Through many reviews of side-by-side analysis, the Sony is sharper but only marginally so. Aside from fps limits on the Sigma (I think they've changed via firmware update), there is no other justification to not choose Sigma. And if Sigma can make that good of a lens for half the cost and still make great profits, what the hell is Sony doing? They'll only get my money for the camera body🤷🏻♂️
I agree with this, really only paying for the body from them is companies are making very comparable lens’ for half the price. Unless we’re absolutely picking photos apart & like you mentioned the fps limits, think my mind is made up between the two
Sigma has a better look for video IMO. In video we don’t want to muddle the background into oblivion. The bokeh in the Sigma provides a little more shape/detail to the blurred background while letting in the same light and getting the same separation
I wonder how would the Sony has better image quality? And it"s clear that most of us choose the Sony over Sigma, but money makes the world go round. Personally, any lens costing 1k or more is just a dream. Reality hits hard.
Also access to 15+fps for photography, crucial in some situations if you have the A1 or A9III. I have the Sigma which is marvelous for video with near zero focus breathing, but I have the older model so the auto focus is good but not great.
yeah but you won't do 15+ fps with a lens like this, maybe 100-400 is the minimum since 120fps (20fps) are more indicated for frantic wildlife or 16k+ sports.
@@kingghidorah8106 Yeah but have you tried photographing kids and you just keep missing focus? You can as well do product photography that you wanna catch that droplet at the perfect timing with the A9III's 120fps for example. It's something you need to put into consideration.
@@Bo_Hazem for that you usually use macro lenses, not the 24-70 with the most distortion /breathing and the furthest minimum focus distance 🤣 and kids, well, yeah too, but are you going to pay €15.000 to make an album of your kids? Most professional kid shootouts involve the kids being still 💁♂️
@@Bo_Hazem no, it doesn't make sense to anyone who has been doing action photography for over 16 years. I've done gigs with children with a 12fps capable camera and I used it on single shot. Many of the 120fps requiring situations are being recorded with a gopro (because using a 7000 dollar camera and a 2300 dollar lens in a place where it can be easily destroyed doesn't make sense at all unless you grow S1000 notes instead of hair).
The Sony is marginally better at 24mm, since the sigma sharpness gets fuzzy when you go right into the very corners, and the Sony wins. This advantage is clear only in wide angles, since the Sigma sharpens up a lot at the telephoto end (close to 70mm). And except for the couple of Sony stuff that the short said, and slightly better LoCA and closeup image quality, the Sigma clearly wins economically.
You make a video like this and leave out the biggest difference which is Sony caps the Sigma frames per second to 15. And 2% sharper does not mean better image quality. How a lens renders an image is more important then 2% of sharpness. Thing like contrast. Color, How smooth the out of focus area is. How nice the bokeh balls are. The only reason some people justify the price difference is because of the artificial fps cap Sony puts on third party glass. And not allowing focus breathing compinsation on 3rd party glass. And im sure the better stabllization is also because of Sony cripling 3rd party glass. Thankfully Nikon is not cripling their 3rd party glass. Maybe it will force Sony to do the same.
😭😭 I recently upgraded from a Tamron 28-75 to a 24-70 GM2 and there is no comparison in image quality. The Sony is miles better than any Tamron and even the one sigma wide angle lens that I have.
@@connorkack did you own the G2 of the Tamron? Sometimes I have to check the metadata to make sure wether it's the Tamron or a GM ... My unit is very sharp and has a beautiful rendering when it comes down to microcontrast
@@eike.zender interesting. I haven't used it in a bit but I believe it was a G1. I can check a little later and reply to my own comment. I do a quite a bit of photography shoots now compared to what I used to and I couldn't imagine having a Tamron lens over a Sony. The sharpness and fast focus is crucial. I have even used a A7IV on a Segway with a 35 at 1.4.
I own the Sigma 24-70 and if I had the money I’d have gone for the Sony. But since I own the Sigma, it’s the one I use and it rarely comes off my camera
24-70 GM version 1 is around the same price as the Tamron and a way better buy. 3rd party lenses are just a 2nd class experience, the quality is just not there
Based on what? Those lenses are almost identical except sigma is slightly softer in the corners wide open, that’s it. Sharpness is exactly the same otherwise and sigma build quality is excellent. Getting gm1 over sigma art2 would be just silly
Sony limits that to 10fps for third party lenses, it's a software limiter so just a dirty tactic to give their lenses an advantage. Reasonably thinking who needs to shoot faster than 10fps with a 24-70? A tiny fraction of people so that shouldn't be an issue for everyone else.
Yes because those additional features ensure consistency with the lenses performance. Any professional will gladly choose a gm lens over a sigma if the budget allows it.
@harryvlogs7833 sometimes the price trade off is not with it fiendish in what you are doing. For work shooting docs I need that native tech for continously auto focus (especially on older bodies) and active stabilization
Through many reviews of side-by-side analysis, the Sony is sharper but only marginally so. Aside from fps limits on the Sigma (I think they've changed via firmware update), there is no other justification to not choose Sigma. And if Sigma can make that good of a lens for half the cost and still make great profits, what the hell is Sony doing? They'll only get my money for the camera body🤷🏻♂️
I agree with this, really only paying for the body from them is companies are making very comparable lens’ for half the price. Unless we’re absolutely picking photos apart & like you mentioned the fps limits, think my mind is made up between the two
Sigma has a better look for video IMO. In video we don’t want to muddle the background into oblivion. The bokeh in the Sigma provides a little more shape/detail to the blurred background while letting in the same light and getting the same separation
I’ll happily choose Sigma over Sony, one thing I HATE about Sony’s zoom lenses are that when you zoom in, you turn the zoom ring the wrong side…
No sigma have zoom ring wrong way
@@harryvlogs7833no zooming should be to the left not the right like Sony does
@sespokari4523 no the right like sony and panasonic does as you hand is in a better position then
No. Sony does the right way. Sigma does it wrong. If you have sony lens, its better to get sony version to be consistent with the other lens.
@@shem44BS. There is no right or wrong. It is just left and right.
What should make one direction right and the other wrong?
I wonder how would the Sony has better image quality? And it"s clear that most of us choose the Sony over Sigma, but money makes the world go round. Personally, any lens costing 1k or more is just a dream. Reality hits hard.
Well sigma is better optically
Also access to 15+fps for photography, crucial in some situations if you have the A1 or A9III. I have the Sigma which is marvelous for video with near zero focus breathing, but I have the older model so the auto focus is good but not great.
yeah but you won't do 15+ fps with a lens like this, maybe 100-400 is the minimum since 120fps (20fps) are more indicated for frantic wildlife or 16k+ sports.
@@kingghidorah8106 Yeah but have you tried photographing kids and you just keep missing focus? You can as well do product photography that you wanna catch that droplet at the perfect timing with the A9III's 120fps for example. It's something you need to put into consideration.
@@Bo_Hazem for that you usually use macro lenses, not the 24-70 with the most distortion /breathing and the furthest minimum focus distance 🤣 and kids, well, yeah too, but are you going to pay €15.000 to make an album of your kids? Most professional kid shootouts involve the kids being still 💁♂️
@@kingghidorah8106 Maybe it just doesn't make sense to you?
@@Bo_Hazem no, it doesn't make sense to anyone who has been doing action photography for over 16 years. I've done gigs with children with a 12fps capable camera and I used it on single shot. Many of the 120fps requiring situations are being recorded with a gopro (because using a 7000 dollar camera and a 2300 dollar lens in a place where it can be easily destroyed doesn't make sense at all unless you grow S1000 notes instead of hair).
Also has a film on the lens that makes your images look better for sony
😮 Sony's always going to cost more ... even if you do side by side lens comparison photos they're pretty much the same
The Sony is marginally better at 24mm, since the sigma sharpness gets fuzzy when you go right into the very corners, and the Sony wins. This advantage is clear only in wide angles, since the Sigma sharpens up a lot at the telephoto end (close to 70mm). And except for the couple of Sony stuff that the short said, and slightly better LoCA and closeup image quality, the Sigma clearly wins economically.
wait, so active stabilization doesn't work with 3rd party lenses???
What I just realized is, that the lens hood on the Sony has this little door to adjust you ND.
I love you Boone been a fan since middle school and in college now
€1200 more for focus breathing compensation
meanwhile the Sigma with no focus breathing:
Sony being Sony. Classic.
You make a video like this and leave out the biggest difference which is Sony caps the Sigma frames per second to 15. And 2% sharper does not mean better image quality. How a lens renders an image is more important then 2% of sharpness. Thing like contrast. Color, How smooth the out of focus area is. How nice the bokeh balls are. The only reason some people justify the price difference is because of the artificial fps cap Sony puts on third party glass. And not allowing focus breathing compinsation on 3rd party glass. And im sure the better stabllization is also because of Sony cripling 3rd party glass. Thankfully Nikon is not cripling their 3rd party glass. Maybe it will force Sony to do the same.
Actually the sigma is better optically as tests show
Tamron 28-75 crying in the corner 😢
The G2 is just as good quality as the Sigma. imo it's better and lighter
😭😭 I recently upgraded from a Tamron 28-75 to a 24-70 GM2 and there is no comparison in image quality. The Sony is miles better than any Tamron and even the one sigma wide angle lens that I have.
@@connorkack did you own the G2 of the Tamron? Sometimes I have to check the metadata to make sure wether it's the Tamron or a GM ... My unit is very sharp and has a beautiful rendering when it comes down to microcontrast
@@eike.zender interesting. I haven't used it in a bit but I believe it was a G1. I can check a little later and reply to my own comment. I do a quite a bit of photography shoots now compared to what I used to and I couldn't imagine having a Tamron lens over a Sony. The sharpness and fast focus is crucial. I have even used a A7IV on a Segway with a 35 at 1.4.
Can't wait for Huawei camera rumored to be out soon. Sony, like the others are over charging because they can.
Weight diff? Autofocus quality? (Other than fPS)
In the UK, the Sigma is £900 and the Sony £1350. I would pick the Sony every time. If you ever go to sell it, the Sigma plummets in value.
Sigma 24-70 all the way 🎉
there is no active stabilization on this GM II
I own the Sigma 24-70 and if I had the money I’d have gone for the Sony. But since I own the Sigma, it’s the one I use and it rarely comes off my camera
24-70 GM version 1 is around the same price as the Tamron and a way better buy. 3rd party lenses are just a 2nd class experience, the quality is just not there
Based on what? Those lenses are almost identical except sigma is slightly softer in the corners wide open, that’s it. Sharpness is exactly the same otherwise and sigma build quality is excellent. Getting gm1 over sigma art2 would be just silly
The tight is to hold the mm point
Is sigma limited in the how many frames per sec it can take?
Sony limits that to 10fps for third party lenses, it's a software limiter so just a dirty tactic to give their lenses an advantage.
Reasonably thinking who needs to shoot faster than 10fps with a 24-70? A tiny fraction of people so that shouldn't be an issue for everyone else.
Sony GM glass cannot be beat. Sony A1, Sony GM glass all day.
I'll choose Tamron G2😂😂😂😂😂
You forgot to mention the better autofocus
I hate to say it but I have been paying more for Sony lately. Better resale value and overall slightly better lens.
Another difference is that Sony has linear manual focusing whereas Sigma does not.
What does this mean?
I heard sigma was actually better in image quality
Is there a significant difference in weight? If so that is worth $$$
I don’t know anything about cameras. But sigma hahaha funny
The Sony one will probably get bricked with a firmware update somehow 😅
Cries in nikkor
Yes because those additional features ensure consistency with the lenses performance. Any professional will gladly choose a gm lens over a sigma if the budget allows it.
I got the sony, as a videogrpaher it’s crisp and creamy af
The sigma is better optically go watch tests
Difference is dust 😂
sony has more inage quality? i doubt that 😂
That makes me a sigma male
Thanks Sigma
A little better or image quality is an understatement. The difference between Sigma, Tamron and other third-party lenses compared to Sony is crazy.
Dislike 👎 because you said only good things about Sony…nothing about sigma so…
Sony all day long. Only Tamron zooms are an alternative for me.
Why sigma is optically superior
@harryvlogs7833 sometimes the price trade off is not with it fiendish in what you are doing. For work shooting docs I need that native tech for continously auto focus (especially on older bodies) and active stabilization
Choosing Sony I can understand, but Tamron over Sigma? No way!
@DanielLeivaCardozo nah sigma zooms cheaper and optically as good
@@LSKChan does your camera not have ibis?
You forgot weather proof? Maybe I’m wrong lol. I don’t own Sony or sigma haha corrrect me