I bought this lens for a trip to Africa. I absolutely LOVE it! I also have the 24-70mm GM II which is great but this is so much smaller and useable as a travel lens. If you don’t need the 25-70mm then get this bad boy! Super fast focus-I’ve been really impressed.
The great thing for video is that clear image zoom makes this lens practically a 24-70. Considering the excellent close focusing distance, size and weight and stellar AF, this is an incredible lens.
Great review Kyle! This is an interesting lens. I own the 16-35 GMii and sometimes I wish I had that extra reach of a 50mm f/2.8. However, purchasing this lens might not be practical financially cause it’s like I’m buying a 35-50mm range to add to my 16-35. 🤔
Yeah there’s definitely a bit of overlap without a bunch of extra reach. That said, if you wanted something high quality when you’re traveling light, I think this ends up being an incredible option as a single lens to take with you.
I have 85mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 GM and a A7C. I was thinking of getting the 24mm f/2.8 cause it's compact and the 40mm f/2.5 cause it's compact as well... might compromise with this, 24-50mm f/2.8... maybe 40mm f/2.5 and just stick with that :p so hard to choose
Someone else compared the Tamron and the new Sony and they weren't that much different in sharpness, so it may also have to do with copy variation. I prefer the Tamron as a travel lens because I can easily crop the image or use APSC mode to get to 50 or 60mm, but there is no way that I can make a 24mm lens wider. Also the Tamron is about 400 dollars cheaper or used, even more so. I guess it just depends on one's purpose. I use my 65mm f2, 85mm f1.4 and 135mm f1.8 for any portraits.
I do feel like this video came off more harsh towards the 20-40 than intended. I really do love that lens and I think it’s a great option. Honestly the lack of switch buttons and aperture ring annoy me more than anything else. Makes it much clunkier and harder to use effectively
I get it. It all comes back down to one's uses for it, their style of shooting, etc. But the Sony sounds like a great lens. Just like the 20-40 isn't for everybody. That's the great thing about being a Sony shooter right now. Not only Sony, but there are so many 3rd party lenses to choose from. And what works for one photographer doesn't always work for another. But maybe I was too harsh. You did give an excellent review.@@kylemeshna
Damn this was so good I’m almost considering it over the 20-70mm. I have an a7s iii so no crop mode for me and the lens comes out in May. Sony is killing it with the lens drops. I would like to see open gate become a thing and the ibis from the a9 iii to come to the next a7s camera
Shall I say the 20-70 is far more usefull. I also have an a7siii. On different kind on event 20 is the bare minimum, and at the same time you want the 70 reach. And you can't swap lenses for a lot of reasons. A 20-50 2.8 would have been far more smarter, consumer's wise.
I want to see a comparison between this new lens and the Sony compact G lenses. I own two of them and love them for my uses, but wonder if this lens can replace them
As a 24-70 owner, this lens has me curious just for the sheer size and weight savings… but the more limited range could mean having to change my workflows a fair bit. Decisions, decisions…!!
Can you do a comparison between 24-50 f2.8 and the 24-70gm ii ? 😊 this lens seems awesome for the size but I want the best image quality I can get so I keep leaning towards the gm ii 😅
I wonder what firmware version was installed on the Tamron 20-40 lens ? In other reviews Tamron's picture quality is as good as Sony 24-50. You took pictures of the model from hand....And then Tamron has no distortion, which is important when shooting video in RAW, in Sony distortion is very noticeable. If you have a Sony A1 or A7R3/R4/R5 camera, Tamron's 40mm can be easily turned into 60mm, but Sony's 24mm can't be turned into 20mm. So the conclusion that Sony is better is very questionable. Waiting for a direct detailed comparison. Thanks.
If you are in doubt, I would recommend you to get the 20-70mm f4 as it is a more versatile lens. The extra stop of light matters less, as the ISO performance of Sony camera's is great so you will not sacrifice much on that. And 70mm a f4 will still give some nice bokeh, likely comparable to 50mm at f2.8. With functions such as digital stabilisation and focus breathing compensation, this crops in on the image. Therefore a lens that goes a little wider is beneficial, as you have more room to crop in while maintaining a wide angle view. The 24-50mm is only beneficial if you really shoot a lot in low light, or if you like to pack really light. Some of the fullframe Sony's allow you to switch to APS-C mode, which gives the lens 1.5x more reach at the expense of some resolution loss. You would then effective have a 36-75mm as well, which allows the same range as the 20-70mm. Especially on the A7R-series there is sufficient resolution on the sensor for this to be compelling, with the others resolution takes a fairly substantial hit.
@@patrickgilmour1221 You're are right, but most Sony sensors have dual native ISO's and if you work with those one stop of difference is not a huge difference in practice. And you can clean noise up digitally in post too. I think depth of field, sharpness and the ergonomics of a lens are more of a consideration these days for lens choice, as high ISO performance of most new Sony cameras is excellent.
I have the tamron 20-40mm. Would the eye focus on the 24-50 be better in photography? The tamron doesn't always find the eyes in low light dance floor shots. Thanks in advance.
It’s a bit smaller. Shorter at the shortest and 40 grams lighter. And the 20-70 obviously extends a bit more. But the differences in size are fairly nominal
Thanks for the good video. I'm thinking to get either this lens or the 24mm GM f1.4 for traveling, almost the same market price. Do you think at 24mm the GM is significant better or just a little bit?
The 24mm GM is incredible. It’s only flaw is focus breathing, but with all the new Sonys it’s negated by focus breathing compensation. But 24-50 is far more versatile and the same size basically
@@kylemeshna Thank you for your quick answer. I know that the 24-50 is far more versatile. That would be an advantage. In my question I mean more the sharpness at 24mm comparing with the GM and in general the "Look" and the colors of both lenses.
Thank you for your video. I’m an owner of the 24-70/2.8 GM II. I use that on my A7RV and A1 but it’s a little too large to have on my A7CR and A7CII. I’ve been using Sigma’s 28-70/2.8 and 16-28/2.8 DG DN Contemporary pair that you should compare to and the small G primes of 24, 40, and 50mm but this new Sony lens may end up replacing all of those. I also prefer f/2.8 like you. So I may give this a try. Take care.
This is the PERFECT ZOOM RANGE, PERFECT SIZE and PERFECT PRICE for a walkabout lens. I'll carry this any day over a 24-70/2.8. However, optical performance wise it can be better. The sad thing is that the 20-70/4 is actually a tad better optically. And, if you don't mind the F4 aperture it is of course a more versatile lens.
Great video! I guess Sony is copying Tamron focal ranges and minimum focal distance huh.. Sony losing the market. Tamron just need to sharpen and quick focus, that’s it they’ll get the market🤣🤣. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the video. Do think the new 24-50/2.8 G’s lower price will actually erode the price of the 24-70/2.8 GM II? I might consider selling mine since I’m now using the compact C bodies more. Take care.
Why I think everyone has this lens wrong is that it's not an alternative to a 24-70 f2.8 holy trinity zoom lens for a professional event photographer, ts an alternative to a a Kit Zoom AND three or four f1.8-f2 primes for a hobby / amateur Photographer.
Why is so hard to find a review where the item wasn`t "sent" by the manufacturer? Meaning, an honest review. Everybody seems a salesman these days on RUclips
Would you recommend this lens (Sony 24-50mm) or the Sigma 28-70mm/Tamron28-75mm lens for an all-in-one, compact lens? I know the Sony is a tiny bit smaller and shorter than the others and you get the extra Sony in-body features (focus breathing compensation, etc.), but you also lose 20ish extra mm of reach and it is a few hundred dollars more. Just wanting an extra opinion!
This one is optically better than those two options and you get 4mm extra on the wide end. I actually fine that more useful than the extra long range, since you can crop in more easily than getting wider. And yes, all the physical and in body features are better as well. I’d personally go with the 24-50, but you are choosing from 3 great options
Really a great review Meshna. I have the tamron 20-40 but planning to switch to this lens hopefully soon. Im a travel film enthusiast. Thank you for this insightful review.
Hi, can you share your reasoning? I am planning on buying a small travel lens (I currently have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and I miss the wide end), so I was thinking 20-40mm would be pretty useful. Why are you considering Sony over Tamron? Because of the video performance I presume?
@@patrickgilmour1221 was enough to put me off buying it, I don’t want the hassle of finding it fogs internally then having to return it. I’ll stick with the GM which has not ever fogged on me internally even in severe humidity.
I can't decide between the Sony 24-50 and the Tamron 28-75. Both lenses are lightweight and have a short focusing distance. I mostly do reportage photos and wristwatch reviews/ flat lays/watch photography. So im looking for a sharpness and low chromatic aberration, decent short focus distance. and good picture quality. What would you recommend?
I am keeping the 24-70GM mark i, yes, it is a tad old and heavy, but it is sharp enough and the focus was great too. That's something that I don't understand with Sony. New lens to compete with older good lenses. The weight, yes! But, is it really though? I don't think it really is addressing any issue, other than weight. I know that a lot of photographers are getting older so with their bones, invest in calcium supplements instead 🙂
The weight difference is a pretty big factor for a lot of folks. Especially for people who are shooting on the smaller Sony bodies or are doing a lot of traveling. Or if you’re newer to the Sony system and don’t have a 24-70 already, I’d maybe opt for this instead.
@@zimbabwe0 X100 series also appeals to non-amateurs who want a small fun camera as well. there's certainly been a big trend towards compact gear in recent years
You should consider balance as well. If you put a 24-70mm F2.8 GM1 or 2 on a Sony A7C-type body, it is very front heavy - doesn't balance well. I have seen a tripod tilt forward after a while. I would rather tote the 24-50mm f2.8 G myself.
Thanks for the interesting review and comparisons! I think Sony should have gone a little wider on this lens, in order for it to be more compelling. With functions such as digital stabilisation and focus breathing compensation which crop in on the image, the 24mm wide end becomes more like a 28mm and then the zoom range becomes a bit restrictive as 'wide' is not really wide. Sony got this right on the 20-70mm f4, which I think is the better allround choice for both photo and video for most people. This lens could have been greater and more compelling if they had made it an an 18-50mm f2.8 in my view. For my own use case I require more reach than 70mm, so I have the Sony 24-105mm f4 and the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, which I have paired with the Sony 16-35mm f4 powerzoom to have a wide angle zoom too.
Would be interesting to see a comparison vs 24 2.8 g + 50 2.5g
great video! Please do the comparison of this Sony vs 20-40 Tamron!!
I bought this lens for a trip to Africa. I absolutely LOVE it! I also have the 24-70mm GM II which is great but this is so much smaller and useable as a travel lens. If you don’t need the 25-70mm then get this bad boy! Super fast focus-I’ve been really impressed.
The great thing for video is that clear image zoom makes this lens practically a 24-70. Considering the excellent close focusing distance, size and weight and stellar AF, this is an incredible lens.
Great review Kyle! This is an interesting lens. I own the 16-35 GMii and sometimes I wish I had that extra reach of a 50mm f/2.8. However, purchasing this lens might not be practical financially cause it’s like I’m buying a 35-50mm range to add to my 16-35. 🤔
Yeah there’s definitely a bit of overlap without a bunch of extra reach. That said, if you wanted something high quality when you’re traveling light, I think this ends up being an incredible option as a single lens to take with you.
For everyday family photos, it would be the 24-50mm, but for lightweight zoom lenses for landscapes, I would choose the 20-70mm or 16-35mm.
The comparison shots of the Sony vs. the Tamron lens legit blew me away
super wild, eh?
yes please. definitely in depth comparision between the sony and tamron lenses would be great!!
great feedback!
I have 85mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 GM and a A7C. I was thinking of getting the 24mm f/2.8 cause it's compact and the 40mm f/2.5 cause it's compact as well... might compromise with this, 24-50mm f/2.8... maybe 40mm f/2.5 and just stick with that :p
so hard to choose
Someone else compared the Tamron and the new Sony and they weren't that much different in sharpness, so it may also have to do with copy variation. I prefer the Tamron as a travel lens because I can easily crop the image or use APSC mode to get to 50 or 60mm, but there is no way that I can make a 24mm lens wider. Also the Tamron is about 400 dollars cheaper or used, even more so. I guess it just depends on one's purpose. I use my 65mm f2, 85mm f1.4 and 135mm f1.8 for any portraits.
I do feel like this video came off more harsh towards the 20-40 than intended. I really do love that lens and I think it’s a great option. Honestly the lack of switch buttons and aperture ring annoy me more than anything else. Makes it much clunkier and harder to use effectively
I get it. It all comes back down to one's uses for it, their style of shooting, etc. But the Sony sounds like a great lens. Just like the 20-40 isn't for everybody. That's the great thing about being a Sony shooter right now. Not only Sony, but there are so many 3rd party lenses to choose from. And what works for one photographer doesn't always work for another. But maybe I was too harsh. You did give an excellent review.@@kylemeshna
I think i wouldnt wanna waste my money buying this lens, i will go with sigma 24-70mm f2.8 II instead.
Damn this was so good I’m almost considering it over the 20-70mm. I have an a7s iii so no crop mode for me and the lens comes out in May. Sony is killing it with the lens drops. I would like to see open gate become a thing and the ibis from the a9 iii to come to the next a7s camera
I REALLY want open gate. Don’t want an a7s though… personally more interested in an fx3 mk2
Shall I say the 20-70 is far more usefull. I also have an a7siii. On different kind on event 20 is the bare minimum, and at the same time you want the 70 reach. And you can't swap lenses for a lot of reasons. A 20-50 2.8 would have been far more smarter, consumer's wise.
I want to see a comparison between this new lens and the Sony compact G lenses. I own two of them and love them for my uses, but wonder if this lens can replace them
As a 24-70 owner, this lens has me curious just for the sheer size and weight savings… but the more limited range could mean having to change my workflows a fair bit. Decisions, decisions…!!
I think it’s a great secondary lens for travel
Can you do a comparison between 24-50 f2.8 and the 24-70gm ii ? 😊 this lens seems awesome for the size but I want the best image quality I can get so I keep leaning towards the gm ii 😅
I wonder what firmware version was installed on the Tamron 20-40 lens ? In other reviews Tamron's picture quality is as good as Sony 24-50. You took pictures of the model from hand....And then Tamron has no distortion, which is important when shooting video in RAW, in Sony distortion is very noticeable. If you have a Sony A1 or A7R3/R4/R5 camera, Tamron's 40mm can be easily turned into 60mm, but Sony's 24mm can't be turned into 20mm. So the conclusion that Sony is better is very questionable. Waiting for a direct detailed comparison. Thanks.
Brilliant video , gorgeous model . :)
i was planning on getting the 20-70 f4, but now im not sure. Do i sacrifice reach with the 24-50 or do i sacrifice the extra stops with the 20-70.
If you are in doubt, I would recommend you to get the 20-70mm f4 as it is a more versatile lens. The extra stop of light matters less, as the ISO performance of Sony camera's is great so you will not sacrifice much on that. And 70mm a f4 will still give some nice bokeh, likely comparable to 50mm at f2.8.
With functions such as digital stabilisation and focus breathing compensation, this crops in on the image. Therefore a lens that goes a little wider is beneficial, as you have more room to crop in while maintaining a wide angle view.
The 24-50mm is only beneficial if you really shoot a lot in low light, or if you like to pack really light. Some of the fullframe Sony's allow you to switch to APS-C mode, which gives the lens 1.5x more reach at the expense of some resolution loss. You would then effective have a 36-75mm as well, which allows the same range as the 20-70mm. Especially on the A7R-series there is sufficient resolution on the sensor for this to be compelling, with the others resolution takes a fairly substantial hit.
@@Edwin-- actually the f4 even on sony with it's good iso, doesn't perform as well as the 2.8, it does make a difference in terms of noise.
@@patrickgilmour1221 You're are right, but most Sony sensors have dual native ISO's and if you work with those one stop of difference is not a huge difference in practice. And you can clean noise up digitally in post too. I think depth of field, sharpness and the ergonomics of a lens are more of a consideration these days for lens choice, as high ISO performance of most new Sony cameras is excellent.
Zoom extend mean 24mm become a 28mm, no reason to buy over Sigma 28-70mm
I have the tamron 20-40mm. Would the eye focus on the 24-50 be better in photography? The tamron doesn't always find the eyes in low light dance floor shots. Thanks in advance.
I didn't see this in the reviews, but what is the size comparison with the 20-70? Thanks
It’s a bit smaller. Shorter at the shortest and 40 grams lighter. And the 20-70 obviously extends a bit more. But the differences in size are fairly nominal
Thanks for the good video. I'm thinking to get either this lens or the 24mm GM f1.4 for traveling, almost the same market price. Do you think at 24mm the GM is significant better or just a little bit?
The 24mm GM is incredible. It’s only flaw is focus breathing, but with all the new Sonys it’s negated by focus breathing compensation. But 24-50 is far more versatile and the same size basically
@@kylemeshna Thank you for your quick answer. I know that the 24-50 is far more versatile. That would be an advantage. In my question I mean more the sharpness at 24mm comparing with the GM and in general the "Look" and the colors of both lenses.
@user-nq7ub6hl6f color rendering is great on both. Sharpness is definitely better in the 24GM. To be expected given it’s a prime
such a nifty lens!
Almost as small as a nifty fifty too
Thank you for your video. I’m an owner of the 24-70/2.8 GM II. I use that on my A7RV and A1 but it’s a little too large to have on my A7CR and A7CII. I’ve been using Sigma’s 28-70/2.8 and 16-28/2.8 DG DN Contemporary pair that you should compare to and the small G primes of 24, 40, and 50mm but this new Sony lens may end up replacing all of those. I also prefer f/2.8 like you. So I may give this a try. Take care.
I’d definitely like to get my hands on the sigmas to compare as well! Thanks for watching!
@@kylemeshna where do you live?
This is the PERFECT ZOOM RANGE, PERFECT SIZE and PERFECT PRICE for a walkabout lens.
I'll carry this any day over a 24-70/2.8. However, optical performance wise it can be better.
The sad thing is that the 20-70/4 is actually a tad better optically. And, if you don't mind the F4 aperture it is of course a more versatile lens.
Great video! I guess Sony is copying Tamron focal ranges and minimum focal distance huh.. Sony losing the market. Tamron just need to sharpen and quick focus, that’s it they’ll get the market🤣🤣. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for the video. Do think the new 24-50/2.8 G’s lower price will actually erode the price of the 24-70/2.8 GM II? I might consider selling mine since I’m now using the compact C bodies more. Take care.
I think it would’ve been innovative to have 16-50mm 2.8 but I get it, it’s for the small size.
Why I think everyone has this lens wrong is that it's not an alternative to a 24-70 f2.8 holy trinity zoom lens for a professional event photographer, ts an alternative to a a Kit Zoom AND three or four f1.8-f2 primes for a hobby / amateur Photographer.
Why is so hard to find a review where the item wasn`t "sent" by the manufacturer? Meaning, an honest review. Everybody seems a salesman these days on RUclips
Don’t see how I could be more honest… Sony doesn’t pay me. I’m not keeping the lens. I say exactly what my experience is using it
You’re watching a review on the day the lens was announced.
lol thanks for this @mikespadier idk what he’s expecting. No one has been able to purchase it yet 😅
Because they review it before it comes out to make your decision to pre order it easier 🤦🏻♂️
@@kylemeshna If they sent him one im sure he’d feel differently 😂
optically speaking how would you compare it with a sigma 24-70mm 2.8mm?
24-50mm is joke Infront of Panasonic 28-200mm
Is panasonic f2.8?
It should be at 24mm when not extended. That will prevent me from buying it
I would rather buy tamron 28-75 g2...
too exp , if it drop till 800 i think it will be top sale
Some of those portraits you took were stunning! Were they taken at f2.8 or did you use additional blur in the background?
No additional blur is added in post-processing
Great vid thanks! Subbed.
Would you recommend this lens (Sony 24-50mm) or the Sigma 28-70mm/Tamron28-75mm lens for an all-in-one, compact lens? I know the Sony is a tiny bit smaller and shorter than the others and you get the extra Sony in-body features (focus breathing compensation, etc.), but you also lose 20ish extra mm of reach and it is a few hundred dollars more. Just wanting an extra opinion!
This one is optically better than those two options and you get 4mm extra on the wide end. I actually fine that more useful than the extra long range, since you can crop in more easily than getting wider. And yes, all the physical and in body features are better as well. I’d personally go with the 24-50, but you are choosing from 3 great options
@@kylemeshna Sounds great! The APS-C crop on some of the newer Sony cameras would essentially make this a 24-75mm. Thanks, Kyle!
Shame on Sony NZ for selling it at $1450 USD, what a rip off.
Oh jeez. Almost cheaper to fly to the US to buy it 😅
Really a great review Meshna. I have the tamron 20-40 but planning to switch to this lens hopefully soon. Im a travel film enthusiast. Thank you for this insightful review.
Hi, can you share your reasoning? I am planning on buying a small travel lens (I currently have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and I miss the wide end), so I was thinking 20-40mm would be pretty useful. Why are you considering Sony over Tamron? Because of the video performance I presume?
@MyGroo check out my most recent video on the new 16-25 as another good wide option to consider with the 28-75
It would be a great kit lens. But, it's not for me.
haha i wish kit lenses were that nice!
The hype?
Well done !
Be aware if using this in hot / humid climates , Tony’s copy had INTERNAL fogging 😮
I’d have to travel pretty far from here in Utah to get somewhere hot and humid to test 😅 does seem like an odd issue to experience though
keep in mind that the copies they were sent out were preproduction models, not the final version.
@@patrickgilmour1221 I think the opposite, Sony know these copies are going to influencers. So they would pick the best of the bunch…
@@SPDTDL they are pre production models. Most influencers mention this when reviewing the lens.
@@patrickgilmour1221 was enough to put me off buying it, I don’t want the hassle of finding it fogs internally then having to return it. I’ll stick with the GM which has not ever fogged on me internally even in severe humidity.
As a GM owner, this is a breath of fresh air in portability for the G standard.
Definitely agree!
I can't decide between the Sony 24-50 and the Tamron 28-75. Both lenses are lightweight and have a short focusing distance. I mostly do reportage photos and wristwatch reviews/ flat lays/watch photography. So im looking for a sharpness and low chromatic aberration, decent short focus distance. and good picture quality. What would you recommend?
I’d prefer the Sony
@@kylemeshna what about the vignetting and distortion, Is it already fixed through software and camera?
@whyFINAL yep! That and lens profile in Lr
@@kylemeshna Okey, i think I'm sold. Thanks for the reply.
I am keeping the 24-70GM mark i, yes, it is a tad old and heavy, but it is sharp enough and the focus was great too. That's something that I don't understand with Sony. New lens to compete with older good lenses. The weight, yes! But, is it really though? I don't think it really is addressing any issue, other than weight. I know that a lot of photographers are getting older so with their bones, invest in calcium supplements instead 🙂
The weight difference is a pretty big factor for a lot of folks. Especially for people who are shooting on the smaller Sony bodies or are doing a lot of traveling.
Or if you’re newer to the Sony system and don’t have a 24-70 already, I’d maybe opt for this instead.
consider how well the Fuji x100 series sells, I think compactness matters a lot to most amateur photographers
@@zimbabwe0 X100 series also appeals to non-amateurs who want a small fun camera as well. there's certainly been a big trend towards compact gear in recent years
You should consider balance as well. If you put a 24-70mm F2.8 GM1 or 2 on a Sony A7C-type body, it is very front heavy - doesn't balance well. I have seen a tripod tilt forward after a while. I would rather tote the 24-50mm f2.8 G myself.
Nice video, brow! Help so much!
very much appreciated!
Thanks for the interesting review and comparisons! I think Sony should have gone a little wider on this lens, in order for it to be more compelling. With functions such as digital stabilisation and focus breathing compensation which crop in on the image, the 24mm wide end becomes more like a 28mm and then the zoom range becomes a bit restrictive as 'wide' is not really wide. Sony got this right on the 20-70mm f4, which I think is the better allround choice for both photo and video for most people. This lens could have been greater and more compelling if they had made it an an 18-50mm f2.8 in my view.
For my own use case I require more reach than 70mm, so I have the Sony 24-105mm f4 and the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8, which I have paired with the Sony 16-35mm f4 powerzoom to have a wide angle zoom too.
That’s all a great combo for sure! And appreciate the input as well