Just discovered you. This was a thorough review and very clearly articulated, so thanks! I especially appreciate you snagging the original 24-70 for comparison. I just received the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 yesterday. It is a more cost-effective version of the 24-70, and I already have the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 art lens, so I have 24mm covered. Still, I have the extra $400 to spend but I wanted to see if it was worth it to send this one back and upgrade. After shooting with my new lens and comparing the results to your review here, I am happy with my purchase. Image quality is on par with the 24-70 II. In fact, distortion is even less at the wide end, but I suppose that is to be expected since the wide end is only 28mm. I am not a professional sports photographer, I don't need super fast AF, but this lens's AF is still very fast, though I did not test it in burst mode. I am a Lumix shooter and you seem to be a Sony aficionado, but I will check out your channel and see if it is enough of a match to subscribe. You are definitely a top-notch UA-camr! You explain so well and your lens tests are really well done.
An amazing job you did there. I still can't decide between Sigma 24-70 II and Tamron 28-75 G2. I've watched quite a few tests and Tamron seems to be better in all aspects. I mostly shoot indoors with no flash. I need sharpness and quick AF. What do you recommend?
Both lenses focus very quickly now, and are both quite sharp. I suspect you would be happy with either. I'll break it down this way: if you have 24mm covered some other way, the Tamron is a pretty safe choice because it is an excellent lens, cheaper, and doesn't really have any significant flaws. The Sigma is probably your better choice if you need to cover 24mm, as that extra width can really make a difference.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for a speedy reply. To be honest, I have nothing to cover 24mm, hence I'm tempeted to buy the Sigma, but it seems to be too big/heavy for me, size-wise. If I went for the Tamron, what prime lens 24mm f1.8 would you recommend, an inexpensive/budget one? The same requirements, that is, sharp and quick AF in low light. To be frank, I need to buy a camera too. Now, I'm using D5300 + Sigma 17-50 f2.8, but the Sigma is dying because of some inner strap wearing out. So I need to buy a new lens, and a camera too, as it looks like I need to switch to a mirrorless system. I love the Nikon, and wanted to buy Z5 or Z6II, but I've watched tens of tests and older Sony A7 III seems to be the best choice as for AF in low light/indoors.
As usual, thorough and objective. Thank you for your consistent high quality reviews. Question is whether we should expect same observations for the L mount version?
Incredible review as always. I am considering upgrading (for the aperture ring experience mostly) but one thing I am worried about is the parfocal nature of this new mark II lens. Mark I is quite close to parfocal and I highly appreciate this when shooting video... Two reviews online of the Mark II mention it's not parfocal but they don't to side by side tests. Did you happen to test for this? Would be sad to have this updated mark II be much less parfocal...
Might be worth noting if your using this lens on L-Mount, with the the Sigma FP at least, there appears to be in-camera correction for distortion even in RAW shooting. Vignette is unaffected in RAW shooting however.
@@DustinAbbottTWI This is whilst shooting cinemadng. As this isRaw sensor dump I'm guessing it is the same for stills. The profile for vignette is greyed out still but the distortion option remains selectable.
I’ve switched from Sigma 24-70 I to Sony 20-70 and couldn’t be happier because of the weight and close focus distance at the long end. With the second base ISO of 12800 no problem using f4 aperture. Also it is worth mentioning that stabilization works significantly better with Sony lens over the Sigma. With all that said it’s intriguing how does the close focus distance of the new sigma compares to 20-70?
That's interesting. The Sony 20-70mm is a very interesting alternative to the F2.8 lenses if your photography style is less dependent on shallow depth of field.
I had 20-70 and was unimpressed with images, so I returned it. As the case with other slow normal range zooms the images look flat. I don't particularly like normal zooms, but if I use one, f/2.8 is a must.
I love your teaching style. Thanks for all the good info. Just a quick heads up though..... I think you could have given yourself a tighter shot on the video. We don't need to see all the artwork on the wall behind you. Cheers.....
Thanks Dustin. I have had a version one since they first came out and never had any dust issues ever, and yes I shoot in dusty deserts and on beaches. Sigma did upgrade the seals in later version one production runs, so the dust issue was fixed awhile ago. I love my version one, mainly used on my former 61mp Sony A7RIV. I also have the faster fps A1 and A9III. but never needed that lens for their higher burst rates ,as I have other Sony lenses covering that focal range if and when I need to shoot at 30fps or even 120fps. i also have the 61mp A7RV now. As you said, it probably doesn't make sense to trade in the version one Sigma for the version two, even though I would love the newer features and the less weight. I will keep and keep using my version one Sigma. If I make a move it would likely be to the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM II in the future. Cheers and best to you.
Its a shame that when I sent mine back under warranty because it was full of dust, they didn't upgrade it then. Its got dust in it again, and I'm VERY careful about dust, so it must be just entering from around the focus or zoom rings. I can't used it stopped down because of this, so I'm seriously disappointed with it, and don't use it much.
I bought this Sigma lens as I thought that Sony's equivalent GM lens was way too expensive, and I have not regretted it at all as my Sigma lens has now really opened my eyes 👀to Sigma's fantastic Art series lenses 👍
The sharpness comparison between this new Sigma and the old one at the QEII £5 note (at 25:51) shows a lot of astigmatism for the old lens, which validates Sigma's provided MTF chart, which correspondingly shows, at about 18mm image height, a convergence of the sagittal and meridional MTF lines in the new lens, but is the most significant point of divergence between the two lines on the old lens. So I would have expected the biggest difference in astigmatism at that point; an expectation borne out in your testing. Pity you got a decentered copy for testing, making any absolute comparative judgments difficult.
Dustin, I like your very detailed optical reviews of lenses for the Sony E mount. As a Sony full frame and APS-C shooter for some focal lenses I will only buy the full frame version of the equivalent focal lenght. Could You please also test and give your opinion of the performance of these lenses on, for example an ILCE-6700 body?
Hi there - it is very difficult for me to add more to my schedule. I have two full time jobs and cover four major brands of cameras now. I can't make any promises.
Hi My wife is starting with photography, we bought previous sigma version few days back , show we return and get mark 2 ? They will charge the restocking fee though
what about the dust resistance ???? At Sigma 24 70 no1 was very easy to dust dots to came inside the glass, like ridiculous easy. Like , one walk at the park was enough..
Thank you, the best review of this lens that I've seen so far. I really appreciate you including the comparisons with other lenses. Too bad your copy is not centered well though, hopefully that is rare and not typical. - I'd likely return it if I got one like that.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, hopefully it's rare something like that makes it past quality control. I recently had to return/exchange a new Tamron 20-40 that was way off centered. The replacement seems decent so far.
I’m very tempted by this lens. I have a GM version 1 and I might have a bad copy of it at that. Terrible flaring, extreme distortion and pretty middling image quality on mine.
Hello Dastin and greetings from Poland. This new Sigma looks awful on the edge for 2.8. Tamron G2 is much better for this aperture, although it was tested for a focal length of 28. I wonder if Sigma would be comparable in quality to Tamron for this focal length?
I bought sigma art 24-70 versione 1 and my most important complain Is the weight and the missing focus in fast action (likes my sons) so i was thinking tò go with the GM II
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you very much i found 24-70 GM II for 1850 euro that Is not bad at all... Your reviewes are alway very informative... Thank you for your work
That is a question only you can answer. I guess it really comes down to whether or not you prefer the F2.8 aperture and additional features of the Sigma.
Would love to buy this lens, but Sony cripples my A1 and only allows native glass to push above 15-FPS AF-C. You don’t have this issue with Nikon. For Sony to allow the 85GM to push beyond 15-FPS, while capping the linear motors of the new Sigma Primes and Zooms at 15-FPS is a direct slap to the intelligence of its Pros. Jailbreak the firmware
Its honestly not the only thing that is crippled, AF accuracy in AF-C especially fast stuff my experience is that thirdpart of latest gen isn’t up to snap
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah but they put another one in, not allowing replica ranges and Canon so far only allowed APS-C… hopefully they all change their ways because this behaviour is mildly annoying.
Loved the first lens - for a while. Sublime contrast and sharpness. However it had so much dust in the front element after just 18-20 shoots as to be unusable. I had issues with Sigma’s Australian distribution who refused to accept it was a manufacturer issue. I’m inclined to avoid any product from that company ever again.
I almost bought the Sigma 85/1.4, but also stopped in the end because of the widely reported dust build up issue. What kind of conditions are you using your camera gears? For me, I've noticed my camera gear picking up a fair amount of dust after a day of indoor/outdoor photo walks in urban cities too. If I had any Sigma lenses, I'd be so paranoid about taking my camera out of the bag! lol
I can not confirm it personally, but apparently the dust issue was fixed on a later silent revision of the old 24-70. I imagine Sigma was also cognisant of the issue when redesigning this. Did you provide them with links to the other reports of dust build-up to prove that it was a wide-spread, and therefore likely manufacturer issue?
I have never heard of dust buildup in a lens ruining images so I'd be curious what exactly was the impact the dust had on your images? In the case of the 24-70mm V1 - if the dust bothers the more pedantic photographer it takes no more than 5 minutes to take a plastic guitar pick to lever off the (glue-pressed on) top ring at which point a few small japanese philips head screws are exposed. pop those out, the front element can simply be taken out, the dust blown out and the element popped back in. Screws go back in and the ring can simply be pressed on again - extremely easy to service if necessary
Sorry Dustin, but as an enthusiast I would expect a comparision to the similar price bracket lens from Sony, which is 24-105 F4. It's obvious that Sony 24-70mm GM2 will be better, but is it worth trading 24-105 F4 for this Sigma?
Those are two very different lenses. It's been six years since I've done a review of the 24-105, and at a lower resolution standard, so I don't really have an informed opinion on how the two compare.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hello Dustin, thank you for your reply! I understand your stance on 24-105 - it's hard to compare other lenses to it if the last time you had your hands on it was few years ago :) The reason I am curious about is because (surprise, surprise!) I own Sony's 24-105 F4. As an enthusiast, I have to look at my budget constrains and make sure I get most bang for my bucks (I porbably butchered English language there xD). So, the way I see it, these are actually 2 very similar lenses: they are both general/standard zoom lenses and they are around 1000 dollars. Sony 24-105 IMO punches way above its weight in terms of picture quality, but it lacks the F2.8. Sigma has it, but it lacks the 105mm... I just wanted to highlight for you an enthusiast perspective on the evaluation of this new Sigma lens.
Sigma has failed to address its build quality issues for decades now. I hope they finally fixed them, but I wouldn't trust them enough as to take a risk on this lens.
@acouragefann In this video alone, 2 issues alone are presented. The first being dust getting into the lens due to inefficient weather sealing, the other being a high decentering rate. Sigma also have issues with the rear mounts getting loose, which require people to loosen the screws, remove the screws, then there's another set of screws that need to be tied before you can re-assemble the lens. Sigma lenses are also notorious to have the poorest longevity of any major lens maker out there due to the iris blades collapsing within a few years of usage. These issues are reported everywhere on the internet once you start looking. There is also another commenter talking about his own issues with dust getting into the lens.
@sulev111 Sigma has a reputation to be the Fiat of lenses. Sony used to he not as good as Fuji/Canon/Nikon as they were still new to lens making but they are better.
First gen sigma 24-70 was a failure in the f2.8 camp. Tamron 24-70 g1 beat it by a long shot. Those terrible corners, brr. Good riddance that was And it's not just my copy. DXOmark says the same
For Sony, the Sigma version 1 was the 2nd best 24-70, a little behind the $1,300+ more Sony GM II. Widely agreed by most. Tamron was okay, not wide enough and not a great built quality
@@joshisthebestwooha20 and here I am commenting from Canonian perspective about our Tamrons and everything. sigmas offering was the worst 24-70 f2.8 one could possibly get on Canon EF, a real dud in the ART series
I'm not quite sure on the "facts" being presented here. As noted, Tamron only makes a 28-75mm F2.8 for mirrorless cameras, though yes, their G2 version is very competitive with this lens on a number of levels (though not as feature rich).
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN20 to get 20% off
Spectacular review expect nothing but the best from Dustin Abbott
Thanks for the support!
Just discovered you. This was a thorough review and very clearly articulated, so thanks! I especially appreciate you snagging the original 24-70 for comparison. I just received the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 yesterday. It is a more cost-effective version of the 24-70, and I already have the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 art lens, so I have 24mm covered. Still, I have the extra $400 to spend but I wanted to see if it was worth it to send this one back and upgrade. After shooting with my new lens and comparing the results to your review here, I am happy with my purchase. Image quality is on par with the 24-70 II. In fact, distortion is even less at the wide end, but I suppose that is to be expected since the wide end is only 28mm. I am not a professional sports photographer, I don't need super fast AF, but this lens's AF is still very fast, though I did not test it in burst mode. I am a Lumix shooter and you seem to be a Sony aficionado, but I will check out your channel and see if it is enough of a match to subscribe. You are definitely a top-notch UA-camr! You explain so well and your lens tests are really well done.
Glad to help out. Thanks for the sub!
Would you use for Architectual and Interior Design?
An amazing job you did there. I still can't decide between Sigma 24-70 II and Tamron 28-75 G2. I've watched quite a few tests and Tamron seems to be better in all aspects. I mostly shoot indoors with no flash. I need sharpness and quick AF. What do you recommend?
Both lenses focus very quickly now, and are both quite sharp. I suspect you would be happy with either. I'll break it down this way: if you have 24mm covered some other way, the Tamron is a pretty safe choice because it is an excellent lens, cheaper, and doesn't really have any significant flaws. The Sigma is probably your better choice if you need to cover 24mm, as that extra width can really make a difference.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for a speedy reply. To be honest, I have nothing to cover 24mm, hence I'm tempeted to buy the Sigma, but it seems to be too big/heavy for me, size-wise. If I went for the Tamron, what prime lens 24mm f1.8 would you recommend, an inexpensive/budget one? The same requirements, that is, sharp and quick AF in low light.
To be frank, I need to buy a camera too. Now, I'm using D5300 + Sigma 17-50 f2.8, but the Sigma is dying because of some inner strap wearing out.
So I need to buy a new lens, and a camera too, as it looks like I need to switch to a mirrorless system.
I love the Nikon, and wanted to buy Z5 or Z6II, but I've watched tens of tests and older Sony A7 III seems to be the best choice as for AF in low light/indoors.
Great video! Question, what's the name of the tripod you used for this video when showing the new lens on a camera?
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Love all your videos, so thorough. Thanks for providing your insights!
You are so welcome!
Hey ill be using this for portait style close up cooking videos. Would this be a good upgrade from my iphone 15? 😅
Great review, what would you pick between Sigma 24-70 Mark II or having two lens Sigma 16-28 F2.8 and Sony 85 f1.8 FE ?
Hmmm, tough question. I'd probably lean towards the zoom ,as you are leaving 35mm and 50mm uncovered in the second group.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah, you can reach 35mm with crop mode with 16-28
As usual, thorough and objective. Thank you for your consistent high quality reviews. Question is whether we should expect same observations for the L mount version?
I don't see why not. It is the same lens with minor modifications for L mount algorithms (and L mount users get a bit more customization options).
Incredible review as always. I am considering upgrading (for the aperture ring experience mostly) but one thing I am worried about is the parfocal nature of this new mark II lens.
Mark I is quite close to parfocal and I highly appreciate this when shooting video... Two reviews online of the Mark II mention it's not parfocal but they don't to side by side tests. Did you happen to test for this? Would be sad to have this updated mark II be much less parfocal...
I remember having to refocus as I moved doing my sharpness tests, which points towards not being parfocal.
Might be worth noting if your using this lens on L-Mount, with the the Sigma FP at least, there appears to be in-camera correction for distortion even in RAW shooting. Vignette is unaffected in RAW shooting however.
That's interesting.
@@DustinAbbottTWI This is whilst shooting cinemadng. As this isRaw sensor dump I'm guessing it is the same for stills. The profile for vignette is greyed out still but the distortion option remains selectable.
I’ve switched from Sigma 24-70 I to Sony 20-70 and couldn’t be happier because of the weight and close focus distance at the long end. With the second base ISO of 12800 no problem using f4 aperture. Also it is worth mentioning that stabilization works significantly better with Sony lens over the Sigma. With all that said it’s intriguing how does the close focus distance of the new sigma compares to 20-70?
That's interesting. The Sony 20-70mm is a very interesting alternative to the F2.8 lenses if your photography style is less dependent on shallow depth of field.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm mostly a video shooter and I found not much of a difference in terms of DOF.
I had 20-70 and was unimpressed with images, so I returned it. As the case with other slow normal range zooms the images look flat. I don't particularly like normal zooms, but if I use one, f/2.8 is a must.
I love your teaching style. Thanks for all the good info. Just a quick heads up though..... I think you could have given yourself a tighter shot on the video. We don't need to see all the artwork on the wall behind you. Cheers.....
Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks Dustin. I have had a version one since they first came out and never had any dust issues ever, and yes I shoot in dusty deserts and on beaches. Sigma did upgrade the seals in later version one production runs, so the dust issue was fixed awhile ago. I love my version one, mainly used on my former 61mp Sony A7RIV. I also have the faster fps A1 and A9III. but never needed that lens for their higher burst rates ,as I have other Sony lenses covering that focal range if and when I need to shoot at 30fps or even 120fps. i also have the 61mp A7RV now. As you said, it probably doesn't make sense to trade in the version one Sigma for the version two, even though I would love the newer features and the less weight. I will keep and keep using my version one Sigma. If I make a move it would likely be to the Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM II in the future. Cheers and best to you.
That sounds fair.
Its a shame that when I sent mine back under warranty because it was full of dust, they didn't upgrade it then. Its got dust in it again, and I'm VERY careful about dust, so it must be just entering from around the focus or zoom rings. I can't used it stopped down because of this, so I'm seriously disappointed with it, and don't use it much.
I bought this Sigma lens as I thought that Sony's equivalent GM lens was way too expensive, and I have not regretted it at all as my Sigma lens has now really opened my eyes 👀to Sigma's fantastic Art series lenses 👍
I'm glad you have enjoyed it.
The sharpness comparison between this new Sigma and the old one at the QEII £5 note (at 25:51) shows a lot of astigmatism for the old lens, which validates Sigma's provided MTF chart, which correspondingly shows, at about 18mm image height, a convergence of the sagittal and meridional MTF lines in the new lens, but is the most significant point of divergence between the two lines on the old lens. So I would have expected the biggest difference in astigmatism at that point; an expectation borne out in your testing.
Pity you got a decentered copy for testing, making any absolute comparative judgments difficult.
There is definitely some improvement to astigmatism.
Dustin, I like your very detailed optical reviews of lenses for the Sony E mount. As a Sony full frame and APS-C shooter for some focal lenses I will only buy the full frame version of the equivalent focal lenght. Could You please also test and give your opinion of the performance of these lenses on, for example an ILCE-6700 body?
Hi there - it is very difficult for me to add more to my schedule. I have two full time jobs and cover four major brands of cameras now. I can't make any promises.
Hi My wife is starting with photography, we bought previous sigma version few days back , show we return and get mark 2 ? They will charge the restocking fee though
If you paid somewhere close to full price for it, then I would say yes.
what about the dust resistance ????
At Sigma 24 70 no1 was very easy to dust dots to came inside the glass, like ridiculous easy. Like , one walk at the park was enough..
It is supposed to be improved, but that's a very hard thing to determine over a couple of weeks of review for someone like myself.
@@DustinAbbottTWI yeap ... so we wait !!
Thank you, the best review of this lens that I've seen so far. I really appreciate you including the comparisons with other lenses. Too bad your copy is not centered well though, hopefully that is rare and not typical. - I'd likely return it if I got one like that.
I would, too, though I've rarely seen centering issues with modern Sigma lenses, so this is an exception to the rule.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, hopefully it's rare something like that makes it past quality control. I recently had to return/exchange a new Tamron 20-40 that was way off centered. The replacement seems decent so far.
Thanks Dustin
My pleasure.
I’m very tempted by this lens. I have a GM version 1 and I might have a bad copy of it at that. Terrible flaring, extreme distortion and pretty middling image quality on mine.
That's not encouraging!
Hello Dastin and greetings from Poland. This new Sigma looks awful on the edge for 2.8. Tamron G2 is much better for this aperture, although it was tested for a focal length of 28. I wonder if Sigma would be comparable in quality to Tamron for this focal length?
I would still give the Tamron an edge at 28mm
I bought sigma art 24-70 versione 1 and my most important complain Is the weight and the missing focus in fast action (likes my sons) so i was thinking tò go with the GM II
The Sony (as a first party)is going to produce the most consistent autofocus, though this MK II lens is hugely improved.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you very much i found 24-70 GM II for 1850 euro that Is not bad at all... Your reviewes are alway very informative... Thank you for your work
Superb review. First time on this channel; won't be my last. Thanks.
Welcome aboard!
Hello, if you have a Lens Sony 24-105 F4 do you buy this New sigma's Lens?
That is a question only you can answer. I guess it really comes down to whether or not you prefer the F2.8 aperture and additional features of the Sigma.
Is this lens compatible with canon EOS2000d?
Unfortunately no. This lens is only available for Sony and Leica L-mount cameras
What tripod is that? Great review!
I think it's Oben CTT-1000 Carbon Fiber Tabletop Tripod - I have one just like it, nice little tripod.
Oben Tabletop Tripod shown in video: bhpho.to/3vL8YWy
Is the lens compatible with Nikon cameras?
Not yet. Hopefully it will come to Z mount in the future.
Would love to buy this lens, but Sony cripples my A1 and only allows native glass to push above 15-FPS AF-C. You don’t have this issue with Nikon. For Sony to allow the 85GM to push beyond 15-FPS, while capping the linear motors of the new Sigma Primes and Zooms at 15-FPS is a direct slap to the intelligence of its Pros. Jailbreak the firmware
Its honestly not the only thing that is crippled, AF accuracy in AF-C especially fast stuff my experience is that thirdpart of latest gen isn’t up to snap
Sony's artificial limitations are a little more frustrating now that Nikon is opening up without similar restrictions.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yeah but they put another one in, not allowing replica ranges and Canon so far only allowed APS-C… hopefully they all change their ways because this behaviour is mildly annoying.
I think the older DG DN also has 11 blades, not 9.
Correct.
I just checked Sigma's website, and you're correct. B&H had it wrong in their listing.
Loved the first lens - for a while. Sublime contrast and sharpness. However it had so much dust in the front element after just 18-20 shoots as to be unusable. I had issues with Sigma’s Australian distribution who refused to accept it was a manufacturer issue. I’m inclined to avoid any product from that company ever again.
I almost bought the Sigma 85/1.4, but also stopped in the end because of the widely reported dust build up issue.
What kind of conditions are you using your camera gears? For me, I've noticed my camera gear picking up a fair amount of dust after a day of indoor/outdoor photo walks in urban cities too. If I had any Sigma lenses, I'd be so paranoid about taking my camera out of the bag! lol
I can not confirm it personally, but apparently the dust issue was fixed on a later silent revision of the old 24-70. I imagine Sigma was also cognisant of the issue when redesigning this.
Did you provide them with links to the other reports of dust build-up to prove that it was a wide-spread, and therefore likely manufacturer issue?
Yes, seriously hope they have fixed (or at least drastically improved) the dust issues... Time will tell
I have never heard of dust buildup in a lens ruining images so I'd be curious what exactly was the impact the dust had on your images?
In the case of the 24-70mm V1 - if the dust bothers the more pedantic photographer it takes no more than 5 minutes to take a plastic guitar pick to lever off the (glue-pressed on) top ring at which point a few small japanese philips head screws are exposed. pop those out, the front element can simply be taken out, the dust blown out and the element popped back in. Screws go back in and the ring can simply be pressed on again - extremely easy to service if necessary
Idiot.. @@richrollin4867
Sorry Dustin, but as an enthusiast I would expect a comparision to the similar price bracket lens from Sony, which is 24-105 F4. It's obvious that Sony 24-70mm GM2 will be better, but is it worth trading 24-105 F4 for this Sigma?
Those are two very different lenses. It's been six years since I've done a review of the 24-105, and at a lower resolution standard, so I don't really have an informed opinion on how the two compare.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Hello Dustin, thank you for your reply! I understand your stance on 24-105 - it's hard to compare other lenses to it if the last time you had your hands on it was few years ago :)
The reason I am curious about is because (surprise, surprise!) I own Sony's 24-105 F4. As an enthusiast, I have to look at my budget constrains and make sure I get most bang for my bucks (I porbably butchered English language there xD). So, the way I see it, these are actually 2 very similar lenses: they are both general/standard zoom lenses and they are around 1000 dollars. Sony 24-105 IMO punches way above its weight in terms of picture quality, but it lacks the F2.8. Sigma has it, but it lacks the 105mm... I just wanted to highlight for you an enthusiast perspective on the evaluation of this new Sigma lens.
Personally I find the image quality a little disappointing that it hasn't improved but its still a great lens for half the price of the Sony
Agreed, at 70mm it looks much better, but that softness in the corner at 24m even stopped down is unacceptable.
It made sense to me when I saw that it really wasn't a new optical formula. It's still a LOT of improvement for only a $100 price increase.
I considered the first one, this looks like a good lens but definitely not the performance I was looking for after owning sigma art lenses
I'm not sure what you mean by performance, as this is competitive with the best zoom lenses covering this focal length in class.
Soon there will be "dust-in"
I don't think that is the case with this new one.
Abott😅?
Sigma is undermining its own new lens by reducing the old version price to $899.
I noticed that. The plan is probably to sell off existing stock while they ramp up production on the new one.
Tamron looks like the real winner here. 700$ for gm ii quality.
It's a very strong lens...particularly for the money.
Sigma has failed to address its build quality issues for decades now. I hope they finally fixed them, but I wouldn't trust them enough as to take a risk on this lens.
What issues are those? 🤔
@acouragefann In this video alone, 2 issues alone are presented. The first being dust getting into the lens due to inefficient weather sealing, the other being a high decentering rate. Sigma also have issues with the rear mounts getting loose, which require people to loosen the screws, remove the screws, then there's another set of screws that need to be tied before you can re-assemble the lens. Sigma lenses are also notorious to have the poorest longevity of any major lens maker out there due to the iris blades collapsing within a few years of usage. These issues are reported everywhere on the internet once you start looking. There is also another commenter talking about his own issues with dust getting into the lens.
But these issues don't exist on Sony?
@sulev111 Sigma has a reputation to be the Fiat of lenses. Sony used to he not as good as Fuji/Canon/Nikon as they were still new to lens making but they are better.
@@ralphsaad8637 I think you are in a clear minority with this opinion.
First gen sigma 24-70 was a failure in the f2.8 camp.
Tamron 24-70 g1 beat it by a long shot. Those terrible corners, brr. Good riddance that was
And it's not just my copy. DXOmark says the same
Tamron hasn't made a 24-70 for Sony E
@@Vantrakter that's a fact, yup
For Sony, the Sigma version 1 was the 2nd best 24-70, a little behind the $1,300+ more Sony GM II. Widely agreed by most. Tamron was okay, not wide enough and not a great built quality
@@joshisthebestwooha20 and here I am commenting from Canonian perspective about our Tamrons and everything. sigmas offering was the worst 24-70 f2.8 one could possibly get on Canon EF, a real dud in the ART series
I'm not quite sure on the "facts" being presented here. As noted, Tamron only makes a 28-75mm F2.8 for mirrorless cameras, though yes, their G2 version is very competitive with this lens on a number of levels (though not as feature rich).