This is the long-awaited Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
and today we're gonna review this lens
and compare it to the Sony GM II version.
Let's get undone.
♪ Gerald Undone. ♪
♪ He's crazy. ♪
What's happening, everybody?!
I'm Gerald Undone and focus pulls are my love language.
Alright, as usual, some disclosure, Sigma let me this lens
to make this review.
I don't get to keep it.
No money changed hands and Sigma doesn't get any input
on this video's production
and ergonomics, but I just wanna say upfront
that I'm a big fan of this lens for the money,
despite the criticism I'm about to unload.
This lens really shines in the image samples
I'll show later on,
but its weakest point is its handling.
So starting from back to front, no issues on the back.
It it is weather sealed.
According to Sigma, it's dust and splash resistant.
So you know, there's gaskets and stuff like that,
but my first complaint comes with a tripod collar.
Now adjusting is actually quite nice.
There's just a little knob here that you loosen
and then you can turn the collar like this
and there's little stops to give you feedback
that's actually quite strong to let you know when you're at,
90 degrees around the lens.
That's great. Those aren't complaints.
In fact, I think this is one of the best implementations
of that that I've seen, although maybe it does make a little
bit of noise if that's an issue.
However, what I dislike is I often like to remove the foot
from these tripod collars when I just wanna use it handheld.
And often that's how I use my 70-200.
You can see on the Sony one that already have it removed
and on the Sony one it's super easy,
you just press a button and it slides off.
But on the Sigma you can see there's actually four screws
that require an Allen wrench to remove.
And when you do take them off, there's nothing
underneath there to,
there's not like a 1/4-20 or whatever.
So basically I don't think they were intending
for the tripod foot to come off
and it's not an easy task to do,
which does annoy me a little bit.
So normally with the Sony one,
I would put the collar on the top
and then I would set it down like this.
But you can see you got the knob on the bottom,
so you have to find some kind of weird position
for it where both the knob and the foot aren't in the way
in order to set the camera down.
But now it's blocking the switches. For a tripod color
that performs so well it's so strangely designed
when it comes to just sort of basic ergonomics
that it frustrates me.
But again, I do really like the clicky stops.
And then we have an array of switches, no complaints here.
We've got an AF/MF toggle, a focus limiter selector,
and then switches for the image stabilization here.
And then you have the ability to de-click the aperture ring.
And there's also a lock you can enable
that stops you from accidentally rotating it
if you just wanna leave it on "A"
and control with the camera,
that's all great, no complaints.
Next up is the focus ring.
Yes, the focus ring, not the zoom ring,
which is another complaint.
And it's okay as far as you know how it feels,
it feels fine as far as turning it,
but it is non-linear, meaning that it's acceleration based.
And if you turn it slowly, it takes forever
to go from minimum to infinity,
but then you can turn it faster after.
It's hard to repeat focus pulls.
I really don't like it.
It's quite disappointing to see that they would put
that they're sticking with a sort
of non-linear design with these lenses.
And then also, like I mentioned, the zoom ring is in front,
which zoom ring is is nice to turn.
It's got a good distance between the 70 and 200
and there's quite a bit of resistance
so you can really dial in the focal length that you want.
But for this lens, based on where the balancing is
and the size of it, I don't think it makes a lot of sense
to put the rings in that position.
On the Sony, the focus is in front
and the zoom is in the back.
Now if this is a much bigger lens, 200 to 600 or something,
then I could see it.
And with some of the larger Sigma lenses,
I think it makes sense as well to put the zoom further out
because I feel like that's how you would hold the lens.
But on this lens I find that I'm more comfortable
choked up more, which puts my hands right on the focus ring.
But the focus ring isn't great on this lens.
This is where I'd want the zoom to be,
which on the Sony it's perfect.
I'm right here and I'm zooming.
And if I'm using autofocus, which I am most of the time,
I don't need to worry that the focus rings up there.
And size wise, they're actually quite similar.
The Sigma, as you can see, is just a little bit taller,
but it does weigh quite a bit more.
I think it's 30% more than the GM II.
So that makes this 1,345 grams,
which is pretty much right around three pounds.
And my last critique about the build involves the hood.
This has the older design where you turn this knob down
in order to tighten the hood.
It goes on fine, but it's just,
I like a satisfying click lock.
This doesn't have that. I'm not trying to be too nitpicky,
it's just that there's quite a few ergonomic things
about this lens that annoyed me that didn't annoy me
at all on the Sony lens.
So maybe I've just been spoiled by the Sony lens,
but I feel like it got all these things right.
So I would definitely give the nod to the Sony
when it comes to build & ergonomics,
but the price difference between these lenses is huge.
And so I'm not sure if that's enough to bridge
that gap for most people.
Because last time I looked at the price of the GM II,
it's gonna be $1,200 or $1,300 more than
what the Sigma is gonna be selling for USD.
And I think when I show you the images in Lightroom
in a second here, you might have a hard time seeing
that $1,200 or $1,300 difference in the image quality
because the Sigma does well to either almost match
and in some cases actually beat the Sony.
And when the Sony wins, they're not huge victories.
But let's boot up Lightroom
Okay, now these first few images here are about close
focusing, and you'll notice that the Sony
close focuses a lot better,
especially at 70 millimeters.
That was one of the cool things about the GM II.
On the left is the Sigma, and I'll try to keep the Sigma
on the left for most of these.
And on the right is the Sony.
And you can see at 70 millimeters the Sony
gets much closer than the Sigma does.
This is the minimum focus on both of them.
At 200 millimeters it's actually more equal
because the Sony isn't as impressive at 200 millimeters
and the Sigma gets slightly better, but the Sony still wins.
So if close focusing is something you like to do,
and that's a huge part of why you would buy the lens,
the Sony is the clear winner.
But there's two things that the Sigma does incredibly well
when it comes to focusing.
One is crash zooms don't go outta focus,
which I've had issues with other third-party lenses before.
It's not perfectly parfocal.
I tested it, I'll show you a couple images in a second.
It does go out slightly and the Sony's
maybe a little bit better,
but if you just slam it from 70 to 200 in video,
I found that it didn't really drag on the focus too much,
which was nice.
So if you wanna use it for that purpose,
I think you'll be okay.
And second is the focus breathing.
Focus breathing is really, really well controlled
on the Sigma, whether at 70 or 200,
it might even be slightly better than the Sony,
which is something I praised when reviewing
the Sony originally.
And it's a good thing too because focus breathing
compensation in the body isn't gonna be available
with third party lenses.
So it's great that this lens is so well controlled
without relying on that compensation.
This was just to show what I was saying when I said
that the Sony is a bit more parfocal.
If you focus at one end of the focal length
and then zoom to the other and you take the photo again,
you can see the Sony kept its sharpness really well
where the Sigma is slightly off.
Maybe that's not too important to you,
but if it is important to you,
then again the Sony is slightly better in this regard.
Also, the Sigma makes a bit of noise when focusing.
It sounds like there's a tiny dial-up
modem inside there.
And the Sony is completely silent.
It's not that loud, especially not if you're just
in an environment that even has slightly
raised ambient levels.
I don't think you're gonna be able to hear it.
But when I was doing my focus breathing test,
it was completely silent and I was right in there,
like looking for focus breathing and I could hear it.
I'll give you an audio sample now with boosted levels
so you can hear what I'm talking about.
But just keep in mind, in the real world it doesn't,
it's not as noticeable, but it's something to be aware of
in case your work requires you to be in absolute silence.
Now, despite that little bit of noise,
the autofocus on this lens is terrific.
It's really reliable and really fast.
However, it does have a limitation
when using it on Sony cameras.
The L-mount version does not have this limitation over.
I recently posted a tweet where I was asking,
does anybody know anything about this 15 frames per second
limit that people have been talking
about on Sony for a while?
Because I'd never seen anything official on it.
I've heard a lot of different versions.
So I'll give you the final thing from my testing
and from from asking around, especially if you're following
that tweet, you can put the camera on autofocus continuous
and have a third party lens connected on your Sony camera.
And you can still fire off faster than 15 frames per second.
But if you're actively tracking something using the Sony
camera, then you'll find that the burst speed slows.
On my a1, I can shoot up a 30 frames per second
in certain modes.
And if I just have the lens pointed at something static,
even if the camera's in AF-C, it goes 30 frames per second.
But as soon as I start actively tracking,
you can hear the burst rate slow to a maximum
of 15 frames per second.
So the L-mount version isn't gonna have that problem,
which suggests something about the lens.
And also this lens has Sigma's best,
high speed linear motors in it.
There's really no reason why it should be limited
to 15 frames per second when some of Sony's
first-party slower lenses aren't.
So maybe that was a safeguard.
I think it's clearly an artificial limit
or else the L-mount version should have it too.
So maybe it was to help consumers in the old days
when third party lenses weren't as reliable,
but these days these modern third party lenses,
especially this one, are really fast focusing.
So I think that's something Sony should remove
since it doesn't really make a lot of sense anymore.
But just be aware, if you want to fire faster than 15 frames
per second while continuously tracking,
you're not gonna be able to do it on this lens.
And then this lens becomes the mandatory 70-200
in that case.
But I really would urge Sony to rethink
how they're implementing that when it comes to lenses
that are this fast, like this Sigma.
Okay, now let's talk about chromatic aberration.
I was really impressed with the Sigma.
If we punch right in here, we can see that the Sony
has great control over chromatic aberration,
but the Sigma is even better.
I'm a little bit closer on the Sony again
because of close focusing, but we can see that over here
on the Sigma on the left, it looks really neutral.
I'm just seeing black and white throughout the frame.
But on the Sony I'm seeing a little bit,
it's a minor amount, but I'm seeing a little bit
of like a green and a little bit
of a magenta here and there.
But if we zoom out, it's not the big of an issue
on either lens, but it is great to say that the Sigma
for less money actually has better control
over chromatic aberration. And for a more practical test
using a fence, as we go outta focus here
I don't really see much fringing in either
direction, which is nice.
And then at 200 millimeters,
I mean if I really, really, really pixel peep here
and I zoom way in, I can see the slightest amount
right there.
And if you're at home going, what is this guy talking about?
Exactly, that's how good the chromatic aberration
control is on this lens.
Okay, moving on to bokeh again, Sigma on the left.
I would say this is actually pretty comparable.
The Sigma is a little bit dirtier inside of the orbs here
where the Sony's a bit smoother.
But if we look at how soon they start to cat's eye,
they're pretty similar, a slight nod to the Sony G Master.
But you know, I don't think I would make this affect
my buying decision too much.
But the G Master is slightly cleaner.
If we look at them at f/5.6, then the cat's eye is mostly gone.
We can see that we have an 11-bladed aperture on both.
And again, the Sony is slightly cleaner,
but I wouldn't put that as a big mark against the Sigma.
Okay, now let's talk about sharpness
in the center of the frame.
The Sigma's on the left, the Sony's on the right.
You can let your eyes be the judge.
I mean from this distance anyway, looking at these images,
I don't see a huge difference.
The Sigma might actually be slightly better to my eye,
but I do notice a little bit of fringing
when I come across here.
The Sony has just a little bit of color fringing, again,
a very minor amount, but I do see it
and I don't see it on the Sigma. So points to Sigma there.
But if we move up to the corner,
we can see that the Sony actually performs better
for retaining its sharpness all the way out
at the edge compared to the Sigma.
However, if we switch over to 200mm, first of all,
the fringing is a bit more noticeable.
Now on the Sony, you can see right here where again
the Sigma is still very, very clean.
But now if we move out to the edge
and take a closer look,
I would say that they're a lot more equal.
Yeah, the Sony is sharper,
but it has slightly worse fringing.
When it comes to vignetting and distortion,
I think it's better to actually look at them
sort of zoomed out like this.
I would say that they seem very similar.
They both are showing some pin cushion distortion.
As you can see on the edges here,
the vignetting on the Sigma might be slightly worse.
Now I've received Lightroom correction profiles
for the Sigma already and obviously
the Sony, you can turn them on.
Usually things like vignetting and distortion
aren't that big of a deal because they're gonna be corrected
in the camera, but I just wanted to show you
they're pretty similar but maybe 2% worse,
vignetting on the Sigma.
But again, an incredible job if we're comparing it
to the G Master for something that
cost, you know, $1,300 more.
Now these next few images are not comparisons,
they're just the Sigma.
This one is the show flair, which there is some,
but it's really, really well controlled.
You can see I like to do the shot
because this area on the frame on the left should be black.
And so if we're losing a lot of contrast,
you normally see something crazy happen there, but it's not.
We have really good contrast across the frame still.
And just a little bit of artifacts here.
The sunstars, look nice.
Our black to white ratio is fantastic.
I'd say the flare is really well controlled here.
And if we move a little bit so you can see
how the artifacts move, this is what we're talking about.
We do have a little bit of contrast reduction rate
around here in the frame.
This wasn't even with the hood on.
So I'm, happy with the flare on this lens.
Also, I stopped on the shutter speed a lot in this shot
and I just thought it looked kind of crazy.
I dunno what this is, but it looks wild. I kind of like it.
And then if you care about sunstars,
here's just, there you go.
There's some sunstars for you.
I'm shooting right into the sun,
and look at the, look at the black levels.
No real complaints whatsoever.
This shot was just give it an absolute extreme test.
We've got the light coming in at a crazy angle.
I wanna test the flare.
And I also wanted to see how that would affect our fringing.
And this is the worst I could make this lens perform
when it comes to fringing.
If I show you sort of the worst area,
if we look at these sort of bokeh orbs here,
this is the maximum amount of discoloration
you're gonna see on this lens if you use
a crazy setup like this.
And as far as LoCA as we come up here, you can start
to see a little bit, there's a little bit of LoCA going on,
but I mean see this little fringing just outside there,
it is so minimal, it is so well controlled.
I've just got a few images to show you color
and you can see the transition from the part
that's in focus to out of focus.
I think it's really smooth, really nice.
Same thing here.
This is a busier shot so we can see if it's doing anything
weird and swirly or whatever, which I wouldn't say so.
Again, the shot is busy,
but I think it did really well to to work within that.
This one's to see if we have any fringing against the sky.
And again, really clean lines along that branch there.
And really nice separation. And the colors are rich.
And here's a photo of a dog.
When you're on a photo walk and you see a dog,
you have to take a picture of it.
There's the doggy face
and there's the doggy nipples.
Squirrel! Look at him. Got his mouth full.
But yeah, it's nice.
It's really, really sharp. This was at 200mm.
Again, no issues with with chromatic aberration.
Really happy with separation.
Really, really good detail.
We can get right in there.
Can see all those little whiskers.
Good squirrel. Color, again, really, really rich.
This is straight outta camera.
Really like the color here, like the sky, like the leaves.
Another example of color here some green for you.
And again, separation and how it transitions.
So yeah, image quality wise, this lens is incredibly
impressive, especially when we're comparing it
to the G Master II, which is obviously
the reigning champion of 70-200 millimeter lenses
on the Sony system.
It's darn near as good or slightly better,
like it's right there neck and neck
when it comes to image quality.
But for like $1,300 USD less.
So it's kind of a no brainer if you can get over some
of the annoyances that I had with
the actual handling of the lens.
So good job, Sigma, great lens.
It's always great to see a third-party offering that offers
so much for the money and they definitely nailed it here.
Alright... I'm done.
(upbeat music)