Why the Sony 24-50mm f2.8 G? (Mini GM)

You will get this lens, and you will love it.
get your Sony 24-50mm f2.8 G lens here: bhpho.to/3SMwj68
I misspoke during the entire video, I kept saying 28-75, but it's the sigma 28-70mm f2.8 that I am showing and comparing.

[@MarkoKoskenoja]

Excellent comparison and thoughts👍 I just bought a A7CII/20-70 F4 and prefer the extra range over getting f2.8. I was going to buy the Tamron 20-40 but I'm glad I didn't because I would be kicking myself for not waiting for this new Sony 24-50 f2.8. The aperture ring and other features of the Sony lens make it worth the extra money for me.

[@danielmartin7674]

for everything except dedicated portrait work the 20-70 is excellent

[@chryseass.5143]

I am the other person who owns the Tamron 20-40 f2.8 lens and don't have any desire for the Sony factor of the new 20-50 f2,8. I wanted something that went longer than my Tamron 17-28 but still gave me a decent wide angle and the 20-40 fits the bill. I can pair with a telephoto lens ( maybe the Tamron 70-300) and I have a nice two lens kit for my Sony a7C.

[@bobby_batz]

I just ordered Tammy 20-40/2.8 because of the wider end and the price. Match perfectly with my other Tamron lens 35-150/2-2.8 😊

[@stkuj]

I would have liked a 20-50 F2 😂

[@Tomyandreanyt]

Yess, i aggre with you, but company is company make things never be the best for all we need, because of business is need to keep the money flow, fvck this world 😂

[@libingzhang8629]

It would be much more heavier than this😂

[@andreasd3346]

All following lenses I've owned or tested, and for my needs I can say: 24-105 4 is very good, but too big and heavy ... 24-70 2.8 is even bigger and I hate the 82 mm filtersize ... 28-70/75 are very good, but not wide enough ... 24-200 is too slow and bad ... 20-40 2.8 struggles with missing sharpness at the long end ... At the moment I have the 20-70 4, which is relatively small, sharp and wide and long enough, with beautiful sunstars, but sometimes it is not fast enough ... the 24-50 2.8 will have the perfect weight/size and filtersize, is fast and wide and long enough for most of my images, but not for all of them ... unfortunately you can't have everything ... I think the 20-70 4 is or the 24-50 2.8 will be the best companion, on a second body, to my Voigtlaender E Nokton 40 1.2, with manual focus... I have pre-ordered the 24-50 2.8 and will find out which becomes my future favorite ... G.A.S please R.I.P. ... 🤣

[@joshmaldonado6614]

Have you gotten you 24-50 yet? If you did, Do you like it more than the 20-70? I get my 24-50 tomorrow. I like it but have been iffy about purchasing it. But that range is what I mainly use

[@andreasd3346]

@@joshmaldonado6614 Yes, I had it for some days and could test it. My copy was as good as my 20-70 4. So I had primarily to decide between size/weight, speed and focal lenght between both lenses. I've decided for the 20-70 4 for my purposes, prefering the additional focal lenght versus one stop more speed. For RAW shooters it is maybe interesting to wait until PS (and other tools) have a correction profile for this lens. The distorsions are enourmous.

[@mamumonkan]

I tell you why 24 to 50 is good, because especially in photography zooms are most useful at their extremes. So for 1x body walk around it would be fine for general photo journalistic work. But then again 20 - 50 / 2.8 GM would be even better especially when paired with a 2nd body and a 35 - 90/2.8 GM ( I remember shooting a whole book on 2 lenses back in the Canon EOS film days in extreme weather and heat , wind and saltwater in Mexico 2004 >17-40/4 and 70 - 200 + permanent 1.4x > 2x bodies > done ! - no lens changes - no nothing - just carrying extra Polarized filters once they got ocean spray on. So yes in a 2x body scenario the Tamron a 20 - 40 + 70 180 would fit the bill as well. ( but then today if the AF is not at it's very best I get frustrated easily so I can see the point of getting a 24 50 ( that's why I came here ) but I am not sure it would replace my 28/2 50/2.5 2x body set up ( because at night 2.8 is rather limiting )

[@Mraz75]

well i love your comparison.. it is a pity for tamron 20-40mm.. i almost ready to pay for 20-70mm f4.. but now new lens come out.. 24-50mm.. guess i need more time to tell my wife about the new lens..

[@CharlieVN]

Tell or ask for forgiveness? 😂😂😂😇

[@DroneStories]

20-70, f2.8. With small compact size and stabilization. This would be an interesting lens....

[@mrmonday42]

It would have to be significantly larger than the 24-70 GM2 because it would be a 3.5x zoom vs the 3x zoom of the 24-70 and IS would also make it larger. I'm guessing it would be larger and heavier than the original 24-70 GM.

[@tsizzle]

Do you think Sony will release a mark II of their 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM this year? Too many 20-40, 24-50, 20-70, 24-70, 28-75 lenses!

[@CharlieVN]

sony barely notices me, and I'm mostly on ignore. I didnt play ball with another big brand, so I'm out the loop with another known lens maker. Wish I had some details because I would not totally leak it 😝😝😝😇

[@SilatShooter]

As always, on point content! I have the 20-70F4 lens and it's great but yes I wish it were f2.8 and still remain this small and light. So yes, I'm dealing with the "should I" buy this new lens, sell my 20-70? Will say I took the 20-70 to Japan and it was a great travel lens. Was plenty wide enough, and I did wish for more telephoto range. But yes, I do wish it was an f2.8 just because I'm lens snob and no other reason really. Not much a difference in background blur at the wider end.

[@CharlieVN]

lens snobs unite 😁

[@SilatShooter]

@@CharlieVN it's like a drug addiction and Sony is our dealer...

[@RandumbTech]

It's funny, I have the 24-70GMii and 20-70G and never use the 20-70 because the F4 is so uninspiring. But the 24-70 is so big and bulky. I am likely going to sell the 20-70 and put that money toward the 24-50.

[@CharlieVN]

interesting to hear, I do have an it factor lens, and it's the 35-150 tamron, and of course, it's even more ridiculous in size lol. May 24 is gonna take a long time

[@hellolau]

I understand your frustration. In my opinion, the GMII doesn't seem too bulky considering its functionality. It serves as a replacement for the 24-50-85. However, I find the new 24-50 lens to be a bit unusual because it extends at 24mm, which means you have to zoom in to achieve a wider angle. This design choice can be confusing for users accustomed to traditional zoom lenses where zooming out widens the field of view.

[@bneil4059]

I bought a used one at my local camera store. Does it not come with a lens hood?😊

[@nightdonutstudio]

Ship on May 24th...So many youtuber reviews already out and people need to wait 3 months. Tamron and sigma might come out something more interesting meanwhile.

[@CharlieVN]

sony takes so long to release stuff, it's kind of ridic.... and it takes so long for smaller channels to get access, and it takes so long to flush out real world experiences beyond a short loaner period.

[@joerogan3703]

What about Tamron 17-50 F4 full frame lens?

[@CharlieVN]

valid, however due to the size, I would have categorized it with the lenses that were cut out, very cool that it's internal zooming, but that fixed sized is rather large.

[@classicboy97]

50mm is too restrictive on the long end, and it doesn’t make sense that the barrel extends outwards on the wide end. Could have been an exciting lens at 20mm, but unfortunately this misses the mark. Sure it’s smaller than the GM or 20-70 f4 but it’s not an actually small lens. I’d say it’s a useful lens for those who for some reason never shoot beyond 50mm on their standard zooms or primes.

[@sinwt]

what about pairing it with 700-200 GM II? I have 20-70 f4 and 50 gm 1.4 now, thinking about selling them and switch to this lens. Still, they are great lens, but I mainly do portrait photography and I'm using a7cii.

[@gpdoyon]

Works for me! I pre-ordered one. It hits all my requirements well and I can't wait to get it.

[@ChrisParayno]

Y