Many people don’t understand or know about Lens coatings. Sonys image is always neutral and natural. Sigma and tamron have this weird yellow/green tint baked into your photos and videos. This is great if you like that look, I personally hate it. I wish sigma and tamron would use the same coating as Sony, but then again it’s probably a secret Sony will never share.
I always wondered why the shots from my Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 EF-S looked so much warmer/greener than any of my Canon lenses on my old 250D. Some colors pop more and there’s some perceived improved contrast but it doesn’t look as neutral or natural as say the 24-105 f4 L.
Oh my gosh I thought I was losing my mind. I have the 70-200 Sony f4 and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the trees/grass/sun always looks almost fake? It’s why I’ve stuck with my Sony, even for portraits.
I went to the store to buy the Sigma (I already have the 24-70 Sigma). Ignoring the fact I didn't like the lens hood and the zoom ring being further out, which made it seem more unstable when holding it. The thing I really didn't expect that put me off the Sigma completely was the massive ridges in the grip for the zoom, maybe I hold the ring a little too hard but it just wasn't nice to use. I found it very uncomfortable to use for any length of time. So hard to justify the price difference though.
One issue is that you didn't compare these two with the Sony 70-200 f2.7 GM Mark II. Two issues with Sigma are that the zooming ring is reverse to Sony. Also, Sigma makes very good HEAVY lens where Sony is using much lighter material. It matters when you have to tote one around for a long time. Though I don't dis Sigma, I have a few of their aps-c lenses and they are great. Their FF lenses are really too heavy.
I'm going to definitely disagree when it comes to your differences between the belt quality. I have had the opportunity to use both versions of the 70-200 gm from Sony and sigmas version as well. All of them have a very sturdy chassis. The only thing is that 70-200 gm ii The significantly lighter than the original and the sigma. But in terms of build quality I would say that they are on par with each other
the sigma vs sony GM ... for the price I would go for the sigma. But to compare it with the GM II ... I would go for the GM II. Thx for your review doing it with the GM I.
No you wouldnt! Lol! You know you would go for the SONY all day long! When you are out there in the field shooting action... Sigma is known to have the worst AF out of the 3rd party lenses. Sony doesnt share its tech with 3rd party companies therefore Native is always the best with the body. Best AF, Stabe, etc... And you know this! >;)))
Thanks for watching and sharing your opinion. I've actually had great success with any Sigma lens I have shot on. However, my experience is limited and it is possible in a different context (like shooting action sports) the AF is not as good as Sony, but that might be a good idea for a future video!
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
![POV SIGMA 70-200 F2.8 | EDINBURGH CITY STREET PHOTOGRAPHY [SONY A7IV]](/img/1.gif)
Which lens do you think is the best bang for your buck? *Correction: Both lenses use the same filter size: 77mm
Many people don’t understand or know about Lens coatings. Sonys image is always neutral and natural. Sigma and tamron have this weird yellow/green tint baked into your photos and videos. This is great if you like that look, I personally hate it. I wish sigma and tamron would use the same coating as Sony, but then again it’s probably a secret Sony will never share.
I always wondered why the shots from my Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 EF-S looked so much warmer/greener than any of my Canon lenses on my old 250D.
Some colors pop more and there’s some perceived improved contrast but it doesn’t look as neutral or natural as say the 24-105 f4 L.
@@DanielMendozaDev bingo
I have shot with multiple sigma lenses and I have never seen a difference in the color palette between that of Sony
Oh my gosh I thought I was losing my mind. I have the 70-200 Sony f4 and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the trees/grass/sun always looks almost fake? It’s why I’ve stuck with my Sony, even for portraits.
@@bchesneyphoto Bingo. It's tempting to save a couple hundred dollars, but lenses are forever and it's bet to buy the best once and forget about it.
The sigma is better than the Sony version I, but the Sony version II is better than the Sigma.
The Sony is also almost twice as expensive as the Sigma, without offering jack sh*t extra over the Sigma, as always.
I went to the store to buy the Sigma (I already have the 24-70 Sigma). Ignoring the fact I didn't like the lens hood and the zoom ring being further out, which made it seem more unstable when holding it. The thing I really didn't expect that put me off the Sigma completely was the massive ridges in the grip for the zoom, maybe I hold the ring a little too hard but it just wasn't nice to use. I found it very uncomfortable to use for any length of time. So hard to justify the price difference though.
Good points! Sometimes the small things make a big difference.
@@JonathanRichey Though I have to say I dont think I've really heard anyone else bothered about it so I think its probably a me issue. ha ha
According to Sigma website, Sigma 70-200 DG DN takes "77mm" filter, not 82mm.
Thanks for catching that, I'll make sure to double-check the specs in the future!
What about the limitation of the continuous shooting speed? Sony limits the number of serial images for lenses from other manufacturers, doesn't it?
One issue is that you didn't compare these two with the Sony 70-200 f2.7 GM Mark II. Two issues with Sigma are that the zooming ring is reverse to Sony. Also, Sigma makes very good HEAVY lens where Sony is using much lighter material. It matters when you have to tote one around for a long time. Though I don't dis Sigma, I have a few of their aps-c lenses and they are great. Their FF lenses are really too heavy.
I'm going to definitely disagree when it comes to your differences between the belt quality. I have had the opportunity to use both versions of the 70-200 gm from Sony and sigmas version as well. All of them have a very sturdy chassis. The only thing is that 70-200 gm ii The significantly lighter than the original and the sigma. But in terms of build quality I would say that they are on par with each other
Hey, what microphone do you use at your desk?
I'm using the Audio-Technica AT875R condenser mic. You can learn more about it here - amzn.to/3wwOVj8
does the sigma create a vignette? like the 24-70mm sigma
Not that I have noticed.
the sigma vs sony GM ... for the price I would go for the sigma. But to compare it with the GM II ... I would go for the GM II. Thx for your review doing it with the GM I.
No problem, thx for watching! I'm curious, why would you pick the GM II ??
@@JonathanRichey Not So much of a price difference at this point and much faster AF, lighter and simply better
Btw... Thats not an A73 in the pic but an A7S3 >;)))
Right on, thanks for the correction.
No you wouldnt! Lol! You know you would go for the SONY all day long! When you are out there in the field shooting action... Sigma is known to have the worst AF out of the 3rd party lenses. Sony doesnt share its tech with 3rd party companies therefore Native is always the best with the body. Best AF, Stabe, etc... And you know this! >;)))
Thanks for watching and sharing your opinion. I've actually had great success with any Sigma lens I have shot on. However, my experience is limited and it is possible in a different context (like shooting action sports) the AF is not as good as Sony, but that might be a good idea for a future video!
I've never heard that it has the worst AF.
Since when does Sigma have the worst AF?