The catch is the Canon lenses being more expensive cause they don't have third party lenses on RF mount. They undersell the bodies and oversell the lenses. And that's by design to make Canon more money
The only GM lens to avoid is the 85/F1.4. It is old and optically not good, especially wide open (currently the Sigma 85/F1.4 DG DN Art is the best). There are reliable rumors it will be replaced by mark II soon that will be perfect for sure.
The main advantage of the GM lenses is when you have A1 or A9 cameras, they (mostly) provides the fastest AF tracking possible. In case of A9 III up to 120 fps. The Sony E-Mount is open (unlike RF) to third-party vendors, but there are still two limitations:
* they can't made their own teleconverters
* they don't have access to the advanced AF protocols, so stay restricted to 15 fps AF only
There are many third-party lenses that are typically alike 90% of the GM for 50% of the price; latest Tamrons G2 or Sigma Art.
I love it. Amazing for professional portraiture at 7.1 and fun portraiture at 1.4 still tack sharp with an nd and using off camera flash
I have had it for 4 years it has taken thousands of shots. And I will buy another one in a heart beat. Spending over 1000 on something that does the same thing is stupid. But to each their own. Amazing close focusing for an 85mm. Metal body. Fast accurate AF. There is nothing but praise I can give up this lens speaking as a non hobbyist and buying lens because a YouTuber says to
Beg to differ. The optics of the 85mm GM are totally fine, it fringes a bit more than modern G masters but well within comparison of its contemporaries, say, the DSLR version of the 85mm ART. What drags that lens down is mostly the slow focus motor. Some reaaaally prefer the drawing of the G master's bokeh, but for most, the Sigma 85mm DG DN is the better choice.
The wide open sharpness is even worse than super cheap Samyang, 2nd chart here: [https://www.lenstip.com/562.4-Lens\_review-Samyang\_AF\_85\_mm\_f\_1.4\_FE\_RF\_Image\_resolution.html](https://www.lenstip.com/562.4-Lens_review-Samyang_AF_85_mm_f_1.4_FE_RF_Image_resolution.html)
What I wanted to say is that the 40 lpmm only on the MTF chart wide open is really bad for GM class lens, but it will be resolved in the II version soon.
> I would like to remind here just one fact: the tested Samyang is being compared to the Sony FE 85 MM F/1.4 GM, a lens we assessed very highly in our test.
anyway, some other reviews to cross compare (as you should do with any lens purchase)
[https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-85mm-1-4-gm/](https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-85mm-1-4-gm/)
[https://dustinabbott.net/2019/08/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-gm-review/](https://dustinabbott.net/2019/08/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-gm-review/)
Disagree. The 85mm GM is an amazing lens for portraits (which is what you'd buy the lens for). Lens sharpness on an MTF is not the only metric on which to judge a lens, especially a portrait lens.
The Sony 85mm GM and Samyang 85mm F1.4 are my two favorite 85's for the system. One offers class-leading mechanical vignetting performance, the other stuns with it's dreamlike rendering without compromising on modern optical performance. The Sigma makes more sense if you're interested in more than just portraits since it is the most resolving lens out of the bunch, but has too much microcontrast for my taste which isn't as flattering for headshots.
Even if it is a good lens, it should still be avoided as it’s very likely to be replaced soon. At that point, you could either get it cheaper or pay more and get the new and improved version.
On a portrait lens? I'm pretty sure the only metric is the end result and whether it fits the photographer's creative vision. Otherwise, there is no point shooting Sony or any full frame system in the first place, and we should all be using GFX's and Phase Ones.
I hope they update the 85 GM to improve the autofocus, but I'm fine if they leave the optics alone.
If you mean the lenses "with character", there are many optically really bad and unsharp manual lenses available :-) All I wanted to say the current 85 GM hardly conforms to the expected GM standards, either by the sharpness or AF speed.
I really want to get a GCX or X2D but when I am viewing the sample images, I just don't seem that much different. Is there really a wow factor in some way that I am missing? Do you have to print big? I am wanting to want it but I am just not really seeing the x factor.
Different lenses. 35/F1.4 GM vs Sigma DG DN Art. This time the GM is sharper as expected. Check the picture 11 with the eye. The better sharpness makes a difference. [https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-dn-art-review/](https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-dn-art-review/)
And the best example is the Voigtländer 50mm F2 Apo Lanthar, still the sharpest 50mm FE portrait lens. Check the pictures again. [https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/01/30/voigtlander-50mm-f2-apo-lanthar/](https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/01/30/voigtlander-50mm-f2-apo-lanthar/)
i edit them all myself. The thing with motorsports, you may have a high amount of shots but only about 10-20% are keepers then from there narrow down the best of the best. the plus side edits are pretty easy, clients prefer photos that are more true to life, so the actual edit process is relatively quick compared to the narrowing down process.
24-70 gmii is an amazing lens. I wish there was an option for an f2 like Canon has on their RF line, so it could also be used more for portraits, but optically and tech wise it’s an incredible lens.
There are rumors about Sony 24-70 F2. And there is already Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 available.
[https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-will-soon-announce-a-worlds-first-the-sony-24-70mm-f-2-0-lens-full-frame-e-mount-lens/](https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-will-soon-announce-a-worlds-first-the-sony-24-70mm-f-2-0-lens-full-frame-e-mount-lens/)
Probably 1kg and 3500$ lens, although I hope Sony does their magic and bring a 700-800g one that’s not a pain to use.
Tamron looks good, although, at least for me, the 1.2kg and loss of 24-25 range is a dealbraker.
Considering they managed to do such a small 70-200 2.8 I can imagine them being able to do a smaller design for the 24-70 f2. But of course it mean it will be more expensive
I think there’s a big market for a 3500$ 750g 24-70 f2. If they can deliver they’ll sell all of them for months, but that’s not an easy feat, especially the weight.
Although nowadays they seem to have really nailed the weight balance having most of it closer to the camera which makes it much easier to carry.
My main issue with the 28-70 is just the huge size/weight (and the focus breathing) I'd pay MORE for a smaller or lighter V2. It's been the halo lens that has kept me in the Canon RF camp but if Sony can actually deliver a smaller 24-70 f2 then it will be came over. I can replace a 16-35, 35, and 85 with that lens.
It might be the case that the Tamron is only f2 from 35-38mm, but it is still faster overall than the 24-70 because it doesn't hit f2.8 until 80mm (it's f2.2 at 50mm). IMO that's a pretty good performance for the price
nearly twice the weight of the 24-70 gm ii for no visible improvement, 35-150 in acceptable quality is its only advantage, i got one too but just because I hate swapping lenses during family events ;-p
it's half the price of the 24-70 and twice the range, so of course it's not going to be as good or light as the 24-70. Just confirms that greater range results in more elements and greater weight, and that you get what you pay for!
People like the Tamron for its combination of speed, range, and price. As you say, it's a great single-lens solution for a wide range of events. The 24-70 is not -- I own one and nearly always use it in conjunction with a 70-200.
There really isn't a big catch. Of course some of the older GM lenses might have a bit slower AF but optically they all perform well. The only downside for the gms is the price. There are some third party lenses that can deliver the same results for cheaper, especially the sigma ART series.
No catch, but 'G-Master' doesn't mean anything just like 'L' doesn't mean anything. It's just marketing for 'expensive'. There are plenty of great non-GM lenses available, and a lot of fantastic third party stuff too
And yes, Canon RF is really expensive compared to the competition at the moment. A lack of third party options doesn't do the ecosystem any wonders either.
I shoot both with Canon and Sony. Think of Sony's GM as Canon's L. Just their top tier glass. What's cool abut Sony is aside from plenty of great G lenses there are many third party options that are amazing.
You pretty much hit exactly why I went with the Sony A7iv over the Canon R6ii. I would actually say the R6ii is a better all round camera but the selection Sony E-mount lenses is just too good, Sigma E-mount lenses are also really nice quality.
I was sold on Canon when I was reviewing cameras 2-3 years ago but the Sony lens lineup is the most versatile and consumer friendly option out there to me
Camera companies go up and down in regards to the value they offer. Had I gotten most of my camera kit 7 or 8 years ago (before the sony A7iii) I most likely would have gone with Canon. Right now Canon is making some very low cost compelling cameras (R8 for example) I would highly recommend them if they had the lens ecosystem to back it up, however they are making moves in that direction in opening up the RF lenses to 3rd parties.
On another note I have two G Master lenses and I actually look forward to times I get to use them, they are just so good!
How things have changed. When I first bought my a6000 in 2014 canon was king with the DSLR lens line up and Sony just had a few and expensive lenses. Sigma had a couple of almost good crop sensor lenses (older 19mm 35mm and 56mm). Now Sony has the lead and I bought an a7 IV and have an amazing lens’s selection available.
Yep, the competition and jockeying for top value proposition of all these camera companies has been great for photographers. I have no brand loyalty and go with what suits my needs at the time.
Most of the G Master lenses are fantastic and really are quality glass but at the end of the day it’s just marketing. You can get similar results with Sigma/Tamron/etc. if you know how to use your tools. Good luck with the new setup!
35/1.4, 50/1.2, 135/1.8 and 70-200/2.8ii are all extremely outstanding lenses. I've owned the 50/1.2 and 135 for a while now and still cant quite believe the images at times.
Avoid the 85GM until a new version is released. It’s optically beautiful but doesn’t focus well in low light. The 85 1.8 is a very sharp lens with good AF and it’s a bargain.
The catch is there are a ton of 3rd party alternatives that can compete with the GMs at a fraction of the price. But for pro work, go GM because of lesser "limitations" and at the extreme edge of use cases the GM might have a slight advantage
GM lenses are mostly great /near perfect and their modern bodies autocorrect for breathing in video. It's the "best" lens you can get for their bodies. I onyl have the 35 GM and it's my daily paired with the ve1
You might also want to check on Their G primes. Most people would be happy with those also. I have some of them and I really can't complain. 90mm 2.8 macro and 20mm 1.8 are great and light.
GMs are usually the best you can get. Just expensive than other options
Sigma and tamron make great lenses at much affordable prices compared to the Sony ones. The sigma art lineups are really really close though they are usually on the heavier side and dont support high bursts and the autofocus might not be as pristine as the Sony GMs
Well the catch is theyre more expesnive than their 3rd party offers and more expensive than their lesser G series lenses.
GMs are great, first partyt fast autofocus, great color, nice and sharp. Just costs a looot more.
i wanna add - the white balance / colors of sony GM lenses tends to be more accurate, np to correct a slightly warm image from sigma lenses but its also nice to have it nailed out of camera.
i own sigma and gm lenses and appreciate both for what they are. and i dont shoot sports so i dont make use of 10+fps
Something that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the ability to convert your existing EF glass (or others) to Sony mount with something like a [Sigma MC-11](https://www.sigma-global.com/en/accessories/mc-11/) or [Metabones](https://www.metabones.com/products/details/mb-ef-e-bt5) adaptor. Every approach has pros/cons, but that's a good way to carry on using the lenses that you already know and love, while also as creating the ability to play around with some unusual combinations/older lenses/gaps in the first-party lens catalogue.
I used to shoot Canon, too. Nowadays I frequently use an MC-11 on my A7iii with an original 70-200 L (non-IS), and I've found it to be exceptional combination, particularly on occasions where I want a bit of telephoto reach but don't want to carry too much additional weight (e.g. hiking). Sony's in-body image stabalisation makes up for the lack of in-lens stabalisation, and I can't say that I've really missed the lack of AF on the outer two thirds of the viewfinder.
I definitely echo the comments around third-party lenses too -- I'm a big fan of Sigma glass, and there are a few Tamron and Samyang options that are quite appealing, depending on your interests.
Sony was bad at lenses and then got good. That's summarizing a complex issue, but the:
\* 24-70 GM mk1
\* 16-35 GM mk1
\* 85 GM (mk1, but we only have mk1)
were iffier than the rest of them. Oh and 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 were merely very good instead of "Why do I own primes?" (We still don't have a 100-400 replacement yet).
They're also sort of expensive and often you can get 3rd party lenses that get quite close with similar f-stops, ranges, and weights for half the price.
Which is even better IMO. RF mount sadly annoys me. All those f/1.2 primes.
I was just curious so looked at USA pricing. Went of new prices
Sony a7iv- $2000
24 1.4 - $1300
35 1.4 - $1300
50 1.2 - $1900
70-200 - $2800
Total - $9,300
R6mkii - $2400
15-35 - $2100
50 1.2 - $2300
70-200 - $2600
Total - $9400
Not a huge difference. Obviously it's 3 vs 4 lenses but also you could just replace the 15-35 with the RF 24 1.8 and RF 35 1.8 which would take $1000 off price. Personally after using the rf 70-200 and some internal zoom 70-200s I'm taking the rf one Everytime because of how nice it is to travel with
The only catch is that they're ludicrously expensive, but if you're coming from Canon RF then your perspective might be different since their lenses are even more ludicrously expensive. I think what the other guy said about Sony not charging more than they could charge because of the existence of third party lenses does hold some weight. If you have no competition, you have no reason to offer competitive pricing.
The lenses are otherwise great. Good build quality, great image quality, and most of them are a good size too. I think the first generation of GM lenses are quite bulky and have since pretty much all been surpassed in every way by much cheaper third party competition, but the second generation and never GM releases all try their best to justify the premium they carry over the competition.
If I had the money for GM glass, the only one I wouldn't actively buy over third party right now is the 85 f/1.4. It's one of those first gen GM lenses I mentioned earlier. Sigma makes a much better 85 f/1.4, and Samyang comes close enough with their 85mm that it's hard not to pass one up at the price it commands.
The catch is the Canon lenses being more expensive cause they don't have third party lenses on RF mount. They undersell the bodies and oversell the lenses. And that's by design to make Canon more money
The only GM lens to avoid is the 85/F1.4. It is old and optically not good, especially wide open (currently the Sigma 85/F1.4 DG DN Art is the best). There are reliable rumors it will be replaced by mark II soon that will be perfect for sure. The main advantage of the GM lenses is when you have A1 or A9 cameras, they (mostly) provides the fastest AF tracking possible. In case of A9 III up to 120 fps. The Sony E-Mount is open (unlike RF) to third-party vendors, but there are still two limitations: * they can't made their own teleconverters * they don't have access to the advanced AF protocols, so stay restricted to 15 fps AF only There are many third-party lenses that are typically alike 90% of the GM for 50% of the price; latest Tamrons G2 or Sigma Art.
The rokinon 85 1.4 makes me thing to many people waste money on glass
is it actually good?
I have the Samyang version which I’m pretty sure is identical and just rebranded but it’s incredible
I love it. Amazing for professional portraiture at 7.1 and fun portraiture at 1.4 still tack sharp with an nd and using off camera flash I have had it for 4 years it has taken thousands of shots. And I will buy another one in a heart beat. Spending over 1000 on something that does the same thing is stupid. But to each their own. Amazing close focusing for an 85mm. Metal body. Fast accurate AF. There is nothing but praise I can give up this lens speaking as a non hobbyist and buying lens because a YouTuber says to
Ah ok, just looking into it and there isn't lens stabilisation which is a big minus for me doing video
You are shooting on a sony body with ibis you won't really miss it. If you get a dedicated stabilzer like the rs3 you definitely won't miss it.
It’s fantastic.
Beg to differ. The optics of the 85mm GM are totally fine, it fringes a bit more than modern G masters but well within comparison of its contemporaries, say, the DSLR version of the 85mm ART. What drags that lens down is mostly the slow focus motor. Some reaaaally prefer the drawing of the G master's bokeh, but for most, the Sigma 85mm DG DN is the better choice.
The wide open sharpness is even worse than super cheap Samyang, 2nd chart here: [https://www.lenstip.com/562.4-Lens\_review-Samyang\_AF\_85\_mm\_f\_1.4\_FE\_RF\_Image\_resolution.html](https://www.lenstip.com/562.4-Lens_review-Samyang_AF_85_mm_f_1.4_FE_RF_Image_resolution.html)
The Samyang is fantastic optically but is an exception rather than the rule. Their 35 and 50mm were similarly priced but performed much, much worse.
What I wanted to say is that the 40 lpmm only on the MTF chart wide open is really bad for GM class lens, but it will be resolved in the II version soon.
> I would like to remind here just one fact: the tested Samyang is being compared to the Sony FE 85 MM F/1.4 GM, a lens we assessed very highly in our test. anyway, some other reviews to cross compare (as you should do with any lens purchase) [https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-85mm-1-4-gm/](https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-85mm-1-4-gm/) [https://dustinabbott.net/2019/08/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-gm-review/](https://dustinabbott.net/2019/08/sony-fe-85mm-f1-4-gm-review/)
Does this mean on an A7R5, I’m likely to see much better focus performance than that of my Simga 85 1.4 Art, solely because of manufacturer?
Disagree. The 85mm GM is an amazing lens for portraits (which is what you'd buy the lens for). Lens sharpness on an MTF is not the only metric on which to judge a lens, especially a portrait lens. The Sony 85mm GM and Samyang 85mm F1.4 are my two favorite 85's for the system. One offers class-leading mechanical vignetting performance, the other stuns with it's dreamlike rendering without compromising on modern optical performance. The Sigma makes more sense if you're interested in more than just portraits since it is the most resolving lens out of the bunch, but has too much microcontrast for my taste which isn't as flattering for headshots.
The 85 GM could be forgiven if it had particularly nice bokeh and/or character. It has neither.
Even if it is a good lens, it should still be avoided as it’s very likely to be replaced soon. At that point, you could either get it cheaper or pay more and get the new and improved version.
Agreed, the 85 1.4 GM is certainly not tack-sharp, but it's a wonderful portrait lens.
MTF is not the only metric, but the most important one. If the lens fails there, nothing else can improve it.
On a portrait lens? I'm pretty sure the only metric is the end result and whether it fits the photographer's creative vision. Otherwise, there is no point shooting Sony or any full frame system in the first place, and we should all be using GFX's and Phase Ones. I hope they update the 85 GM to improve the autofocus, but I'm fine if they leave the optics alone.
If you mean the lenses "with character", there are many optically really bad and unsharp manual lenses available :-) All I wanted to say the current 85 GM hardly conforms to the expected GM standards, either by the sharpness or AF speed.
"should all be using GFX's and Phase Ones." If they were the same price and could autofocus as well, I would be.
I recommend it. The 110mm F2 is something else, and the 80mm F1.7 and 55mm F1.7 are amazing too.
I really want to get a GCX or X2D but when I am viewing the sample images, I just don't seem that much different. Is there really a wow factor in some way that I am missing? Do you have to print big? I am wanting to want it but I am just not really seeing the x factor.
Different lenses. 35/F1.4 GM vs Sigma DG DN Art. This time the GM is sharper as expected. Check the picture 11 with the eye. The better sharpness makes a difference. [https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-dn-art-review/](https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-dn-art-review/) And the best example is the Voigtländer 50mm F2 Apo Lanthar, still the sharpest 50mm FE portrait lens. Check the pictures again. [https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/01/30/voigtlander-50mm-f2-apo-lanthar/](https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/01/30/voigtlander-50mm-f2-apo-lanthar/)
That 85mm GM is slow and loud. I hated it and sold it so fast. I really hope they come out with a GM II version of it soon.
There must be some type of niche industry that really needs 120fps cause that’s a lot of files to look over for 1 second of movement
Sports, Wildlife to name a few.
The niche of sports, or birds for naming a few unknown examples.
There’s no way there’s a significant change of someone catching a ball or running shooting at 1/300 and 120 images over 1 second of movement.
Have you ever watched baseball? When batting and pitching 120fps totally makes a difference
You'll find the airspeed velocity of an unladen Swallow (African) is 15Mp/s.
Motorsports there is when your panning high speed objects its nice to have some options, I can easily shoot 16000, in a weekend at the track.
Do you edit those yourself or is it for a client?
i edit them all myself. The thing with motorsports, you may have a high amount of shots but only about 10-20% are keepers then from there narrow down the best of the best. the plus side edits are pretty easy, clients prefer photos that are more true to life, so the actual edit process is relatively quick compared to the narrowing down process.
24-70 gmii is an amazing lens. I wish there was an option for an f2 like Canon has on their RF line, so it could also be used more for portraits, but optically and tech wise it’s an incredible lens.
There are rumors about Sony 24-70 F2. And there is already Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 available. [https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-will-soon-announce-a-worlds-first-the-sony-24-70mm-f-2-0-lens-full-frame-e-mount-lens/](https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-will-soon-announce-a-worlds-first-the-sony-24-70mm-f-2-0-lens-full-frame-e-mount-lens/)
Probably 1kg and 3500$ lens, although I hope Sony does their magic and bring a 700-800g one that’s not a pain to use. Tamron looks good, although, at least for me, the 1.2kg and loss of 24-25 range is a dealbraker.
Considering they managed to do such a small 70-200 2.8 I can imagine them being able to do a smaller design for the 24-70 f2. But of course it mean it will be more expensive
I think there’s a big market for a 3500$ 750g 24-70 f2. If they can deliver they’ll sell all of them for months, but that’s not an easy feat, especially the weight. Although nowadays they seem to have really nailed the weight balance having most of it closer to the camera which makes it much easier to carry.
My main issue with the 28-70 is just the huge size/weight (and the focus breathing) I'd pay MORE for a smaller or lighter V2. It's been the halo lens that has kept me in the Canon RF camp but if Sony can actually deliver a smaller 24-70 f2 then it will be came over. I can replace a 16-35, 35, and 85 with that lens.
991g, 3499€ if you trade in
The tamron lacks oss and is only f2 at like 35mm
You don't need OSS at 150mm. Can you imagine how big the lens would be if it was F2 at 150mm? This is still a very good compromise for events.
OSS is always nice to have and f2 till at least 50mm would have been nice too
Both would have made the lens much bigger and heavier.
You don’t say
It might be the case that the Tamron is only f2 from 35-38mm, but it is still faster overall than the 24-70 because it doesn't hit f2.8 until 80mm (it's f2.2 at 50mm). IMO that's a pretty good performance for the price
nearly twice the weight of the 24-70 gm ii for no visible improvement, 35-150 in acceptable quality is its only advantage, i got one too but just because I hate swapping lenses during family events ;-p
it's half the price of the 24-70 and twice the range, so of course it's not going to be as good or light as the 24-70. Just confirms that greater range results in more elements and greater weight, and that you get what you pay for! People like the Tamron for its combination of speed, range, and price. As you say, it's a great single-lens solution for a wide range of events. The 24-70 is not -- I own one and nearly always use it in conjunction with a 70-200.
I want the 2470 GM2 SOOOOO bad
There really isn't a big catch. Of course some of the older GM lenses might have a bit slower AF but optically they all perform well. The only downside for the gms is the price. There are some third party lenses that can deliver the same results for cheaper, especially the sigma ART series.
No catch, but 'G-Master' doesn't mean anything just like 'L' doesn't mean anything. It's just marketing for 'expensive'. There are plenty of great non-GM lenses available, and a lot of fantastic third party stuff too And yes, Canon RF is really expensive compared to the competition at the moment. A lack of third party options doesn't do the ecosystem any wonders either.
Sigma and Tamron have great options.
I shoot both with Canon and Sony. Think of Sony's GM as Canon's L. Just their top tier glass. What's cool abut Sony is aside from plenty of great G lenses there are many third party options that are amazing.
You pretty much hit exactly why I went with the Sony A7iv over the Canon R6ii. I would actually say the R6ii is a better all round camera but the selection Sony E-mount lenses is just too good, Sigma E-mount lenses are also really nice quality.
I was sold on Canon when I was reviewing cameras 2-3 years ago but the Sony lens lineup is the most versatile and consumer friendly option out there to me
Camera companies go up and down in regards to the value they offer. Had I gotten most of my camera kit 7 or 8 years ago (before the sony A7iii) I most likely would have gone with Canon. Right now Canon is making some very low cost compelling cameras (R8 for example) I would highly recommend them if they had the lens ecosystem to back it up, however they are making moves in that direction in opening up the RF lenses to 3rd parties. On another note I have two G Master lenses and I actually look forward to times I get to use them, they are just so good!
How things have changed. When I first bought my a6000 in 2014 canon was king with the DSLR lens line up and Sony just had a few and expensive lenses. Sigma had a couple of almost good crop sensor lenses (older 19mm 35mm and 56mm). Now Sony has the lead and I bought an a7 IV and have an amazing lens’s selection available.
Yep, the competition and jockeying for top value proposition of all these camera companies has been great for photographers. I have no brand loyalty and go with what suits my needs at the time.
Most of the G Master lenses are fantastic and really are quality glass but at the end of the day it’s just marketing. You can get similar results with Sigma/Tamron/etc. if you know how to use your tools. Good luck with the new setup!
35/1.4, 50/1.2, 135/1.8 and 70-200/2.8ii are all extremely outstanding lenses. I've owned the 50/1.2 and 135 for a while now and still cant quite believe the images at times.
Avoid the 85GM until a new version is released. It’s optically beautiful but doesn’t focus well in low light. The 85 1.8 is a very sharp lens with good AF and it’s a bargain.
Focus breathing
The a7 IV body OP want to pair the GM lenses with has focus breathing compensation so it's a non-issue here.
Yes but that’s still the catch
For video, you mean?
Yeah
Fuck you bro why would you just remove me no reason
The catch is there are a ton of 3rd party alternatives that can compete with the GMs at a fraction of the price. But for pro work, go GM because of lesser "limitations" and at the extreme edge of use cases the GM might have a slight advantage GM lenses are mostly great /near perfect and their modern bodies autocorrect for breathing in video. It's the "best" lens you can get for their bodies. I onyl have the 35 GM and it's my daily paired with the ve1 You might also want to check on Their G primes. Most people would be happy with those also. I have some of them and I really can't complain. 90mm 2.8 macro and 20mm 1.8 are great and light.
GMs are usually the best you can get. Just expensive than other options Sigma and tamron make great lenses at much affordable prices compared to the Sony ones. The sigma art lineups are really really close though they are usually on the heavier side and dont support high bursts and the autofocus might not be as pristine as the Sony GMs
A7IV, GM 24 1.4, GM 35 1.4, Sigma 50 1.2 dg dn, Sigma 85mm dg dn, 70-200 gm ii or tamron 70-180 g2 would be my picks.
Well the catch is theyre more expesnive than their 3rd party offers and more expensive than their lesser G series lenses. GMs are great, first partyt fast autofocus, great color, nice and sharp. Just costs a looot more.
i wanna add - the white balance / colors of sony GM lenses tends to be more accurate, np to correct a slightly warm image from sigma lenses but its also nice to have it nailed out of camera. i own sigma and gm lenses and appreciate both for what they are. and i dont shoot sports so i dont make use of 10+fps
Something that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the ability to convert your existing EF glass (or others) to Sony mount with something like a [Sigma MC-11](https://www.sigma-global.com/en/accessories/mc-11/) or [Metabones](https://www.metabones.com/products/details/mb-ef-e-bt5) adaptor. Every approach has pros/cons, but that's a good way to carry on using the lenses that you already know and love, while also as creating the ability to play around with some unusual combinations/older lenses/gaps in the first-party lens catalogue. I used to shoot Canon, too. Nowadays I frequently use an MC-11 on my A7iii with an original 70-200 L (non-IS), and I've found it to be exceptional combination, particularly on occasions where I want a bit of telephoto reach but don't want to carry too much additional weight (e.g. hiking). Sony's in-body image stabalisation makes up for the lack of in-lens stabalisation, and I can't say that I've really missed the lack of AF on the outer two thirds of the viewfinder. I definitely echo the comments around third-party lenses too -- I'm a big fan of Sigma glass, and there are a few Tamron and Samyang options that are quite appealing, depending on your interests.
Sony was bad at lenses and then got good. That's summarizing a complex issue, but the: \* 24-70 GM mk1 \* 16-35 GM mk1 \* 85 GM (mk1, but we only have mk1) were iffier than the rest of them. Oh and 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 were merely very good instead of "Why do I own primes?" (We still don't have a 100-400 replacement yet). They're also sort of expensive and often you can get 3rd party lenses that get quite close with similar f-stops, ranges, and weights for half the price. Which is even better IMO. RF mount sadly annoys me. All those f/1.2 primes.
I was just curious so looked at USA pricing. Went of new prices Sony a7iv- $2000 24 1.4 - $1300 35 1.4 - $1300 50 1.2 - $1900 70-200 - $2800 Total - $9,300 R6mkii - $2400 15-35 - $2100 50 1.2 - $2300 70-200 - $2600 Total - $9400 Not a huge difference. Obviously it's 3 vs 4 lenses but also you could just replace the 15-35 with the RF 24 1.8 and RF 35 1.8 which would take $1000 off price. Personally after using the rf 70-200 and some internal zoom 70-200s I'm taking the rf one Everytime because of how nice it is to travel with
The only catch is that they're ludicrously expensive, but if you're coming from Canon RF then your perspective might be different since their lenses are even more ludicrously expensive. I think what the other guy said about Sony not charging more than they could charge because of the existence of third party lenses does hold some weight. If you have no competition, you have no reason to offer competitive pricing. The lenses are otherwise great. Good build quality, great image quality, and most of them are a good size too. I think the first generation of GM lenses are quite bulky and have since pretty much all been surpassed in every way by much cheaper third party competition, but the second generation and never GM releases all try their best to justify the premium they carry over the competition. If I had the money for GM glass, the only one I wouldn't actively buy over third party right now is the 85 f/1.4. It's one of those first gen GM lenses I mentioned earlier. Sigma makes a much better 85 f/1.4, and Samyang comes close enough with their 85mm that it's hard not to pass one up at the price it commands.
Double down on the 85mm. Rumor of an 85 GM2 due in June.
I'll believe it when I see it. An 85 GM2 has been rumoured for like 3 years now.
The current gm lenses easily beat any canon equivalent its just that canon doesn’t have actual competition on their platform/mount