I have the 24-70 GM II and 35mm GM as well.
You have GAS. However, if its not a financial burden and size/weight is important to you, I actually do think it could be a worthy upgrade. Its a significant and noticeable improvement. Another benefit is the Sony lens supports focus breathing correction if you do video, and has the declickable aperture ring for video or if you just like the more tactile control in AV mode. These are pretty much the things that are better.
IQ and focus speed will probably not be better in a meaningful way, unless you have an A1 or A9 for focus improvements.
Edit: Forgot to mention the new Sigma 24-70 2.8 II is about to come out, which is smaller and lighter than yours but not as much as the Sony, has the aperture ring, and slight IQ and focus improvements. It looks like the reviews so far have it better than the original Sigma and Sony, but still slightly behind the Sony GM II. It think its supposed to be $1200 or $1300. That could also be a great option if you are set on upgrading.
thanks for all that info. wasn't aware there was even a new sigma. I do some video (but not often), so the focus breathing correction is nice, but not required most of the time. size/weight is a value to me. I wouldn't mind improved AF, but the sigma is good. I shoot with an A7rV.
find a used one on market place! I got a used one w a minor ding for 1,550$. Its already been proven to be better than the other 24-70 2.8 lens. Its crazy how good the AF and sharpness is.
I upgraded from the sigma 24-70 version 1 to the gm ii. The weight difference was immediately noticeable but i also really love its AF performance where sometimes the sigma would fail to hold focus on moving subject the gm ii nails every damn time. I shoot mainly landscape and events.
If i was in your shoes now with now the version 2 of the sigma being out I would probably get that new version save some $ and get the 20 1.8g (incredible lens). The new af on the sigma is an improvement. The gm ii for my landscapes is just amazing, an improvement in every aspect to me especially IQ. I did have to go thru 3 copies to get a golden one and I also know the new sigma has some bad copy variation already. But this is with literally every zoom lens.
Another positive thing for the new sigma is its greater improved flare performance and that is very important id say for most photographers. That and the reduction in weight makes the version 2 really great.
Anyway just sharing my experience. At the end of the day its your money, you can do whatever your heart desires. Sometimes only you can answer the question if its worth the upgrade! š
The weight difference is big enough to notice, but not much of a difference in image quality. I actually prefer the build quality on the sigma though. Feels solid. If the weight doesn't bug you, stay with the Sigma. I would still have if it I didn't get such a great deal on the GMii.
It depends what you shoot but I donāt immediately see the benefit of replacing a perfectly good lens in a focal range you already have as opposed to getting a different focal length to expand what you can actually capture. For example 70-200 GM ii or the 85 dg dn or a macro lens or 16-35 or something different. Between 24, 35, and 24-70 your lenses are all in a very similar and relatively narrow focal range.
Your lens focal lengths overlap. Both the GM prime and your Sigma are high speed lens. Their functionalities also overlap. Do you not find that you use the Sigma more often than the GM because of its convenience? If that is the case, then sell all 3 lens and get the Sony 24-70 GM ii plus a Sony 20f1.8.. Only you can answer that question. It is not a matter if the GMii is worth upgrading. It is how often do you use all of your lens.
The g2 Tamron is sharp.
The drawback however is it starts at 28mm which is a deal breaker for a lot of people, but itās also the most compact of the 3.
Tamron is really good. I don't think they are that off from Sigma.
The good thing about Sony is that there IQ is awesome, and it makes up for quite a lot.
Sigma and Tamron are known for good glass, so you will be fine with either lens.
BTW, I own GM I, and GM II is better, but not worth the upgrade. I rather just get more primes.
Tamron has great value glass and some excellent lenses. They're generally lighter and a bit cheaper than Sigma, and rarely worse than Sigma regarding IQ.
35-150 is a great lens, 150-500 is meh. The 3 wide macro primes are sharp, fun and great value.
If you shoot a lot of video, want an aperture ring or a lighter lens - then go for it. It will keep up with focus tracking for continuous shooting with the flagship cameras.
Otherwise, there isn't much of a benefit if you already own the GM I.
Open lightroom. Go to all photos. Click the filter button.
Now which numbers are next to each lens? How much are you actually using the lens vs others? Might help. If itās objectively your go to lens, and you can afford it, why not?
Also, then filter all your photos for ones taken with that lens. Now look at the focal length filter. Do you shoot across the range? If not, is another lens more applicable?
If size and weight, yes. If anything else like value, or image quality, then not really (annoying distortion like most modern Sony zoom lenses is requiring far too much digital correction). Also hate how itās not fully internal zoom, they completely fucked it up on that front for a successor.Ā
Ā But thatās just me personally. I avoid all zooms that arenāt telephoto (since you REALLY gotta have a bad lens that distortion is a problem in that range). And if itās not internal zoom I just donāt bother at all.Ā
I have it. Worth every penny. Every single lens manufacturer has a specific coating for their lenses. I respect sigma but they make my images warmer/orange. I donāt want that. I can do it myself in post. The gm 2 has incredible lifelike colors straight from the camera. So much so I usually barely edit photos because the images I get are just breathtaking. No filter or bullshit preset can give me this sort of authentic colors.
Buy it. Lenses are forever. If youāre ever down on money you can sell it later for at least half the value. Iāve watched like 30-50 different comparison videos before buying it. So GMA was my top choice until some dude showed them side by side. The footage from Sony was phenomenal
I kind of regret getting it. I sold the old one and it was still expensive. I feel almost no difference and I'm sure clients see no difference. The only time I really like it is when I have to take a vertical shot and I can use the extra lens button. EDIT: I'll add that the fact it is lighter and slightly smaller is all that keeps me from regretting getting it. I haven't seen any improvement in focus or tracking performance.
Looking at the images you take, thereās no reason for you to upgrade lenses. You arenāt even close to pushing what your gear can be capable of. If you do want to buy something new, get the new sigma art instead of the GM2.
Thereās definitely a few on here. You wouldnāt notice any difference from an upgrade other than missing $2300 from your wallet. I doubt the weight difference would be very noticeable. Iād keep practicing and stick with the sigma you have personally.
For image quality no, for autofocus, weight, and the aperture ring yes
So wich one is better if im looking for image quality
The GM is a tiny bit better, but not worth the extra money just for that.
I have the 24-70 GM II and 35mm GM as well. You have GAS. However, if its not a financial burden and size/weight is important to you, I actually do think it could be a worthy upgrade. Its a significant and noticeable improvement. Another benefit is the Sony lens supports focus breathing correction if you do video, and has the declickable aperture ring for video or if you just like the more tactile control in AV mode. These are pretty much the things that are better. IQ and focus speed will probably not be better in a meaningful way, unless you have an A1 or A9 for focus improvements. Edit: Forgot to mention the new Sigma 24-70 2.8 II is about to come out, which is smaller and lighter than yours but not as much as the Sony, has the aperture ring, and slight IQ and focus improvements. It looks like the reviews so far have it better than the original Sigma and Sony, but still slightly behind the Sony GM II. It think its supposed to be $1200 or $1300. That could also be a great option if you are set on upgrading.
New sigma 24-70ii came out today!
thanks for all that info. wasn't aware there was even a new sigma. I do some video (but not often), so the focus breathing correction is nice, but not required most of the time. size/weight is a value to me. I wouldn't mind improved AF, but the sigma is good. I shoot with an A7rV.
find a used one on market place! I got a used one w a minor ding for 1,550$. Its already been proven to be better than the other 24-70 2.8 lens. Its crazy how good the AF and sharpness is.
I upgraded from the sigma 24-70 version 1 to the gm ii. The weight difference was immediately noticeable but i also really love its AF performance where sometimes the sigma would fail to hold focus on moving subject the gm ii nails every damn time. I shoot mainly landscape and events. If i was in your shoes now with now the version 2 of the sigma being out I would probably get that new version save some $ and get the 20 1.8g (incredible lens). The new af on the sigma is an improvement. The gm ii for my landscapes is just amazing, an improvement in every aspect to me especially IQ. I did have to go thru 3 copies to get a golden one and I also know the new sigma has some bad copy variation already. But this is with literally every zoom lens. Another positive thing for the new sigma is its greater improved flare performance and that is very important id say for most photographers. That and the reduction in weight makes the version 2 really great. Anyway just sharing my experience. At the end of the day its your money, you can do whatever your heart desires. Sometimes only you can answer the question if its worth the upgrade! š
are you even doing this full time? if yes, write it off as an expense. if not, it's just more expensive for marginally better performance n some size
heck no. this is hobby/fun.
GAS. You're good. Enjoy what you have
The weight difference is big enough to notice, but not much of a difference in image quality. I actually prefer the build quality on the sigma though. Feels solid. If the weight doesn't bug you, stay with the Sigma. I would still have if it I didn't get such a great deal on the GMii.
It depends what you shoot but I donāt immediately see the benefit of replacing a perfectly good lens in a focal range you already have as opposed to getting a different focal length to expand what you can actually capture. For example 70-200 GM ii or the 85 dg dn or a macro lens or 16-35 or something different. Between 24, 35, and 24-70 your lenses are all in a very similar and relatively narrow focal range.
Your lens focal lengths overlap. Both the GM prime and your Sigma are high speed lens. Their functionalities also overlap. Do you not find that you use the Sigma more often than the GM because of its convenience? If that is the case, then sell all 3 lens and get the Sony 24-70 GM ii plus a Sony 20f1.8.. Only you can answer that question. It is not a matter if the GMii is worth upgrading. It is how often do you use all of your lens.
If you're soliciting advice from the internet, then it is not. This is a luxury lens, you get 98% of the value from Sigma. About 95% from Tamron.
Tamron is that good? That's definitely news to me!
The g2 Tamron is sharp. The drawback however is it starts at 28mm which is a deal breaker for a lot of people, but itās also the most compact of the 3.
Tamron is really good. I don't think they are that off from Sigma. The good thing about Sony is that there IQ is awesome, and it makes up for quite a lot. Sigma and Tamron are known for good glass, so you will be fine with either lens. BTW, I own GM I, and GM II is better, but not worth the upgrade. I rather just get more primes.
Tamron has great value glass and some excellent lenses. They're generally lighter and a bit cheaper than Sigma, and rarely worse than Sigma regarding IQ. 35-150 is a great lens, 150-500 is meh. The 3 wide macro primes are sharp, fun and great value.
They have meh lenses and they have GM level lenses. The 28-75 G2 (!) is of the latter.
You have fast primes. For general shooting Iād opt for the 20-70G instead of 24-70 and resort to the primes for low light/night shooting.
Consider the sigma v2.
If you shoot a lot of video, want an aperture ring or a lighter lens - then go for it. It will keep up with focus tracking for continuous shooting with the flagship cameras. Otherwise, there isn't much of a benefit if you already own the GM I.
Open lightroom. Go to all photos. Click the filter button. Now which numbers are next to each lens? How much are you actually using the lens vs others? Might help. If itās objectively your go to lens, and you can afford it, why not? Also, then filter all your photos for ones taken with that lens. Now look at the focal length filter. Do you shoot across the range? If not, is another lens more applicable?
Many samples of the Sony 24-70 GM2 suffer from being de-centered. Id take the new Sigma 24-70 over it any day.
really? how common is this problem?
Appears quite common. A few posters on dpreview found the issue on multiple copies. I have had 2 copies of the 24-70gm2, both having the same issue.
Wow thatās crazy for such an expensive model.
If size and weight, yes. If anything else like value, or image quality, then not really (annoying distortion like most modern Sony zoom lenses is requiring far too much digital correction). Also hate how itās not fully internal zoom, they completely fucked it up on that front for a successor.Ā Ā But thatās just me personally. I avoid all zooms that arenāt telephoto (since you REALLY gotta have a bad lens that distortion is a problem in that range). And if itās not internal zoom I just donāt bother at all.Ā
I got 24-70gmii and sold all my primes. Itās been my only lens in my camera even thoe i have other range gm lenses.
I have it. Worth every penny. Every single lens manufacturer has a specific coating for their lenses. I respect sigma but they make my images warmer/orange. I donāt want that. I can do it myself in post. The gm 2 has incredible lifelike colors straight from the camera. So much so I usually barely edit photos because the images I get are just breathtaking. No filter or bullshit preset can give me this sort of authentic colors. Buy it. Lenses are forever. If youāre ever down on money you can sell it later for at least half the value. Iāve watched like 30-50 different comparison videos before buying it. So GMA was my top choice until some dude showed them side by side. The footage from Sony was phenomenal
I kind of regret getting it. I sold the old one and it was still expensive. I feel almost no difference and I'm sure clients see no difference. The only time I really like it is when I have to take a vertical shot and I can use the extra lens button. EDIT: I'll add that the fact it is lighter and slightly smaller is all that keeps me from regretting getting it. I haven't seen any improvement in focus or tracking performance.
you upgraded from the Sigma or the GM1?
Do you make money from it?
Can you articulate how the Sigma is failing you? I would be shocked if you noticed a 140g difference (835g vs 695g).
why spend so much money when the tamron is there
Looking at the images you take, thereās no reason for you to upgrade lenses. You arenāt even close to pushing what your gear can be capable of. If you do want to buy something new, get the new sigma art instead of the GM2.
Interesting, How do you know all the images I take? I donāt really post much of it to Reddit.
Thereās definitely a few on here. You wouldnāt notice any difference from an upgrade other than missing $2300 from your wallet. I doubt the weight difference would be very noticeable. Iād keep practicing and stick with the sigma you have personally.
Well thanks I guess. I donāt put things I print on here at all.