This lens is for me. It's relatively compact, light, I've got my wide angle, 35mm and 50mm and it won't break the bank. Bottom line for me, this is my perfect travel lens that I can keep on my Sony A7iv. I can't wait for it to be delivered in a couple of days! Great video.
It's definitely a great lens for videography with its lightweight, 2 XD-linear motor and its focal length range. It may not be a super popular lens, but just to have another lens available is great from Sony already. I remember back in 2016 when there were only a small amount of Sony lenses to choose from compare to today. No matter the zoom range or prime lenses, its great to see more options of lenses to choose from now.
Great starter lens. ✊😮 But personally, I'd get the Tamron 20-40mm just because I already own some lenses with the rest of the range. 😅 Also, the compact non-extending/minimal extending barrel of the Tamron will save me some time during gimbal use. Btw, you're spot on with the Tamron 35-150mm. It's like a child you'll love anyway despite the flaws 😅😅😅
I'm torn between these two lenses and really am stuck. The Tamron is much cheaper, it's slightly lighter, and you get the versatility on the wide end. The Sony will have first party benefits as far as stab, is basically parfocal, but is more expensive, and has that reverse zooming. How are you enjoying your 20-40?
@Chris - It's not really talked about anywhere, but the new 24-50MM/f2.8 has two "specifically optimized" Linear Motors, not the "XD" Linear motors which are typical on all their latest G-series lenses. That said, I haven't ever seen AF side-by-side between the two types of linear motors. They do say this is compatible for the A9 III at 120fps, so I'm a bit confused. Does "specifically optimized" mean better than XD or worse?
With the amount of digital cropping/zooming you can get these days, it’s a lot easier to extend your reach on the far side. So this lens actually makes a lot of sense. It’s light, fast, cheap, and covers a big range if you don’t mind a little cropping
You are a great speaker. For NYC street travel on A7cii or A7CR would you use either that and 85 1.8 or would you take Sony 24mm f/2.8 G, 40mm f/2.5 G or 35 2.8 with 85 1.8 with you, for street do you prefer ligher/smaller on camera or to switch lenses? Also would you wait for the A7V instead because the A7Cii sensor is a 2021 sensor left over from the A7IV?
I own the 24-70GM1 and 20-70/F4, they are both perfect lens, 20-70 with XD motors, super sharp images, wide enough 20mm, which is quite perfect on 20mm-35mm in my opinions, but on the tele end, I prefer a much shallow depth of field, because most of time are capturing medium shots and close ups, which out focus the background will be better, 2.8 can help in this situations, but 24-70GM1 which is quite heavy in my opinion, even the GM2 version not light enough for me, so now the case I use prime lens such as the FE 24, 40, 50 pancake lens more than the 24-70, but with this 24-50/2.8 coming out soon, I think this is a game changer!
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!
Nice diagram to categorise these lens. I have been using sony 24-105mm G lens which has oss in my a7cii. I find it as the most versatile lens for still and videography. It would probably fall on slightly left centre of your diagram.
Hi bro, I have same a7cll camera. I am confusing to get good lens for videography. I am considering 24-105mm OSS. But also thinking towards much expensive option ( 24-70 gmll) What's your recommendation. Does OSS really beneficial in case of 24-105 ?
Hi, because i dont use a gimbal, i would say the oss allowed me to run (ninja moves) while filming. I can even change my camera stabilisation setting to standard instead of active since the latter substantially crop out the footage. Further 24-105mm has the extra reach to capture from birds or far objects. However, with a min of f4 aperture, it is not very effective to film at night. Something to consider.
@@dariusching thank your for the reply. One more question please, can we use active stabilization option in the camera by using this oss lens ? Someone mentioned that with this lens we can not use stabilization option in the camera.
I bought this lens with my FX30, I like the idea of having 35mm-75mm equivalent for wedding events etc. Sony's higher build quality with minimal distortion, and seal connection and weather resistant construction along with the smaller form factor and a f2.8 at the cost of $1000 made this my dream lens for having my first Sony Lens and moving from my Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 Now I will miss the ability of getting extremely wide shots for establishing shots, but I think I'll be able to manage the adjustment since I can have my second shooter using a ZV-E10 with the Tamron for any wide shots. Although I wish they had made this a 16-50mm range at f2.8 because that would have been absolute amazing for not only floggers on a full frame camera, but perfect for APS-C SOLO shooters giving a nice perfect 24-75mm range. I Don't understand why they make it so awkward for APS-C videographers to have a nice Sony G lens Zoom Range without having to choose third party APS-C lenses or FULL FRAME lenses
Agreed with what you said, we do not need every single item (or in this case, lens) each time Sony releases a new one. I am still using 24-70 GM, the first iteration, and nothing is wrong with the less, only missing the aperture ring. BUTTTTTTTTTTTT, that Tamron 35-150mm, despite its weight, I found it to be much more flexible!
Makes me wonder if a F2.8 35-85mm, 35-105mm, 50-105mm or a 50-135mm is in the works. I'm guessing whichever fits the same size as the 24-50mm 2.8 gets done. I'd love a 50-135mm for travel or a 35-105mm. Though of the 4 listed, the 50-105mm 2.8 would probably be the most compact to engineer.
If I hadn’t found the Sigma 28-70 for $640 around the holidays, I would have got this lens. It’s a really nice lens for traveling and street photography since it’s light and compact
Another no nonsense review (your UK accent is coming along nicely) In the UK it will cost around £800 less than the 24-70, weighs a third(?) less, has 20mm at the end of range missing and will probably suit many on a budget better than the 24-70 that only want to carry either one or two lenses. For an all in one travel lens I have always used a 24-105 F4 (which in the UK is £999 avg) it is stabilised, not as light as the 24-50 but not heavy, plus the image quality is great (photo or video), it is due for an update too. I do some sport photography so will use the normal costly GM zooms and primes for that, but the 24-105 is the one on the camera by default or the 24 gm but that’s another story. So, yes an odd announcement but maybe a wise one especially if part of a bundle, plus on an APSC or a full frame cropped mode lit would give extra range. hmmmm
@@chrisbrockhurst another great review Chris....I wonder if Sony would make that updated 24-105 an f2.8 version and make their own type of lens like the recent Canon Z lens offering?
@@chrisbrockhurst I have the 24-105mm and the IQ is not so hot. People like to complain about the 24-70mm GM 1st version, which I also have. The IQ on that one is much better than the 24-105mm. I've checked IQ on two copies of the 24-105mm and they were virtually identical...and I used MTF mapper, so when I say identical, I'm not just blowing smoke.
I think I still prefer the Sony 20-70mm f4. I have a Sony a7iv and I make video. I was thinking about buying the 20-70mm f4 because it gives me more versatility and I don't think the ISO is a problem with the a7iv. I don't need the extra bokeh, do you agree?
I bought a7iii body recently and wanted to buy compact fast universal lenses for indoor shooting/ evenings, family events, traveling in group, street photography and occasionaly portraits So all in one. My obvious choice was Tamron 20-40 but I know I don't need 20mm wide, and would like to get that 50mm for compressed look. And there it is, sony releases this glass. My problem with this release is that tamron costs half the price, stands it's ground optically, is lighter and smaller, and doesnt extend that much lenght. So when you ask who is this lens for, it's for me.
I’d probably get this lens. Especially with the R variant of cameras. Can just punch into apsc mode for the missing long end. Better for travel. I’ll rent an actual 24-70 for paid work
If it has excellent performance corner to corner it will be a great lens as I want light & compact as carrying the bulky A7R5 all day is aching .. base on other test vids doesn’t seem promising
Du coup, pour aller plus loin : • Comment établir son taux journalier lorsqu’on travaille seul (pas d’équipe à charge) ? • Comment se calcule une cession de droits ? D’avance merci !
As strange as this lens may seem, it was the final nudge that pushed me to switch to Sony after shooting Canon professionally for nearly 15yrs. Canon was late to the game switching to mirrorless and has been playing catch up. Still, they have not made any real effort to create high quality compact gear since the RF mount was released. They make some great lenses but they are massive, often the same size or bigger than the EF equivalent. Their compact lens options are overall weak; poor build quality, small apertures, and lackluster optics and there is no premium compact camera option. Meanwhile, Sony is pumping out G and GM glass that is on par with RF L quality but meaningfully smaller, and sometimes cheaper. I had my eye on the A7C for awhile, but when they announced the A7CR and this 28-50/2.8 lens simultaneously, I knew this was my best option by a mile. This pair is the ultimate travel/walkaround/every-day combination. Nothing Canon offers can touch it in terms of versatility, AF performance, and quality. I can use the 24-50 when I'm out with kids/family and then toss on a GM zoom and prime on the same camera for paid work.
Not true. If you set the zoom to 30mm or so and then balance the gimbal you won’t need further adjustment. I do it all the time with my 20-70 f4 and Ronin mini 3.
It's a very nice compact all-purpose lens for average joe who just want to have one single compact lens for everything. But it's a quite boring and unexciting lens as well. It can do everything, but it's not outstanding in any discipline. The 20-70 f4 makes more sense in my opinion, because for landscapes the 20mm is much nicer and you don't shoot landscapes in f2.8 anyways. And for portraits 70mm f4 is in my opinion a nicer look than 50mm f2.8 (noticeably less background which make it appear more smooth). So the 24-50 f2.8 only makes sense when lowlight is the priority. I'd rather crank up the ISO one stop and have 20-70mm, but just my personal opinion.
What would be a good Sony lens to shoot a video from 6-8’ feet on my Sony FX6 to coy a tutorial video so I can watch and learn pays it when needed please let me know thx
It's like this. Didn't ask for it, thought about a lens like this. So, I'd rather go to a buffet than McDonalds for a good variety of 'good' food. I suspect this and the 20-70 are geared towards the compact cameras Sony has released and will release in the future. Better to have a choice than no choice at all.
Sony zooms are somewhat stale, and this is a good sign! Sony's 24-70 GM II is class-leading because it's near enough one of the smallest and lightest 24-70's 2.8's on the market, but all other Sony's offerings like the 20-70 and 24-105 OSS even their power zooms ENG lenses like the 28-135 are all F4's... It's nice to see a 24-50 G (sadly only 50mm) but actually be a F2.8 and remaining light and small and somewhat affordable! It's a really good step! I'm still dreaming of a 20-70 F2.8 or a 24-70 F2.8 w/ OSS within 600-1000g weight range or a smaller ENG zoom like a 24-105 F2.8 OSS Power Zoom within 1.0-1.6g weight range like what canon recently released, Sony offers so many good zooms but they are F4, This is a nice step to get some F2.8 zooms that remain light and are not exclusive G-Masters.
The price is not great for what it is. It will have a hard time competing with Tamron and Sigma alternatives with the 28-75/24-70 lenses. If it was a small bit cheaper, this would be great for travel especially on an R camera with high MP count, making it more versatile with crop mode without sacrificing too much quality.
Sony's engineering team: Let's make 50mm the smallest lens size and when you extend the barrel it'll be 24mm! That's so quirky... I'm not like your ordinary lens... I'm DiFfErEnt.
We asked for swivel screens with good resolution for years when every camera company already had them. If they really cared about their consumers they would make products that make sense, not toy with us like we’re idiots
hey Chris hi, I've been following your videos for a long time but I would like to ask you something and I would like you to answer honestly... and I ask you because I have always used Sony and I see that you do too... In your opinion Sony is doing well lately? I mean...more and more often lately I've been asking myself "why did he do it?". And an example of this question is precisely this lens. Why did he do it? Why does it continue to produce cameras instead of lenses that are actually useful? And I'll give you the example of the stabilized Canon 14-35 f4. Or the 24/35/50 f1.8 macro always Canon always stabilized. I have the impression that RUclips now justifies everything that Sony does but in my opinion you as RUclipsrs should be more independent in reviewing a product that is evidently useless like a 24-50. But I always see that in the end they try to find meaning in what they do and it's not right. Here there are people who spend money on cameras that receive ridiculous updates and after 6 months they see a camera come out at half the price that has more useful things. And above all, many lenses are missing...a 16-70 f2.8 apsc...a 24-105 f4 powerzoom...a 56 f1.4 apsc...a 14-24 f4 with the possibility of putting a filter in front to the lens...these are useful lenses for everyone in my opinion. No paying €1600 for a 16-25 and a 24-50. This is my opinion. But I would like to hear your honest opinion. Thank you
Let’s put it this way, I still use Sony for all my videos and filming, despite having access to many of the other options. As it stands I don’t need anything else right now
I wish Sony would stop mucking about. 24-50mm is a useless range for video work. Meanwhile, the 24-70mm GM II isn't parfocal so is useless for filming actuality or observationally. The 20-70mm is parfocal but it's f4 so harder to match up in multi camera set ups with f2.8 lenses and being able to reduce the depth or field as much as possible is really helpful. So, come on Sony, please give us a full frame zoom with a good range like 20-70...20-100 (ish) would be better...that is F2.8, or even F2.0, and parfocal!
Only 35mm at the wide end and no aperture ring, the Tamron is utterly useless. I suspect think Sony's development of lenses might have more to do with milking the market rather than what technically possible i.e. providing a 20-70mm f2.8 or a parfocal 24-70mm f2.8, lenses we can actually use. Sony are very close, so should be able to address these issues without producing overly large lenses.@rockhurst
@@cbflazaro A parfocal F2.8 20-70mm would be just fine. And if Sony can manage a little more range at the tighter end for a little extra weight, even better.
Ahhh I’m sorry my free video doesn’t cover exactly what you were looking for, sounds like you can probably do it better so let me know when yours is ready and viewable and I’ll be sure to stop by and leave a sarcastic comment for you too 😊 .. next time also maybe care to read the title.. it literally says Sony so Tamron wouldn’t have made any sense
I have been asking for this FOR YEARS. I have always said that the lens I want the most is a 25-50/2.8 (or even 3.3) that is compact and optically superlative. Why? Because it is the perfect walkabout lens. The 70mm angle in a 24-70 is pretty much useless. If you are OK with shooting portraits at 70 you are OK with shooting it a step closer at 50. I'll gladly trade the 70mm for a more compact dimension. The 2.8 aperture is not exactly fast, but good enough for adequate background blurring at portrait distances which F4 typically isn't. -- I have been waiting 30 years for this lens; I'll buy it irrespective of price and I am rather forgiving of it's (honestly) so-so optical performance. The latter being my only gripe. If this is optically equivalent to the 24-70/2.8 just more limited in zoom range, it'll be worth $5,000 to me.
Love you making the diagram helps give people a great explanation of "why".
This lens is for me. It's relatively compact, light, I've got my wide angle, 35mm and 50mm and it won't break the bank. Bottom line for me, this is my perfect travel lens that I can keep on my Sony A7iv. I can't wait for it to be delivered in a couple of days! Great video.
Your triangle was an excellent way to describe why this lens now exists. Well done!
Thankyou
GREAT breakdown at the end there! That is CLASSIC! Know one does the breakdown as well as you do, my friend! Love it!!
I really liked your diagram and sticky notes segment. Entertaining and informative :)
Ahhhh Thankyou, that was fun to come up with
@@chrisbrockhurstabsolutely! I know it's tough to come up with new creative ways to review things and this was perfect.
✋ It was me. I'm the guy who asked for this.
Yes! There you are
😂😂
We knew it was you Bokeh. . . 🫵🏽
If I buy it I was planning on pairing with the 85 1.8
🤣🤣🤣 go get your extremely pricey lens🤣
Love your videos man. I’m always coming here anytime a Sony lens comes out haha! Congrats on making it over 100K!
Appreciate you 🙏🏼
I was asking for 20-50, not 24 😂😂😂
It's definitely a great lens for videography with its lightweight, 2 XD-linear motor and its focal length range. It may not be a super popular lens, but just to have another lens available is great from Sony already. I remember back in 2016 when there were only a small amount of Sony lenses to choose from compare to today. No matter the zoom range or prime lenses, its great to see more options of lenses to choose from now.
I bit the bullet and bought this 24-50mm actually blown me away with the quality . It's now vertualy bolted on my Mrs A7c.
DO YOU HAVE TO REFOCUS while zooming ( as you have to do with the Tamron 20-40/2.8) ?
Great starter lens. ✊😮 But personally, I'd get the Tamron 20-40mm just because I already own some lenses with the rest of the range. 😅 Also, the compact non-extending/minimal extending barrel of the Tamron will save me some time during gimbal use.
Btw, you're spot on with the Tamron 35-150mm. It's like a child you'll love anyway despite the flaws 😅😅😅
I'm torn between these two lenses and really am stuck. The Tamron is much cheaper, it's slightly lighter, and you get the versatility on the wide end.
The Sony will have first party benefits as far as stab, is basically parfocal, but is more expensive, and has that reverse zooming.
How are you enjoying your 20-40?
@Chris - It's not really talked about anywhere, but the new 24-50MM/f2.8 has two "specifically optimized" Linear Motors, not the "XD" Linear motors which are typical on all their latest G-series lenses. That said, I haven't ever seen AF side-by-side between the two types of linear motors. They do say this is compatible for the A9 III at 120fps, so I'm a bit confused. Does "specifically optimized" mean better than XD or worse?
Great video and coverage on this lens Chris!
With the amount of digital cropping/zooming you can get these days, it’s a lot easier to extend your reach on the far side. So this lens actually makes a lot of sense. It’s light, fast, cheap, and covers a big range if you don’t mind a little cropping
You get it 💪🏻
You are a great speaker. For NYC street travel on A7cii or A7CR would you use either that and 85 1.8 or would you take Sony 24mm f/2.8 G, 40mm f/2.5 G or 35 2.8 with 85 1.8 with you, for street do you prefer ligher/smaller on camera or to switch lenses?
Also would you wait for the A7V instead because the A7Cii sensor is a 2021 sensor left over from the A7IV?
I own the 24-70GM1 and 20-70/F4, they are both perfect lens, 20-70 with XD motors, super sharp images, wide enough 20mm, which is quite perfect on 20mm-35mm in my opinions, but on the tele end, I prefer a much shallow depth of field, because most of time are capturing medium shots and close ups, which out focus the background will be better, 2.8 can help in this situations, but 24-70GM1 which is quite heavy in my opinion, even the GM2 version not light enough for me, so now the case I use prime lens such as the FE 24, 40, 50 pancake lens more than the 24-70, but with this 24-50/2.8 coming out soon, I think this is a game changer!
Well, here it is. I wondered the same thing and now... its sits tight on my street photo kit :). Its perfect companion for 35/1.x and 85/1.8.
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!
Great video. You think can perform well for the fx30?
Nice diagram to categorise these lens. I have been using sony 24-105mm G lens which has oss in my a7cii. I find it as the most versatile lens for still and videography. It would probably fall on slightly left centre of your diagram.
Hi bro, I have same a7cll camera. I am confusing to get good lens for videography. I am considering 24-105mm OSS. But also thinking towards much expensive option ( 24-70 gmll) What's your recommendation. Does OSS really beneficial in case of 24-105 ?
Hi, because i dont use a gimbal, i would say the oss allowed me to run (ninja moves) while filming. I can even change my camera stabilisation setting to standard instead of active since the latter substantially crop out the footage. Further 24-105mm has the extra reach to capture from birds or far objects. However, with a min of f4 aperture, it is not very effective to film at night. Something to consider.
@@dariusching thank your for the reply. One more question please, can we use active stabilization option in the camera by using this oss lens ? Someone mentioned that with this lens we can not use stabilization option in the camera.
Yes, you can use oss and active stablilsation together.
I like your explanation with the diagram. Simple explanation but easy to understand.
Appreciate you 🙏🏼
I bought this lens with my FX30, I like the idea of having 35mm-75mm equivalent for wedding events etc. Sony's higher build quality with minimal distortion, and seal connection and weather resistant construction along with the smaller form factor and a f2.8 at the cost of $1000 made this my dream lens for having my first Sony Lens and moving from my Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 Now I will miss the ability of getting extremely wide shots for establishing shots, but I think I'll be able to manage the adjustment since I can have my second shooter using a ZV-E10 with the Tamron for any wide shots. Although I wish they had made this a 16-50mm range at f2.8 because that would have been absolute amazing for not only floggers on a full frame camera, but perfect for APS-C SOLO shooters giving a nice perfect 24-75mm range. I Don't understand why they make it so awkward for APS-C videographers to have a nice Sony G lens Zoom Range without having to choose third party APS-C lenses or FULL FRAME lenses
Agreed with what you said, we do not need every single item (or in this case, lens) each time Sony releases a new one. I am still using 24-70 GM, the first iteration, and nothing is wrong with the less, only missing the aperture ring. BUTTTTTTTTTTTT, that Tamron 35-150mm, despite its weight, I found it to be much more flexible!
The Sony A7C&R+24mm 2.8 and 50mm 2.5 or this?? Please help!
That is a very tough decision. I’d probably get this
Makes me wonder if a F2.8 35-85mm, 35-105mm, 50-105mm or a 50-135mm is in the works.
I'm guessing whichever fits the same size as the 24-50mm 2.8 gets done. I'd love a 50-135mm for travel or a 35-105mm.
Though of the 4 listed, the 50-105mm 2.8 would probably be the most compact to engineer.
If I hadn’t found the Sigma 28-70 for $640 around the holidays, I would have got this lens. It’s a really nice lens for traveling and street photography since it’s light and compact
Does this lens have video image ibs ?
I kinda like this range. Not using 24-70 tho.
Love this for the Sony lens eco system
Another no nonsense review (your UK accent is coming along nicely) In the UK it will cost around £800 less than the 24-70, weighs a third(?) less, has 20mm at the end of range missing and will probably suit many on a budget better than the 24-70 that only want to carry either one or two lenses. For an all in one travel lens I have always used a 24-105 F4 (which in the UK is £999 avg) it is stabilised, not as light as the 24-50 but not heavy, plus the image quality is great (photo or video), it is due for an update too. I do some sport photography so will use the normal costly GM zooms and primes for that, but the 24-105 is the one on the camera by default or the 24 gm but that’s another story. So, yes an odd announcement but maybe a wise one especially if part of a bundle, plus on an APSC or a full frame cropped mode lit would give extra range. hmmmm
I really would love to see an updated 24-105, I think a lot of people feel that same way
@@chrisbrockhurst another great review Chris....I wonder if Sony would make that updated 24-105 an f2.8 version and make their own type of lens like the recent Canon Z lens offering?
@@chrisbrockhurst I have the 24-105mm and the IQ is not so hot. People like to complain about the 24-70mm GM 1st version, which I also have. The IQ on that one is much better than the 24-105mm. I've checked IQ on two copies of the 24-105mm and they were virtually identical...and I used MTF mapper, so when I say identical, I'm not just blowing smoke.
I know Canon's just came out and it took a LONG time to get to, but we all want the 24-105 2.8 now lol
I think I still prefer the Sony 20-70mm f4. I have a Sony a7iv and I make video. I was thinking about buying the 20-70mm f4 because it gives me more versatility and I don't think the ISO is a problem with the a7iv. I don't need the extra bokeh, do you agree?
But with your resolution on the IV is loosing the 20mm range worth it when you can just crop with basically no loss and gain 2.8 over 4
@@cedricthompson140 you can crop an image at 70mm too… if you wanted the fov of 100mm or more, it’d look pretty much worse from a 50mm optic
I asked for the lens, but not for that price.
A very clever lens. With clear image zoom you get a 24-75mm video lens that is cheaper and more lightweight.
I bought a7iii body recently and wanted to buy compact fast universal lenses for indoor shooting/ evenings, family events, traveling in group, street photography and occasionaly portraits So all in one. My obvious choice was Tamron 20-40 but I know I don't need 20mm wide, and would like to get that 50mm for compressed look. And there it is, sony releases this glass. My problem with this release is that tamron costs half the price, stands it's ground optically, is lighter and smaller, and doesnt extend that much lenght. So when you ask who is this lens for, it's for me.
Can this be paired with a sony FX30
It’s an E mount lens. All recent full frame and apsc Sony cameras are E mount
I’d probably get this lens. Especially with the R variant of cameras. Can just punch into apsc mode for the missing long end.
Better for travel. I’ll rent an actual 24-70 for paid work
do more on real world shoot showing the 20mm difference on longer range.
I prefer way more the tamron 20-40 f2.8 versatility !
I like that lens too
Was all in for the rumoured internal zoom. But it’s a pass for this dust sucker.
Great vid thanks! Subbed.
I want something like 50-135 f2.8. Sony can you make one?
People are always comparing it to the mark II, I have the a7c. They aren’t that different right?
If it has excellent performance corner to corner it will be a great lens as I want light & compact as carrying the bulky A7R5 all day is aching .. base on other test vids doesn’t seem promising
imo it needed IS and be F2 for this focal length.
if you do that, it loses its appeal as a lightweight travel lens.
Sure no problem. Just double the size and weight and triple the price.
Does a 24-50 really need IS? Sure nice to have but hardly very important unlike telephotos.
Du coup, pour aller plus loin :
• Comment établir son taux journalier lorsqu’on travaille seul (pas d’équipe à charge) ?
• Comment se calcule une cession de droits ?
D’avance merci !
Would be nice a lens like this a bit faster. Even if was F2.2
As strange as this lens may seem, it was the final nudge that pushed me to switch to Sony after shooting Canon professionally for nearly 15yrs. Canon was late to the game switching to mirrorless and has been playing catch up. Still, they have not made any real effort to create high quality compact gear since the RF mount was released. They make some great lenses but they are massive, often the same size or bigger than the EF equivalent. Their compact lens options are overall weak; poor build quality, small apertures, and lackluster optics and there is no premium compact camera option. Meanwhile, Sony is pumping out G and GM glass that is on par with RF L quality but meaningfully smaller, and sometimes cheaper. I had my eye on the A7C for awhile, but when they announced the A7CR and this 28-50/2.8 lens simultaneously, I knew this was my best option by a mile. This pair is the ultimate travel/walkaround/every-day combination. Nothing Canon offers can touch it in terms of versatility, AF performance, and quality. I can use the 24-50 when I'm out with kids/family and then toss on a GM zoom and prime on the same camera for paid work.
I prefer the prefer Tamron 20-40 f2.8 because of the 20mm and it’s cheaper
Still a great lens
Thanks for honest review, whoever buys this lens will make rebalance gimbal, I need internal zoom
Not true. If you set the zoom to 30mm or so and then balance the gimbal you won’t need further adjustment. I do it all the time with my 20-70 f4 and Ronin mini 3.
It's a very nice compact all-purpose lens for average joe who just want to have one single compact lens for everything. But it's a quite boring and unexciting lens as well. It can do everything, but it's not outstanding in any discipline. The 20-70 f4 makes more sense in my opinion, because for landscapes the 20mm is much nicer and you don't shoot landscapes in f2.8 anyways. And for portraits 70mm f4 is in my opinion a nicer look than 50mm f2.8 (noticeably less background which make it appear more smooth). So the 24-50 f2.8 only makes sense when lowlight is the priority. I'd rather crank up the ISO one stop and have 20-70mm, but just my personal opinion.
You are good.
Appreciate you 🙏🏼
If this was G Master I’d trade in my GM2 24-70.
What would be a good Sony lens to shoot a video from 6-8’ feet on my Sony FX6 to coy a tutorial video so I can watch and learn pays it when needed please let me know thx
It cool because it small good for video and it has oss it would great, if has affordable price.
It's like this. Didn't ask for it, thought about a lens like this. So, I'd rather go to a buffet than McDonalds for a good variety of 'good' food. I suspect this and the 20-70 are geared towards the compact cameras Sony has released and will release in the future. Better to have a choice than no choice at all.
Sony zooms are somewhat stale, and this is a good sign! Sony's 24-70 GM II is class-leading because it's near enough one of the smallest and lightest 24-70's 2.8's on the market, but all other Sony's offerings like the 20-70 and 24-105 OSS even their power zooms ENG lenses like the 28-135 are all F4's... It's nice to see a 24-50 G (sadly only 50mm) but actually be a F2.8 and remaining light and small and somewhat affordable! It's a really good step! I'm still dreaming of a 20-70 F2.8 or a 24-70 F2.8 w/ OSS within 600-1000g weight range or a smaller ENG zoom like a 24-105 F2.8 OSS Power Zoom within 1.0-1.6g weight range like what canon recently released, Sony offers so many good zooms but they are F4, This is a nice step to get some F2.8 zooms that remain light and are not exclusive G-Masters.
The price is not great for what it is. It will have a hard time competing with Tamron and Sigma alternatives with the 28-75/24-70 lenses.
If it was a small bit cheaper, this would be great for travel especially on an R camera with high MP count, making it more versatile with crop mode without sacrificing too much quality.
Sony's engineering team: Let's make 50mm the smallest lens size and when you extend the barrel it'll be 24mm! That's so quirky... I'm not like your ordinary lens... I'm DiFfErEnt.
Seems to be the way to keep size down. The 16-35 is the same, as is the Tamron 20-40
my 24-70 is my best lens but I use old Canon glass because it's a pain to carry around.
We asked for swivel screens with good resolution for years when every camera company already had them. If they really cared about their consumers they would make products that make sense, not toy with us like we’re idiots
Then switch to cannon or Nikon
@@CAMTechChrisor OM
I think Sony can't make a compact 24-70 F2.8, so they make a 20-70 F4 compact lens and a 24-70 F2.8 big boy, thats it.
people who buy primes with f1.4 at any focal lenght they want and then just crop in post 👀👀👀
Tamron have 17 - 50mm, f4, 599 bucks !
Great lens too
Not sure though about f4 though, darn it
🎉
hey Chris hi, I've been following your videos for a long time but I would like to ask you something and I would like you to answer honestly... and I ask you because I have always used Sony and I see that you do too... In your opinion Sony is doing well lately? I mean...more and more often lately I've been asking myself "why did he do it?". And an example of this question is precisely this lens. Why did he do it? Why does it continue to produce cameras instead of lenses that are actually useful? And I'll give you the example of the stabilized Canon 14-35 f4. Or the 24/35/50 f1.8 macro always Canon always stabilized. I have the impression that RUclips now justifies everything that Sony does but in my opinion you as RUclipsrs should be more independent in reviewing a product that is evidently useless like a 24-50. But I always see that in the end they try to find meaning in what they do and it's not right. Here there are people who spend money on cameras that receive ridiculous updates and after 6 months they see a camera come out at half the price that has more useful things. And above all, many lenses are missing...a 16-70 f2.8 apsc...a 24-105 f4 powerzoom...a 56 f1.4 apsc...a 14-24 f4 with the possibility of putting a filter in front to the lens...these are useful lenses for everyone in my opinion. No paying €1600 for a 16-25 and a 24-50. This is my opinion. But I would like to hear your honest opinion. Thank you
Hey! I’m not too sure I understand the question here. Can you simplify?
@@chrisbrockhurst Do you think Sony has been doing a good job recently or is there something you as a Sony user would prefer they did?
Let’s put it this way, I still use Sony for all my videos and filming, despite having access to many of the other options. As it stands I don’t need anything else right now
@@chrisbrockhurst Thanks for sharing your thoughts
The only way this lens makes any sense at all is if there are other lenses in the pipeline that will compliment it
I don’t understand how that makes sense but you do you boo
@@chrisbrockhurst Not you BOO, I'll see my way OUT
this should have been the 20-50 F2.8 🤔
I don’t go past 50mm for my photography and when I do it’s with a 85mm or 135mm
Should have been 24-50mm f2 imo
why can't we have 16-105mm F1.8
I wish Sony would stop mucking about. 24-50mm is a useless range for video work. Meanwhile, the 24-70mm GM II isn't parfocal so is useless for filming actuality or observationally. The 20-70mm is parfocal but it's f4 so harder to match up in multi camera set ups with f2.8 lenses and being able to reduce the depth or field as much as possible is really helpful. So, come on Sony, please give us a full frame zoom with a good range like 20-70...20-100 (ish) would be better...that is F2.8, or even F2.0, and parfocal!
The reality is that probably won’t happen, the size will be huge (look at tamron 35-150)
Only 35mm at the wide end and no aperture ring, the Tamron is utterly useless. I suspect think Sony's development of lenses might have more to do with milking the market rather than what technically possible i.e. providing a 20-70mm f2.8 or a parfocal 24-70mm f2.8, lenses we can actually use. Sony are very close, so should be able to address these issues without producing overly large lenses.@rockhurst
20-100 F2 would be about 4 kg
@@cbflazaro A parfocal F2.8 20-70mm would be just fine. And if Sony can manage a little more range at the tighter end for a little extra weight, even better.
outdated design... old design but expensive.. dont like change lenght while zoom in/out..
No. I want a 20-300mm F1.2 and not bigger than the Tamron 28-200. hahahahaha
Only here for your video Chris, not interested in this lens.
Ahhh Thankyou
Just make me a 10-1000mm F1.0. And make it the size of your average. 24-70
congratulations! you've completely failed to even make a passing mention of the tamron 20-40 2.8. disappointing, complete with a diagram! :))
Ahhh I’m sorry my free video doesn’t cover exactly what you were looking for, sounds like you can probably do it better so let me know when yours is ready and viewable and I’ll be sure to stop by and leave a sarcastic comment for you too 😊 .. next time also maybe care to read the title.. it literally says Sony so Tamron wouldn’t have made any sense
Copy Tamron and overcharge.
I have been asking for this FOR YEARS. I have always said that the lens I want the most is a 25-50/2.8 (or even 3.3) that is compact and optically superlative. Why? Because it is the perfect walkabout lens. The 70mm angle in a 24-70 is pretty much useless. If you are OK with shooting portraits at 70 you are OK with shooting it a step closer at 50. I'll gladly trade the 70mm for a more compact dimension. The 2.8 aperture is not exactly fast, but good enough for adequate background blurring at portrait distances which F4 typically isn't.
--
I have been waiting 30 years for this lens; I'll buy it irrespective of price and I am rather forgiving of it's (honestly) so-so optical performance. The latter being my only gripe. If this is optically equivalent to the 24-70/2.8 just more limited in zoom range, it'll be worth $5,000 to me.