its compact size and "everyday lens" appearance.
This marvel of optics also ticks several boxes, making it a perfect choice for the above-mentionned use cases, and probably also travel-filming (that I haven't tested yet).
Hmm. First, lightness is super, but only for the photographer. The client couple counts more, isn't it ? Losing 2 stops of light and blur can't be an option just for a lighter lense. Second: With active ibis and breathing comp there is a crop on the crop what makes the 20mm 1.8 G the right lense for the gimbal and Sigmas 24-70 2.8 for the photos. Add the 35 1.4 GM and the 85 1.8 to the bag and you're save for standard weddings.
Testing this lens against the 20-70 f4, tough call. It's lighter and smaller than the 20-70 f4, which is nice. I actually like the 50mm focal length at the shortest length. But the 20mm is noticeably wider than 24mm, more than I anticipated. Also, the difference in bokeh between f2.8 and f4 at these focal lengths is not a big difference. Much less than we're lead to believe, and the 20-70 can be extended to 70mm f4 which produced more bokeh than 50mm f2.8. Now the stop difference, is just that, a 1-stop difference. So at f2.8, you get (for example) shutter speed of 1/60 vs f4 at 1/30. In some cases, that could be the difference between shaky or blurred images and stopping the action. But the images between them look near identical at the same focal lengths, not the huge difference in bokeh we're lead to believe because of the 'fast' f2.8. Now an f1.8 or f1.4, yes very noticeable difference in bokeh. So at the moment, I think the 20-70 f4 is definitely the better zoom lens. The 24-50 f2.8 feels like a convenient way to carry a 24, 35 and 50mm focal lengths. That's interesting to me because those are 3 of my 4 favorite focal lengths, 85mm being the fourth. But as others have said here, wish this was a 20-50. That extra 4mm is a big deal. Without it, I see I will have to carry my 16-35. With the 20-70, I can leave that lens home. But for low light situations, I would need something like a 35mm f1.8/f1.4. Not sure f2.8 is enough to negate that need. It's closer but is it enough?
I hope this one isn't as horrible at CA performance as the 24-105.
What I like about this 24-50 G:
1) It covers 24, 35 and 50 mm > 3 very useful focal lengths at f2.8 in one lens ...
2) ... while being very compact and lightweight
3) 24mm is very nice on 7R bodies for shooting 4K in crop mode to get less rolling shutter and full pixel readout while giving you a more or less 35mm field of view.
4) 50mm 2.8 with a MFD of 30 cm is really a good compromise to do close-ups.
However, 1300€ is quite a bit of money if you take into consideration that you can have an excellent Tamron 28-75 G2 for 500-600€ less. I don't know whether 24vs28mm and 2,6 cm in length are really worth this additional money.
Seems sweet yet i think the reverse zooming would really bother me
the weight wont matter much on top of gimbal with a camera body and hand held the extra bit of weight of 24-70 helps surely. if you have one lens you need the 24-70 in most cases, I have the sigma e mount and it's been rock solid for over 2 years
I feel like this is the best studio vlog/youtuber lens and it finally hits all of the boxes most of us have needed for a while. I don't really /want/ to wait for this, but I don't want to buy the 20-70 F4 because this definitely hits way more boxes for me so i'll have to :P
Here’s an idea…..How great would it be if they made a 24-70gm without it physically zoom. I would take a prime lens with two options. Switch from 24 and 70 with one click.
Lol this is so "first world problems" lolo
Seems a little silly - the V2 of 24-70 isn't as big as the V1 of that same lens, so it's already small, compact and lightweight, both for handheld and gimbal work. I don't see a reason why this lens would fill a gap that doesn't seem to be missing.
Sell my 24 1.4 GM and 50 1.2?
Nawh. 😂
This lens is garbage.
My only issue is that I saw the close focus image quality at 50mm f2.8 is poor. You need stop down to f5.6.
If they made a 24-70 internal zoom for a light weight I’d also be in. Thier 70 200 gm II was a game changer with weight. This just seems pointless.
I personally would rather keep the Sigma 24-70 2.8. The extra 20mm is worth the double weight for me. I’m also not handheld 24/7 though so I imagine for long handheld days I would feel differently about it.
Anyone like me who can’t get used to standard zooms because I always tend to double think my shots between 24-50/70? The weird feeling of zooming in or out from having too many ‘options’. I don’t seem to get this conundrum when using a 16-35 or 70-200. Within this standard range I’d rather be restricted to 24/35/50… less is more
Would you recommend this lens (Sony 24-50mm) or the Sigma 28-70mm/Tamron28-75mm lens for an all-in-one, compact lens? I know the Sony is a tiny bit smaller and shorter than the others and you get the extra Sony in-body features (focus breathing compensation, etc.), but you also lose 20ish extra mm of reach and it is a few hundred dollars more. Just wanting an extra opinion!
This lens will fit in well with those who do street photography. Same as the 20-70mm f4. I'd go with the 20-70 for the extra wide angle to short telephoto and eat the loss of one stop of light. Most of the time we are shooting at f4 and above.
Can you compare with tamron 20-40mm f2.8. Closest comparison
This seems pretty boring NG, If it was a f 2.0 it would be more interesting Id rather have the reach or I'd go for a prime
Yes, being longer feels wrong, but the zoom ring direction is correct per a Canon boi
Feels so wrong it’s right
Lens breathing compensation introduces small crop and I hate crops I wish Sony would just focus on making lenses that don't breath
28-70mm f2.8 from Sigma, is light, small, and great. Only con I can think of is lack of focus breathing compensation.
Non Sony lenses also capped at 15 fps I believe although that's not relevant
Sigma lacks an aperture ring.
If it was 20-50 f 2- not bad, but 24-50 f 2.8 for what?!
The answer to your question is no. While this seems like a good general purpose lens. It’s not a prime replacement.
I''ve literally been saying we need a lens like this for years!
so would you swab your 24 and 50 gm for this lens? I use same setup and thinking to swab for this but I dont like the way it is zoom
Thanks for this video. I'm considering to buy either this lens or the 24mm f1.4 GM for traveling. Do you think the 24mm GM is significant better than the 24-50 at 24mm or just a little bit better?
I have the GM 24mm and believe me when I say it that this G 24-50mm is can't be compared to the GM prime. Two completely different things. The GM is superior in every way. I would suggest to get the GM 100% bro cause f2,8 is f2,8
I have both and I can say they GM is crazy good...one of my favourites. But I am completely taken aback by how sharp this new 24-50 is! It's better than my GM 24-70 MARK I. So unless you absolutely need that F1.4, the 24-50 is a fantastic option.
Nah, they better release a 24-105 F2.8, like Canon. I have the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8, great lens, but 35 ain’t wide enough. I’d trade a bit of the tele end for a wider end, as you can always zoom in post, but you can’t zoom out past the 35mm.
I would love that
01:05 the audio isn’t synced. Btw great video as always.
Haha oops!!
What is the pull like when you change focal lengths?
I wish it was F2.0 I would buy it now.
I’m betting it would be much heavier
Wait for Tamron 25-50/2 then.
whats the minimal focus distance?
Wait my 24-70 GM is an f2.8
Thanks Matt....great review...and a surprisingly attractive lens (and I've already got the 24-70 GMII and the 20-70!!)
Thanks Paul! Yeah I love the size and weight of this one
Having the lenses sent to you by the manufacturer or a Distributor indicates that you have a bias, as to receive more products, you need to give a positive review. I have been burnt in the past following such reviews. But thanks for the disclosure. Oh, by the way, I am a fan of primes. For a number of reasons.
Dont see link
A 24-50 makes no sense to me with already a 24-70 or 28-70.
If they made a 20-50 1.8 or f2 it may have been more enticing.
Is that New Braunfels at 3:27 ?
Yup!
not even a mention of the tamron 20-40mm f2.8 ..........
1:41 20mm*
Not as good as the 24-70 GMII, I think that for the price even the 20-70mm f4 G is better
This lens in 1,8 and internal zoom, yes please
Welp. Need that.
if it were even 2.2 id sell but im happy with my 1.8s
The Tamron 20-40mm 2.8 is the reason I choose Sony system for Video / gimbal works. Love it, very cheap. This sony 24-50 is a bit short on wide end 24mm. Should have 20-50mm or at least an F2.
Still looks too big and heavy for a 24-50. Sony can do better
What are you talking about. Come pare to 20-70mm . This one half the weight
Yep, Tamron 20-40 is smaller and lighter, and Sony is considered a king of miniaturization, they should do better.
Sony is so annoying. Just give us what we want and need! Instead they give us the choice of either gain a wide angle, but it's an f4. Or gain 2.8, but lose a whole 20mm. 😡 I just want a 20-70mm 2.8! I'll take a bigger lens if it means I can have all the useful focal ranges at 2.8, and so I can just have a 1 and done lens. And a 1.4 prime lens for super low light conditions. (Non wedding usages in my case) The less lens I have to carry the better. And it doesn't need to be a GM lens. I'll take a G if it means it'll cost less.
I would never sell my primes BUT if theres is a 16-24 24-70 and 70-200 f1.8 or f2.0 id say goodbye to my primes
70mm - 50mm = 20mm
Matt you're an inspiration. Could you do a video about SD cards and using v60s etc on A7siii
Hanging for a Sony 28-70 f2 equivalent that Canon has.
Such a strange focal range
Sony already have a 20-70 F4 for almost the same weight and price. This is useless imo. It really needed to be 20-50 f2.8 to be relevant.
01:05 oops!
Meh its f2,8 aint replacing any price lol
I thought it was F0.28 looking at the title lol
Me too 😂😂😂😂
Hahaha yup mistyped! Fixed it!
@@whoismatt haha how cool would that be tho if it was 0.28 🤩
Vote with your dollar! Say no to weak lenses!
Man Sony is out here giving us a random lens 🤣
worst lens of the year
Why?
Why does this exist if there's already the 24-70 f2.8? If it's because of its size, its a weak excuse for weak people
I too prefer to get a good bicep workout with my camera
Better than having a weak mind...
no dont sell your primes, CLICKBAIT headline
Should I sell my bicycles for that little new car, please ?
(Only joking. I can't even watch this bla..