i waited 5 yearts for this lens. Got fed up waiting and bought the GMii, about 2 months ago, adn then of course they release this. I would have 100% bought the Sigma if both had been available, but im also VERY happy with the GMii, even if it costs 3k euros almost.
Wow, that's surprising to see how well the Sigma did against the Sony, especially for the price! Great review and quality production as always, thanks CVP
somthing i have found with 3rd party lenses is that active IBIS dosnt do much for them, it just crops in. id like to see that included in your compositions
Really nice review but from practical experience the Sony GM blows it away because it's so much lighter and that makes such a difference on long shooting days. I much prefer the zoom ring in the rear ergonomics wise, just makes more sense as normal you're in auto focus anyway most of the time as it is so consistent.
Thank you so much Jake for the informative and very helpful comparative review! I think I go for Sigma as it saves me noticeable amount of money and I can buy another lens as well! God bless and good luck!
Those 1035/1045 grs from the Sony option are WITHOUT the L shaped tripod foot. If you add that part and an arca swiss plate (not included in the GM option) the weight difference comes down to rough
yeah but you cant get off the tripod foot from the sigma easily, and the sealing might be not the same without it because they didn't made it for get it off. So practically it's really 300gr
I own a Sigma FPL, and like others in the L mount group (Leica and Panasonic) the Sigma is the only choice. Glad to hear it keeps up and is considerably more affordable.
I cant afford the gmii but keen to know the difference between gm and gmii, im guessing that if choosing between a sony gm1 and sigma then the sigma wins hands down?
Yeah but tamron 70-180 m1 has slower and way more unreliable autofocus, combined with softer image overall. For me, as a sports photographer it is a no go. I used it for a year and the focus/softness combination just aren't worth it for me.
One look at the Sigma workmanship, and the 'made in Japan' label you know this isn't just a 'third-party' product. and when you first see the image on the bigger screen you think to yourself .. 'I am gonna make a feature film with this lens alone'. Then the Sony (or whatever camera brand you are using) doesn't seem important any more. Try it and see (The same applied to other Sigma lenses over the $1000 price tag).
Great lens, I'm still a beginner here, the thing about these declick aperture is that I'm yet to find a situation where its needed, like why would you want to change the aperture smoothly mid shoot?
@@jeffyshabong5356 for cameras like the fx6 with internal ND filter, you can use the declicked aperture ring to change dept of field while shooting. There are videos of it if you search
@@jeffyshabong5356one could adjust aperture in video, for example, to change the amount of light hitting the sensor (switching from brighter/darker environments in a continuous shot) or to adjust the depth of field (more/less background blur in a continuous shot) which could be useful in a specific video scene. No clicking of the aperture ring makes this smoother and noiseless.
So they can offer the 'professional' high-dollar ones. They also own a significant interest in at least Tamron and possibly Sigma as well, so those sales also flow into Sony.
@@nathanmorgan3647 So, Sony does it because of the money flow coming from those sales?. The reason Canon is blocking third party lenses on the RF mount is because “Canon believes that those lenses infringe their patent and design rights”. None of the third party lens companies are challenging Canon on that claim. Are they saying that their lenses don’t infringe on Canon patent and design rights?. Canon is not putting money first.
@@LatinPerspective. Canon IS putting money first. Canon does not own significant interest in those 3rd party manufacturers like Sony does. If they did, they would likely be singing a different tune. Canon also wants to be the sole provider of Canon lenses and wants to keep their tech as closely held secret as they can. You want a canon, you buy everything from canon. Neither companies are in business to make cameras, that is not their goal. They are in business to make money, and they do that through making cameras and lenses. They have different strengths, weaknesses, and positions in the marketplace, and therefore different strategies towards their goal: emptying your and my wallets.
@@Acura1NSX The Sigma is only 135g lighter, it's not sharper, and it's a 'Sports' lens that can only shoot at 15fps, compared to 30+FPS of the GM1 (possibly more with the tbc A9III compatible lens list). The Sigma also has the zoom ring in the wrong location.
Can somebody explain if Sigma quality as it looks like it is almost same as GM and also Made in Japan, then how come they manage to sell their products for so much cheaper?
R&D and tolerances. Sony's lens is smaller because of more advanced and precise manufacturing. Good optical quality is easy to achieve nowadays if you don't care about size and weight, that's why the Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4 is still better than 99% of recently released lenses.
How much more advanced and prices GM lenses can be compared to old players like Sigma, made from arguably more durable and metallic housing and, I guess, all made in Japan that have probably 2 o3 times bigger salaries and so on? @@TechnoBabble
Been asking that question since I bought into Sony e-mount a few years ago. I guess that explains why most of my lenses are Sigma. And now that I'm adapting them to my Nikon Zf, I appreciate how good optically they are compared to the Sony lenses that rely on a bunch of in-camera corrections.
@@RandumbTech Yeah, I detest Sony's new mid-range lenses. Building it with tons of distortion or vignetting just cause they can fix it in software is not a good way to design lenses. I don't want blurry and noisy corners.
@@Pablomache If you actually believe that then there's no point in further discussion. The A7 and A7R models will simply not shoot that fast, bet on it. In fact, Sony slowed them down compared to previous cameras. The A7 III did 10fps uncompressed RAW, the A7 IV does 6. The A7R III did 10fps uncompressed RAW, the A7R IV does 6 and the A7R V does 7.
@@TechnoBabble If you think the A1 II, A7 V, A7R VII, A9 IV are going to be limited to around 7fps after they released the 120fps A9 II then you are deluded.
@@Pablomache The A9 III* is only that fast because of the global shutter and it is specifically the flagship sports camera. No other camera is getting a global shutter in it's next release. Even the A1 II isn't going to shoot 120fps and match the A9 III. I also said nothing about the A1 or future A9 models, so not sure why you're brining those up. I can 100% guarantee you that the A7 V and A7R VI will not shoot any faster than 15fps at the most. You truly are a weird fanboy that just thinks Sony is going to give you everything you dream for and they can do no wrong.
Let us know which lens you would choose down below!
you both fluffs are very handsome, and have poofy hair haha
i waited 5 yearts for this lens. Got fed up waiting and bought the GMii, about 2 months ago, adn then of course they release this. I would have 100% bought the Sigma if both had been available, but im also VERY happy with the GMii, even if it costs 3k euros almost.
Sony glass holds its value very well, plus 300g less is a lot. It'd say it's a good investment.
You got the better product.. try and forget it happened lol
So it was you! You're the one who held off your gm purchase so sigma didn't want to release it >:(
I bought the 70-200ii just over a months ago too lmfao
@@MarcEstrella 🤦😅
Wow, that's surprising to see how well the Sigma did against the Sony, especially for the price! Great review and quality production as always, thanks CVP
I'm convinced. Definitely worth it to get the Sigma. Thank you for the video
Pair this 70200 gm ii with my new A9iii. Sony AF really nailed it during 120fps photos. Great review anyway! ✨
somthing i have found with 3rd party lenses is that active IBIS dosnt do much for them, it just crops in.
id like to see that included in your compositions
@Broskisnowski yes, but since sonys stab is the worst, it all helps
@Broskisnowski It isn't. The crop allows the sensor to shift and move further. The crop isn't used to digitally stabilise.
Really nice review but from practical experience the Sony GM blows it away because it's so much lighter and that makes such a difference on long shooting days. I much prefer the zoom ring in the rear ergonomics wise, just makes more sense as normal you're in auto focus anyway most of the time as it is so consistent.
Thank you so much Jake for the informative and very helpful comparative review! I think I go for Sigma as it saves me noticeable amount of money and I can buy another lens as well! God bless and good luck!
Those 1035/1045 grs from the Sony option are WITHOUT the L shaped tripod foot. If you add that part and an arca swiss plate (not included in the GM option) the weight difference comes down to rough
yeah but you cant get off the tripod foot from the sigma easily, and the sealing might be not the same without it because they didn't made it for get it off. So practically it's really 300gr
Zoom body sealing has nothing to do with tripod external attachments. Sorry but I cannot buy your assumption
your videos have to be the best and most detailed comparisons and reviews of lenses awesome
I own a Sigma FPL, and like others in the L mount group (Leica and Panasonic) the Sigma is the only choice. Glad to hear it keeps up and is considerably more affordable.
If one is really weight - conscious, it's worth noting the extremely easy way to detach completely the tripod mount on the Sony
The Tamron 70-180mm is a great option too. It's lighter and cheaper, minus a few bells and whistles. Totally worth looking at.
I have this lens. Bought in 2020. Needed repair in 2021. It broke again this weekend. Not convinced of the quality!
Do you mean you have the sigma or the Tamron?
informative video Thanks CVP.
Love your reviews!
What do you thing for the sigma 70-200 vs the Sony 70-200 GM1? I own the GM1, but I wonder if i should sell it and grab the newer sigma
Not sure if the British accent makes this more enthralling, or the to-the-point, no frills, expertly-presented information. I think it's both.
Americans think that the British speak English with an accent! Unprecedented impudence!
there's a huge difference in min focus distance. If you shoot indoor this might matter.
Couldn't you stop down to show focus breathing?
I cant afford the gmii but keen to know the difference between gm and gmii, im guessing that if choosing between a sony gm1 and sigma then the sigma wins hands down?
Yes, Sigma wins by a margin as compared to GM I
Tamron 70-180 m1 for half the price or m2 for 80% of the price.
Yeah but tamron 70-180 m1 has slower and way more unreliable autofocus, combined with softer image overall. For me, as a sports photographer it is a no go. I used it for a year and the focus/softness combination just aren't worth it for me.
@@nejclaar Then go with GM2. No need to settle for Bigma.
@@frankfeng2701 don't have the money to spend 3k€ on a lens. I have a lot of sigma lenses and am really happy with the quality.
My Tamron 70-180 broke after one year of use. I was very careful with it. I'm not convinced of the build quality at all.
@@frankfeng2701 Sigma's is still optically superior, has better stabilization, and zooms internally.
Wow, I paid about $2800 USD for the G Master II. The Sigma is $1500 USD.
This or the Sony 70-200mm F/4 Gmii Macro?
It is my understanding from another review that Sony teleconverters do not work on the Sigma lens.
One look at the Sigma workmanship, and the 'made in Japan' label you know this isn't just a 'third-party' product. and when you first see the image on the bigger screen you think to yourself .. 'I am gonna make a feature film with this lens alone'. Then the Sony (or whatever camera brand you are using) doesn't seem important any more. Try it and see (The same applied to other Sigma lenses over the $1000 price tag).
Great lens, I'm still a beginner here, the thing about these declick aperture is that I'm yet to find a situation where its needed, like why would you want to change the aperture smoothly mid shoot?
Video
@@Renenko can you elaborate more?
Agreed
@@jeffyshabong5356 for cameras like the fx6 with internal ND filter, you can use the declicked aperture ring to change dept of field while shooting. There are videos of it if you search
@@jeffyshabong5356one could adjust aperture in video, for example, to change the amount of light hitting the sensor (switching from brighter/darker environments in a continuous shot) or to adjust the depth of field (more/less background blur in a continuous shot) which could be useful in a specific video scene. No clicking of the aperture ring makes this smoother and noiseless.
Teleconverter Sony 2x whit Sigma ?
Sony already has dirt in it? Some scrappy sealing I think. It is a fairly newly released lense to have such problems
No choice if you want to shoot photos more than 15FPS - has to be 1st party lens.
Why allow third party lenses and then limit them?
@@LatinPerspective.so they don't compete too closely with the Sony lenses.
That's the current limitation of the 3rd party lens currently. I don't understand the reason for such a limitation.
I would choose the Sony as I wont lose much if I sell it. So it will be actually cheaper than teh Sigma
Great review. I'll choose the Sigma even if the Sony would be sold at the same price !
Why Sony allows third party lenses and then limit them?
So they can offer the 'professional' high-dollar ones. They also own a significant interest in at least Tamron and possibly Sigma as well, so those sales also flow into Sony.
@@nathanmorgan3647 So, Sony does it because of the money flow coming from those sales?.
The reason Canon is blocking third party lenses on the RF mount is because “Canon believes that those lenses infringe their patent and design rights”.
None of the third party lens companies are challenging Canon on that claim. Are they saying that their lenses don’t infringe on Canon patent and design rights?.
Canon is not putting money first.
@@LatinPerspective. Canon IS putting money first. Canon does not own significant interest in those 3rd party manufacturers like Sony does. If they did, they would likely be singing a different tune. Canon also wants to be the sole provider of Canon lenses and wants to keep their tech as closely held secret as they can. You want a canon, you buy everything from canon. Neither companies are in business to make cameras, that is not their goal. They are in business to make money, and they do that through making cameras and lenses. They have different strengths, weaknesses, and positions in the marketplace, and therefore different strategies towards their goal: emptying your and my wallets.
The only true advantage of buying Sony lenses is the shooting frame rate😂
@@bananabear009 And teleconverters as mentioned in the video. >15fps and tc-compatibility doesn't matter to everyone.
And Sigma’s lens is black 🔥
It's worth noting the original SEL70200GM can be found now for similar prices to the new Sigma.
The old version but not the new superior version II.
@@Acura1NSX obviously
@@Pablomache But it's not as sharp and definitely heavier and there's no aperture ring.
@@Acura1NSX The Sigma is only 135g lighter, it's not sharper, and it's a 'Sports' lens that can only shoot at 15fps, compared to 30+FPS of the GM1 (possibly more with the tbc A9III compatible lens list). The Sigma also has the zoom ring in the wrong location.
Yeah and for the same price, you end up getting better quality than the original one.
A quick video summary: It's a Sigma.
Bigma 😂
👍
Sigma is cannibalizing Sony
Tamron says hello. (70-180; 70-180 mk2; 35-150)
Sony laughs as they rake in the investment income from both Sigma and Tamron, owning significant shares of both companies.
Can somebody explain if Sigma quality as it looks like it is almost same as GM and also Made in Japan, then how come they manage to sell their products for so much cheaper?
Probably materials, the result may be similar but glass may be not - that's why one weights 1 kg and the other 33% more
R&D and tolerances. Sony's lens is smaller because of more advanced and precise manufacturing. Good optical quality is easy to achieve nowadays if you don't care about size and weight, that's why the Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4 is still better than 99% of recently released lenses.
How much more advanced and prices GM lenses can be compared to old players like Sigma, made from arguably more durable and metallic housing and, I guess, all made in Japan that have probably 2 o3 times bigger salaries and so on? @@TechnoBabble
Been asking that question since I bought into Sony e-mount a few years ago. I guess that explains why most of my lenses are Sigma. And now that I'm adapting them to my Nikon Zf, I appreciate how good optically they are compared to the Sony lenses that rely on a bunch of in-camera corrections.
@@RandumbTech Yeah, I detest Sony's new mid-range lenses. Building it with tons of distortion or vignetting just cause they can fix it in software is not a good way to design lenses.
I don't want blurry and noisy corners.
Now we need a sigma 16-35 🤣
Hey not it’s over due for the mirrorless mount
sigma dosnt keep up with the Sony bird eye focus tracking at 30fps or over.
If you're shooting soccer, team sports, birding...forget the sigma.
I hope you're aware that the overwhelming majority of people, and even most of those that own a 70-200, don't shoot on an A9 or A1... right?
You are right, in 2 years every new Sony camera will probably shoot 30+fps and the Sigma will be useless for that.
@@Pablomache If you actually believe that then there's no point in further discussion.
The A7 and A7R models will simply not shoot that fast, bet on it. In fact, Sony slowed them down compared to previous cameras.
The A7 III did 10fps uncompressed RAW, the A7 IV does 6. The A7R III did 10fps uncompressed RAW, the A7R IV does 6 and the A7R V does 7.
@@TechnoBabble If you think the A1 II, A7 V, A7R VII, A9 IV are going to be limited to around 7fps after they released the 120fps A9 II then you are deluded.
@@Pablomache The A9 III* is only that fast because of the global shutter and it is specifically the flagship sports camera. No other camera is getting a global shutter in it's next release. Even the A1 II isn't going to shoot 120fps and match the A9 III.
I also said nothing about the A1 or future A9 models, so not sure why you're brining those up.
I can 100% guarantee you that the A7 V and A7R VI will not shoot any faster than 15fps at the most.
You truly are a weird fanboy that just thinks Sony is going to give you everything you dream for and they can do no wrong.
la copia descarada de sigma! ajjajajajajaja