Another awesome video. The most amazing thing was at 4:52 where the scooters in the background now come with helmets! It's about time. Hope to see that in the US sometime soon too.
Really hope you get your hands on the Nikon Z lenses soon, especially the 24-120 f4, but also the 24-70 f2.8. Would also be very interesting to mention the competitors on different mounts just to compare which system to buy into if one is not already engaged to a specific brand.
I always felt like my copy of the 24-70GM was a tad mushy, especially compared to the 16-35GM which is incredibly sharp. Hopefully the new one bridges the gap.
@Rebel Hikes I suspect it won't be updated soon - it's by far the best of the original trinity, and nothing made by competitors has challenged it substantially. I'd rather see Sony focus on the other f/4 zooms, which are woefully outdated.
I wish my 2.8/16-55 had that tight zoom setting. I shoot with it facing straight down pretty often, and it always creeps. Also, Chris, it's a *12* to 24. Not 14!
im shocked at the price. i knew it was going to be a lot but holy shit. i figured they would have it at $1999 USD but $2300..... i paid $800 for the tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2. that's 1/3'd the price. and i could go and pick up 70-180 to go with it and still have $300 left over....
Thanks guys, the first review I always watch about a new product. I loved the videos you did before about what would you get with a certain budget. I was wondering if you could do a series when you think about what would your first choice be if you wanted a body and wide angle lens, a body and 24-70mm, a body and 400mm, a body and macro lens. Would be interesting to see what your choices would be in the various ‘primary lens’ categories would be. Oh and also some video stuff for Jordan or whatever 🤣
My favorote Canadians! Haha Great video. For the price and tech, wish it was internal zoom. Still wishing for a 28-70 f2. For now given that tamron 35-150 2-2.8 is out, the 24-70 v2 has competition.
Should I sell my 90mm 2.8 macro, 28mm f2, and zeiss 24-70 f4 for this? I used to have the 85mm f1.8 but sold that to buy the 90mm macro. But now that this is out and the macro looks good enough for my uses, should i just combine most of what i have into one killer 24-70 range? I have a 12-24 f4 and the 70-200 f4 so i still have a wide range to shoot.
How come there is no in-depth comparison between Sigma and Sony GM II? Hmm I bought Sigma for 800 new and like it so far except the weight... However, I don't see 120g makes huge difference...
@@bondgabebond4907 I wouldn't be surprised if they make a PZ-version of the current 24-105mm f4, to complement the newly announced 16-35mm f4 PZ. Sony's lens line-up has always been a bit thin on dedicated video lenses, and I think they may further expand in that field. Then you have the 24-70mm f2.8 GM or f4 Zeiss as photo lenses and the 24-105mm f4 G PZ as video lens next to the current non-PZ version. That may make sense for them to do?
@@Edwin-- I've been away from shooting for too many years. In the mid 70s, I started and we had all those wonderful manual film cameras. Videos were those bulky VHS units that started out as a two piece package. But now, with so many people using their little camera for both stills and videos, lens makers should look at how they make their zoom lens. The internal zooming lens is far superior in zooming vs the typical way of turning a ring and moving a set of glass back and forth in the main body. That introduces shake. So, my wish, my hopes is that Sony starts making more PZ lens, particularly for the professional video folks. For stills, the PZ works just great. Look at the reviews of the 16-35mm PZ lens just introduces. It is getting great reviews for excellence in sharpness. I probably will get on. The prices is great, not overly expensive. If Sony does as you mention, a PZ 24-105 f4, that would be simply incredible. Two lens to rule the world.
@@bondgabebond4907 I fully agree and hope they will. I think Sony attracts a lot of pro video creators, many of whom will be news shooters and documentary filmmakers with FX3, 6 and 9's who do not have very large budgets and crews. They wouldn't buy USD 5000+ cine lenses. Sony offers great cameras for them, but the lens line-up isn't great, they can get by. I have shot with the old Sony 28-135mm f/4.0 G OSS PowerZoom, but that is not a nice lens to use. It is a bit soft and doesn't produce a nice image, yet is very heavy and pricey (I got it 2nd hand and sold it). The 24-105mm f4 produces a nicer image, is much lighter, but focus breaths a bit and isn't parfocal. I think this may still be a reason videomakers reach for other brands, and Sony should address this because for example Canon has a large line-up of lenses for broadcast applications and Fuji produces some too.
I’m glad that they FINALLY updated the 24-70 since the G1 was a terrible lens for the E mount and the worst 24-70 when compared to Canon, Nikon, and Fuji
The new Samyang 24-70 is another option. Having never bought one, I was slightly wary of the brand, but after giving it a go, I would choose it over the Sigma and Sony models. They are all pretty evenly matched.
Most amazing is how far Tamron seems to have come in building a real competitor to the 24-70 GM II. According to your review of Tamron's first version of the 28-75, it was far behind the optical quality of the first 24-70 GM. That gap seems to have closed quite a bit with both companies' second versions.
@@Chris-ey7zy the subject is a 2.8 standard zoom lens, so comparing to other 2.8 standard zooms is keeping to the subject. Hope everything gets better in your life so you don't need to deflect your hate and frustrations into others! All the best
You can buy used Tamron 28-75s on the used market for less than$600 and in mint condition. You can buy the trinity of Tamrons for the price of one of these. This is way too much.
We just don't address those issues unless they really stand out, and impact the lens in a large way. It's not that it's unimportant but they are easy, and automatically corrected for.
I cant beleive this lens costs an eye watering $3,000 cnd or $3450 with tax. I have a crop sensor 17-55mm f2.8 with IS, lenses made of flourite... and it was $1500.
Sony and their cripple hammer limiting burst speed in 3rd party lenses hahaha nvr mind those sony fanboys wont be complaining much about this issue as usual sony fanboys are blind lol
"Puddle Purgatory" - The title of Chris' new funk metal album.
I don't know that Chris also did another genre beside the "hump&bump" from his latest b-boy album.
Another awesome video. The most amazing thing was at 4:52 where the scooters in the background now come with helmets! It's about time. Hope to see that in the US sometime soon too.
I never payed enough attention to “Loca”, but now my whole lens evaluation approach is completely changed. Thank you guys. With you learning is fun
Really hope you get your hands on the Nikon Z lenses soon, especially the 24-120 f4, but also the 24-70 f2.8.
Would also be very interesting to mention the competitors on different mounts just to compare which system to buy into if one is not already engaged to a specific brand.
The fact you always make great content in that barren wasteland known as Canada is a testiment to your creativity and skill. Bravo DPReview TV
Nice reviews as it has always been. Wish to see Jordan to comment on its video capability as well since this seems be emphasized in Sony's promo.
I always felt like my copy of the 24-70GM was a tad mushy, especially compared to the 16-35GM which is incredibly sharp. Hopefully the new one bridges the gap.
I think this looks like 16-35 gm also the weight is also same XD
@Rebel Hikes
I suspect it won't be updated soon - it's by far the best of the original trinity, and nothing made by competitors has challenged it substantially. I'd rather see Sony focus on the other f/4 zooms, which are woefully outdated.
Sounds like a great addition for video (for me!) THanks for the great video! 👍
I wish my 2.8/16-55 had that tight zoom setting. I shoot with it facing straight down pretty often, and it always creeps.
Also, Chris, it's a *12* to 24. Not 14!
9:26
@@Riskbreaker2009 exactly! Just kinda surprised considering the 12-24 2.8 is a unique lens in its combined wide angle and aperture capabilities
im shocked at the price. i knew it was going to be a lot but holy shit. i figured they would have it at $1999 USD but $2300..... i paid $800 for the tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2. that's 1/3'd the price. and i could go and pick up 70-180 to go with it and still have $300 left over....
Really useful focal range. It's like combining your 24-34 and 36-70 zooms into one lens!
Wtf is a 36-70
@@svenasmussen8745 Oh, just a poor attempt at a joke about how Chris from the video tries to avoid the 35mm focal length.
I would Love a 24-70/2.8 Battle, including the Samyang 24-70/2.8, to answer the question, What's for Who?
9:24 Sony made the one and the only 12-24/2.8
My favorite lens
Great review! I was trying to decide if the mark ii was worth the money, answered all my questions!
That “bright distracting ghost” 🤣
@1:16 I see a poor naked man with his frozen dongle :P Nice shot Chris! hahaha
Going to stick with my 24-105 f4….would love a 24-105 f2.8….
100% agree need that range even thiugh it would be heavier i don't care 1kg ok
That lens would be 10lbs and $6k...
@@jordanlaine7412 nah more like 3k and what that weight comes from? It would be similar as tamron 35-150
For half the price, the Sigma 24-70 f2.8, is a much better choice, even if not considering the cost difference.
24-90 would do!
Nice lens but still expensive for me, it’s my problem 😂
An aperture ring? Cool
Great review as always.
Going to sell my original for this one. Even if I sell it pretty low at least I can use it towards the new one.
Thanks guys, the first review I always watch about a new product.
I loved the videos you did before about what would you get with a certain budget. I was wondering if you could do a series when you think about what would your first choice be if you wanted a body and wide angle lens, a body and 24-70mm, a body and 400mm, a body and macro lens. Would be interesting to see what your choices would be in the various ‘primary lens’ categories would be. Oh and also some video stuff for Jordan or whatever 🤣
3:36 - Beautiful shot of a beautiful human.
Appreciated. Greetings from the gutter that is Sony APS-C and where spending $2000 on a lens is unimaginable. :)
Nice to see a full pro lens which has a bohkay rendering which looks smooth but still kinda bubbly.
Is that Wotancraft's new daily/camera bag?
It just came up to the market last week!
This is the latest Scout series! I'm testing it out to get a good impression of it.
My favorote Canadians! Haha
Great video. For the price and tech, wish it was internal zoom. Still wishing for a 28-70 f2. For now given that tamron 35-150 2-2.8 is out, the 24-70 v2 has competition.
Do you think it's worth upgrading from the original version 1? The 70-200 v2 seemed like a huge improvement over the original, this does not.
Whenever I get down about Chicago weather I watch Canadian RUclipsrs and feel better.
Best reviews on the internet!
waiting for your review. nice as always
Wait! Snow and slush on APRIL 27th? Yikes. Great video, and as always, nice hair, LOL
Glad my tamron 28-75 g2 is still competing
Lovely review, I would like to know what's your camera bag 🙂
Would love to see an update “shootout” of the camera tiers with their updated firmwares. Would just be a fun video to see you guys do!
Not to hijack the wonderful review, what’s that messenger bag 💼 you’re carrying if I may ask? Looks cool 😎. Thanks
Thanks for this review. Obviously another great performing lens from Sony but I shall stick with my Tamron 28-75.
Hey, did you test sunstars at f22 as well? The original Tamron 28-75 actually does really nice sunstars at f22.
Love the content
is it better than 20 gm 1.8 sir? i still confused to decide between 24gm prime or this zoom lenses @__@
Very good review. I will stick with my Tamron 28-75 though as it’s a marvel at the price.
I think the reduction of the size and weight was mainly because they removed the adapter that was meant for DSLRs on it.
Should I sell my 90mm 2.8 macro, 28mm f2, and zeiss 24-70 f4 for this? I used to have the 85mm f1.8 but sold that to buy the 90mm macro. But now that this is out and the macro looks good enough for my uses, should i just combine most of what i have into one killer 24-70 range? I have a 12-24 f4 and the 70-200 f4 so i still have a wide range to shoot.
Sad that Sony blocked Tamron's 24-70 F2.8, buying shares, and that's why they had to release the 28-75 F2.8.
I noticed that the color on GH6 is a little bit better than the Z9 here.
To me more than just a little bit. But it might also just be the hustle with a "new" system and might improve next time.
I'll stick with my Sigma. Its only 4 oz heavier. I wouldn't say that's a massive difference.
How come there is no in-depth comparison between Sigma and Sony GM II? Hmm I bought Sigma for 800 new and like it so far except the weight... However, I don't see 120g makes huge difference...
is this lense compatible with all/most sony full frame mirrorless bodies? thanks
If I had the money, I would get this and the 70-200/2.8 II. End up getting Tamron 28-75 G2 and 70-180 for 70% of the price of this one.
20-50 only Panasonic seems to do it. 24 just isn't wide enough - not sure why this range is so popular
Why not include the Samyang 24-70/2.8 in the comparison if you included Sigma and Tamron?
Maybe cause Samyang sucks lmao
After you did a fine job reviewing the lens, I don’t agree when you included the words I think.
Was the Nikon Z9 filmed in Log or RAW?
Recorded in N-Log.
@@thatjordandrake Jordan, any chance to do a review of the video performance of the Nikon Z9 under firmware 2.0?
How can I get this lens on my M43 GX85? Is there an adapter dor this?
7:19 old version easily beats the new one at 24 mm.
Seems you had a filter on the lens when recording this video. Was that also used when testing the lens?
Sure. You wana buy a bridge by any chance?
So the 16-35 is up next?
24-70 F2.8 GM ii what is Lens Filter Thread size ??
Shame Sony didn’t make this iteration of the 24-70 an internal zoom as they’ve done with the 70-200 and 200-600 . Would have swapped mine if they had.
I agree. Sony made the new PZ 16-35 f4.0. Why not this lens?
@@bondgabebond4907 I wouldn't be surprised if they make a PZ-version of the current 24-105mm f4, to complement the newly announced 16-35mm f4 PZ. Sony's lens line-up has always been a bit thin on dedicated video lenses, and I think they may further expand in that field. Then you have the 24-70mm f2.8 GM or f4 Zeiss as photo lenses and the 24-105mm f4 G PZ as video lens next to the current non-PZ version. That may make sense for them to do?
@@Edwin-- I've been away from shooting for too many years. In the mid 70s, I started and we had all those wonderful manual film cameras. Videos were those bulky VHS units that started out as a two piece package. But now, with so many people using their little camera for both stills and videos, lens makers should look at how they make their zoom lens. The internal zooming lens is far superior in zooming vs the typical way of turning a ring and moving a set of glass back and forth in the main body. That introduces shake.
So, my wish, my hopes is that Sony starts making more PZ lens, particularly for the professional video folks. For stills, the PZ works just great. Look at the reviews of the 16-35mm PZ lens just introduces. It is getting great reviews for excellence in sharpness. I probably will get on. The prices is great, not overly expensive. If Sony does as you mention, a PZ 24-105 f4, that would be simply incredible. Two lens to rule the world.
@@bondgabebond4907 I fully agree and hope they will. I think Sony attracts a lot of pro video creators, many of whom will be news shooters and documentary filmmakers with FX3, 6 and 9's who do not have very large budgets and crews. They wouldn't buy USD 5000+ cine lenses. Sony offers great cameras for them, but the lens line-up isn't great, they can get by. I have shot with the old Sony 28-135mm f/4.0 G OSS PowerZoom, but that is not a nice lens to use. It is a bit soft and doesn't produce a nice image, yet is very heavy and pricey (I got it 2nd hand and sold it). The 24-105mm f4 produces a nicer image, is much lighter, but focus breaths a bit and isn't parfocal. I think this may still be a reason videomakers reach for other brands, and Sony should address this because for example Canon has a large line-up of lenses for broadcast applications and Fuji produces some too.
I’m glad that they FINALLY updated the 24-70 since the G1 was a terrible lens for the E mount and the worst 24-70 when compared to Canon, Nikon, and Fuji
The new Samyang 24-70 is another option. Having never bought one, I was slightly wary of the brand, but after giving it a go, I would choose it over the Sigma and Sony models. They are all pretty evenly matched.
Lol! Samyang is totally crap against this!
@@fotomats8651 Really? You must shit diamonds, because the Samyang is that good.
@@Banshun Good is Shit! The GM is PERFECT!
I see no bright distracting ghosts at 5:40
Alberta - snowing
May - Am I a joke to you?
GM I or the Tamron or the Sigma. The GM II is way out of my budget.
2300$ holy moly... G2 for me... if I ever sell my G1
Hopefully they will make a sharper G2 for the 17-28mm... There aren't any good affordable options in that range...
@@vincenzodellama7158 I wish they made it a little wider and longer than 17-28.
How about a9iii
Most amazing is how far Tamron seems to have come in building a real competitor to the 24-70 GM II.
According to your review of Tamron's first version of the 28-75, it was far behind the optical quality of the first 24-70 GM. That gap seems to have closed quite a bit with both companies' second versions.
it wasn’t far behind at all, maybe bokeh wise or edge sharpness
@@hardywoodaway9912 Agreed. The Tamron is optically very sharp. Bokeh is a bit distracting, but is a great all round lens.
Am I the only one to notice that Jordan ain’t there anymore? Where is he?
Filming the episode😀
He's always here. You just have to look deeply into the my eyes and you'll see him reflected there.
So the Tamron 28-75mm G2 is still the sharpest zoom in the 28-50mm range... (other than the 35-150mm in the 35-50mm)
Nobody asked
@@Chris-ey7zy are you ok? Did you took your meds today?
@@vincenzodellama7158 nobody asked. Stay with subject not pull people to your lens
@@Chris-ey7zy the subject is a 2.8 standard zoom lens, so comparing to other 2.8 standard zooms is keeping to the subject.
Hope everything gets better in your life so you don't need to deflect your hate and frustrations into others!
All the best
@@vincenzodellama7158 wow get personal. You are a low life
Embargo lift be like...
Boom.
waiting for christopher frost to review this lens
i ant an 17-18-20 to 40-45-50-55 - ish. f4 with the same featureset of the new 16-34 f4, probably wont happen soon. :(
the price is a bit insane
It's in line with the other big manufacturers and their 24-70s. Not saying it's cheap, just competitive.
✨LOCA✨
💁🏻
I just need someone to tell me which one to buy arrrrgggghhhhh
Didn't the original have in-lens IS? Does the mark ii have it as well?
You can buy used Tamron 28-75s on the used market for less than$600 and in mint condition. You can buy the trinity of Tamrons for the price of one of these. This is way too much.
It doesn't have OSS like Canon rf 24-70 and seem less shape than Tamron 28-75. This make me disappionted.
12-24 2.8 gm. Am I dead to you Chris? 😔
why is it so good but yet I feel no tingle ?
With that price tag I'll just use the Sigma
LOOKS LIKE CANON STELLAR LENSES ARE NOT THAT STELLAR, NIKON AND SONY HAVE SAME OR BETTER THAN R MOUNT EVEN SONY HAS THE SMALLEST MOUNT
Looks like a great lens... but TWICE the price of the Sigma? Thought's a tough sell.
Sigma Art 1.8lb, GM2 1.6lb. I’ll still take the Sigma. Weight isn’t that different.
Not even a Single word about Vignetting or Distortion?
We just don't address those issues unless they really stand out, and impact the lens in a large way. It's not that it's unimportant but they are easy, and automatically corrected for.
is that the new DJI microphone? are you making a review vid ?
Got you covered!
ruclips.net/video/IbkhzcgznDA/видео.html
I cant beleive this lens costs an eye watering $3,000 cnd or $3450 with tax. I have a crop sensor 17-55mm f2.8 with IS, lenses made of flourite... and it was $1500.
Perfect for the coming 100 MegaPixel Sony full frame MILC...
i use the Sigma 14-24mm Art and i love it, i would not buy the Sony for that price
Bo-kuh
Well, well,well
It's still no Pentax.
It's not parfocal so it's useless for shooting actuality or observationally.
Sharp Shit
14-24 sony? what you are talking about?
Sony and their cripple hammer limiting burst speed in 3rd party lenses hahaha nvr mind those sony fanboys wont be complaining much about this issue as usual sony fanboys are blind lol
Chris obviously isn't fan of Sony gears and he looks unmotivated while reviewing them!
Just bought this lens it's still 2300 but who cares lol
How is it every Sony lens everyone has a review for it? But no reviews for none of the Canon or Nikon lenses?
Is it an embargo day for Canon or Nikon today? That answers your question.
Honestly it's all average all around. Worthy of a G moniker, and a $1000 tag. Not twice that amount.