Sony 24-70 f/2.8 G-Master (GM) Review

TL;DR: Finally, a zoom worthy of the amazing a7R II. The combination of the a7R II and the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM match the Canon and Nikon equivalents for image quality, and you get the benefits of 4k video, sensor stabilization, a tilt screen, and an electronic viewfinder. If the 70-200 f/2.8 is as good as this lens, pros will be selling their DSLRs.

We’ll have a full video review out soon, but in the meantime, here are our thoughts and some sample images.

Just about every working pro keeps a 24-70 f/2.8 in their bag for weddings, events, landscapes, and photojournalism. It’s been shocking, then, that Sony’s mirrorless E-Mount has been missing this crucial lens.

Yes, you can adapt DSLR lenses to E-Mount, but the autofocus is unreliable. Yes, Sony had a 24-70 f/4, but it was far less sharp than the Canon and Nikon alternatives. Yes, Sony has had great primes, but many professional scenarios require the versatility of a zoom.

Sony finally has a real pro zoom, and it’s going to change everything.


The lens handles fantastically. It feels better than either the Canon or Nikon equivalents. It’s solid and heavy, and both zooming and focusing are incredibly smooth.

It’s BIG, though. On the a7R II, it’s BIGGER than the Canon 5DS-R with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8. If you bought mirrorless because you wanted smaller size, you’ll hate this lens.

If you bought mirrorless because you wanted features like sensor stabilization, 4k video, and an electronic viewfinder, and you don’t mind a big, heavy camera, than you’ll love this lens.

There’s one huge drawback: the lens lacks image stabilization. The Canon alternative lacks it, too, and that’s always been a problem. However, if you’re using the a7 II, a7S II, or a7R II, we found the SteadyShot Inside sensor stabilization to be great.


We found focusing to be fast and accurate with both the a7R II and a6300. Those camera bodies have more powerful focusing systems than earlier Sony cameras, and I wouldn’t recommend this lens for other bodies.

You definitely could put this lens on an a6000, a7S II, or a7 II and get great images. However, along with the fast f/2.8 aperture, you get shallow depth-of-field… and that means that accurate focusing is far more important. Particularly for event shooting, you’ll need the focusing to be fast.

If you’re spending $2,200 on this lens, make sure you have the right body for it. While it works fine on the a6300, the combination produce images similar to a full-frame 36-105mm f/4.2… an uncomfortable focal range and an unimpressive f/stop for a $3,200 combination. Also, the combination has less than half the sharpness of the a7R II.

Right now, the only Sony body I can recommend using it with is the a7R II.


This zoom is sharp. It’s as sharp as the Canon and Nikon. It’s the first Sony zoom that I am willing to use.

See, in the past, we’ve tested the Sony 16-35 f/4, Sony 28-135 f/4, and Sony 24-70 f/4… and we decided to use Canon lenses on our a7R II instead. Adapting lenses introduces several big problems, but I chose to deal with those problems to get the vastly better image quality that similarly priced Canon lenses offered.

Finally, I can get great image quality with a native mount lens. It’s everything I’ve wanted.

Here’s a Lightroom screenshot showing a 1:1 side-by-side test with the Canon 5DS-R and Canon 24-70 f/2.8 (on the left). The Canon lens’ T-Stop is about 2/10ths of a stop faster than the Sony (on the right), which should make up for the Canon’s slightly noisier image… even though they’re both f/2.8, you’ll be using a slightly lower ISO on the Canon. All the second-generation a7 bodies have steadyshot inside, so it’s stabilized for slower shutter speeds while hand-holding, unlike the Canon lens. In the real world, you’ll probably get sharper images with the Sony combination.

Click to view the full-sized image.

24-70 f2.8 sony v canon

If you’re pixel-peeping, the image quality from the two setups is similar… that’s saying a lot, because the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 is one of the sharpest zooms made, and it’s the standard for pros. At the corners, the Sony seemed slightly less sharp.

This is just one sample; I tested the two cameras side-by-side at many different f/stops and in many different scenarios. We’ll have a wider variety of comparisons ready when we publish our video.

Here’s the thing: we had a hard time finding difference in the image quality, even with very precise focusing techniques, a delayed shutter, and controlled conditions. In practice, the precision of your focusing, the movement of your subject, atmospheric conditions, the quality of the light… all of these will impact your sharpness far more than any differences in the optical quality of these lenses.

In other words, I’ll wait for DxOMark to assign a P-MPix number… but for me, it’s good enough. The lens sharpness won’t hold me back.

Here’s a Lightroom screenshot showing a side-by-side test with the Sony 24-70 f/4 (on the left). Compared to the Sony 24-70 f/4, the G-Master (on the right) is VASTLY superior. It’s far sharper at f/2.8 and f/4, and it gathers twice the light, so you can use a stop lower ISO and get half the noise. We never liked Sony’s 24-70 f/4. This lens whips it.

24-70 f2.8 vs f4

If you’re currently shooting with the 24-70 f/4 and you want sharper images, this lens will give you that.

I couldn’t detect any trace of chromatic aberration or vignetting. I’m sure DxOMark will find some, but it’s definitely not a problem:


The G-Master’s sweet spot seems to be at f/4, though f/2.8 looks great.

Real-world Shooting

This lens handled perfectly with the a7R II in several real-world shoots. I always wish for a deeper zoom range than 24-70, but there’s enough sharpness to allow me to crop deeply when shooting at 70mm.

Here are some sample images shot with the a7R II. Click any of them to view the full JPG file:


When 70mm isn’t long enough, the lens is sharp enough that you can crop heavily:


The 24-70 range is perfect for photojournalists, who sometimes need to work very close because the area is crowded, and sometimes need to zoom in tight for details:


Here, 24mm at close range added visual interest by exaggerating the length of his arm and leg. The picture is rather boring with a conventional focal length:DSC00378DSC00066DSC00206DSC05474


The a7R II is my favorite camera body of all time… but I often grab a Canon or Nikon body instead, simply because I knew if I used a native Sony zoom, I’d be sacrificing significant sharpness (and because adapting lenses makes autofocusing less reliable).

This lens makes the a7R II come alive. I’m convinced that any DSLR pro who spent a week with this an a7R II and this G-Master 24-70 f/2.8 would want to switch, because:

  • Image quality is similar to that of the latest pro DSLR bodies & lenses: the Canon 5DS-R with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the Nikon D810 with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.
  • Auto-focusing, even in low light, is comparable to the DSLRs.
  • The electronic viewfinder previews your exposure, so you never again have to chimp. You can see a histogram while you shoot and see overexposed parts of the picture highlighted.
  • 4k video, either full-frame or with a 1.5X crop.
  • The a7R II’s sensor stabilization means you can handhold this lens with longer shutter speeds. Canon doesn’t offer a stabilized 24-70 f/2.8, and Nikon’s 24-70 f/2.8 VR is known to be a bit less sharp.
  • The tilt screen is critical for shooting low to the ground or over crowds.

Most of those points have more to do with the a7R II camera body than this lens, so why am I bringing them up in a lens review? Because the G-Master 24-70 f/2.8 and the Sony a7R II need each other. You just shouldn’t use one without the other.

61 Responses to Sony 24-70 f/2.8 G-Master (GM) Review

  1. John March 6, 2016 at 6:00 pm #

    Great review. I’d like a little more about your not recommending this zoom for the A7II. 24 megapixels is plenty for me and I found the kit zoom that came with the A7II was way too soft. I didn’t get the F4 20-70mm because of many negative reviews I read.

    So that leaves me looking at this new, latest, greatest lens from Sony and you tell me, don’t? I so want to. Will the focusing be that bad?

    • Dominic March 7, 2016 at 6:49 am #

      it will be as bad or good as other lenses on that body.

    • mm
      Tony Northrup March 7, 2016 at 8:33 am #

      This is definitely the best lens you can buy for the a7 II… But I’ve always found that the a7R II’s focusing system is vastly superior to the a7 II’s, and focusing speed and accuracy are really critical for getting good results with this lens in many scenarios.

      But don’t hesitate to use it with the a7 II.

    • altex May 12, 2016 at 9:01 am #

      I thought the G lens out perform Carl Zeiss. oh dear they just reach Canon & Nikon level only.

  2. Tomas March 7, 2016 at 6:11 am #

    That lense is perfect. I love the shot of Tony Montana and blonde chick 🙂 Btw, looking forward for 70-200 2,8 review from you Tony.

  3. João Brites March 7, 2016 at 7:20 am #

    Thanks for the review. As a user of the Canon and Sony system one of my biggest questions given that the advantage of using the two systems means using Canon lenses, in my case in A7RII is as follows (because I never see compared the quality of lenses Canon Sony with Canon Canon): for (only) the image quality Canon 28-70 in Sony A7RII has the same quality as in 5DSr? and the 28-70 G Sony?
    thank you

    • mm
      Tony Northrup March 7, 2016 at 8:35 am #

      I compared the 5DS-R with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and the a7R II with the 24-70 f/2.8 GM and got similar results… which was never the case with Sony zooms in the past. In every other test of Sony zooms, the Canon blew it away.

      • João Brites March 7, 2016 at 10:46 am #

        Dear Tony, thank you for responding to my post, however I would ask you, we can say that in terms of IQ that with the Canon 24-70 in A7RII have the same IQ or very close to it with 24-70 G Sony ? or the difference in this case is too much?
        Thank you again.

        João Brites

        • mm
          Tony Northrup March 8, 2016 at 7:45 am #

          We did test that combination, and yes, it was similar. however, adapted focusing is pretty bad, so I strongly prefer using the native lens.

          • João Brites June 20, 2017 at 11:16 am #

            Thanks Tony . Sorry to just grad your prompt response now.

  4. Russ March 7, 2016 at 7:36 am #


    At that price you are not far off an FS5 and push it a bit harder then get an FS7 then at least you can shoot broadcast footage with the FS7.
    I like your reviews, and you are quite exact in your science, relating to photographs/sharpness/Composition and many other factors. I work in advertising post production and “price points” either make or break potential sales.
    As you quite rightly say “gathers double the light” so in the UK my 24-70 F4 is now approx. £750. As an over enthusiastic hobbyist if they priced the 24-70 F2.8 at double that + maybe even a little bit more but only slightly over £1500 then I would be pre-ordering. So when I get my a6300 going to put my 24-70 F4 on that and use all my other FE lenses on my a7RII. I do not shoot magazine spreads/nor 4 Metre high posters, at this time do not see the point, maybe in 6 months time when the price point moves favourably in my direction.
    Guess the professional Sony shooters are going to love this GM series.

  5. Alex March 7, 2016 at 8:04 am #

    “You definitely could put this lens on an a6000, a7S II, or a7 II and get great images. However, along with the fast f/2.8 aperture, you get shallow depth-of-field… and that means that accurate focusing is far more important. Particularly for event shooting, you’ll need the focusing to be fast.”

    How did you reach this conclusion, Tony? Are the A7 II and A6000 suddenly not good at focusing because of the existence of slightly faster newer models?

    • mm
      Tony Northrup March 7, 2016 at 8:39 am #

      All of our tests of the a7 II and a6000 showed a really frustrating focusing system (compared to comparably priced DSLRs). Our tests of the a6300 and a7R II show fast, powerful, and accurate focusing, comparable to that of DSLRs (when using native lenses).

      If you’re happy with the focusing on the a7 II and a6000, you’ll be even happier with the focusing on the new bodies :).

  6. Ben March 7, 2016 at 8:21 am #

    I wish it had a focus scale so I can tell when I’m at infinity without having to switch to manual focus to see the digital focus scale. To me, that’s one mark of a professional lens that I not happy that Sony has skipped on their 2.8 glass.

    • mm
      Tony Northrup March 7, 2016 at 8:40 am #

      That’s a good point that I didn’t think about, and I do often use the scale to estimate focusing before shooting.

      • Mark V. March 7, 2016 at 6:30 pm #

        My understanding is that manual focus is fly-by-wire, so it can’t really have a focus scale on the lens; there is no fixed focus point associated with a particular location on the manual focusing ring.

        • mm
          Tony Northrup March 8, 2016 at 7:46 am #

          Good point… I really don’t prefer focus-by-wire systems. I’m not sure what the advantage is.

  7. pepe March 7, 2016 at 9:54 am #

    Thx for the review.
    How about low light AF with this lens. Thats where the a7rII struggles (as demonstrated by you in your review).

  8. Stefan Lutz March 7, 2016 at 9:59 am #

    Good Review (as expected 🙂 )

    Two simple Problems i have with the review:
    1. The Picture with the Woman in the Pool is not sharp at the subject with lots of light available. Missed Focus and “When 70mm isn’t long enough, the lens is sharp enough that you can crop heavily:” doesnt fit together.
    2. The Money throwing Picture has basically no sharp area probably due to motion blur (which is probably wanted for the movement in the bills).

    Dont get me wrong. Those pictures are still good, but not for a lens review. They basically show, that sharpness is not as important as people think. Especially with a caption teasing you into looking at it 1:1.

    The first point also adds to my fear that the even A7RII is not keeping up with the Sony A99. The later still focuses in conditions with ISO 6400 F2.8 and 1/50.

    Also the Price and the basically not available 3rd party F2.8 zooms keep me from getting into E-Mount as the A-Mount is now more and more a thing of the past for sony. (A LA-EA6 Adapter with transulent mirror and state of the art phase detect focus would turn the game around for me).

    Keep up the great work.

  9. EvilTed March 7, 2016 at 10:06 am #

    There’s one huge drawback: the lens lacks image stabilization?
    No, there’s two, the first one being it is HUGE – even bigger than existing 70-200 F4 🙁

    The best lens you can buy for the Sony?
    Hmmm, there are a lot of excellent lenses already.
    I’d put the Batis 85 at the top of that list with the Zeiss/Sony 55 and then the Batis 25.

    How does the SteadyShot work with a zoom that doesn’t have OSS?
    If it worked then surely any un-stabalized zoom would work too?

    • Stefan Lutz March 7, 2016 at 10:24 am #

      The SteadyShot should work with any lens that reports its focal length.
      As it does on the old A99 or even the A900. Sony had IBIS for some time now (not just recently with the A7II.

    • mm
      Tony Northrup March 8, 2016 at 7:49 am #

      It’s the best zoom lens. SteadyShot Inside seemed to work fine with it.

  10. Thomas Feldbauer March 7, 2016 at 10:40 am #

    Tony, can you do exactly the same picture (e.g. f2.8 + ISO200 + 1/4000th) with both lenses mounted on A7Rmk2?
    I am interested why the Canon is 2/10th stops brighter. Is it really the T-stop or a different ISO interpretation of the cameras?

  11. Michael Chance March 7, 2016 at 11:11 am #

    Good review, thank you and good lens the SEL2470GM, but….

    1.) focus scale missing.
    2.) To high price. US $ 1.800,00 would be a fair start price.

  12. EvilTed March 7, 2016 at 11:46 am #


    Before Professionals move to the Sony system, it needs to be more responsive, not just in focusing, but in basic operation.

    I own 2x A7r II’s, so I know this is a big problem with the camera.
    I can shoot around 5 uncompressed images in quick sucession before the cameras freezes until it clears the buffer.

    I cannot imagine any pro putting up with that?
    By contrast, the Canon 1DX II and Nikon D5 can write 175 and 200 consequtive RAW images respectively before slowing down.
    They also don’t freeze the camera’s operation.

    What we have here Sony is what’s called a single threaded input queue.
    The firmware needs to be re-written as multi-threaded so that the camera doesn’t lock up while clearing the buffer.
    The finish is also too easily scratched for a $3200 camera.

    Once they have a mirrorless camera that shoots as fast and reliably as a pro DSLR, they will start winning.

    • Revo March 7, 2016 at 2:04 pm #

      So PhaseOne is not a pro camera since does not have that big buffer ?

      • EvilTed March 7, 2016 at 10:15 pm #


        Tony was comparing Sony A7r II to DSLRs and saying there was no reason for professionals not to switch.
        I don’t think the subject of Medium Format handling was brought up, but the dismal buffer handling of the A7r II is analogous 🙂

      • Ben March 19, 2016 at 1:12 pm #

        Good point here.

    • mm
      Tony Northrup March 8, 2016 at 7:52 am #

      Yeah, the buffering and not being able to review your pictures immediately after is a real problem. It can also be a problem on my 5DS-R, though the 5DS-R definitely handles it better. The a7R II also lacks dual memory cards, and the batteries don’t last as long.

      But, it has a host of other advantages, and the EVF largely reduces the need to chimp after taking your pictures.

      Certainly the 1DX and D5 are better, but they’re much lower megapixel cameras, and also more expensive.

  13. Anton March 7, 2016 at 1:20 pm #

    You say this is the first Sony zoom you’re willing to use, but what about the 70-200 f/4? I had the impression that it’s quite good. I’ve been considering getting it since I can’t justify the (probably) $3000 or so the 70-200 f/2.8 GM will cost, as I’m a mere hobbyist. Do you have any experience with it, and would you recommend adapting the Canon equivalent instead?

    • mm
      Tony Northrup March 8, 2016 at 7:56 am #

      We do use the 70-200 f/4 for video, but we also have the Canon and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, which are noticeably sharper and twice as fast. So, I always prefer to pick those up.

  14. Martin Del Vecchio March 7, 2016 at 2:22 pm #

    I look forward to your video review. In particular, I hope you review this lens for video. I am disappointed that it isn’t parfocal, but I have read that it is “pretty much parfocal”.


  15. P March 7, 2016 at 3:57 pm #

    It is a good review, thank you.

    I find the live histogram overrated. It’s inaccurate because it functions similarly to a JPG preview (you can change picture profiles and spend hours trying to get them a bit more accurate). The zebras activate too soon. Also, I find that after you’ve taken many photographs, it becomes second nature to know what settings to use for exposure. Focus magnification is the biggest thing I enjoy about an EVF. I wish it would go straight to full zoom. To each their own.

    It’s interesting the amount of micro-contrast this lens has. It is something the angry photographer showed doubts about. People must keep in mind that lens coatings change over time. Zeiss T* coatings for example aren’t the same today as they were years ago, it’s just Zeiss don’t advertise “T*ii” or “T*iii”. Glass itself is made of different materials too for example, way back, glass would contain a lot of lead. The transmission of Sony lenses in general is good. Glass is not just glass any more.

    Chromatic aberration (another subject covered by the angry photographer, and I mention him because his videos keep popping up when I search for Sony) is annoying for me. I do not believe it is the lens “rendering things correctly” and we must use “refraction grating glasses” (take a photograph of a page in a book as proof). It’s difficult to remove sometimes in trees, and it often just greys out the photograph when you remove it, to make it look less obvious. I’m pleased this lens handles it well.

    This lens has me confused. Originally I thought about taking my 21mm f/2.8 and 55mm f/1.8 to through hike the pacific crest trail. I’m also considering the 35mm f/2.8. They’re all great, native mount lenses. I really do love my 21mm f/2.8 though so perhaps I’ll stick with this… Plus, a little 250gram manfrotto tripod is enough to hold any of the primes mentioned, but a bigger (and impossible for me to take) tripod would be required for the 24-70 f/2.8 GM lens.

  16. pat lopez March 7, 2016 at 6:17 pm #

    Thank you all. I really appreciate the quality of the review and the follow up questions and comments. It is nice to read comments focused on substance and not just fan boy cheering or troll bashing. I am considering my next camera, and the discussion has reminded me that there is no one perfect camera, lens, or system. It all depends on one’s budget and intended use, something I know, but forget about when I fantasize about my next purchase.

    Tony, please keep the great reviews coming!

  17. Andrei Sendal March 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm #

    Hi Tony!

    Love your reviews, both written and video. However, I really don’t get the FE 24-70 / f4 bashing…

    I left Canon for Sony for the A7S (I shoot mainly video, photo is secondary) and now use both the A7RII and A7SII. I prefer primes for sharpness on the RII and rarely used the 24-70/4 on it for stills.

    However… I have to say that in each side by side comparison I see now between the f4 and GM 2.8 I love the overall image rendering and feeling of the Zeiss. The GM is surgical, precise, maybe the best 2.8 zoom ever made and well… I might even get one.

    But there’s still a place for the F4: For video it’s good even in FF @4K. The build quality is great. It endured tortures like pouring rain, salt sea water and desert storms without a hiccup. It has Optical Stabilization and, for video, the IBIS and OSS together do wonders. The IBIS alone might be great for photo but you certainly see the difference for video. It’s small enough to work well on gimbals or for travel/street photography.

    Also, I don’t remember any of those Canon f4 standard zooms being that great for extreme sharpness. Or the 5D3 to be a quick-focus beast.

    And then, there’s oddly enough another thing I never thought I would say: Over-sharpness. Just try the FE 90mm 2.8 Macro on an A7S and you will know what I mean. Maybe this is the one true reason for not using this on a lesser body.

    By all means, keep raving about the new lens and I’m really happy you now have a good reason to go all Sony. But all for the right reasons, not because the f4 was so terrible 🙂

    Cheers and keep up the wonderful work!

    • Andrew March 14, 2016 at 1:10 pm #

      Hello! Please help me with my struggle. I want to buy a Sony a7sii or a7rii. The problem to decide myself is which one has the greatest image. I don’t want the low light… I just want the pure quality that I can buy. I have watched maybe all the reviews possible… but didn’t find the exact comparison for image quality. I mean… Sharpness and colours… comparing sony a7s ii FF 4k -100mb SLOG3 Graded with sony a7r II s35 SLOG2 4k – 100mb SLOG2 graded… which one is better?

  18. MATT STABEN March 7, 2016 at 9:16 pm #

    You pixel-pee’d?? (Error in articel)

  19. John March 8, 2016 at 5:12 am #

    One major problem I can point out here is the moire on the black guys suit.
    You probably can’t see it in web or in a magazine, but if you were to make a large print out of it, it would just look absolutely abysmal!
    If I was a fashion photographer the a7R II without a low pass filter would not cut it for me.
    I hope Sony corrects this by adding that variable low pass filter from the RX1R II to the next gen a7R II.

    • mm
      Tony Northrup March 8, 2016 at 7:58 am #

      yeah, you’re right, that’s pretty bad. That’s the fault of the body… but this is the first time it’s come up for me. I think if you were shooting fashion, you might be happier having an AA filter.

    • Mark Harris March 8, 2016 at 10:20 am #

      sure……….you are that special that it just does not work for you….

      • P March 8, 2016 at 12:19 pm #

        Mark Harris, your comment is somewhat misleading to people.

        For the uneducated, the a7rII lacks an AA filter because it can stereotypically provide sharper results. The downside is that it’s more prone to moire. It’s perfectly plausible that someone wouldn’t notice this. Trees, for example, do not typically wear $1,000 jackets. If you photo trees all day, you probably aren’t going to notice it (with the exception of if your trees wear $1,000 jackets with repeatable patterns).

        If you photograph a computer monitor (this is also a great way to set micro-focus on a DSLR), at complete focus you’ll get the most moire. When de-focused, you’ll get the least. Better lenses equate to photographs with more moire because they’re typically sharper. In laymen’s terms, this isn’t Tony’s fault. Though I don’t completely agree that it’s a “fault of the body”. It’s not a fault per se, I would argue it’s more a design choice. It’s one that I prefer for landscape photography. I think he said that rather than go into detail, because this is a lens review and not a camera review.

        I’ve seen a few comments that imply Tony thinks he’s always right, and some people have a problem with this. Perhaps he just doesn’t talk so much about subjects he isn’t knowledgeable about. The only times I’ve seen him say something fairly inaccurate is when he’s been extremely brief.

  20. Ben March 8, 2016 at 4:49 pm #

    Good review! I was expecting such results. Thank you.

  21. Dylan Tobac March 9, 2016 at 12:53 am #

    The bokeh in that last shot is really, really nice—and that’s from an aspherical lens. How is the bokeh—i.e., the quality, not quantity, of the background and, also, foreground blur—throughout the focal range and apertures?

  22. David March 9, 2016 at 12:22 pm #

    Thanks for your hard work on bringing these great reviews to us. I can see you work hard at impartiality, and that helps a lot.

    In your live cast this week you mentioned recommending the Sony E PZ 18–105 mm F4 G OSS as a good lens for the A6000/A6300 systems. I was looking at the stats at and was thinking of your crop-factor videos. Whey sony says F4, have they applied the F-stop crop factor? Is this F4 on an A6000 or is is 4 x 1.5= F6? Thanks!

    • David March 9, 2016 at 5:36 pm #

      Thanks for your reply to this question in the Youtube comments for your last live show. You stated it should look similar to an F6 equivalent.

  23. James March 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm #

    Thanks so much for the quick review, Tony. Sigh, another $2k is passing through my hands to Sony… 🙂

  24. rocco saya April 18, 2016 at 10:45 pm #

    I’m a little confused here. Did you compare the new Sony 24-70 f/2.8 to the Canon 24-70 Mark I or II? I use the 24-70 ii with metabones on A7r ii, and it’s pretty amazing. Can you please clarify which mark version you compared to? I’m a little confused if you compared to the Mark I version.

  25. Andry April 24, 2016 at 6:13 pm #

    i just bought one… and it has technical defects…
    Desharp and doubled image only at left side upper from the middle until edge.
    thanks sony.

  26. Elisa Ambrosi May 20, 2016 at 12:03 pm #

    Great review.
    BTW, did u try this lens on a sony a7s too? I’m thinkin about buying this 24-70 and I’m going to use it with a a7s. I don’t care so much about stabilisation, which I don’t have in most of my lenses. Do you think is gonna perform so good with this body too? I only use this camera for video.

    Thx for ur replay.

  27. Rafe Karen June 10, 2016 at 10:40 am #

    Hey Tony question for you, would you honestly not recommend it for the a7sii? I am using a 24-105 f4 lens at the moment, which I love but for video I would like to upgrade to this lens


  28. Koen July 3, 2016 at 3:38 pm #

    Hi Tony, thanks for your detailed blog and video. What do you think, the g 28-135 or the g 24-70 for video with the sony a7sii?

  29. Mickey B July 4, 2016 at 4:13 am #

    Hi Tony. A big TC fanboy here. What do you think of this? …

    I have been happier to trust your analysis over DXOmark’s because you are infinitely more transparent and accessible while also being extremely rigorous. But I do not understand how their analysis can be so very different from your own – both vs. Canon/ Nikon and vs. the Sony f/4. Is DXOmark really saying that there is only a small difference in sharpness between the Sony f/2.8 and f/4.0 – the latter has an awful reputation (and has been described by Matt G as a “dog”). This doesn’t make any sense at all.
    Pretty much every analytical review I have seen of the f/2.8 was (broadly) in line with your findings and is, therefore, now at odds with DXOmark’s. Maybe we are simply too trusting of DXOmark.
    I have both Canon and Sony gear. I was thinking of upgrading my Sony 24-70 from the f/4 to f/2.8 but, if DXOmark is to be believed, then maybe I should stick with the f/4 (!?!? – this doesn’t feel right at all!!!) and buy the Batis 25mm f/2.0. All very confusing.

  30. rmhsr July 29, 2016 at 11:40 am #

    this lens is really good but……..

    i have come across a few problems……
    1. whilst using the lens zooming in and out the camera randomly looses connection with the lens and aperture just becomes null with no way of working with the camera….unless releasing the lens and locking it back again which does take a few seconds….

    2. i thought that it might be a firmware isuue so i went right away and updated to firmware 3.2 the latest available for the sony a7rii by the way the camera that i own ….and then added to the list another isuue….

    again just randomly when taking shots the camera just gets into a lock and nothing i can do that will get it to work… and after a few seconds one or 2 or 3 it clicks the shot that i wanted but with the delay that i said…

    3. in burst mode set to high after the update the camera stops the burst after the 3rd shot for a second and then begins to shoot well…

    i have the fastest card in the market available as of now….frustrating……if anyone can help or advise will be happy and thankful

  31. andrew cooke August 3, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

    Love your review. Really informative. Had a question though:

    “There’s one huge drawback: the lens lacks image stabilization. The Canon alternative lacks it, too, and that’s always been a problem. However, if you’re using the a7 II, a7S II, or a7R II, we found the SteadyShot Inside sensor stabilization to be great.”

    … meaning with the SteadyShot inside sensor, you don’t need a lens with IS? I’m looking to purchase the A7SII so do you mean that in order to use the Steady Shot, you do want/need a lens with IS? I’m mostly concerned about IS when shooting video.

    Thanks! And apologies for the (possibly) dumb question

  32. 86Chau September 9, 2017 at 12:49 am #

    I have noticed you don’t monetize your blog, don’t waste your traffic,
    you can earn additional cash every month because you’ve got
    hi quality content. If you want to know how to make extra $$$, search for: best
    adsense alternative Wrastain’s tools

  33. Paul May 29, 2018 at 5:38 pm #

    Wow, given what you found and said on YouTube about this lens actually being significantly less sharp than the Canon and being dissatisfied, maybe this article needs a serious update?

  34. Delmer July 20, 2018 at 7:39 pm #

    I prefer the color rendition of the Canon to the Sony. I think noticeably more natural and dynamic. I just bought a used Canon 24-70 Mk 1 for my A7R2. Haven’t had the chance to properly test just yet but hope it is somewhere near the performance of the Mk 2! Just indoors, the AF with Metabones IV works very well and the macro feature is great.


  1. Sony 24-70 f/2.8 G-Master (GM) Review – - April 17, 2018

    […] Source […]

Leave a Reply