Before the barrage of ‘Dust’ related comments. My copy is one of the originals, has plenty of visible dust inside it yet I have yet to see a trace of this on any photo or video shot for the last 2 years. If that doesn’t do it for you, the link to the Sony is in the description box 😋
The Dust comes in from the back of the front lens element holder. I used electrical tape around the back of my Front lens element holder to keep the dust out. Its not noticeable. If you take apart the lens to clean it, there are spacers to separate the front element. You can remove them, and dust wont be back. People have said the spacers have not affected the IQ.
@@m-stat9Sadly this isn’t true, I just purchased one with serial number starting with 574 and new out of the box there is 2 small specks of dust behind the front glass.
@@IgorDoval seeing this question incredibly late lol. Stabilization might matter in some rare instances but I couldn’t really notice any even shooting photos at low shutters there might be a slight edge there. As far as video both cameras generally don’t stabilize all that well and the lens stabilization does no favors for the canon.
"...massive difference in sharpness..." LOL, bro it's barely visible, ESPECIALLY when 99% of these photos are going to be seen on a tiny smartphone screen. None of my clients are blowing my stuff up on billboards and using a loupe to examine sharpness. People need a reality check when thinking about spending their money.
Absolutely agree, what a bullshit ahaha “massive difference in sharpness” what a giant pile of bshit! The difference it s absolutely subtle and 99 percent of people couldnt tell. Is the sony worth 1000 more? Absolutely not! It s not justified by image quality!
Well, first of all I wouldn't recommend spending 1000 and sure not 2000 dolar/euro on a lens for pictures mainly for phone. Other then that I fully agree with you, yes there is a difference in the contrast, something you would take in consideration if price difference were 100 dollar or less..... but a 1000.... Sigma puts Sony to shame here big time and I love Sigma for doing so!
For anyone watching with a7iv, fx30, a7siii or fx3 just be warned that active stabilization DOES NOT work as well on 3rd party lenses as it does on sony lenses, didn't want to believe this until I got a sony lens... their is quite a difference with the sony being more stable.
Thanks for this Chris, really great comparison of these two! I went with the Sigma because that price difference was just too big to justify the Sony. Plus for me, I’m using the 24-105mm most of the time as a better workhorse lens but a 24-70mm f2.8 is still good to have.
If you have the budget, you would definitely go with the GM one. It is incredibly light compared to sigma one. This is a huge plus for me and IM is also better overall.
@@m-stat9 Yes and no... I feel like if you are using gimbal a lot it's quite a big difference! Handheld - not so much. In fact handheld feels better when it's heavier. (personal preference)
I wanted the Sony G master, can't justify the extra 1k price tag. The Sigma is a heavy beast of a lens, but screams high quality and I do 95% still photos vs vids. None of the added features on the Sony I needed. Biggest concern was the glass/quality if the photos. The vid: the Sigma was actually a bit cleaner, the Sony had better skin tones. Both seemed equal in terms of auto focus tracking. That was a useful real time comparison there. Was a tint bit disappointment that the Sony was sharper, but is a cooler color (cold?) to the Sigma, so that seems the balance Sigma was going for. My brain always tells sharper is better but the overall impact of the Sigma perhaps more pleasing.
I always find it interesting when the people say, "if you have the budget". I had the budget for the GM but still opted for the Sigma because the differences of the 2 are so minimal that they can't be deciphered by the average client. Why pay $1k more? A decision I would still make a year later. The Sigma is an OUTSTANDING professional lens.
After watching this video literally 2 times a day for the past week, I finally pulled the trigger on Sigma. Super excited for it. thank you Chris for putting this together
Same here. Once you get the lens, you wonder why you spent so much time watching these videos. It''s a great lens, very sharp and versatile, plus that $1,000 I didn't have to spend felt good. Heck, the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM costs more than the Sigma zoom.
Sigma is awesome great lens specially on budget but considering even a slight sharpness from sony is massive on the output of the image. specially when working with clients you want to deliver a great sharp photo. in the end it will really depends sometimes its really hard to notice unless you pixel peep. 1000$ more is to have better weight/sharper image/lots of extra packed on the lens. i'll go for sigma for now then get a sony when the time is right might wait for a next version of it see how it goes. we can always add sharpness on post production editing.
I tried the Sony at a wedding when I hired an A7iii after my old A77ii broke down. It was good, but I wasn't convinced that it was £1,000 better than the Sigma. I have had several Sigma lenses, including an A-mount 70-300 APO that I've had for 18 years. I have no regrets whatsoever about saving £1,000 over the GMII lens.
Literally sounds like my scenario. My a77 Mk II is quickly showing it's on its last legs (just doesn't auto focus, and other signs). The Sigma I am looking to be my lens (to take the place of what my old 16-50 I loved)
Hey great Comparison! But did you compare the Active Steadyshot with both Lenses? I currently own the Sigma 24-70. But it didnt work good with active steadyshot on my A7iv. Is the 24-70gm II better in stabilisation? Thank you!
In your sharpness tests, you didn't state what aperture you were shooting at, only the focal lengths - also it would be helpful to have a comparison at different apertures. Sony might have the edge at 2.8, for example, but the Sigma at 5.6
I bought the a7iv for that Sigma lens. It’s so good and an obvious choice. Unless you’re a pro shooter getting paid a lot for gigs, then I might consider the Sony for a little weight savings.
My question is: Why in the B&H page both lens it said for Full Frame format but GM said Sony EF and Sigma Sony E? I have understood when it say Sony EF (mean Full Frame), and Sony E (mean APS-C version)... Can someone explain it to me please, i'm very confused right now. 🤔 Sorry if my English is not well. 😅
Chris, I bought the Sigma to replace the Sony I had that broke (and the repair shop was going to charge stupid money to fix it, and I needed it right away). I'm pretty happy with it in most cases, but feel like it does more perspective warping whenever I'm shooting pretty wide, such as photographing someone in a room - the walls are more curved that I ever remember happening with the Sony. Have you or anyone else noticed this? I've been thinking of selling the sigma and getting another sony for this reason. Thanks.
Hey chris, I just want to say about the smooth and tight. Smooth is for fast shooting range, for exp u zooming in and out faster for the object (not smooth for video) Tight is suitable for video shooting (for a smooth video zooming)
As if you read my mind, bro! Thank you for this video! I was on a holiday recently and I was too busy changing lenses when I thought: I need a good 24-70mm when I'm taking photos in and around a city/ town/ village. I love my 20mm G, 24mm GM and 35mm GM; but I am still drawn towards a good 24-70mm!
Awesome video Chris. Even though standard zooms aren't really my bag, I am really happy with my Sigma 24-70mm Art. It does lean a little warm as you say, which is easy enough to fix in post. The Sigma 24-70mm also has a wonderful character that I can't quite put my finger on in it's image quality. I always know the images that I have taken with that lens. Maybe the new Sony is a little sharper if you are pixel peeping, but sharpness isn't everything and I feel like you get 95% of the new Sony performance with the Sigma as shown in your video.
I was very tempted to get the Sigma. The only single reason why I ended up getting the Sony is the weight. I carry my camera on a sling and heavy gear can take its toll on my back when I'm travelling.
Been using my Sigma for a couple years now and love it. My only reservation is the Active IBS for the A7Siii. For my work, i do a lot of handheld and the camera struggles with IBS on non Sony lenses. Anyone experience both of these lenses while using active IBS on the A7Siii? Any big difference like people say?
How about barrel/pincushion distortion on the sony? On my sigma at 24mm on full frame its significant. Lens correction in LR has to be applied to every image, where straight lines bending a lot.
How many scenes are you going to use in this video, Chris? Chris, “All of them!” Ha ha, nice job! Really enjoyed all the different scenes and angles and how you worked it all together. Well done.
This is where I’m stuck at, I just purchased the Sony a7IV and I’m starting my video business and I know the 24-70 would be a really nice all around lens ! Thank you for this video !!!
@@DB-lr6kl OSS and longer range, F4 is totally fine with newer bodies and their low light capabilities. I find F2.8 neither here not there. Get F4 zoom with F1.2-F1.8 primes and you are set. F2.8 always keep you longing for more.
Good comparison video, Chris. I keep feeling like I don’t need a 24-70 due to my favorite primes but then the money starts to burn a hole in me pocket.
I love my primes, using 24, 35 and 85 regularly, but the Tamron 28-75 is so darn versatile for when I need it. Especially on lower budget videos where I don't have the time to switch lenses on the gimbal
with all the features of the newer Sony lens, I think reasonably its only about 200-300 dollar more expesive than the Sigma. So in the end I bought the Sony 😊❤
Interestingly for me Chris, is the fact - whether knowingly or accidentally - you've produced some reasonably good 3D stereo vid's in your chapter on focus-breathing. If familiar with cross-eyed viewing of stereo pairs it was a cinch to view, despite the exaggerated depth due to excessive lens separation. A rare treat for me, though, for I've watched far too many comparison vid's where the vloggers have missed the opportunity to set their cam's perfectly aligned and sync'd, one to the other. Well done you!
Just got to LOVE Sigma for this, they really keep competitiveness in the lens market. Something anyone on a tight budget has to appreciate. I'm going to buy my first full frame camera and this Sigma will be on it 😁
Chris, for me it was very obvious that, with the test of the focus breathing, the one on the right was the GM II. It was much faster in the sharpness and keeping the sharpness on your eyes. It sticked like magic and also the colors are fuller and more real to me.
Ha, well, are you sure? The image on the right had the sony sitting in the video. That means the other one was on the camera. Unless he had two of each lens which seems unlikely. Plus every comparison had the sigma on the right. Chris?
@@sticky1212 The video with Chris focusing on his eyes has the Sony on the right, Sigma on left (see caption bottom of video): ruclips.net/video/3sbklGkdbHY/видео.html The video of the boxes and lenses on the table swaps the lenses around, with the Sony on the left, Sigma on right (see caption bottom of video): ruclips.net/video/3sbklGkdbHY/видео.html
Hey! I see you're using the DJI mic now... You gonna do a review soon? Wondering if they fixed the radio interference issue when using an external lav mic...
Great video as always Chris. Honestly I own neither but if I had to get one it would be the sigma. For the price but also maybe it's just me but I love the warmer and contrasty image that sigma puts out. The aperture ring is nice to have but everything else feels a little unnecessary to me.
@@chrisbrockhurst Youre doing a comparison video that shows its not worth to buy the sony but then you giving this comment saying its tough decision xDDD yeeehh
On the focus breathing test, the image on the right had much nicer colors on my opinion. Can you recall if that is a camera setting or could the fairly big difference possibly be attributable to the lens coatings? Which camera body was on the left and which was on the right?
2 things i missed in your video. 1. resale value of a sony G lens versus a sigma 2. sigma doesnt do 30 fps on a sony A1, Sony lenses do. nice studio and good video.
I'm hesitant to buy the one or the other for weeks now. I'll mainly use it when traveling and the weight of the Sony is more appealing to me. Also more features ofc and a tad sharper. But €1300 more expensive than the Sigma lens... Resell value might be higher on the Sony after a few years though.
Awsome! One thing however... The Sony works so well with "active" stabilisation... the Sigma does not.... VERY noticeable on native vs non-native lenses.
Hey bud, this is the comment I've been looking for. Could you send over some test shots? I have the sigma but recently been shooting a lot of handheld. Heard sony lens with active steady shot ibis works amazing.
Idk, I know Sony is a big brand but I think were giving them too much credit when it comes to the focusing test in the beginning. The sigma seemed slightly faster with focusing but thats just me.
In before all the "Sigma lens has dust issues" yes the early production models did and this was resolved. I've had mine for over a year, it's an updated model and it has no more dust inside it than any other WR lens I use. Also Sigma UK confirmed they will strip and clean this lens free of charge even if it's a grey market product and out of warranty as they accept there was an issue. Yes, I have one and am very happy with the Sigma. I bought the Sigma before the Sony was an option. The Sony is clearly a better lens but considerably more expensive. If I had all the money in the world I'd buy the Sony. I don't, so the Sigma would still be my choice.
Can you please tell first four numbers of your lens' serial number? I've heard rumors that this issue has been resolved starting from S/N 55641775 , thanks
Is that shallow depht of field in a product video necessary? In your headshots i am always searching for the focus point. Still a good comparison though ;)
Whew! man, I was sweating right before 7:30. I thought the clip on the right looked so much better, sharpness/contrast and skin tone. But then I thought.. oh no.... that's the Sigma and I just bought a Sony GM today :( Then I could not find which one was which (because he pulls the title quickly) and then I finally saw it => One on the righty is SONY. THANK GOODNESS.
I love sigma gear but it’s not g master. The video produced much better colours, deeper blacks and the focussing was faultless whereas the sigma focussing was a bit soft and definitely had less contrast. Now we come to the stills, again the sigma was good (bang for buck) but the sony was razor sharp and those were only short distance shots, I would dare say that shot over 20m will be substantially sharper on the sony. So…. Are a professional shooter? Is there a monetary value to your art? If the answer is yes to any of these questions the answer is obviously the 24-70mm g master by the facts figured in this video which is a great video I just think you don’t give the sony as much praise as you should alternatively to giving the sigma the praise it deserves.
Awesome video Chris! I'd just like to add that this specific Sigma lens tends to have a dust problem. Granted I live in a desert but its the only lens I own where massive dust specs have somehow managed to get caught on several glass elements well inside the lens. Otherwise, its my number one favorite lens to use. I love the warmer tones that I get out of this lens over the cooler colors coming out of a Sony lens. The Sigma is a near perfect choice for me..just wished it was better weather sealed. Cheers!
Sigma updated the design! I forget what serial number marks the change but mine is the newer one- I’ve filmed in the desert with wind, film at the beach and I haven’t had any dust
What i can not figure out does gm2 optical stabilisation vs sigmas not existing os makes substantional difference? Have to make a decision before black friday but this rabithole is way too deep.
For me in the UK in 2024, the difference in price for the preowned sigma and preowned sony GM (NOTE: NOT the GM ii) os very small, Sony is maybe £50 (80 bucks) more expensive. Should I go for the GM when the difference is that small?
The sony lens is meant for folks if your in a environment where your only not able to get second chance footage/images like weddings, live sport photography/videography, nature photography and videography, etc.... Everybody else, which is the majority would go for the Sigma because of the price and not so far fetch capabilities of the Sony version. Also there's no difference between those two lens besides its color temperature (which can be fix in post) and weight...they really selling you their name which is poor marketing, especially if you were too break anything on it they would charge you more than 70% of the cost of the lens, if not more than the actual cost of the lens itself (like the mount) 😒
There is the missing aperture ring for the Sigma. I'm an old school photographer so it feels odd. Would have liked to known this before I bought. But saving $1,000 is still worth it.
I have now had 2 versions on the 24-70 GM II, that squeak when pulling focus quickly, pretty loudly. I have yet to see it mentioned anywhere else. Anyone else's 24-70 making noises.
Autofocus when tracking for photo is a very different animal from autofocus during video. The former is more difficult to test, but it is where e.g. the eye is or isn't in focus during rapid movement of the subject (e.g. someone riding a bike). The latter is artificially slowed by the camera and big differences would be unexpected.
I was one of the first to get the Sigma when it was released and it’s been my most used lens since then. There is a very special “look” to the Sigma images that is very pleasing for both landscape and people images. It’s very, very close to my 35GM and 50GM lenses. And that’s really saying something because those two lenses are incredible!
Sigma has a dust issue but i still love it. the GM tight would be nice since the sigma will fall out when upside down doing top doen shots so i have to tape it
I have the Sigma, its identical image wise, but it isn't great in terms of sealing, had mine 6 months and its riddled with internal dust (doesnt affect the image much), not great! I don't use it in dusty conditions if anyone asks, no more dusty than day to day use. Will be selling cheap to get the Sony sadly.
I just bought the Sony for gimbal use. The sigma is noticeably more bulky and front heavy. Being able to switch from RS2 to RS3 will be welcome for long run and gun shoots. Shooting low angle with the sigma would trip out at times due to the extra front weight
@chrisbrockhurst Hey Chris, can you explain this please? I balance at 24mm and shoot at 24mm using a gimball at all times but I do get the odd spasm with it on the rs3 gimbal.
Yes. It wasn't a huge issue, but on advanced moves like low angle, tilted up with parallax and thumb raise. The Sony GM II has been much easier to use. Pretty much bulletproof with the RS3
I love the "massive difference of sharpness" when he zooms into an ants facial hair and I can barely tell a difference at all. I'm going with the Sigma all the way. It's less than half the price and 95% as good. Sony really needs to drop their prices to be competitive. If the Sony was closer to say $1500 I'd probably go their way.
Wow I thought Sigma was Sony because I thought it much sharper in the auto-focus comparison video Wow Sigma is much better I should buy Sigma for color and auto-focus too Thank you.
I owned the Sigma for 2 months. GMII delivered. Liked the handling on A7 and FX6 better. Sold Sigma. Happy days ahead. Now just waiting for 70-200 GM II.....
@@Reviews4fun1 I'll spend the extra money on all the OIS controls, internal zoom, and GM build quality. Just shot a concert with it and the handling on the FX3 and FX6 is awesome.
I guess if one’s shooting with a Sony A1, perhaps it might make sense to grab the Sony, if high frame rate for stills is a priority. But man, it’s still close.
Tried 2 copy’s of the sigma in a wedding environment and both had severe focussing issues once the light dropped a little. Hunting, wouldn’t lock on or find the eye. Said was in focus and when I got back on the computer it wasn’t. So I swapped them for the Tamron 28-75mm and have had zero problems since. I used them on the Sony A7III and A7IV
Hey I own the a7iv and returned the tamron g2 to get the sigma overall I really like the image quality out of the tamron it’s a bit more warmer but very very sharp and clean the thing that makes me miss that lens is the weight and size but the sigma 24mm also Is really nice for wide shots overall I’ve learned to be thankful with what I got :) happy shooting 😁
I have both, the tamron 28-75 image quality is nowhere near my Sigma Art lenses. Very noticable difference when I compare them in controlled environments in my studio.
I agree for weddings and run and Gun shoots the Sony is the better option but for controlled environments you’re fine with the Sigma. The sigma just wouldn’t lock on focus as quickly as I needed it too.
06:23 I would just like to double check, to me it looks like the sony (right one) is considerible faster/accurate in autofocus than the sigma (left). Or does this have to do with the camera that the lens is on? I am asking as nowadays you can get a second hand sony 24-70 for the same price as a new sigma 24-70 and I wonder which one I should buy for both video and photography
one question to the sony community.... who in the hell needs those manual aperture rings which sony implements in every new lens? I have and i will always use the control over it on my body, i would bet 99% of the buyers will only use the A modus on the new lenses so what is the sense of this feature?
People who started out shooting manually. Real film lenses have aperture rings. Personally I prefer the ring on the lens feels like a better shooting experience with the fx3
I only used it once for video as they allow you to change aperture smoothly without the F stop jumps which I think camera does? But totally agree it's 99% useless and sometimes annoying as it was accidentally changed to manual aperture..
@@alanleung8188 okay but to be fair it is almost never my goal to change my aperture during a scene, rather do it with an vario ND, you know what i mean? :-)
I actually use and prefer a manual Aperture ring over doing it in body, purely a personal preference. Much quicker for on the fly changes for adjusting exposure when necessary (when de-clicked)
I was gonna post this before watching, but I watched and still feel that Sony missed the mark again, continues too and Sigma just needs to keep coming out with more lenses and keep making money. This isn't a competition for people that aren't sponsored by Sony, especially for video, but there's no reason for Sony to keep pushing outlandishly expensive lenses when flippin Samyang is gonna start keeping up in AF soon, get real homies.
Actually Sony 24-70 is $100 less expensive than Canon 24-70. And sony has more features and more compact. So I can not devalue the sony one just because there is thrid party lens that cost half the price.
Only GM I bought was the 16-35 because of the zoom range. But I still grab the Sigma for most things. I probably wouldn’t have added full frame if it weren’t for that lens.
Only difference I found on Sigma compared to Sony lenses, is that Sigma has most of the time stronger haze in contra light, especially sun. I know somebody wants it, somebody not.
Before the barrage of ‘Dust’ related comments. My copy is one of the originals, has plenty of visible dust inside it yet I have yet to see a trace of this on any photo or video shot for the last 2 years. If that doesn’t do it for you, the link to the Sony is in the description box 😋
If you contact sigma they'll switch out the housing for free. No dust issues after that
The Dust comes in from the back of the front lens element holder. I used electrical tape around the back of my Front lens element holder to keep the dust out. Its not noticeable.
If you take apart the lens to clean it, there are spacers to separate the front element. You can remove them, and dust wont be back. People have said the spacers have not affected the IQ.
@@m-stat9Sadly this isn’t true, I just purchased one with serial number starting with 574 and new out of the box there is 2 small specks of dust behind the front glass.
The sigma is so good for the money. One of several reasons I returned my R6 and went Sony A7IV back in late December.
That’s my current predicament
Yeah just sold my r6 as well
What about the lack of image stabilization with the Sigma? Does the ibis on the 74 do a good job with it?
Why? Can you share more? I miss my Canon 600D. It was not bad camera I assume R6 is better since not that old.
@@IgorDoval seeing this question incredibly late lol. Stabilization might matter in some rare instances but I couldn’t really notice any even shooting photos at low shutters there might be a slight edge there. As far as video both cameras generally don’t stabilize all that well and the lens stabilization does no favors for the canon.
"...massive difference in sharpness..." LOL, bro it's barely visible, ESPECIALLY when 99% of these photos are going to be seen on a tiny smartphone screen. None of my clients are blowing my stuff up on billboards and using a loupe to examine sharpness. People need a reality check when thinking about spending their money.
Exactly
Absolutely agree, what a bullshit ahaha “massive difference in sharpness” what a giant pile of bshit! The difference it s absolutely subtle and 99 percent of people couldnt tell. Is the sony worth 1000 more? Absolutely not! It s not justified by image quality!
I was debating wether I should get sigma or Sony GM II.. I think your comment has convinced me to get the sigma
Agreed
Well, first of all I wouldn't recommend spending 1000 and sure not 2000 dolar/euro on a lens for pictures mainly for phone.
Other then that I fully agree with you, yes there is a difference in the contrast, something you would take in consideration if price difference were 100 dollar or less..... but a 1000.... Sigma puts Sony to shame here big time and I love Sigma for doing so!
For anyone watching with a7iv, fx30, a7siii or fx3 just be warned that active stabilization DOES NOT work as well on 3rd party lenses as it does on sony lenses, didn't want to believe this until I got a sony lens... their is quite a difference with the sony being more stable.
Is this legit? I’ve not heard of this before. I had the A7iv with Sigma 24-70 and was pretty damn impressed. I did come from the A7iii though😅
Thanks for this Chris, really great comparison of these two! I went with the Sigma because that price difference was just too big to justify the Sony. Plus for me, I’m using the 24-105mm most of the time as a better workhorse lens but a 24-70mm f2.8 is still good to have.
It's just amazing. Nearly every time I looking into a new specific gear purchase you answer the exact questions I have to make a educated decision.
Biggest compliment. Thankyou
If you have the budget, you would definitely go with the GM one. It is incredibly light compared to sigma one. This is a huge plus for me and IM is also better overall.
@@m-stat9 Yes and no... I feel like if you are using gimbal a lot it's quite a big difference! Handheld - not so much. In fact handheld feels better when it's heavier. (personal preference)
I wanted the Sony G master, can't justify the extra 1k price tag. The Sigma is a heavy beast of a lens, but screams high quality and I do 95% still photos vs vids. None of the added features on the Sony I needed. Biggest concern was the glass/quality if the photos. The vid: the Sigma was actually a bit cleaner, the Sony had better skin tones. Both seemed equal in terms of auto focus tracking. That was a useful real time comparison there. Was a tint bit disappointment that the Sony was sharper, but is a cooler color (cold?) to the Sigma, so that seems the balance Sigma was going for. My brain always tells sharper is better but the overall impact of the Sigma perhaps more pleasing.
what brand did you end with? and how is it?
I always find it interesting when the people say, "if you have the budget". I had the budget for the GM but still opted for the Sigma because the differences of the 2 are so minimal that they can't be deciphered by the average client. Why pay $1k more? A decision I would still make a year later. The Sigma is an OUTSTANDING professional lens.
After watching this video literally 2 times a day for the past week, I finally pulled the trigger on Sigma. Super excited for it.
thank you Chris for putting this together
Same here. Once you get the lens, you wonder why you spent so much time watching these videos. It''s a great lens, very sharp and versatile, plus that $1,000 I didn't have to spend felt good. Heck, the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM costs more than the Sigma zoom.
Sigma is awesome great lens specially on budget but considering even a slight sharpness from sony is massive on the output of the image. specially when working with clients you want to deliver a great sharp photo. in the end it will really depends sometimes its really hard to notice unless you pixel peep. 1000$ more is to have better weight/sharper image/lots of extra packed on the lens. i'll go for sigma for now then get a sony when the time is right might wait for a next version of it see how it goes. we can always add sharpness on post production editing.
Quite literally looking at the differences and this video popped up. Great timing and great video Chris!
Made just for you
I tried the Sony at a wedding when I hired an A7iii after my old A77ii broke down. It was good, but I wasn't convinced that it was £1,000 better than the Sigma. I have had several Sigma lenses, including an A-mount 70-300 APO that I've had for 18 years.
I have no regrets whatsoever about saving £1,000 over the GMII lens.
Literally sounds like my scenario. My a77 Mk II is quickly showing it's on its last legs (just doesn't auto focus, and other signs). The Sigma I am looking to be my lens (to take the place of what my old 16-50 I loved)
Hey great Comparison! But did you compare the Active Steadyshot with both Lenses? I currently own the Sigma 24-70. But it didnt work good with active steadyshot on my A7iv. Is the 24-70gm II better in stabilisation? Thank you!
In your sharpness tests, you didn't state what aperture you were shooting at, only the focal lengths - also it would be helpful to have a comparison at different apertures. Sony might have the edge at 2.8, for example, but the Sigma at 5.6
Any news if Sigma is planning on releasing a version 2 of this Art Lens 24-70mm F2.8? Thanks
How has this only just come up on my feed?! Great vid mate.
Appreciate you!
I bought the a7iv for that Sigma lens. It’s so good and an obvious choice. Unless you’re a pro shooter getting paid a lot for gigs, then I might consider the Sony for a little weight savings.
Thank you so much Chris for the informative and helpful comparative review! God bless and good luck!
My question is: Why in the B&H page both lens it said for Full Frame format but GM said Sony EF and Sigma Sony E? I have understood when it say Sony EF (mean Full Frame), and Sony E (mean APS-C version)... Can someone explain it to me please, i'm very confused right now. 🤔 Sorry if my English is not well. 😅
Hello, and between the sigma and the new tamron 28-75 G2 ? In terms of optical quality (sharpness)?
Chris this is the first video I have watched over yours, very helpful
Chris, I bought the Sigma to replace the Sony I had that broke (and the repair shop was going to charge stupid money to fix it, and I needed it right away). I'm pretty happy with it in most cases, but feel like it does more perspective warping whenever I'm shooting pretty wide, such as photographing someone in a room - the walls are more curved that I ever remember happening with the Sony. Have you or anyone else noticed this? I've been thinking of selling the sigma and getting another sony for this reason. Thanks.
Yes I have the same issue when I shot a wedding last week. The distortion is pretty noticable at 24mm but you can always fix it in post.
Fantastic video. Way more useful than other comparisons I’ve watched. (Sorry it took me four months to get round to it)
Hey chris, I just want to say about the smooth and tight.
Smooth is for fast shooting range, for exp u zooming in and out faster for the object (not smooth for video)
Tight is suitable for video shooting (for a smooth video zooming)
Do you know if there will be an newer version of the sigma ? Like Sony did with the 24-70 II?
Boom, there u have it.
As if you read my mind, bro! Thank you for this video!
I was on a holiday recently and I was too busy changing lenses when I thought: I need a good 24-70mm when I'm taking photos in and around a city/ town/ village.
I love my 20mm G, 24mm GM and 35mm GM; but I am still drawn towards a good 24-70mm!
24-70 is the perfect walk about lens
Having all Sony and great GM glass are you opting for the GM II?
You need a Sony 24-105 G F4 Lens.
When I run primes (on my crop bodies) I bring two mounted bodies so I don’t fumble with lens changes. When I run a zoom, it’s usually on my a7iv.
Awesome video Chris. Even though standard zooms aren't really my bag, I am really happy with my Sigma 24-70mm Art. It does lean a little warm as you say, which is easy enough to fix in post. The Sigma 24-70mm also has a wonderful character that I can't quite put my finger on in it's image quality. I always know the images that I have taken with that lens. Maybe the new Sony is a little sharper if you are pixel peeping, but sharpness isn't everything and I feel like you get 95% of the new Sony performance with the Sigma as shown in your video.
Exactly! My Sigma has a very special look that is instantly recognizable. I love it.
Sigma has that warm sharp but not to sharp 3d look I used to associate with pictures from canons 5d mark 2. Its awesome for weddings.
I was very tempted to get the Sigma. The only single reason why I ended up getting the Sony is the weight. I carry my camera on a sling and heavy gear can take its toll on my back when I'm travelling.
Yep, weight is going to be a big factor for alot of folks
For quality in video specifically low controlled light with face closeup you think sigma is fine ?
0:30 what is the name of L shape cage for fx3?
That’s the titla have cage one.
Been using my Sigma for a couple years now and love it. My only reservation is the Active IBS for the A7Siii. For my work, i do a lot of handheld and the camera struggles with IBS on non Sony lenses. Anyone experience both of these lenses while using active IBS on the A7Siii? Any big difference like people say?
Can anyone second this please? Having the same dilemma. Have sigma but heard there is a big diff with ibis steadyshot. I like to film a lot handheld.
@amohammed5181 sony lenses work better with active stabilization on my 7siii
This video did a damn good job showing me I need the Sony. I can actually see a difference in your video side by side.
4:08 can the camera not be on auto aperture with the Sigma and therefore record from inside to outside?
How about barrel/pincushion distortion on the sony? On my sigma at 24mm on full frame its significant. Lens correction in LR has to be applied to every image, where straight lines bending a lot.
What Sony cameras compensate for the focus breathing with the Sigma ?
How many scenes are you going to use in this video, Chris?
Chris, “All of them!”
Ha ha, nice job! Really enjoyed all the different scenes and angles and how you worked it all together. Well done.
Haha I appreciate you appreciate this, Thankyou
This is where I’m stuck at, I just purchased the Sony a7IV and I’m starting my video business and I know the 24-70 would be a really nice all around lens ! Thank you for this video !!!
For starting budget the sigma will do nicely
If you don't need ultra low light performance, Sony 24-105 G lens is a better choice.
@@chrisbrockhurst Just ordered it 🤙🏽
@@2000sidhupunjab really? Why ?
@@DB-lr6kl OSS and longer range, F4 is totally fine with newer bodies and their low light capabilities. I find F2.8 neither here not there. Get F4 zoom with F1.2-F1.8 primes and you are set. F2.8 always keep you longing for more.
Good comparison video, Chris. I keep feeling like I don’t need a 24-70 due to my favorite primes but then the money starts to burn a hole in me pocket.
I love my primes, using 24, 35 and 85 regularly, but the Tamron 28-75 is so darn versatile for when I need it. Especially on lower budget videos where I don't have the time to switch lenses on the gimbal
Replace “clicky” with “detented” ftw ;)
Another great video bud.
Quick and informative! Thank you!
which body have you used for comparison?
with all the features of the newer Sony lens, I think reasonably its only about 200-300 dollar more expesive than the Sigma. So in the end I bought the Sony 😊❤
Interestingly for me Chris, is the fact - whether knowingly or accidentally - you've produced some reasonably good 3D stereo vid's in your chapter on focus-breathing. If familiar with cross-eyed viewing of stereo pairs it was a cinch to view, despite the exaggerated depth due to excessive lens separation. A rare treat for me, though, for I've watched far too many comparison vid's where the vloggers have missed the opportunity to set their cam's perfectly aligned and sync'd, one to the other. Well done you!
Just got to LOVE Sigma for this, they really keep competitiveness in the lens market. Something anyone on a tight budget has to appreciate. I'm going to buy my first full frame camera and this Sigma will be on it 😁
Chris, for me it was very obvious that, with the test of the focus breathing, the one on the right was the GM II. It was much faster in the sharpness and keeping the sharpness on your eyes. It sticked like magic and also the colors are fuller and more real to me.
Ha, well, are you sure? The image on the right had the sony sitting in the video. That means the other one was on the camera. Unless he had two of each lens which seems unlikely. Plus every comparison had the sigma on the right. Chris?
@@sticky1212 The video with Chris focusing on his eyes has the Sony on the right, Sigma on left (see caption bottom of video): ruclips.net/video/3sbklGkdbHY/видео.html
The video of the boxes and lenses on the table swaps the lenses around, with the Sony on the left, Sigma on right (see caption bottom of video): ruclips.net/video/3sbklGkdbHY/видео.html
Hey! I see you're using the DJI mic now... You gonna do a review soon? Wondering if they fixed the radio interference issue when using an external lav mic...
Great video as always Chris. Honestly I own neither but if I had to get one it would be the sigma. For the price but also maybe it's just me but I love the warmer and contrasty image that sigma puts out. The aperture ring is nice to have but everything else feels a little unnecessary to me.
Yep! I hear ya, each to their own. The cost isn’t worth it for most
Great timing! I was just thinking of getting a 24-70 soon.
Tough decisions ahead
@@chrisbrockhurst Youre doing a comparison video that shows its not worth to buy the sony but then you giving this comment saying its tough decision xDDD yeeehh
@@yamatosan565 bro but its gm. He obviously talks about resell value far in future
@@yamatosan565 🤣
On the focus breathing test, the image on the right had much nicer colors on my opinion. Can you recall if that is a camera setting or could the fairly big difference possibly be attributable to the lens coatings? Which camera body was on the left and which was on the right?
2 things i missed in your video.
1. resale value of a sony G lens versus a sigma
2. sigma doesnt do 30 fps on a sony A1, Sony lenses do.
nice studio and good video.
I'm hesitant to buy the one or the other for weeks now. I'll mainly use it when traveling and the weight of the Sony is more appealing to me. Also more features ofc and a tad sharper. But €1300 more expensive than the Sigma lens... Resell value might be higher on the Sony after a few years though.
Awsome! One thing however... The Sony works so well with "active" stabilisation... the Sigma does not.... VERY noticeable on native vs non-native lenses.
Hey bud, this is the comment I've been looking for. Could you send over some test shots? I have the sigma but recently been shooting a lot of handheld. Heard sony lens with active steady shot ibis works amazing.
Idk, I know Sony is a big brand but I think were giving them too much credit when it comes to the focusing test in the beginning. The sigma seemed slightly faster with focusing but thats just me.
Outstanding review
🙏🏼
In before all the "Sigma lens has dust issues" yes the early production models did and this was resolved. I've had mine for over a year, it's an updated model and it has no more dust inside it than any other WR lens I use. Also Sigma UK confirmed they will strip and clean this lens free of charge even if it's a grey market product and out of warranty as they accept there was an issue. Yes, I have one and am very happy with the Sigma.
I bought the Sigma before the Sony was an option. The Sony is clearly a better lens but considerably more expensive.
If I had all the money in the world I'd buy the Sony. I don't, so the Sigma would still be my choice.
2nd’d
Can you please tell first four numbers of your lens' serial number? I've heard rumors that this issue has been resolved starting from S/N 55641775 , thanks
Is that shallow depht of field in a product video necessary? In your headshots i am always searching for the focus point. Still a good comparison though ;)
Do you have a link for the camera grip you use? The link in the description is for the bracket?
Whew! man, I was sweating right before 7:30. I thought the clip on the right looked so much better, sharpness/contrast and skin tone. But then I thought.. oh no.... that's the Sigma and I just bought a Sony GM today :( Then I could not find which one was which (because he pulls the title quickly) and then I finally saw it => One on the righty is SONY. THANK GOODNESS.
Would you recommend the Sony 24-70ii over the 16mm-35 for documentary vlog work to pair with my Sony a73
24-70 is way most versatile than the 16-35 for doc work. 100%
16-35 in APS-C video mode give you an another 17-18mm long = 16-52mm but in doucmentary work 24-70 will be excellent :)
I love sigma gear but it’s not g master. The video produced much better colours, deeper blacks and the focussing was faultless whereas the sigma focussing was a bit soft and definitely had less contrast. Now we come to the stills, again the sigma was good (bang for buck) but the sony was razor sharp and those were only short distance shots, I would dare say that shot over 20m will be substantially sharper on the sony. So…. Are a professional shooter? Is there a monetary value to your art? If the answer is yes to any of these questions the answer is obviously the 24-70mm g master by the facts figured in this video which is a great video I just think you don’t give the sony as much praise as you should alternatively to giving the sigma the praise it deserves.
Awesome video Chris! I'd just like to add that this specific Sigma lens tends to have a dust problem. Granted I live in a desert but its the only lens I own where massive dust specs have somehow managed to get caught on several glass elements well inside the lens.
Otherwise, its my number one favorite lens to use. I love the warmer tones that I get out of this lens over the cooler colors coming out of a Sony lens. The Sigma is a near perfect choice for me..just wished it was better weather sealed.
Cheers!
Sigma updated the design! I forget what serial number marks the change but mine is the newer one- I’ve filmed in the desert with wind, film at the beach and I haven’t had any dust
Yup this ^
This was fixed quite some time ago and is no longer an issue. If you're shopping for a used one, look for serial #'s after 55641775.
I had this issue with the 50mm its the only thing that makes me hesitant about buying another one!! they dont weather seal it :(
@@thomas.kovacik oh god whats the model # ahha
Tried to sign up for Epidemic promo - code isn't working. Looking at the Sigma lens though. 👍
Gah! Thanks for letting me know. Personal plan?
@@chrisbrockhurst Yes - personal plan.
I have the Sigma but the weight and more importantly, lens creep made me pick up the Sony 16-35mm F4 PZ when I got my Ronin RS3.
Do you have the images uploaded somewhere publicly accessible?
Thank you. Does anyone actually use the aperture ring on these lenses? This is not a selling point for me.
What i can not figure out does gm2 optical stabilisation vs sigmas not existing os makes substantional difference?
Have to make a decision before black friday but this rabithole is way too deep.
What did you choose?
Bro, sony AIII plus 24-70 Lense GMI for 3000 euros is a good price nowadays to pay? thanks bro.Great video
For me in the UK in 2024, the difference in price for the preowned sigma and preowned sony GM (NOTE: NOT the GM ii) os very small, Sony is maybe £50 (80 bucks) more expensive. Should I go for the GM when the difference is that small?
I have the Sigma 24-70mm and love it, it simply gets the job done! Would love to try the Sony one day!
does the Sony also have vignette?
Excellent video
The sony lens is meant for folks if your in a environment where your only not able to get second chance footage/images like weddings, live sport photography/videography, nature photography and videography, etc.... Everybody else, which is the majority would go for the Sigma because of the price and not so far fetch capabilities of the Sony version. Also there's no difference between those two lens besides its color temperature (which can be fix in post) and weight...they really selling you their name which is poor marketing, especially if you were too break anything on it they would charge you more than 70% of the cost of the lens, if not more than the actual cost of the lens itself (like the mount) 😒
There’s actually a lot different inside the new GM.
If sigma ever do r2 with internal focusing i would grab it
There is the missing aperture ring for the Sigma. I'm an old school photographer so it feels odd. Would have liked to known this before I bought. But saving $1,000 is still worth it.
I have the sigma and it’s incredible. The only complaint is I have after a couple of years using it as my primary lens…. weight.
You’ll appreciate the weight of this then.. does that justify the cost though 🤨
it's actually lighter than the GM 1
I have now had 2 versions on the 24-70 GM II, that squeak when pulling focus quickly, pretty loudly. I have yet to see it mentioned anywhere else. Anyone else's 24-70 making noises.
Autofocus when tracking for photo is a very different animal from autofocus during video. The former is more difficult to test, but it is where e.g. the eye is or isn't in focus during rapid movement of the subject (e.g. someone riding a bike). The latter is artificially slowed by the camera and big differences would be unexpected.
can I use it for my a6400 ?
Sure and x1.5 for length
I was one of the first to get the Sigma when it was released and it’s been my most used lens since then. There is a very special “look” to the Sigma images that is very pleasing for both landscape and people images. It’s very, very close to my 35GM and 50GM lenses. And that’s really saying something because those two lenses are incredible!
Sigma has a dust issue but i still love it. the GM tight would be nice since the sigma will fall out when upside down doing top doen shots so i have to tape it
I need to get mine sent in for dust removal, that being said. It’s never impacted the quality of image
Not on the new lesn I believe.
I have the Sigma, its identical image wise, but it isn't great in terms of sealing, had mine 6 months and its riddled with internal dust (doesnt affect the image much), not great! I don't use it in dusty conditions if anyone asks, no more dusty than day to day use. Will be selling cheap to get the Sony sadly.
I just bought the Sony for gimbal use. The sigma is noticeably more bulky and front heavy. Being able to switch from RS2 to RS3 will be welcome for long run and gun shoots. Shooting low angle with the sigma would trip out at times due to the extra front weight
Are you balancing the lens in the middle focal length on the gimbal?
I have no problem blanace it even with older and weaker rsc2.
I had no issues balancing the Sigma on my RS2 with a cage.
@chrisbrockhurst Hey Chris, can you explain this please? I balance at 24mm and shoot at 24mm using a gimball at all times but I do get the odd spasm with it on the rs3 gimbal.
Yes. It wasn't a huge issue, but on advanced moves like low angle, tilted up with parallax and thumb raise. The Sony GM II has been much easier to use. Pretty much bulletproof with the RS3
I love the "massive difference of sharpness" when he zooms into an ants facial hair and I can barely tell a difference at all. I'm going with the Sigma all the way. It's less than half the price and 95% as good. Sony really needs to drop their prices to be competitive. If the Sony was closer to say $1500 I'd probably go their way.
Wow I thought Sigma was Sony because I thought it much sharper in the auto-focus comparison video Wow Sigma is much better I should buy Sigma for color and auto-focus too Thank you.
2 things i learned about this video:
Keeping my Sigma 24-70 F2.8
There IS A MANGO FLAVORED BUBLY!! WHAAAATT!!!!
The sigma is a lot warmer than the Sony, which I personally like
I owned the Sigma for 2 months. GMII delivered. Liked the handling on A7 and FX6 better. Sold Sigma. Happy days ahead. Now just waiting for 70-200 GM II.....
I am also planning to sell my existing lens. Where did you sell yours if I may ask
I bought the Tamron 70-180 instead of 70-200gm. Size and weight.
@@Reviews4fun1 I'll spend the extra money on all the OIS controls, internal zoom, and GM build quality. Just shot a concert with it and the handling on the FX3 and FX6 is awesome.
I guess if one’s shooting with a Sony A1, perhaps it might make sense to grab the Sony, if high frame rate for stills is a priority. But man, it’s still close.
Apperture ring, or that rediculous ring speed switch are not acceptable reasons to pay sony lense double as much Sigma. I'll go for Sigma strongly.
During your ad the GM looked more magenta and sharper compared to the sigma. The sigma didn’t look bad though.
Tried 2 copy’s of the sigma in a wedding environment and both had severe focussing issues once the light dropped a little. Hunting, wouldn’t lock on or find the eye. Said was in focus and when I got back on the computer it wasn’t. So I swapped them for the Tamron 28-75mm and have had zero problems since.
I used them on the Sony A7III and A7IV
Hey I own the a7iv and returned the tamron g2 to get the sigma overall I really like the image quality out of the tamron it’s a bit more warmer but very very sharp and clean the thing that makes me miss that lens is the weight and size but the sigma 24mm also Is really nice for wide shots overall I’ve learned to be thankful with what I got :) happy shooting 😁
I have both, the tamron 28-75 image quality is nowhere near my Sigma Art lenses. Very noticable difference when I compare them in controlled environments in my studio.
To clarify, I'm taking about the first version, not the G2, but the difference between those two is very small.
I agree for weddings and run and Gun shoots the Sony is the better option but for controlled environments you’re fine with the Sigma. The sigma just wouldn’t lock on focus as quickly as I needed it too.
What's the FPS on an a9/a9ii or a1?
24-70 GM II fantastic, but i can't afford it. So, I'll go with Sigma :)
06:23 I would just like to double check, to me it looks like the sony (right one) is considerible faster/accurate in autofocus than the sigma (left). Or does this have to do with the camera that the lens is on? I am asking as nowadays you can get a second hand sony 24-70 for the same price as a new sigma 24-70 and I wonder which one I should buy for both video and photography
I like the color from the Sigma better. A great value if you ask me.
one question to the sony community.... who in the hell needs those manual aperture rings which sony implements in every new lens? I have and i will always use the control over it on my body, i would bet 99% of the buyers will only use the A modus on the new lenses so what is the sense of this feature?
People who started out shooting manually. Real film lenses have aperture rings. Personally I prefer the ring on the lens feels like a better shooting experience with the fx3
I only used it once for video as they allow you to change aperture smoothly without the F stop jumps which I think camera does? But totally agree it's 99% useless and sometimes annoying as it was accidentally changed to manual aperture..
@@northparkfilms3045 i shoot with manual vintage pentax K lenses for 10 years but the aperture ring control is nothing i miss on AF lenses^^
@@alanleung8188 okay but to be fair it is almost never my goal to change my aperture during a scene, rather do it with an vario ND, you know what i mean? :-)
I actually use and prefer a manual
Aperture ring over doing it in body, purely a personal preference. Much quicker for on the fly changes for adjusting exposure when necessary (when de-clicked)
Image stabilisation??
would love to own sony, is just incredibly expensive compare to sigma. great video
I was gonna post this before watching, but I watched and still feel that Sony missed the mark again, continues too and Sigma just needs to keep coming out with more lenses and keep making money. This isn't a competition for people that aren't sponsored by Sony, especially for video, but there's no reason for Sony to keep pushing outlandishly expensive lenses when flippin Samyang is gonna start keeping up in AF soon, get real homies.
I'll add I've got a later model sigma 24-70 with 0 dust issues
Actually Sony 24-70 is $100 less expensive than Canon 24-70. And sony has more features and more compact. So I can not devalue the sony one just because there is thrid party lens that cost half the price.
@@nightdonutstudio I fault Canon for cooking the meth they all smoke.
Only GM I bought was the 16-35 because of the zoom range. But I still grab the Sigma for most things. I probably wouldn’t have added full frame if it weren’t for that lens.
@@nightdonutstudio Canon’s has stabilization, while the Sony one hasn’t
Focus breathing is similarish but maybe sony just a bit more
Fab review. No need to upgrade, as the differences are not relevant to me.
Only difference I found on Sigma compared to Sony lenses, is that Sigma has most of the time stronger haze in contra light, especially sun. I know somebody wants it, somebody not.