I know it’s personal preference, but for photo I much prefer the standard to be 50mm but then having the ability to ‘zoom’ to 24mm. Walking around a city, for example, this is great - you’ve got the 50mm standard focal length for street photography, candid, etc, and then if you want a wider scene or some architecture you can zoom to 24mm. I MUCH prefer this set up to the standard 24mm then zoom in set up.
Sony did some tests and comparisons with the Tamron 20-40 in the presentation they showed when rolling this lens out a few weeks ago, and the one thing that really stood out to me was the AF speed. Tamron couldn't track a moving subject as well as the Sony 24-50, which never lost focus. Im talking about the Video side of things. When it comes to photo, the new Sony lens is designed to work and capture 120 FPS that the new Sony Camera can shoot.
@@PhilipLemoine yes Sony is always going to be a bit better when it comes to AF speed. But I've never had an issue tracking with the 20-40. They clearly want this lens to be used on the a7cii/R so doubt most people are going to be using it with an a9iii. I really dislike how Sony limits 30 party lenses when it comes to bust rate. I doubt the lenses can't handle it, I think it's just a tactic to get people to buy their lenses.
Great travel/kit lens. It’s not for me, but I don’t see why people are hating on it. Most of us who have been in the Sony ecosystem for a while already have our needs met in this focal range, but for someone just starting out this is a solid option. 👊🏼
Not that good, not that small, no innovation (internal zoom, power zoom), twice the price of competition (Tamron 20-40), and higher price than lens superior than it in almost every way - Sigma 24-70 DN DG (except size of course, which of course is a big selling point for some, but then the 20-40 is even smaller). So the only reason for someone to get this lens if the 40mm is really not enough and absolutely needs 50mm.
I would LOVE Sony to come out with a 24-50 f2 lens! As a wedding photographer, that would cover 90% of the photos I take throughout the day, allowing me to sell off several primes and consider only carrying the 1camera on my body. Totally understand that would be both larger and more expensive, but for me the trade off would be completely worth it
Hahaha, I was just typing almost exactly the same thing!!! I agree 100%. For both personal shooting as well as wedding work, an f/2 would be good enough IMO, while the focal range is great as is. But the f/2.8 just doesn’t give me enough in low light as well as less bokeh than I’d want on the wide end. But f/2 would be decent and definitely a compromise I’d be willing to make.
As a user of the 20-40 with the barrel retraction at 40mm, I totally felt how extending the barrel (moving the center of gravity forward) intuitively felt like zooming in. Retracting and moving the balance point closer should feel like zooming out. If I mix it with other zoom lenses I would’ve ran into trouble, but since I only brought primes on my trip with the 20-40mm I actually managed just fine ☺️
Love the quick review in the first minute of the video! Straight to the point. I still watched the entire video but I prefer that summary at the beginning rather than at the end of the video. What is the context regarding Patrick thinking lens reviews were bad? Was the clip taken out of context or does he not like lens reviews?
If I haven't got a 24-70 GM II for my A7C II, I would definitely go for this lens. But I think it's not necessary to buy another lens which is contracted in every way. 24-70 GM II is not that heavy after all.
Haha, Patrick is such a champ. I'm with him on the Lumix 20-60... that has to be the best kit lens of all time, I think. But yeah if it were f4 or even f2.8-4, it would be a lot better. Thanks for the review Gerald.
I like this trend. I'm a full frame lumix user and I love the 20-60. I think its the best zoom range. I sold my sigma 24-70 even though its faster. The 20-60 is just so compact and light. Hope to see more companies following this unique zoom range trend
The Tamron is nearly twice as expensive and too heavy. But, it’s great that we have so many choices, right? This will be perfect when I travel and basically 90% of what I’d need anyway.
Interested to see the Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sony 24-50 2.8 G. Looking to get one or the other now that this one has been announced, and since they're pretty much the same price i'm looking forward to see how they compare optically! Great vid! Much love from Portugal
What do you video guys do with the de-clicked aperture? Don't think I can recall a shot where the depth of field was modified during the take. Is it to get between f/stops?
If you doing an interview and the sun comes out during the chat you can gently close the iris and keep the exposure good (ish). Old schoolers on a steadicam might 'pull' the iris as the shot moves through different light levels.
I still prefer Tamron 20-40mm F2.8. It's not the same I now but a 24-50 gets in the way of the 24-70. If it was F2 or less ok, but same F for lens zoom, just to do it cheaper? We buy focal lenght zoom because we need it, not because of the price. I mean the price is important, of course, but I'm professional so if I need the 70-200 focal lenght I will not buy a 70-120 because it's cheaper. I will try another F less expensive or another brand, not another focal lenght. At least for me it doesn't make sense, sorry.
Could you explain how it goes wide by extending? Typically moving lenses further spreads the light out more (inverse square), aka more zoomed in. I'm kind of mystified as to how this lens does the opposite.
There are lenses like 28-70 kit lens, which is smallest at 50mm, as well as the bridge camera sony f828, which is also smallest at 50mm (and grows taller at either end, 200mm or 28mm) If you look at primes you get a similar conclusion. 50mm generally the most compact.
@@Shiinamusiclyricssubs Yeah I've seen those lenses that grow then shrink as you zoom, especially on point and shoots with built in lenses. Super curious about the physics that make lenses work.
If it was an f/2, I might be interested. Even a 35-50mm f/2 would make more sense for me. Both for personal shooting as well as wedding work, a lens like that would take care of at least 50% of what I do. But the f/2.8 is just a little too "meh" for some things. :/
This is a dream lens for me, for photography at weddings I’ll be sell my sigma 24-70 pick this up and have my Sony 85mm on my second camera. I’ve never liked the focal range from 50-70mm is a pretty dead space.
How much will this lens crop when you turn breath compensation on? My experience is that this can be quite different how much the camera will crop on other lenses from sony.
Agree with Patrick, the LUMIX 20-60mm would be perfect in f/2.8. Or even better for me, an as compact as possible 20-60mm manual focus f/2.0 with in-body corrections for distortion.
So did you record the test images first or the next day? Your watch time is earlier than the build and ergonomics section. Which is earlier in the video. You don’t have to answer, I’m just complimenting your video quality.
The original Canon 24-70L has the same "reverse" zoom. The difference is the lens hood in the canon is huge and mounts on the body of the lens and not the front filter, and the zoom barrel moves inside the hood and the hood doesn't not move.
I like the Sony 20-70 f4, it is the same price, same weight, but much wider range. The F4 is not a bad compromise since any new camera can handle high ISO now.
Can someone explain why8 anyone uses superset and doesn’t just crop in post….other than I want to see exact framing when I shoot? Do you get a full raw file in super 35?
Incredible small but the reversed extension would also trow me off so much xD I would love a side by side comparison between the 24-50 F2.8 G, 20-70 F4 G, 24-105 F4 OSS G and 28-60 F4-5,6 Lenses
did everyone forgot about Sony F4 24-105 G OSS got it years ago with my A7C for $850. the only thing I dont like its chonky and heavy it looks stupid on my A7C, and F4 for portrait at 50mm or less isnt that beautiful but the range and the images quality is amazing the focus is good for my use landscape, portrait, and OSS for some videos is handy
More useful it's subjective, for me the point is that it gets in the way of the 24-70, because it doesn't offer anything different besides beeing lighter and cheaper. Not better zoom range and not better F stop. So what's the point?
@@gregorybeale - Yes, true, but a photographer choose the lens by is function. I find the 24-70 from Sony expensive too, so I bought the Samyang 24-70 insted it's even more cheaper than this new one... I never buy an unwanted focal lenght just because of price. There are other brands now to offer the same or better options.
Also, Gerald. it would be really great to see if you´d evolve and start reviewing Cine Lenses in a similar way. BC since i started following you, i grew up filmmaking wise and pretty much only use cine lenses now ( mostly rental ) . Maybe you should connect with cooke and all the other manufacturers. I´m pretty certain they´ll bite! You have an amazing channel.
I don’t think they will. Look at his comparison between Sony gm and arri prime glass. These lenses are extremely highly priced for what they are. I have compared some of them myself and what a 1000 lens can do against a 40000 lens is absolutely insane. The thing is rentals rent them out and producers keep paying for them. most dps know budget is beter spend elsewhere. It’s just very tempting to go for that one special and expensive cine lens because there’s not a lot of choice in giving the image character in the camera department. You choose a camera you choose a lens and maybe add a filter. (Btw look up how expensive filters can get that’s even more mind blowing). Anyways I personally would love for him to compare more cine lenses but doubt the higher end brands wil bite. Budget options will though!
@@keeswillems4637 that’s a good point for sure. I get what you’re saying. But I personally had shot pretty much everything on a sigma 24-70 before i started renting out cine primes. I have to say, for me it was such a big difference. especially the fact that they had no focus breathing at all and no chromatic aberration etc. was mind blowing. Also a Cooke SP3 for example is super cheap to rent out and optically almost flawless. Maybe rental houses could work with Gerald rather then the manufacturer. 🙂 I think once you had a good cine lens you can’t go back anymore. But of course there are some absolutely stunning photography lenses. Especially nowadays with focus breathing compensation etc. you are absolutely right. The budget could be spend on location and props.
Yeah I can understand Sony doing this lens now that that they have updated the a7C bodies. I use the earlier 24-70mm GM bought 2nd hand on my a7RV which is great.
I think it a great lens for people stepping up from a kit lens but not quite ready for a more expensive lens. I would rather use a prime 50mm 1.4 and if I need anything else use 16-35gm. But I don’t see myself buying this anytime soon.
Guess it wouldn’t be compact anymore. But I’m thinking an f/2 would be cool. Bit of a compromise, but fine IMO, whereas the f/2.8 puts me off. I’d rather use a 35mm f/1.8 in that case, lose the wide end (oh well) and crop in for more reach if I have to.
First time I saw the announcement, I already asked “Why?”. I get it now after watching a bit start of the video. Somehow this is the Sigma Art 18-35mm f1.8 on Full Frame. On Sony, focal length is wider. Depth of field is almost the same, and Sigma has a faster f/stop but compared that to FF it’s almost the same how it captures light. 🤔 And it’s more affordable than the GM’s.
In theory, a nice lens. 3 nice focal lengths, shorter than standard zooms, lightweight, good IQ. However, after having 5 different copies of a 24-105 "G" lens which were all very frustrating (bad focus and zoom rings, worst CA I have ever seen), I have come to the conclusion that "G" isn't necessarily a sign of quality and left for a Tamron 28-75 G2 for half the price of both the 24-50 or 24-105. No wishes left. What I really like about this Sony, however, is that it starts at 50mm and you zoom out from there.
When I take photos I often start framing in my mind in the 35-50 range and think about going wider if I absolutely cannot make 35 work. So in some ways my mind has always worked in reverse of how most lenses are designed.. this lens might be interesting to try out 🤣
The mismatch when the barrel extends to shoot wide is so real. Using my boss's Canon 24-70 throws me off constantly because it extends at 24 and retracts at 70. So bizarre feeling.
I amazes me that people who should know better still say that using crop mode on a full-frame camera give them more "reach" when it's just a crop/field-of-view change ... not an increase in reach.
Nice video, thanks! But I am still waiting for Sony lens like Canon 28-70/2, of course 24-70 even better and 20-70/2 real miracle!!!Hmm, I like dreaming..good light!
![Overrated: Camera features that don't matter [ft Gerald Undone]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SlLbkeNH9to/mqdefault.jpg)
Fear not fellow obsessives, I have since adjusted the TV's rotation and addressed the depth of field issue. 👍🍌
I am setting my inhaler and bubble level down, for now, as a sign of good faith.
I know it’s personal preference, but for photo I much prefer the standard to be 50mm but then having the ability to ‘zoom’ to 24mm. Walking around a city, for example, this is great - you’ve got the 50mm standard focal length for street photography, candid, etc, and then if you want a wider scene or some architecture you can zoom to 24mm. I MUCH prefer this set up to the standard 24mm then zoom in set up.
I picked up the Tamron 20-40F2.8 a year or so ago, I think it's a more useful focal range, especially when you pair it with the 35-150
it's crazy how that lens was ignored in the video, especially with Patrick talking about wanting wider.
@@avx111 Agreed, I was hoping to hear some comparisons to the Tamron. This 24-50 is really confusing to me, especially considering the Tamron exists.
Sony did some tests and comparisons with the Tamron 20-40 in the presentation they showed when rolling this lens out a few weeks ago, and the one thing that really stood out to me was the AF speed. Tamron couldn't track a moving subject as well as the Sony 24-50, which never lost focus. Im talking about the Video side of things. When it comes to photo, the new Sony lens is designed to work and capture 120 FPS that the new Sony Camera can shoot.
Some people prefer all sony lens inculding me. So more Sony lens is always good.
@@PhilipLemoine yes Sony is always going to be a bit better when it comes to AF speed. But I've never had an issue tracking with the 20-40.
They clearly want this lens to be used on the a7cii/R so doubt most people are going to be using it with an a9iii.
I really dislike how Sony limits 30 party lenses when it comes to bust rate. I doubt the lenses can't handle it, I think it's just a tactic to get people to buy their lenses.
I personally love this lens! 24-50mm f2.8 + 135mm f1.8 = It's all I need ❤
Great travel/kit lens. It’s not for me, but I don’t see why people are hating on it. Most of us who have been in the Sony ecosystem for a while already have our needs met in this focal range, but for someone just starting out this is a solid option. 👊🏼
Not that good, not that small, no innovation (internal zoom, power zoom), twice the price of competition (Tamron 20-40), and higher price than lens superior than it in almost every way - Sigma 24-70 DN DG (except size of course, which of course is a big selling point for some, but then the 20-40 is even smaller). So the only reason for someone to get this lens if the 40mm is really not enough and absolutely needs 50mm.
Yet it s sold out everywhere so Sony knows something!
Zero interest in this lens.... just here to see your review!
Yep! Me too.
Me too. Totally useless lens.
Gerald wasn’t interested either!
Same
Same
I like when Sony shows its Minolta DNA. So I like that the zoom is "backwards" on it.
Why is that an advantage?
It’s not an advantage just a probably unintentional call back to design motifs
I would LOVE Sony to come out with a 24-50 f2 lens! As a wedding photographer, that would cover 90% of the photos I take throughout the day, allowing me to sell off several primes and consider only carrying the 1camera on my body. Totally understand that would be both larger and more expensive, but for me the trade off would be completely worth it
That's also my dream lens
Tamrom is about to announce a 25-50 F2
Hahaha, I was just typing almost exactly the same thing!!! I agree 100%. For both personal shooting as well as wedding work, an f/2 would be good enough IMO, while the focal range is great as is. But the f/2.8 just doesn’t give me enough in low light as well as less bokeh than I’d want on the wide end. But f/2 would be decent and definitely a compromise I’d be willing to make.
As a user of the 20-40 with the barrel retraction at 40mm, I totally felt how extending the barrel (moving the center of gravity forward) intuitively felt like zooming in. Retracting and moving the balance point closer should feel like zooming out. If I mix it with other zoom lenses I would’ve ran into trouble, but since I only brought primes on my trip with the 20-40mm I actually managed just fine ☺️
I shoot primarily in the 24-50mm range. I pre-ordered this for my A7iv. Good review!
Just picked up the Tamron 20-40 new for half the price and more useful coverage.
how do you like it?
Love the quick review in the first minute of the video! Straight to the point. I still watched the entire video but I prefer that summary at the beginning rather than at the end of the video.
What is the context regarding Patrick thinking lens reviews were bad? Was the clip taken out of context or does he not like lens reviews?
It would be interesting if it zoomed internally or was a little faster.
As soon as I saw the barrel extending, I lost interest
@@Jonathantuba that's... what she said?
If I haven't got a 24-70 GM II for my A7C II, I would definitely go for this lens. But I think it's not necessary to buy another lens which is contracted in every way. 24-70 GM II is not that heavy after all.
There will also be a sony 16-25 f2.8 g according to leaks, im more interested in that tbh
Same, 100%
Haha, Patrick is such a champ.
I'm with him on the Lumix 20-60... that has to be the best kit lens of all time, I think. But yeah if it were f4 or even f2.8-4, it would be a lot better.
Thanks for the review Gerald.
I like this trend. I'm a full frame lumix user and I love the 20-60. I think its the best zoom range. I sold my sigma 24-70 even though its faster. The 20-60 is just so compact and light. Hope to see more companies following this unique zoom range trend
So I would have to choose 24-105 f4 vs 24-50 f2.8. guess I would go to Tamron or Sigma.
Or 20-70 f4 or 24-70 f2.8
I don’t understand why they went with the reverse zoom…. Such an odd choice
Just get the Tamron 35-150 (one lens to rule them all) and then if needed get a wide lens.
Going on vacation next week and the 16-35mm and 35-150mm are the 2 lenses I'm bringing.
I use those and add a 70-350 G (APSC) to my A7RV for extra reach with a minimal weight increase.
The Tamron is nearly twice as expensive and too heavy. But, it’s great that we have so many choices, right? This will be perfect when I travel and basically 90% of what I’d need anyway.
What about a comparison between the 24-50 and 24-70 GM II in terms of distortion? Would be useful to see.
G 30 LINE GM 50LINE ~~~ No need to compare
Interested to see the Sigma 24-70 2.8 vs Sony 24-50 2.8 G. Looking to get one or the other now that this one has been announced, and since they're pretty much the same price i'm looking forward to see how they compare optically!
Great vid! Much love from Portugal
How is its af and image quality compared mini primes like fe24mm 2.8 and 40/50mm f2.5?
I wonder how this would compare to the compact G primes that came out a couple years ago (24mm, 40mm, 50mm)?
What software are you using to conference with him at such high quality?
I thought if there are fewer focal holes in a zoom lens, then you can make the lens faster, at least up to f2!?
And way bigger at the same time yes... which sony is not about...
love the guest feature on the tv you did here. nice touch to what you already do
What do you video guys do with the de-clicked aperture? Don't think I can recall a shot where the depth of field was modified during the take. Is it to get between f/stops?
If you doing an interview and the sun comes out during the chat you can gently close the iris and keep the exposure good (ish). Old schoolers on a steadicam might 'pull' the iris as the shot moves through different light levels.
Been asking myself the exact same thing.
I still prefer Tamron 20-40mm F2.8. It's not the same I now but a 24-50 gets in the way of the 24-70. If it was F2 or less ok, but same F for lens zoom, just to do it cheaper? We buy focal lenght zoom because we need it, not because of the price. I mean the price is important, of course, but I'm professional so if I need the 70-200 focal lenght I will not buy a 70-120 because it's cheaper. I will try another F less expensive or another brand, not another focal lenght.
At least for me it doesn't make sense, sorry.
Finally. We missed you Gerald.
Maybe can do a comparison between this lens and the Sony 16-55mm f2.8 G SEL1655G lens?
Could you explain how it goes wide by extending? Typically moving lenses further spreads the light out more (inverse square), aka more zoomed in. I'm kind of mystified as to how this lens does the opposite.
There are lenses like 28-70 kit lens, which is smallest at 50mm, as well as the bridge camera sony f828, which is also smallest at 50mm (and grows taller at either end, 200mm or 28mm)
If you look at primes you get a similar conclusion. 50mm generally the most compact.
@@Shiinamusiclyricssubs Yeah I've seen those lenses that grow then shrink as you zoom, especially on point and shoots with built in lenses. Super curious about the physics that make lenses work.
now we need a 24-50 f2 at the size of the 24-70 f2.8 G2 !
Wish I could subscribe twice to your channel. The quality is godly. Bless you!
If it was an f/2, I might be interested. Even a 35-50mm f/2 would make more sense for me. Both for personal shooting as well as wedding work, a lens like that would take care of at least 50% of what I do. But the f/2.8 is just a little too "meh" for some things. :/
What is the difference in quality with this lens and the Sony 16 to 55 f2.8 g
Get me out of this box LOL
This is a dream lens for me, for photography at weddings I’ll be sell my sigma 24-70 pick this up and have my Sony 85mm on my second camera. I’ve never liked the focal range from 50-70mm is a pretty dead space.
Hi Gerald, can you do a review of the viltrox dc 550 pro 5.5" camera monitor
20-50 or 20-45 would be my sweet spot
Love the variety of content swapping in guests and such!
How much will this lens crop when you turn breath compensation on? My experience is that this can be quite different how much the camera will crop on other lenses from sony.
It is so good to see you again after such a long time (1 month). 🖤
Agree with Patrick, the LUMIX 20-60mm would be perfect in f/2.8. Or even better for me, an as compact as possible 20-60mm manual focus f/2.0 with in-body corrections for distortion.
So did you record the test images first or the next day?
Your watch time is earlier than the build and ergonomics section. Which is earlier in the video.
You don’t have to answer, I’m just complimenting your video quality.
Love the lighting on the lens at the end. 🔥
“Get me out of this box” 😂
I have just ordered this lens and it will be perfect with my Tamron 50 -400mm
Is this lens good for traveling? Im looking for one lens to take with me on vacations
The original Canon 24-70L has the same "reverse" zoom. The difference is the lens hood in the canon is huge and mounts on the body of the lens and not the front filter, and the zoom barrel moves inside the hood and the hood doesn't not move.
Friggin love the intro review 8-). You are the king !!!!!
As someone bought the SEL1635Z in early Sony E-Mount days, this backwards Zoom doesn't feel too strange.
I like the Sony 20-70 f4, it is the same price, same weight, but much wider range. The F4 is not a bad compromise since any new camera can handle high ISO now.
Cool the summary at the start perfect
When did you switch to the mkh50?
Summary at the start is crazy 😂
Can someone explain why8 anyone uses superset and doesn’t just crop in post….other than I want to see exact framing when I shoot? Do you get a full raw file in super 35?
So this or the 20-70F4?
Hey Boss @Gerald Undone! Sony BRAVIA XR A80L 77" 4K HDR Smart OLED TV, Best TV for the Studio? Why? Any other alternative?
Incredible small but the reversed extension would also trow me off so much xD
I would love a side by side comparison between the 24-50 F2.8 G, 20-70 F4 G, 24-105 F4 OSS G and 28-60 F4-5,6 Lenses
Do you have any idea whether if you review the canon 24-110 f2.8?
He usually doesn’t review Canon lenses afaik
BUT WHERES HIS ELBOW.
Sony a7CR kit lens?
did everyone forgot about Sony F4 24-105 G OSS got it years ago with my A7C for $850.
the only thing I dont like its chonky and heavy it looks stupid on my A7C, and F4 for portrait at 50mm or less isnt that beautiful
but the range and the images quality is amazing the focus is good for my use landscape, portrait, and OSS for some videos is handy
optically speaking how would you compare it with a sigma 24-70mm 2.8mm?
This seems like such a silly focal length. The 24-70mm is infinitely more useful!
More useful it's subjective, for me the point is that it gets in the way of the 24-70, because it doesn't offer anything different besides beeing lighter and cheaper. Not better zoom range and not better F stop. So what's the point?
It's cheaper!
@@gregorybeale - Yes, true, but a photographer choose the lens by is function. I find the 24-70 from Sony expensive too, so I bought the Samyang 24-70 insted it's even more cheaper than this new one... I never buy an unwanted focal lenght just because of price. There are other brands now to offer the same or better options.
I'm 0:55 seconds in and I'm already done with this review. Fantastic, thank you.
the same amount of bokeh basically as the sigma 18-35 1.8 right? and wider than sigma at 18.
Also, Gerald. it would be really great to see if you´d evolve and start reviewing Cine Lenses in a similar way. BC since i started following you, i grew up filmmaking wise and pretty much only use cine lenses now ( mostly rental ) . Maybe you should connect with cooke and all the other manufacturers. I´m pretty certain they´ll bite! You have an amazing channel.
I don’t think they will. Look at his comparison between Sony gm and arri prime glass. These lenses are extremely highly priced for what they are. I have compared some of them myself and what a 1000 lens can do against a 40000 lens is absolutely insane. The thing is rentals rent them out and producers keep paying for them. most dps know budget is beter spend elsewhere. It’s just very tempting to go for that one special and expensive cine lens because there’s not a lot of choice in giving the image character in the camera department. You choose a camera you choose a lens and maybe add a filter. (Btw look up how expensive filters can get that’s even more mind blowing). Anyways I personally would love for him to compare more cine lenses but doubt the higher end brands wil bite. Budget options will though!
@@keeswillems4637 that’s a good point for sure. I get what you’re saying. But I personally had shot pretty much everything on a sigma 24-70 before i started renting out cine primes. I have to say, for me it was such a big difference. especially the fact that they had no focus breathing at all and no chromatic aberration etc. was mind blowing. Also a Cooke SP3 for example is super cheap to rent out and optically almost flawless. Maybe rental houses could work with Gerald rather then the manufacturer. 🙂 I think once you had a good cine lens you can’t go back anymore. But of course there are some absolutely stunning photography lenses. Especially nowadays with focus breathing compensation etc. you are absolutely right. The budget could be spend on location and props.
Yeah I can understand Sony doing this lens now that that they have updated the a7C bodies. I use the earlier 24-70mm GM bought 2nd hand on my a7RV which is great.
Great size for gimbal
I think it a great lens for people stepping up from a kit lens but not quite ready for a more expensive lens. I would rather use a prime 50mm 1.4 and if I need anything else use 16-35gm. But I don’t see myself buying this anytime soon.
I shoot a lot with 50mm so for me it’s natural and preferable than for start I have 50mm and when I need it I can go wider. So I’m happy with it.
I would like to see a 28-50 f/1.4. Is that even doable?
Guess it wouldn’t be compact anymore. But I’m thinking an f/2 would be cool. Bit of a compromise, but fine IMO, whereas the f/2.8 puts me off. I’d rather use a 35mm f/1.8 in that case, lose the wide end (oh well) and crop in for more reach if I have to.
First time I saw the announcement, I already asked “Why?”.
I get it now after watching a bit start of the video. Somehow this is the Sigma Art 18-35mm f1.8 on Full Frame.
On Sony, focal length is wider. Depth of field is almost the same, and Sigma has a faster f/stop but compared that to FF it’s almost the same how it captures light. 🤔 And it’s more affordable than the GM’s.
sony makes a 20-70mm f4, which might be interesting, although only in daylight and obvs you miss the light from 2.8
In theory, a nice lens. 3 nice focal lengths, shorter than standard zooms, lightweight, good IQ.
However, after having 5 different copies of a 24-105 "G" lens which were all very frustrating (bad focus and zoom rings, worst CA I have ever seen), I have come to the conclusion that "G" isn't necessarily a sign of quality and left for a Tamron 28-75 G2 for half the price of both the 24-50 or 24-105. No wishes left.
What I really like about this Sony, however, is that it starts at 50mm and you zoom out from there.
I much prefer 20-70 focal length. One extra stop of light cannot compensate for the wider zoom range.
When I take photos I often start framing in my mind in the 35-50 range and think about going wider if I absolutely cannot make 35 work. So in some ways my mind has always worked in reverse of how most lenses are designed.. this lens might be interesting to try out 🤣
It's basically a FF Sigma 18-35/1.8, yes?
it seems like a nice little travel lens for sure.
If you mostly shoot at 50mm, then it's great to have the lens being retracted at 50mm.
If you mostly shoot at 24mm, then it's bad news.
Aw when he said he was bringing someone on for an interview I was so strongly hoping that it would be Kasey from Camera Conspiracies
The mismatch when the barrel extends to shoot wide is so real. Using my boss's Canon 24-70 throws me off constantly because it extends at 24 and retracts at 70. So bizarre feeling.
Would be a very nice kit lens. I will stick with my Tamron 28-75 G2 though.
Still waiting for my dream of a 24-50mm f2.0 to come true... Or a 20-50mm f2.8
another Sony product....would love to see your thoughts on other brands
what about the sharpness comparison？
Just saying, we do need lens reviews :) Two of my lenses bought were researched from these reviews.
I amazes me that people who should know better still say that using crop mode on a full-frame camera give them more "reach" when it's just a crop/field-of-view change ... not an increase in reach.
Super cool option for hobbyists tbh
It's good to be back
Omg, you could put the end card exactly over the TV where we saw them being interviewed from, how's that for continuity eh?
It’s basically supposed to be the zoom variant of the other compact prime G lenses. Same target audience.
No Can Do, We sticking to that 24-70 GM 1
The range is a bit too little for me to justify a zoom lens. I might as well crop my 24mm to get a 48mm f2.8
This is the lens I’ve been waiting for. I’m a guy who shoots weddings on a gimbal. Too bad I film on a Canon
Don't remember ever once thinking "I wish my 24-70 or 24-105 only zoomed out to 50mm".
Probably not, and I totally get the point, but I assume this lens is more about being compact...?
I'd love to see a review about the new laowa 10 mm
Nice video, thanks! But I am still waiting for Sony lens like Canon 28-70/2, of course 24-70 even better and 20-70/2 real miracle!!!Hmm, I like dreaming..good light!