SIGMA 24-70 or SONY 24-105mm // What’s the DIFFERENCE?!

[@chrisbrockhurst]

Which one would you pick and with what camera??

[@couch_potato_v1826]

For video 24-105, for stills 24-70, hybrid option 24-105, and I own neither, I went with Tamron 28-75 after testing all three.(a7iii)

[@Ade5]

I got the Sigma 24-70/2.8 this winter.. And its awesome..

[@Ataraxia_Atom]

@@couch_potato_v1826 why the 105 for video?

[@pawelmod3292]

@@Ataraxia_Atom more reach, OSS, F4 is good enough for video, better AF in video, more precise manual focus, not front heavy, lighter - just on top from my head ;-)

[@Ataraxia_Atom]

@@pawelmod3292 very interesting thanks for the reply, I bet it does play nicer with the native lens also, something I hadn't considered. Im definitely a hybrid shooter, might have to consider is as im pretty set to buy the sigma 27-70 in the next month or so and replace my kit lens 24-70

[@MarcelVolker]

Never been unhappy with my Sony 24-105. The extra reach is more useful to me than a 2.8 aperture would be (i have primes for that), and I've never looked at a photo from that lens and thought "oh that needs to be sharper".

[@TeabaggEditing]

How about the macro capability? The Sigma obviously can go way closer but maybe the extra zoom from sony can balance that? I mean right now I only have the kit lens 28-70 3.5-5-6 for the a7III so both would be a huge upgrade but still not sure what to get since the aperture of the kit lens really bothers me.

[@MarcelVolker]

@@TeabaggEditing I don't use the lens for "macro" very often, my feeling is it's about average to better than average. CFD IIANM holds to 105mm so you get a reasonably decent enlargement, but not as good as lenses that are optimised for it.

[@M_LittleRivers]

When I bought my A7III I bought a 24-105, sold it, got the Tamron 28-75 to try it out and went back to the Sony 24-105. It's such a good lens for travelling. For me, I like the 24-105 to travel, and I would get the Sigma 24-70 to photograph events (weddings, etc). Great video! I love your channel.

[@gpproductions7607]

I have the 24-105f4 but i want to get the 24-70 to photograph events too, especially ones that don’t have a lot of light or the ones that be outdoors and you stuck at f4 with sucky light

[@Mrthezanax]

@@gpproductions7607 My friend who's getting married in a widowless basement? Besides, Sony handles iso in a perfect way!!!

[@SourPlanet]

If anyone reading happens to have an A7c, go for the 24-105. They're both quite huge on the A7c but the Sigma is just too gargantuan. Both are absurdly sharp on the A7c sensor. The ISO performance means Auto ISO minimum Shutter Speed is totally feasible, which often negates the F2.8 difference in many situations. The extra reach on the Sony is a nice (you hit perfect portrait range at 85/105 and it's a great landscape range), and OSS is a pretty huge bonus (especially for video).

[@coreymach_]

Owned both. Sold the Sony 24-105. Why? because the extra stop in aperture is worth it for me over the extra zoom range. I'm a filmmaker and I shoot a lot indoors in less than ideal lighting. If you're a run and gun filmmaker, then the Sigma 24-70 is the better choice. However, if you are into travel photography or primarily shoot events with decent lighting then the 24-105 is for you. It really depends on your use. Both are built like tanks.

[@user-kb9uh4ww8d]

I just had to choose between those 2 as my first e-mount lens, and even if the sigma probably is a better lens, I went with the 24-105 sony, because at the end of the day I think is more cheap and practical to me. Cheaper because with the same price you can save money on buying a gimbal, and another lens. Practical for traveling without carrying or switching lenses.

[@fotosvond_]

8:15 What you said there is something I have come to accept, too. As soon as you start to throw in any kind of digital stabilization, be it live while recording ("active steady") or digital post-stabilization, these IBIS/OSS stabilizers won't always have a positive impact on your footage, especially if you are moving/walking. For a static shot, it's great, but when you walk, it seems to be better to either just use a faster shutter + digital stabilization or come up with an optical stabilizer in the way that you use a gimbal. As soon as you try to stabilize IBIS/OSS with digital stabilization in post to smooth out walking shakes, this will only result in wobbling artifacts and makes it very hard to fix.

[@Soundwave857]

I sold my Tamron 28-75 2.8 to get the 24-105 F4 OSS and im so happy i did, The lense feels sooooo much better and the OSS and more range is really usefull. Yes its a bit darker but worth it. I was thinking about the sigma 24-70 too but sadly its missing OSS wich is pretty useful for video

[@chrisbrockhurst]

I agree, the OSS is a big deal for the 24-105, kind of makes the lens stand on its own, nothing else available like it

[@Mrthezanax]

I got sigma 24-70 2.8 and tamron 70-180 2.8. I never regreted I bought these two lenses.

[@sedrataylor1203]

So, my guess is, if you have the 24-105, keep it and get the Sigma 24-70 2.8 too.

[@MarcyMoe]

:D

[@a.z2972]

Got the 24-105 with my a7siii. Brilliant combo

[@mangoldm]

When holding two black cylinders and calling them “this” your audience (me, at least) becomes unsure as to which black cylinder you are referencing.

[@RoamingWanders]

I currently have the A7iii and the 24-105mm as my main standard zoom lens. I like it, the range is great for most of what I do (landscapes, product shots, odd portraits), build quality is good & oss is useful when doing videos. My only complaint is that it's not f2.8. If I did more low light photos or events then I would get the sigma but until then this does just fine on an mostly enthusiast level. Plus I got it second hand for cheap. I would like the sigma but can't justify it when the f4 is fine.

[@chrisbrockhurst]

imagine if they made a F2.8 version? even if it were bigger and heavier it would do so well

[@RoamingWanders]

​@@chrisbrockhurstit would definitely be popular. I bet it would be soo expensive.

[@MKe11y]

From a photography perspective I've had no problems with the 24-105. The range covers almost every situation, it's sharp enough, autofocus quick etc. The only thing I wish it had was the extra light of 2.8, but they supposedly have one in the works so I'm keeping some cash stashed away for that!

[@chrisbrockhurst]

I remember the first time I saw that lens was on your camera!

[@MKe11y]

@@chrisbrockhurst haha that’s awesome!

[@MagicalMeesh]

Where did you hear this? How dare you I was about to buy one lol

[@CC-gt3ro]

It is highly improbable they will do one day a 24-105 f2.8 with oss. It would be heavy and would not be good for their other lenses. 9 months later i don’t see anything good. Today the tamron 28-75 g2 seems the best choice with GM quality like lens.the sony 24-105 is too expensive. You can get nearly a 28-75 f2.8 (1199 CAD) g2 and the 70-300 tamron (699 CAD) combined for just a bit more than the 24-105 (1800 CAD). And the 70-300 is fantastic. And if you add also the 17-28 which is one the best lens today, you get 17-300 with three lenses extremely good in their range.

[@nightdonutstudio]

I like 24-70 f2.8. 105mm is not that much closer than 70mm. And if I want a zoom has better zoom range than 24-70, I would go with tarmon 28-200. 24-105 f4 just feel a between lens that I do not know what situation I would pick it. If I need a zoom lens can do daylight and lowlight, I pick up 24-70. If I want a travel lens I would pick 28-200 or maybe the new sigma 28-70. Both more lightweight. If I do daylight only, I usually bring 24-70 and a tele prime like 85mm or 135mm.

[@mcwaffles121593]

If I went prime lenses first. I wouldn't have gotten my sigma 24-70, the 24-105 would be a better choice. However since it was my first lens, I needed a F 2.8

[@dr_squirrel]

Great video and useful comparison. I owned both lenses and I found the Sigma to be better in almost every way, although the Sony is a great lense, too. What I appreciated a lot about the Sigma is the very short minimum focusing distance. For landscape photographers the extra reach may come in handy.

[@kfsdamian3929]

If I'm filming weddings would you be able to tell me where the focusing distance could come in handy? Would it essentially be useful if I'm trying to get detail shots, would I essentially get a more blurred out background?

[@DJHiroProductions]

0

[@aguiremedia]

@@kfsdamian3929 its more Marco-ish. So yes you get to be closer to the subject and therefore get more detail.

[@michaelscaplis]

The 24-105 is ideal as holiday lens. Pretty happy with mine.

[@thegeneral123]

Went with Sigma 24-70 F2.8 for my A7ii. Have not regretted it for a second! It's my one and done for Sony E mount. I can't find a lens profile for the lens in Lightroom though?

[@chrisbrockhurst]

you tried updating Lightroom? I have the profile in there for mine

[@thegeneral123]

@@chrisbrockhurst Trying a full reinstall as it might be an issue with updates or settings.

[@thegeneral123]

@@chrisbrockhurst Worked out what it was. In my head I had the idea that Lightroom CC only did lens profile adjustments for Jpeg files. I don't know why as that's illogical. Edit, actually I do know why I thought that. I use Lightroom to apply lens correction for my Viltrox 33mm F1.4 Fuji X lens and the Lightroom profile for that only works on Jpeg files for some odd reason. So that's what I'm used to. So I was looking at the edited RAW file output Jpeg file. Not the RAW file. Now I'm looking at the RAW file I can see tons more lens correction profiles and the correct one. Still loath the catalogue system with Adobe products.

[@frankiez7266]

Did you have to do a firmware update on the lens when you took it out of the box?

[@thegeneral123]

@@frankiez7266 No.

[@grahambush3226]

How about this? I purchased the Samyang 24-70 over a year ago and love it. But it limited me in my woodland photography. I ended up having to carry my Sony 70-200 along with me. So looking for an alternative I purchased a Canon 24-105 gen 1 kit lens and use that on my MC-11 adapter. I am very happy with the results. This is why I went to mirrorless. To have more lens options.

[@alchemist_x79]

Is it my eyes or am I detecting a slightly warmer cast on the 24-105 in some of the samples? If so, is that because of two different cameras or does one resolve warmer than the other? Or is my vision garbage? That said, I was torn between these two but ultimately went with the Sigma, and then paired it with the 14-24. Never regretted that decision, it's an amazing lens!

[@chrisbrockhurst]

Yeh it’s ever so slightly warmer, well spotted!

[@greengraycolor]

Great video! For the autofocus test, it would be nice to have some visual confirmation when the focus is acquired, e.g. check icon in the corner or so. Without it, it's hard to monitor both images at the same time.

[@JLStreetDoc]

The Sony clearly hit focus first. It was immediate, where the sigma did not.

[@dunar6772]

At 1:30 and 1:34 the AF is clearly better for Sony, but Sigma's image is a little more 'vivid'. Per all, it is more advantageous tu use during day, for snap shots, the Sony lens because the OSS and its reach; for better quality, especially in low light, there are a full of prime lenses to chose from (which are better than Sigma 24-70mm). So the Sony 25-105mm for 'ordinary' snap shots (during day light), and prime lenses for more 'professional' shots.

[@karthikeyan-kc2py]

🛑 @9:32 shall I know the camera settings for Sony 24 - 105 @F4. Kindly let me know it will be helpful for me. Did you use any denoiser software or plug in to remove noise in low light video shots. Thank you

[@JLStreetDoc]

It’s only two stops of light difference. That can easily be made up with shutter and iso or a combination of. Not the end of the world. Especially with the great low light performance of the new Sony cameras. The bokeh/background blur is achievable at f4, as well as very pleasing and you get more reach. IMO, the Sony is a clear winner.

[@tvboy123456]

why is the snow so blown out on the sigma at 1:48 is that the lens?

[@bradyr26]

The F/2.8 was too much for outside and he didn't bring an ND filter. He said he tried to compensate with shutter speed

[@tvboy123456]

@@bradyr26 where they not the same shutter speed in both tests? Because the sony looks less blown out. I am genuinely curious if the lens are impacting the look of the scene or if the snow having foot steps changed the exposure.

[@DirectorDavoPaul]

Love the style of delivery. You're my gear dude now. Great lil' audio edit at 4:02, I caught it.

[@photopaul4]

The video was perfect for me because I want to buy one of them for the A7iii but I still don't really know Wich one is better for me but I think I will go with the 24-105 Thanks Chris! ☺️

[@julienlesueur1396]

Just for colors I'd take the Sony any day. The Sigma lenses always have this magenta tint. I recently tried their new 35mm F2 which I ended up returning because of the color rendition that I didn't like. Unfortunately it seems to be the same with this 24-70.

[@andrewvu3083]

You don’t know how to use Lightroom?

[@ITIMzZzZ]

Which do you recommend between 24-70 f2.8 GM and 24-105 F4 G

[@martinsrensen3869]

Got the 24-105 totally happy with it sometimes it´s almost all I use during a wedding

[@DrewMalarkey]

I use 24-105 for most of my video work, great lens!

[@chrisbrockhurst]

its a solid all rounder.

[@sonicyouth76]

Hi Chris, I have a Sony A7RIV. I am still thinking to get either of these lens. Does Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 makes more sense since I can go to crop mode and get the same focal length of 105mm (70x1.5) and the aperture of 4.2 (2.8x1.5)?

[@VishwasRavindran92]

Sony 24-105 f4 lens is a one lens which does all the work ! Be it weddings , pre/post weddings , portrait shoot , product shoot etc.

[@altrujillo3566]

I've bought and returned two Sony 24-105's. Terribly soft everywhere except in the middle. I may buy the Sigma 24-70 based on my findings with the Sony.

[@Mrthezanax]

Is the white balance the same for both lences? I noticed in your comparison that the white color of the snow is much better on sigma lence. By the way great comparison video!!!!

[@ethanschalekamp8986]

does the sigma have slightly more vibrant colors? In your side by sides, the Sony looks a bit more muted edit: or maybe it's the white balance. More magenta in the sigma shots vs the sony

[@GerryRR]

I've been trying to decide between these two and this video made the decision easy. I want a lens that is good for both photos and video, but more video than photos. Seeing the side by side video on the same tripod really showed how much the OSS reduces the shakes and bumps. To me it was a very big difference and I think the Sony is definitely what I want for handheld video. Thank you!

[@esquebee]

Looking at these 3 years later - I might wait and save up for the sigma mk II version, however the 24-105 might also get an update soon... however, with how affordable both of these used nowadays - sigma at $700-800, sony at $650-700, I might just get one of them currently.

[@GabrielJThomas]

I bought the Sigma 24-70 and loved using it, however, I sold it and bought the 24-105. The autofocus worked good but not great. It actually missed many critical shots when I relied on it most. The 24-105 has amazing autofocus, but it does seem to struggle a little at 105. I need to test it more to confirm that! Honestly, you cant go wrong with either but that's all preference. Sony A7III shooter. Great review 👊

[@bondgabebond4907]

I was thinking the Sigma is great but it stops at 70mm. I couldn't convince myself to sell the Sony 24-105mm because of that extra reach. Sure f2.8 is nice, but I can do just fine at f4 with OSS and IBIS, where the Sigma has no stabilization. I've taken pictures of people with the Sony lens on my A7R3 and the pictures are extremely sharp. That 35mm will be missed by those who choose the Sigma or Tamron mid-range zooms.

[@justinsiebert6952]

24-70 sigma on a7siii with a rs2 gimbal, does OOS even matter? Question though I have a 24 GM and now the 24-70. Am I even going to use my GM anymore besides at night?

[@adrianarmenta3572]

Is the color difference due to the camera bodies? I think I preferred the colors of the Sony 24-105.

[@chrisbrockhurst]

that and the lenses have different colours too.

[@Saltycures]

My 24-105 never comes off my A73! Sometimes I wish I had a wider aperture but the OSS and the extra reach come in oh so handy for what I shoot (renting a 24-70 gm that was lacking in these areas actually is what made me decide on the 24-105). And when I want a creamier background I just shoot as tight as I possibly can. Also, for whatever reason the f4 aperture on this lens is better in low light than any other f4 lens I’ve ever used

[@glenngulia5409]

Chris, it looked like the Sigma AF dragged a little behind the Sony. Do you agree?

[@jmax9]

The Tamron 28-75 works a charm on the FX6, and the AF performance is astonishing in low light or high- in my experience, even better than the 24-105.

[@luiscruz0530]

What about the 24-105 against the new 24-70GM II ? Which one would you choose?

[@BOTG_Adventures]

Would the Sony be better for hiking an landscape? i have the 16-35 and 100ml Sony lens and its a pain swapping all the time.

[@cjonwickham1933]

I could not make my mind up...so I bought sigma 24-70f2.8 os art ef canon16-35 f4 is usm tamron 70-200f2.8 vc g2 ef ef 24-105 stm samyang 85 f1.4 rf with console canon 50f1.8 for canon r6 with adapter recently...still think about 24-105 f4 is rf and sell stm one as upgrade....but its $1099 and not as fast 24-70. Also got sigma 150-600 contemp. I already have canon m50 and 15-45 with speedbooster tamron 10-24 canon 55-250 efs ef 70-200. I doubt about get canon or sigma or tamron or samyang manual or af 24 35 50 f1.4 primes in future.

[@TCinSoCal]

New to Sony from Nikon & Fuji (never selling X100V) .. bought the FE 24-105 to ‘get by’ for walk around/travel lens until I knew what I wanted. Not getting rid of the 24-105. It’s so damn good. I’m not even in a hurry to pick a prime. I think I want the 40mm 2.5. For wider prime I have my X100V.

[@ceriouz21]

great video, i currently planning to upgrade from a7 to a7iv (still waiting), but im planning to travel next month and would like to upgrade the lens first , do you think the OSS is better for a7 since the a7 dont have IBIS? i currently only use 28-70mm kit lens, thank you!

[@PrimeInChina]

Meh, 24-105 never felt that useful to me. F4 is too slow when you are using 120 slowmo. I've also always felt like 24-70 2.8 was enough. Yet anytime I've wanted to go beyond 70, I'd want to be at 85/135/200. At 85, I'd again, rather be faster with a 1.8, yet at 135-200, you can get plenty of separation with just 2.8. As far as OSS, I've always felt the same, if you need long walking shots, you will just need a gimbal or Steadicam. If you are using 120 slowmo then you don't need OSS for panning/tilting and things as long as you've learned how to hold and move your body.

[@chrisbrockhurst]

Bingo, lots of good points there.

[@DrWasim]

For 120 slowmo, F2.8 also feels too slow. I’d go for primes for that.

[@PrimeInChina]

@@DrWasim maybe at that point it depends on body. I’m using a7s3. A lot of times I’ll stop down a 1.4 anyways.

[@touchtennis]

Good thing when you find a channel late in their KZbin life, you’ve got hundreds of old videos to trawl through! Only subbed two months ago!

[@chrisbrockhurst]

Thankyou for the support 🙏🏼

[@marc_likes_marketing]

i somehow stumbled upon this video in 2024. anyhow, great breakdown. i subbed and i'm looking forward to checking out more of your content. in terms of lenses, i picked up the 24-105mm and never looked back. sometimes, i don't want to bring my 70-200 sigma 2.8 bazooka to the beach, so the 24-105mm gets the job done (most of the time - the 200mm would come in handy for distant boats/jet skis). oss, extra reach and sony's faster auto focus (it seems faster to me) = a better choice for me. great breakdown!

[@thibaultgras5854]

Just got the SIgma, might get the 24-105 at a later stage when I travel. I got the 70-200 f4 OSS, so i don't need the reach just now. I will keep that 24-105 in mind for later when I need kit to travel light

[@nealwclp]

if we shoot Signa at 70 mm and crop the image to 105...will their be much difference in sharpness n quality

[@tommyliu1210]

I already got A7mk1 + 50 1.8 but I am thinking of getting FE 24-105g vs Sigma 24-70. I am travelling on September and want to shoot landscape, street photography please give me a recommendation?

[@jaymills1720]

The 24-105 looked “green”? Or brown? Settings the same?

[@Caracalaba]

why the snow on the sony looks much more yellow? there's a big difference in color

[@silvieilieva]

Great review! I'm getting into concert photography (indoor, in clubs) and I am considering getting the Sigma sometime. I currently use Canon 24-105 F4 on a Canon 6D Mark II, and that F4 is not doing well 😁 Also image stabilization is an absolute must for low light and moving people.

[@BryanEsler]

Feel like this is a really weird comparison. IMO it makes more sense to compare the 24-105 with the Tamron 28-200.

[@chrisbrockhurst]

Tamron 28-200 is a variable aperture lens. As you zoom in your aperture changes. Neither of these lenses do that. 28 is also not wide enough for a lot of uses

[@BryanEsler]

@@chrisbrockhurst I get what you’re saying. But I think if the 24-105 as an all purpose lens, just like I do the 28-200. The 24-70, for me, isn’t an all purpose lens. It’s a low light powerhouse, great for things like events.

[@khurrammalik5865]

In the very start I think Sony is showing way more details of snow marks while sigma is all whiteout

[@Pharesm]

Good video... To me, I'd rather buy a gimbal instead of an OSS lens with lackluster light performance. Beyond that, I'd rather use Sony's 20mm F1.8G prime and an 85mm prime instead of all the in between space of a zoom. Being the owner of a pair of legs, I'd really only need a zoom for video, like a Sigma 24-70 F2.8

[@concept1027]

How do those legs serve you when they scare away wildlife you could have zoomed in on? Are those legs good for visually compressing objects in spatial depth? Are they sneaky legs that leave people unaware so you can get candid shots? Oooh, are they magic legs that make you invisible so your body doesn't block people's views of live events?? 🤔

[@Pharesm]

@@concept1027 wildlife is no problem for me, I use a rifle to shoot that. Joking - but I have no interest in shooting wildlife, so I don't need to be equipped for it. Matter of fact, I don't use zooms and I don't use long glass at all. I do not like "compression" in what I shoot. Sure, its a popular technique. But I have my own aesthetic . And so I carry only what I actually need for what I intend to do. And that's not the stuff that you need. So far, nobody has complained that I don't do what many other's do.

[@Piotr_Majchrzak]

Very good comaparison. I think it could be good idea to present each lens always at the same side, You switch them at the end and it was little confusing. There's one more thing: did You use AWB while shoting tests? Sometimes Sigma reveals some warm tint, other times Sony does as well and shows warmer picture. I'm not sure if it's AWB fluctuations or You maybe switched them by mistake, or this tint comes straight from lens...

[@maf3695]

Perfect timing but, I bought used Sony 24-70mm f4 (under $500) and paired it with a7c. Now I’m second guessing that purchase.

[@Ataraxia_Atom]

No 2nd guessing. Your gear is awesome. Go make something great with it.

[@DrWasim]

I did the same thing. Got a cheap 24-70 F4 for the A7C, but immeadiately regretted. It’s not a bad lens, but just nothing special.

[@jrwnfilms3350]

If you turn on OSS, does that automatically turn on IBIS as well?

[@RicochetForce]

IBIS is the camera body's sensor image stabilization while the OSS is the lens's stabilization. Both of them work together to produce even smoother results.

[@akammer1000]

Does the OSS on the sony effect the battery life of the camera? Say with an a7iii?

[@princetarun]

Really Great Explanation how many sony Lens available For oss

[@thisiseric]

Is there a reason for the dramatic difference in colour rendition? The sigma looks way oversaturated (almost like go pro colours making your face too red) but I'm not sure if that is because you are using two different cameras, colour profiles or if it is a difference in the lens. I have the sony 24-105 and want to continue using it for travel and daily carry-around, but was thinking about picking up the sigma 24-70 for my business work which is usually indoors in lower lit conditions.

[@chrisbrockhurst]

a few things, different bodies which means different colours and also one has a warmer tone than the other. I slapped an adjustment layer above everything so its a bit saturated on the camera that wasnt set to neutral (cant remember which)

[@urbanrunoff]

what about weight, i know the sony is lighter but does it make a difference ? i am considereing getting the sony for travel , i own the sigma but wouldn't mind something lighter ;)

[@6gwilliams]

No contest for me, I own both the Sony 24-105mm f4 G, and the Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 DG DN lenses. Both equally sharp and versatile for my A1, A7SIII and A7RIV cheers .

[@AfifFaiq]

Which is your most use lens?

[@6gwilliams]

@@AfifFaiq Sony 24-105mm f4 G OSS

[@AfifFaiq]

@@6gwilliams thanks man for the reply!

[@tamal0167]

For fashion photography which one would you suggest? Which one is got the prime like image quality?

[@6gwilliams]

@@tamal0167 they both have equal sharpness. SAB MTF-standard tests show that. The bokeh of the f2.8 of the Sigma would be a bit better than on the f4 Sony.

[@MattCookOregon]

What about the sigma contemporary?

[@hannahkyriakakis9655]

THANK YOU!! I’ve watched just about every 24-105 / 24-70 video out there and this by far was the most helpful!! Going with the 24-105 for my A7ii, shoot both photo and video :)

[@tomhawkes1818]

I was deciding between these 2 lenses, and for me the colour just look more pleasing on the Sony enough to outweigh the & F2.8 and greater sharpness

[@joelbarto1103]

Why do you suppose the snow looks whiter on the sigma? Was there a different white balance setting?

[@chrisbrockhurst]

lenses can produce slight differences in colour, one of these leans warmer

[@Thumpr110]

Sony lenses are so good looking. But I’m still thrilled with the 28-75

[@chrisbrockhurst]

good to hear!

[@phucmapvlog]

I’ve heard a lot of good reviews on that Sigma, and this video confirms those

[@mitom3684]

mình đang sài 2470 sigma, đang tính đổi 24105 do OSS và nó nhẹ hơn 2470 sigma đáng kể

[@phucmapvlog]

@@mitom3684 nhưng 28-70 đỉnh hơn

[@mitom3684]

@@phucmapvlog g2 à Phúc ?

[@phucmapvlog]

@@mitom3684 kg phải là g2 giống như Tamron, nhưng một ống kính vừa rẻ, vừa nhẹ, và vừa ngon hơn

[@mitom3684]

do you have any problem with active steady mode and OSS together ?

[@spencerkm]

does anyone have feedback on the Sony 24-70 2.8? I picked up that one, but curious how it compares as far as sharpness

[@CharlieGiesler21]

I have been looking at both of these lenses for the exact reasons you covered. All purpose lens for the fx3 and fx6. Thanks for the reviews!

[@chrisbrockhurst]

for the FX6 definitely the Sony.

[@Blue172]

Hi Chris, I’ve now watched this video 4 times, I’ve just sold my Sony 24-105mm f/4, I was going to purchase the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art “but” now there’s a new kid on the block the Samyang/Rokinon 24-70mm f/2.8. Do you have any plans on doing a comparison between the Sigma and Samyang? Please help me out, Regards William

[@dusty_burkhalter]

The 24-105 is the first lens I bought. I'm a hybrid shooter with an emphasis on video. The extra 35mm coupled with OSS is worth staying at f4. For video F4 is sufficient in every way I have tried it and with the high ISO performance of Sony I don't have any issues. I have wanted to switch to a 24-70 2.8 but every review I watch complete talks me out of getting rid of the 24-105. Its just too versatile not to have for my use case.

[@dusty_burkhalter]

Okay I just couldn’t stop thinking about the Sigma so I bought it too. It’s amazing. I still have the 24-105 for now and I can justify keeping it for my sports videos solely for the reach but oh man this Sigma has a place on my camera for probably 90% of the time now. I love it. Honestly I don’t see much of a difference in stabilization between the two. The Sigma just has a look that is a little more special than the Sony. If they will come out with a 70-200 to pair it with that would be perfection.

[@scotthayesproductions5715]

@@dusty_burkhalter i have the Sigma, but can't help but want the 24-105 as well for travel and most of my video stuff, which ends up being at F4 anyways, unless I am shooting interviews and want to use a fast prime for bokeh. Do you have a tough time picking which one to shoot with?

[@dusty_burkhalter]

@@scotthayesproductions5715 not at all. If I’m shooting photos it’s the Sigma almost all the time. AF is not quite as good as the 24-105, but the Sigma just has a look about it that if I nail my settings I don’t have to edit hardly at all. The 24-105 is now exclusively for video, although it takes great photos too so don’t discount it there. The cool thing is, either can do both so whichever one I grab I’m not wrong. It’s just for my use one is better suited for photo and the other for video.I thought I might end up selling one or the other but I’m definitely keeping both. I shoot a lot of sports video so the 24-105 is my go to for that and still will be.

[@janw1982]

I use Sony 24-70 2.8 gm ii on my fx 3 and i like it.

[@RadicalLiving]

Thanks, this was exactly what i needed, very helpful. Going for the Sony

[@WhoIsJonHarris]

Great perspective. And I like the creative cut to yourself. Funny guy! I need that OSS for sure. And the reach is amazing for variety focal lengths for VIDEO. That's where that OSS is unbeatable. Levi Allen also loves this lens. And I've got a few primes for that low aperture need. Great video!

[@Ataraxia_Atom]

I have the 24-70 kit lens, and looking to upgrade. Def think the sigma has my name on it.

[@chrisbrockhurst]

sigma all the way

[@مهدیترابی-س8د]

Hi, is the Sony 24 to 105 full-frame lens suitable for making short films? Prime lenses cost a lot, the camera I got is Sony Alpha a7iii, please help, thank you. I am your addressee from Iran

[@nadeemafzal8984]

thanks for the review - helped me to make a decision picked up the Sony 24-105 F4 for my A7c - and am absolute delighted -- for me 2.8 has no benefit over the F4 with OSS - being longer 70-105 is extremely useful particulalry for portraits -- also personal preference that i like the rendition of the Sony too.

[@bleucommelebleu]

it's not just 2.8...the look is amazing with Slog, but both are good!!

[@Joey.Alford]

I wish you would’ve made this when I was making this decision back in the summer 😞

[@tqlla]

You can protect the Sigma from dust with rubber tape. If you at the back of the front element holder(lens hood mount), you will see a small space. That is where the dust is coming in from. It needs to be sealed. I run rubber tape all around the back of the front lens mount. I did not want to use any sealant, because I was worried that it would cause haze or something.

[@WayneMoran]

I am looking at both of these lenses. Thanks for this great review. By the way what microphone are you using for your videos?

[@Donbros]

Men I wish I have enough money for sigma. Very versatile lens just a bit pricey for budget buyer. Would be cool to have it and then save for something ultrawide... Wish sigma release 16-28mm f2.8 for 1k or something because they are oftenly even though pricey still affordable unlike g master which is like three lens worth price even though having perfect ultrawide variable focal length (16-35, what else you would want for filming indoors?). Then 16-35 would be almost obsolete

[@JustDavidMinistries]

With my a7iii, I’m so happy with my Sigma 24-70

[@chrisbrockhurst]

glad to hear it

[@PieterBreda]

I bought the 24-105 because of the reach. The 24-70's reach is a bit limited

[@marc_likes_marketing]

same. oss too, if i want to use it on an aps-c without stabilization.

[@Sy-kv6hy]

if you have prime choose 24-105, if you only want one lens go with 24-70

[@DrWasim]

Great video Chris! Thank you so much. Still undecided though...

[@robbie154]

For weddings, the sigma acts as a pseudo macro. Not having to carry around a macro for 5% of the shots you’re going to take just seals the deal.

[@mikebanks4796]

The craziest thing about this whole comparison is the colour difference between the s7iii and the 7iii.

[@thesaint1517]

Sony 24-105 f4 all the way. Excellent IQ and all around lens. 24-70 is shy by 35mm at the long end. This looks like a commercial for Sigma. Sorry but I'll stick to the 24-105.

[@ronnoco]

It’s funny that you made this video as I’m considering to sell my tamron 28-75 f2.8 to buy the Sony 24-105. I do a fair bit of motocross filming and think it’s the perfect focal length for out on track. I shoot everything in manual focus and usually at f4 or higher anyway. So yea I reckon I’m gonna pull the trigger on the 24-105!

[@BrianTheCameraGuy]

Great job as always Chris. I really love my Sigma 24-70. Probably my favorite lens. Definitely my favorite lens.