@@attilahardy Not necessarily, a couple of newer Sigma lenses do work with 120 FPS, but only in AF-S or MF modes. So Sony might slowly remove these barriers.
While for photography I just don’t enjoy shooting zoom lenses and I only do it when I absolutely have to, this thing would be AMAZING for video work. Good on Sony. If they’d managed to make it an all internal zoom, that would obviously be even better for gimbal use... maybe on the Mark II. :)
@ update: according to some sources i’ve found, including a couple youtube examples, you have can indeed use a 86-82 step down ring and use 82mm filters with no vignetting even on the widest 28 (one example had use a super thick variable nd filter - no issues!)
It’s a great lens for sure, I just miss the wide and don’t need quite the length most of the time, but wildly useful nonetheless. I filmed most of my last elopement video with it.
I got one from NiSi at 86mm, but I’ve heard that you can actually use a step down ring and an 82mm without issue. Haven’t tried it yet, but could be worth a shot if you already have an 82mm without issue
Oddly enough I think the 50/1.2 might be the only lens in that range that really compliments this one as the 1 1/3 extra light makes a big difference, but if you don’t use it at f/1.2 then definitely.
@@benjhaisch Agree. It is very difficult to replace a 50 1.2, in particular if you work both in photo and video at 1.2/1.4. In photo is a perfect portrait and "people" lens, the one that sells the shooting itself, and in video is amazing almost in every situation in that range of aperture, mostly for Broll stuff. The "carry" factor is another story and type of variable.
@@benjhaisch Yeah that makes sense! For most of the stuff I’m shooting and travelling with I just end up leaving it behind because it’s not as versatile to my 24-70 or my 35-150mm. I love the look it creates but it’s also hard to justify keeping it when I don’t use it anywhere near enough
I think I am gonna just stick to my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8... since that lens is 35mm f2 / 55mm f2.2 / 75mm f2.5 so the amount of light you really lose is 1/3 or 2/3 for similar focal range, but then you have the ability to zoom out to 150mm also it has a 82mm filter thread not 86mm.
Would really love to know if Sony 28-70 f2 works with Nikon Z via an adaptor like megadap for instance. Would you be able to test this and advise if you have one of these adaptors?
Great Video! Thanks! I have one question which would appreicate your responce. What is the brand of hte step down ring you used in the video for 86mm down to 82mm filter? Thanks
i have the 24-70 gm ii instead of selling it for this i bought the 50mm 1.2 and a 24mm 1.4 lol 85mm coming next when i get more photography gigs the 24-70 for events now
@@HelloAndyTung Yeah…but your RF has no onion rings built in, noticeably creamier bokeh, flare is less pronounced, ghosting less opaque and starburst happens sooner at f8 vs f22 for Sony. Vignetting and distortion can easily be fix via software, but no software fix for onion rings, opaque ghosting and pronounce(unartistic) flare. You have to be really pixel peeping to see corner to corner sharpness advantage. You go for canon for that “X factor 3d pop” in image quality. Sony is very clinical, in terms of IQ(less pop) IQ vs RF 28-70.
Yep, thought that too. Surely internal zoom bragging rights would've been worth the tiny size increase. Sony are just so obsessed with being the smallest... 🤷♀️
Want to compliment you on demonstrating the lens rather than sitting in your studio. I am turning off shills for most anything if all they do is talk in the studio. It's boring and really doesn't say much. I want to see how it works and where it is best positioned for someone. It's expensive so it's not a lens I want to take to the beach and shoot pictures of my kids in the sand. BTW, where are you shooting at? Canada? I see lots of trees and snow. I always like to know where people are shooting their stills and videos.
Haha yeah, I’ll take the slight size savings, but I get it. Thankfully this isn’t going to be a lens I shoot at f/8 very often; mostly will be glued to f/2 ;)
Just what we need….another 20 something to 70mm…..that’s about 4 in this similar range…..c’mon Sony update the 24-105 or the 100-400….these new lenses are so so same same….
I'm with you but this lens was the very wise business choice for Sony. Loads of people have been asking for it and it takes away Canons single biggest trump card against Sony for the wedding etc. industry. Meanwhile, what I really want is a compact and bright 35-90 mm! 🎉
Thank you very nice content, how can I put the pop up message on the comment with the guidelines to write comment for people, please. I have got someone with hateful speech on some of my videos. Thank you, nice overview.
Well... it's not 24-70mm F2.0. Only thing Sony achieved here was sadly playing a catch up game to Canon. I was all excited from a rumor of 24-70mm f2.0. How disappointing this lens was....
Quick answer: Primer killer? Nope. Wallet killer? Yes. Stay strong brothers, there is no reason for you to waste all that money just to jump on a sony hype train, specially if you are already rocking a 24-70mm GM II or Sigma II. Can't wait for sigma to launch their immaculate competition for this lens for half the price. 🙏
I think it specifically just bridges the gap between primes at 1.4 and zooms at 2.8. For me it’s more about creative control of focus than even low light, but that’s still obviously very useful.
@benjhaisch I've never moved in on a wider lens and had the subject look more attractive and the frame look more like a film or a portrait than just using a longer lens. I do get more in the frame and a better and more engaging reference to the subjects' body movements though.
Only a matter of time sigma will make this for $1599
They have their 28-45/1.8 which is obviously similar. Slightly faster but less on the tele end.
Hopefully for L mount, and then Leica can rebrand it as a 28-70mm f2 Vario-Summicron ASPH.
@@ooharloo unfortunately it won't take advantage of the higher fps if you need that
@@attilahardy Not necessarily, a couple of newer Sigma lenses do work with 120 FPS, but only in AF-S or MF modes. So Sony might slowly remove these barriers.
That's what has me more excited about Sony announcing this finally 😂
I'm sure it will be a nice lens. But, I'll stick with my 24-70 GM II.
Nice to see other manufacturers finally challenging Canon. Now only if we can get a 10-20 GM or 100-300 2.8.
I want the flexibility of 100-300 2.8 but every time I picked up a small and featherily light Sony 300 2.8, I think otherwise.
Great review Benj!
While for photography I just don’t enjoy shooting zoom lenses and I only do it when I absolutely have to, this thing would be AMAZING for video work. Good on Sony. If they’d managed to make it an all internal zoom, that would obviously be even better for gimbal use... maybe on the Mark II. :)
Can you use 82mm filters with a 86mm step down ring with no vignetting?
I’ve heard this but haven’t tried it myself yet.
@ update: according to some sources i’ve found, including a couple youtube examples, you have can indeed use a 86-82 step down ring and use 82mm filters with no vignetting even on the widest 28 (one example had use a super thick variable nd filter - no issues!)
Finally THE LENS! So exited! I really liked your review, btw!
Love the innovation. I think the tamron/samyang 35-150 f2, f2.8 is more flexible, but this is still a great option
if the 35-150 didn't have a nasty flaring issue it'd be the winner, tbh it still is, i love both
It’s a great lens for sure, I just miss the wide and don’t need quite the length most of the time, but wildly useful nonetheless. I filmed most of my last elopement video with it.
samyang 35-150 had some really bad copies on the market, i tried one in shop before buying and it was not sharp at all
@@JosselinCORNOU If it were a fixed 2.0 or 2.8 would really be nice. I hate variable apertures but, we’re all different
I see you putting an ND filter on were you able to use the ND and the lens hood?
Also did you need a step up ring all of my ND filters are 82
Happy to know I contributed to you buying this lens! Haha thanks for my 28 f2 video coming soon. ❤
Nice!
Can I ask what ND filter you were using on it? I want to buy the lens but I’ve seen an issue finding NDs or filters to thread 86mm
I got one from NiSi at 86mm, but I’ve heard that you can actually use a step down ring and an 82mm without issue. Haven’t tried it yet, but could be worth a shot if you already have an 82mm without issue
Thanks for honest review. Lens looks (too) good !
Now am I right in assuming I'll be safe to sell my 50mm 1.2 for this? The versatility seems like a bigger plus than the 1.2 I rarely use anyway
Oddly enough I think the 50/1.2 might be the only lens in that range that really compliments this one as the 1 1/3 extra light makes a big difference, but if you don’t use it at f/1.2 then definitely.
@@benjhaisch Agree. It is very difficult to replace a 50 1.2, in particular if you work both in photo and video at 1.2/1.4. In photo is a perfect portrait and "people" lens, the one that sells the shooting itself, and in video is amazing almost in every situation in that range of aperture, mostly for Broll stuff. The "carry" factor is another story and type of variable.
@@benjhaisch Yeah that makes sense! For most of the stuff I’m shooting and travelling with I just end up leaving it behind because it’s not as versatile to my 24-70 or my 35-150mm. I love the look it creates but it’s also hard to justify keeping it when I don’t use it anywhere near enough
@@JusttJC After 3+ years with 28-70/2 I can tell you that it is NOT a replacement for 50/1.2.
I think I am gonna just stick to my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8... since that lens is 35mm f2 / 55mm f2.2 / 75mm f2.5 so the amount of light you really lose is 1/3 or 2/3 for similar focal range, but then you have the ability to zoom out to 150mm also it has a 82mm filter thread not 86mm.
Would really love to know if Sony 28-70 f2 works with Nikon Z via an adaptor like megadap for instance. Would you be able to test this and advise if you have one of these adaptors?
Ah I don’t have it sorry.
What Kind of ND-Filter do you use in your Video with the 28-70? Thanks! Very good Review!
Nisi True Color 86mm VND amzn.to/3OtGrPp (affiliate link)
Hey Benj, random question but did you fall out of love with the Canon 50 1.2 lens in lieu of its smaller brother the 1.4?
Yeah, I think I made a video about it awhile back, but I stuck with the 50/1.4 for its size, weight, price. I’m assuming you mean the Sony :)
@@benjhaisch Oh yes, that's the one! Thanks Benj :)
Great video as always, Benj. Nice to see Sony catching up to Canon world on this!
Great Video! Thanks! I have one question which would appreicate your responce. What is the brand of hte step down ring you used in the video for 86mm down to 82mm filter? Thanks
hey! I actually got an 86mm filter for this video, but I think Gerald and others recommended this one. a.co/d/hkNsK4G
I like it, but I would still find myself wanting a 20,85 and 70-200 to go with it….
Time to start saving up 🎉
I’m actually slightly considering switching from canon r6II to Sony a7IV for this lens. :)
You said this right after I wrote this comment :)
First! What up man hope you have fun in NYC I was supposed to be there but I am not sure anymore.
i have the 24-70 gm ii instead of selling it for this i bought the 50mm 1.2 and a 24mm 1.4 lol 85mm coming next when i get more photography gigs the 24-70 for events now
Anybody try this on a Nikon mirrorless body w an adapter?
ohhh that'd be interesting. You'd end up with some correcting in post, but that's nice.
@@benjhaisch What do you mean correcting in post? Wouldn't the adapter correct any perspctive / bowing?
@lauracohen8448 I’m not sure how it would. The ZF doesn’t have profiles for it
Damn! I m selling all my gear!
I love my RF 28-70 F2. The size and weight, i have never gotten used to it.... me arms are weak. :(
@@HelloAndyTung Yeah…but your RF has no onion rings built in, noticeably creamier bokeh, flare is less pronounced, ghosting less opaque and starburst happens sooner at f8 vs f22 for Sony. Vignetting and distortion can easily be fix via software, but no software fix for onion rings, opaque ghosting and pronounce(unartistic) flare. You have to be really pixel peeping to see corner to corner sharpness advantage. You go for canon for that “X factor 3d pop” in image quality. Sony is very clinical, in terms of IQ(less pop) IQ vs RF 28-70.
@@vivalasvegas702 agreed with everything. But mi arms are still mom's spaghetti 😅
Kind of surprised they didn't just make it fully internal...
Yeah, I figure they just decided to make the silhouette as small as possible, but I’m no engineer
Yep, thought that too. Surely internal zoom bragging rights would've been worth the tiny size increase. Sony are just so obsessed with being the smallest... 🤷♀️
wow im sad i just bought the 24-70 f2.8
Want to compliment you on demonstrating the lens rather than sitting in your studio. I am turning off shills for most anything if all they do is talk in the studio. It's boring and really doesn't say much. I want to see how it works and where it is best positioned for someone. It's expensive so it's not a lens I want to take to the beach and shoot pictures of my kids in the sand.
BTW, where are you shooting at? Canada? I see lots of trees and snow. I always like to know where people are shooting their stills and videos.
Shame it’s not an internal zoom. Never been a fan of external zooms. Dirt ingress targets my OCD.
Haha yeah, I’ll take the slight size savings, but I get it. Thankfully this isn’t going to be a lens I shoot at f/8 very often; mostly will be glued to f/2 ;)
Great review, Benj! Am I switching from Canon (and my 28-70 f2, 50 and 85 1.2's) or Leica to Sony? Uh...not a chance.
Haha I appreciate it regardless :)
one lens to rule them ALL!
OH man. Sony is calling my name again...
I may or may not have watched watched your canon version in prep for this video haha
@@benjhaisch awesome. A lighter version sounds amazing. Also, the Canon lens lineup isn't quite shaping up as I'd hoped.
Just what we need….another 20 something to 70mm…..that’s about 4 in this similar range…..c’mon Sony update the 24-105 or the 100-400….these new lenses are so so same same….
I'm with you but this lens was the very wise business choice for Sony. Loads of people have been asking for it and it takes away Canons single biggest trump card against Sony for the wedding etc. industry.
Meanwhile, what I really want is a compact and bright 35-90 mm! 🎉
Thank you very nice content, how can I put the pop up message on the comment with the guidelines to write comment for people, please. I have got someone with hateful speech on some of my videos. Thank you, nice overview.
I set this up a long time ago and should probably revisit it, but I believe this is how? support.google.com/youtube/answer/11895180?hl=en
Otherwise I’ve been using the “hide user from channel” if their stuff is personal insults with no value to the channel
@@benjhaisch lovely, buddy, you're a rock star! tis Is a Massive help and a game changer!
Well... it's not 24-70mm F2.0. Only thing Sony achieved here was sadly playing a catch up game to Canon. I was all excited from a rumor of 24-70mm f2.0. How disappointing this lens was....
Quick answer: Primer killer? Nope. Wallet killer? Yes.
Stay strong brothers, there is no reason for you to waste all that money just to jump on a sony hype train, specially if you are already rocking a 24-70mm GM II or Sigma II.
Can't wait for sigma to launch their immaculate competition for this lens for half the price. 🙏
The Sigma 28-45/1.8 is amazing and came out about 6 months ago for literally 1/2 of the price :)
What about for those who don’t currently own a medium range zoom?
It looks like the 24-105.
Sony! take my money!
Not sure about it being a prime lens killer, but I will say 100% it will be a finance killer, at least for me 😂
No zoom lens can replace my prime Lenses.
@cameraprepper7938 I agree. But this is perfect for a trip away. This and my 50 1.2 might be all I need.
This lens is again ideal for UA-camrs..Ideal lens for them to pickup.For run and gun and for extra pop.
F2 vs f2.8 not a big thing specially with Sony it’s already have a bad low light performance cameras
I think it specifically just bridges the gap between primes at 1.4 and zooms at 2.8. For me it’s more about creative control of focus than even low light, but that’s still obviously very useful.
Not my prime killer but more of my wallet killer 😅
Haha yeah, I’m putting some stuff up for sale to get one too ;)
@@benjhaischliterally just sold my second truck to buy this lens lmao.
No.
haha it looks like it will be for me next wedding season
Most useless focal length. You either shoot wide angle, or 70-200
98% of my LR catalog would disagree
@benjhaisch I've never moved in on a wider lens and had the subject look more attractive and the frame look more like a film or a portrait than just using a longer lens. I do get more in the frame and a better and more engaging reference to the subjects' body movements though.