Do you prefer the 24-70 GM II or the 28-75 G2? Also, this video was uploaded and scheduled a while ago.. not sure why the 4K is taking so long to process 🤷♂
Tried and used the gmii. That 4mm does make a difference, but as a wedding photographer/videographer, I put lenses thru tough scenarios, and having an affordable g2 is cheaper and better than the gmii. The g2 is easier to replace, plus insurance is cheaper. From a business perspective, the g2 makes more sense. For clients who can't tell the difference, the g2 works fine. The gmii is nice to have, but if you get the g2, that's like $1500 extra that can invest in something else. If quality is your concern, use a prime
Great point - it will take you less time to "pay off" the lens and start making profit with your gear more quickly. The way I shoot weddings, I unfortunately don't have time to swap lenses to use primes all day. That being said, I have used my 24-105 if I know I'll be zooming a LOT and it's a smaller budget wedding. All depends on the shoot! Thanks for your perspecitve!
Only used the Tamron 28-75 G2 but was very impressed, I can honestly tell you that while the GM is better, I wouldn’t notice or care for the difference. I’ll keep the extra cash.
For what it's worth, the 24-70 GM II is my most used lens for general shoots. The sharpness of this lens is almost like using primes... That gives me an idea for a video!
I really appreciate that you sort of break the decision down for pros and amateurs, recognizing different priorities. I get that pros (and some amateurs)are willing to pay whatever it costs, and carry whatever it weighs, because their livelihood depends to some degree on absolute image quality. I'd be willing to bet, that the vast majority of us would not be able to discern a difference between these 2 lenses at less than 200% and when not side by side.
Thanks for the kind words, James! For photography, the differences are much smaller but for video and specifically low light autofocus is where I noticed a pretty big difference. The gm ii does a great job in autofocus in any lighting conditions while the tamron stiruggles in low light. There are other differences but that was the biggest difference for me - but my situation isn’t the same as everyone else’s. The tamron is still a solid pick for many! Thanks again for the feedback and your support
It is fun to have the best most expensive lenses but for most of us hobbyists your 3 lenses for the price of the Sony is the way to go. My favourite lenses to use are the Sony 20mm,55mm and 85 mm because they weigh nothing and take up no space and are fairly cheap.
I actually thought the tamron looked much better in the video autofocus tests shown. It seemed more consistent in its transitions from near to far and vice-versa. The sony seemed to go most of the way quickly, stutter/hesitate a bit then go into precise focus slower than the initial fast part. I'd personally prefer a consistent speed all the way through. I own the tamron and although it's not perfect, I probably do have a bit of bias here - I definitely think in terms of value the tamron wins. Any differences in performance are so small they won't be noticed by the majority, so the savings in price represent a huge benefit.
fully agree, unless you are professional selling to a very demanding clientele, the G2 is so much a better option considering the price, another aspect of this lens (and not sure if this issue the same with the II) is the minimum ficus distance, with the G2 you are very close to macro performance
Thanks for the great video. Do you feel a difference in AFC performance between tamron and sony lenses? (I'm interested in AFC's performance for photographing moving people in kindergartens and bridals)
I feel like the Sony is more accurate and "sticky", once the focus is on the subject - especially in low light. If you're getting paid to film kids jumping around or happy bridal parties dancing around - I would rather use the Sony. You could get away with the Tamron if you had a proper light kit, but them kids ain't waiting for you to setup lights lol
@@keith-knittel I am using the 28-75 G2 with he A7RV and don't seem to have any issues with AF , even I low light, it is fast and accurate ....love this lens
I've recently been able to turn videography into my actual job, but I'm still stuck on spending the extra 1k to get a GM or the cheaper Tamron. Is the difference in quality something you'll actually notice? I shoot on a A7iii with a Tamron 17-28, but will be upgrading to an FX3 and I want to get a great lens that I can take over to the FX3 when I upgrade.
The jump between the A7III and FX3 is one I would prioritize over a GM vs tamron lens. The tamron is a great lens, as long as you understand the focusing in low light my struggle at times, and it's a touch tighter focal length than the GM but given your situation, I'd get the more affordable tamron lens and upgrade your body first. You can always sell the tamron and upgrade if you really need to but the jump from a7iii to fx3 is huge. Congrats on the new job!
It is nearly impossible to mention all differences between this two lenses, but for me as a filmmaker you forgot to mention one important fact about the gm ii: The Active steady shot. If you use third party lenses (like the Tamron) on your A7SIII, A7IV or any Sony Camera with Active Steady Shot, you can still active the active steady shot but there is a huge difference visible compare to Sony lenses. The Crop is bigger and the stabilisation poorer on third party lenses. If you film frequently handhelt, please keep that in mind. Thats the reason why i switcht from Sigma 24-70 Art to the Sony 24-70 GM II. Thanks for this Comparison!
Ooh man! I definitely need to test the differences out between this. Maybe that had something to do with my choosing the 24-70 after watching the footage back too. Especially since I used this handheld a lot
Great review. I have the GMII and absolutely love it but for literally 90% of people they will be happy with either the sigma 24-70 or tamron 28-75 G2 for much less. I had the sigma and still love it might end up buying it again just because I got such great shots with that lens. It's just that for event work the sigma sometimes would miss focus which really was not good. It's the typical thing with sigmas (missing focus or not so great focus tracking). But for my landscape work they all work great. It's also worth noting that at least from what I've noticed using both, the sigma 24-70 flare is less pronounced than the gm ii when shooting into the sun. But the sony for sure is sharper especially in the center and corners than the sigma from the testing I did side by side outdoors (not a fan of shooting indoors for tests). Also sample variation still plagues the sony lenses. I had to go through 3 copies to get an excellent GM II so that is NOT FUN.
Hi there. Need some advice if you don't mind. Tamron 28-75 G2 or the latest Sigma 24-70 II? I shoot mostly indoors in low light with no flash. I need sharpness and quick AF.
For me it's the sheepish little laugh every time you say the sony is 2.5 the price of the tamron 😂 Thanks for such a great comparison, I'm still on the fence - if the tamron had the extra 4mm at the wide end it would be a no-brainer.
@@smithymcsmithface thanks! I actually have that one (albeit with a canon mount + metabones) but am looking to upgrade for speed + focus mainly, but also weight. I feel like if I’m forking out for an upgrade then maybe I should just go for the whole hog? The tamron’s been a workhorse for me though!
Got Tamron recently when it went on sale for $699. Didn't like it at all and returned it. First, I realized how 24mm is important, and it's not about FOV, it's about look. I didn't like Tamron subtle color shift, it was annoying, I like Sony lenses neutral colors. Tamron also seems to be lacking in contrast, somehow the images looked flat. Bokeh is also sometimes dreadful, depends on the distance and focal length. I had Sigma 24-70/2.8, it produced lovely images but was too heavy, so I thought Tamron would be an acceptable substitute -- it's not even close.
the center sharpness of the Tamron is ALMOST the same as the Sony GM, it's SCARY SCARY Close, the corners are a different story, its more noticeable that the GM is better but honestly, the center sharpness is the most important result so that Tamron is GM quality for me.
I owned Sony GM II loved the lens but I switched to Sigms 24-70 2.8 ART lens I tested Tamron but it’s not in the same league as Sony GM II and Sigma. I am fashion photographer for movie and entertainment industry. I need to face the results my clients demand and I will dare not be caught with a Tamron at major events.
You just pay half of the money for the name and brand, which is called Sony G Master, save your money and buy Tamron, no one wants to waste money, the quality is also excellent, I will definitely buy Tamron
For photography, thats a more difficult question to answer. I think that comes down to how much do you rely on autofocus tracking your subjects, and will the extra 4mm at the wider end help you shoot better photos? The weather sealing on the GM is nice to have. The filters on the GM are more expensive, unless you already have larger filters. Let me know what you end up choosing. Always love hearing other peoples thoughts.
@@keith-knittel thank you for your review! For studio photography with strobes by aperture f8, the difference between GM II and Tamron 28-75 g2 would be noticeable? 🙈
@@olgagolz Locked off in a studio, shooting photos, with controlled light, at the same focal length and aperture.. I don't think I'd be able to tell a difference unless I was REALLY zooming in and comparing the images. The differences become more apparent when you're out in dynamic lighting and leaning on the autofocus to nail your shots. Even then, the difference may not be that great until you're in a low light scene. I'm a fan of the wider angle GM, but if you're in a studio and can control just about everything.. the tamron will work great
Always thought it was interesting to see what the difference would be between them. More money usually equals more performance, but HOW much better is it? Is it worth the price difference? Thats the angle I was approaching this video from
Do you prefer the 24-70 GM II or the 28-75 G2? Also, this video was uploaded and scheduled a while ago.. not sure why the 4K is taking so long to process 🤷♂
Taking into account the minimal difference in results between the two lenses, I prefer the Tamron.
I sold my gm ii and take the tamron the tamron was sharper and feel so much lighter
Some people choose Sony 2470, because of the wider end
@@denis5850 tamron isn't sharper at all
@@BryceKuhnmaybe tour lens problem..
Tried and used the gmii. That 4mm does make a difference, but as a wedding photographer/videographer, I put lenses thru tough scenarios, and having an affordable g2 is cheaper and better than the gmii. The g2 is easier to replace, plus insurance is cheaper.
From a business perspective, the g2 makes more sense. For clients who can't tell the difference, the g2 works fine. The gmii is nice to have, but if you get the g2, that's like $1500 extra that can invest in something else.
If quality is your concern, use a prime
Sound advice! Nobody ever mentions the additional insurance cost that comes with the sexy toys. Year after year.
Great point - it will take you less time to "pay off" the lens and start making profit with your gear more quickly. The way I shoot weddings, I unfortunately don't have time to swap lenses to use primes all day. That being said, I have used my 24-105 if I know I'll be zooming a LOT and it's a smaller budget wedding. All depends on the shoot! Thanks for your perspecitve!
I am very happy with the Mark-1version of the Tamron 28-75mm and have been shooting with that lens for years.
Only used the Tamron 28-75 G2 but was very impressed, I can honestly tell you that while the GM is better, I wouldn’t notice or care for the difference. I’ll keep the extra cash.
Agree!
But Tamron is not as fancy and doesn’t have G sign on the side
@@RecapediaClips-se4nc 🤣😂
@@RecapediaClips-se4ncLol seriously, that's what my brain tries to tell me 😅
You can get the Tamron 28-75 plus the Sony 24mm f1.4 for the price of the Sony 24-70. I guess that gets rid of the 24mm issue.
For what it's worth, the 24-70 GM II is my most used lens for general shoots. The sharpness of this lens is almost like using primes... That gives me an idea for a video!
I really appreciate that you sort of break the decision down for pros and amateurs, recognizing different priorities.
I get that pros (and some amateurs)are willing to pay whatever it costs, and carry whatever it weighs, because their livelihood depends to some degree on absolute image quality. I'd be willing to bet, that the vast majority of us would not be able to discern a difference between these 2 lenses at less than 200% and when not side by side.
Thanks for the kind words, James! For photography, the differences are much smaller but for video and specifically low light autofocus is where I noticed a pretty big difference. The gm ii does a great job in autofocus in any lighting conditions while the tamron stiruggles in low light. There are other differences but that was the biggest difference for me - but my situation isn’t the same as everyone else’s. The tamron is still a solid pick for many! Thanks again for the feedback and your support
A year later I'm here watching your content, thank you very much.
You're welcome and thanks for the support! 🙌
It is fun to have the best most expensive lenses but for most of us hobbyists your 3 lenses for the price of the Sony is the way to go. My favourite lenses to use are the Sony 20mm,55mm and 85 mm because they weigh nothing and take up no space and are fairly cheap.
Solid review. Good job 👏
I actually thought the tamron looked much better in the video autofocus tests shown. It seemed more consistent in its transitions from near to far and vice-versa. The sony seemed to go most of the way quickly, stutter/hesitate a bit then go into precise focus slower than the initial fast part. I'd personally prefer a consistent speed all the way through. I own the tamron and although it's not perfect, I probably do have a bit of bias here - I definitely think in terms of value the tamron wins. Any differences in performance are so small they won't be noticed by the majority, so the savings in price represent a huge benefit.
amazing review dude
Thanks man!
VERY helpful video. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
fully agree, unless you are professional selling to a very demanding clientele, the G2 is so much a better option considering the price, another aspect of this lens (and not sure if this issue the same with the II) is the minimum ficus distance, with the G2 you are very close to macro performance
How am I just now learning that the GM has an aperture ring!
Thanks for the great video. Do you feel a difference in AFC performance between tamron and sony lenses? (I'm interested in AFC's performance for photographing moving people in kindergartens and bridals)
I feel like the Sony is more accurate and "sticky", once the focus is on the subject - especially in low light. If you're getting paid to film kids jumping around or happy bridal parties dancing around - I would rather use the Sony. You could get away with the Tamron if you had a proper light kit, but them kids ain't waiting for you to setup lights lol
@@keith-knittel I am using the 28-75 G2 with he A7RV and don't seem to have any issues with AF , even I low light, it is fast and accurate ....love this lens
I also have the same setup and no issues with AF performance , even in low light
I've recently been able to turn videography into my actual job, but I'm still stuck on spending the extra 1k to get a GM or the cheaper Tamron. Is the difference in quality something you'll actually notice? I shoot on a A7iii with a Tamron 17-28, but will be upgrading to an FX3 and I want to get a great lens that I can take over to the FX3 when I upgrade.
The jump between the A7III and FX3 is one I would prioritize over a GM vs tamron lens. The tamron is a great lens, as long as you understand the focusing in low light my struggle at times, and it's a touch tighter focal length than the GM but given your situation, I'd get the more affordable tamron lens and upgrade your body first. You can always sell the tamron and upgrade if you really need to but the jump from a7iii to fx3 is huge. Congrats on the new job!
It is nearly impossible to mention all differences between this two lenses, but for me as a filmmaker you forgot to mention one important fact about the gm ii: The Active steady shot. If you use third party lenses (like the Tamron) on your A7SIII, A7IV or any Sony Camera with Active Steady Shot, you can still active the active steady shot but there is a huge difference visible compare to Sony lenses. The Crop is bigger and the stabilisation poorer on third party lenses. If you film frequently handhelt, please keep that in mind. Thats the reason why i switcht from Sigma 24-70 Art to the Sony 24-70 GM II. Thanks for this Comparison!
Ooh man! I definitely need to test the differences out between this. Maybe that had something to do with my choosing the 24-70 after watching the footage back too. Especially since I used this handheld a lot
Hey@@keith-knittel - did you do a test on this particular function and see a noticeable difference?
We will gain more trust from the client when using the GM lens and adding to the success rate of the project deal.
How does this compare to the Sigma 28-70mm lens? Which would you choose if you could only pick one of the two?!
If you travel a lot, get the Tamron. If weight and size not a problem at all, and you willing to spend a little extra, get the simga 24-70 art.
Have you tried the a7iv + 24-70GM combo with a DJI RS Mini Gimbal yet? Curious if it can handle the weight...
I don’t have a RS Mini, sorry. Can’t say if this will work, or how well it will work with the mini
did you found solution to this? :)
Hey, did you manage to find out how to balance it?
try these two on the sony fx30
Great review. I have the GMII and absolutely love it but for literally 90% of people they will be happy with either the sigma 24-70 or tamron 28-75 G2 for much less. I had the sigma and still love it might end up buying it again just because I got such great shots with that lens. It's just that for event work the sigma sometimes would miss focus which really was not good. It's the typical thing with sigmas (missing focus or not so great focus tracking).
But for my landscape work they all work great. It's also worth noting that at least from what I've noticed using both, the sigma 24-70 flare is less pronounced than the gm ii when shooting into the sun. But the sony for sure is sharper especially in the center and corners than the sigma from the testing I did side by side outdoors (not a fan of shooting indoors for tests). Also sample variation still plagues the sony lenses. I had to go through 3 copies to get an excellent GM II so that is NOT FUN.
Hi there. Need some advice if you don't mind. Tamron 28-75 G2 or the latest Sigma 24-70 II? I shoot mostly indoors in low light with no flash. I need sharpness and quick AF.
I don't have any experience with the Sigma 24-70 II, but it's on my list of lenses to try out
im using the 24 1.8 viltrox and 35 1.4 gm, shud I get the tamron 28-75? 😞🤔
maybe 85 1.8
Bro, that’s dope you’re in Cleveland?
Yeah, I'm in Cleveland!
+keith-knittel, what lens do you use for this talking head shot?
For the talking heads, I almost always use the Sony 35mm f/1.8
Thanks @@keith-knittel I'm trying to figure out a home studio and setup at the moment myself
For me it's the sheepish little laugh every time you say the sony is 2.5 the price of the tamron 😂 Thanks for such a great comparison, I'm still on the fence - if the tamron had the extra 4mm at the wide end it would be a no-brainer.
Why not use the tamron 24-70 mark1 lens?
@@smithymcsmithface thanks! I actually have that one (albeit with a canon mount + metabones) but am looking to upgrade for speed + focus mainly, but also weight. I feel like if I’m forking out for an upgrade then maybe I should just go for the whole hog? The tamron’s been a workhorse for me though!
Got Tamron recently when it went on sale for $699. Didn't like it at all and returned it. First, I realized how 24mm is important, and it's not about FOV, it's about look. I didn't like Tamron subtle color shift, it was annoying, I like Sony lenses neutral colors. Tamron also seems to be lacking in contrast, somehow the images looked flat. Bokeh is also sometimes dreadful, depends on the distance and focal length. I had Sigma 24-70/2.8, it produced lovely images but was too heavy, so I thought Tamron would be an acceptable substitute -- it's not even close.
the center sharpness of the Tamron is ALMOST the same as the Sony GM, it's SCARY SCARY Close, the corners are a different story, its more noticeable that the GM is better but honestly, the center sharpness is the most important result so that Tamron is GM quality for me.
I owned Sony GM II loved the lens but I switched to Sigms 24-70 2.8 ART lens I tested Tamron but it’s not in the same league as Sony GM II and Sigma. I am fashion photographer for movie and entertainment industry. I need to face the results my clients demand and I will dare not be caught with a Tamron at major events.
My Tamron 28-75 2.8 G1 ! has a quite fast + reliable af (af-c mode) even in low light. So the G2 seems to be an af downgrade. (?)
Good Video
You just pay half of the money for the name and brand, which is called Sony G Master, save your money and buy Tamron, no one wants to waste money, the quality is also excellent, I will definitely buy Tamron
Just got the Tamron for under $600
Where?
@@kevinbraganza1 on ebay. i got one earlier this month for ~$560. it was in almost mint condition.
If tamron would made this lens 82mm thread, than it would be am 28-75 f 2 lens!
How so?
@@smithymcsmithface look on youtube why thr 28-75 g2 is an F2 lens as design
Hi… Well I’ve done part of a Super Bowl commercial with the Tamron … but I guess that isn’t pro enough :p
The question is: "is the GM $1400 better for your photography usage?"
For photography, thats a more difficult question to answer. I think that comes down to how much do you rely on autofocus tracking your subjects, and will the extra 4mm at the wider end help you shoot better photos? The weather sealing on the GM is nice to have. The filters on the GM are more expensive, unless you already have larger filters. Let me know what you end up choosing. Always love hearing other peoples thoughts.
@@keith-knittel thank you for your review! For studio photography with strobes by aperture f8, the difference between GM II and Tamron 28-75 g2 would be noticeable? 🙈
@@olgagolz Locked off in a studio, shooting photos, with controlled light, at the same focal length and aperture.. I don't think I'd be able to tell a difference unless I was REALLY zooming in and comparing the images. The differences become more apparent when you're out in dynamic lighting and leaning on the autofocus to nail your shots. Even then, the difference may not be that great until you're in a low light scene. I'm a fan of the wider angle GM, but if you're in a studio and can control just about everything.. the tamron will work great
@@keith-knittel thank you for such a detailed answer 🌹For wider angle I have a Sony 24-105 😊
@@olgagolz No problem! I have the 24-105 and love it as well. It's one of my first Sony lenses I ever bought and still use it all the time
The Sony is 3x more expensive, but not 3x better.
All depends on your use-case for the lenses
the cheapest one and the best one! Strange comparison, tamron is much worse.
Always thought it was interesting to see what the difference would be between them. More money usually equals more performance, but HOW much better is it? Is it worth the price difference? Thats the angle I was approaching this video from