Agreed. Same here.

Personally, I love my RF 24-70 f2.8. It’s got more quality from it than I even need. But it was expensive, and it’s large and heavy compared to third party competitors on E-mount. And, of course, this 24-50.

This lens is still overpriced

What the hell are you talking about, dude? As far as I can see, this is the very first and only affordable first party Sony zoom. Their G/GM lens prices are on par with other manufacturers.

I like Tamron, but starting at 28mm is a dealbreaker for me. Sony should have made it 24-50/2. Yes it would have been as heavy as 24-70/2.8, but it would have eliminated in many cases the need to have primes with you. I can't live with f/2.8 shooting at a restaurant at night, I have to carry at least one prime.

Locatio, location, location

It's easy to get great images in the winter and snow. There great light all day

do they?

really? do you even use sony lenses or is this just the usual banter about cameras that resembles how folks argue about their favorite sports team.

​@@TerryMcKennaFineArtyour response makes literally no sense to this comment

It's always insane to me how much better and less jarring 60fps or even 30 fps looks. Videos also have so much more details and less compression

yes, it's so weird.

@@CollectionOfJunk lmao

if you don’t wanna spend gm money and don’t need 30fps on your a9, than a tamron does just as fine

@@hardywoodaway9912 I am speaking as a Sony shooter. I did purchase 2 sigma lenses a while back and both had less that satisfactory auto focus, so a pain in the ass with video (i do both stills and video). so I am no longer tempted to use a 3rd party lens when a first party lens exists. In fact I find that when I do look at Sigma or Tamron, I have to reacquaint myself with what their abbreviations mean. I am not in the market for this lens, but my son who has an a6000 is moving up to full frame and this will likely be his first lens (he does mostly landscape). I am not arguing with you, just pointing out that now the Sony has lots of lenses. sony shooters may not want to waste time on the 3rd party market.

@@hardywoodaway9912not everyone wants a Tamron and as said above why wouldn’t Sony want a piece of that pie🤷‍♂️

I would prefer to have a Sony lens and would also prefer GM. I would consider buying this lens for my use case and the price point, while not what I could call a bargain, might make it acceptable for me.

​​@@hardywoodaway9912"Some people prefer first party above other attributes".... "No crime in catering to that" Read before replying. I promise it will make your day better

so true

tamron 20-40 mm f2/8 is better option in my opinion

Sony tax

@@cinematools9621😂

@@0x1h0b 💯

Back in the DSLR days we had a really useful zoom, the 16-35mm f/2.8. Now your talking.

This

Tamron is the closest competitor, I wonder there is no comparison.

I love my 20-40! I've got a whole review of it on my channel but overall I think it's an underrated lens

Whenever you touch a Tamron, you can feel how cheap it was. Maybe if you’re a professional, you just care about results, you want to min-max cost/profit, but I, as a hobbyist, want to also feel good about using my gear. Just like with cars performance isn’t everything; you don’t want hard, scratchy plastics or cheap cloth on the seats, you want soft-touch materials, nicely damped switches, soft leather… Oh and besides feeling cheap, you don’t get a function button, aperture ring, breathing comp.

@@houserhythm I'm a professional and not once have I used the function button on any of my lenses that she's them. Would a AF/MF switch be nice, yes. Does it take less then 2 seconds to switch MF/AF using buttons on my camera also yes. Sure some Sony glass feels nice in the hand but honestly as long as it gets the job done, produces a great image, and doesn't feel uncomfortable to hold I don't really care if it feels like plastic.

exactly, I use 3 primes 28-35-50, always wanted to see a fast compact zoom with 50 on the long end and about 20ish on the wider end. This is such a good offering

24mm just not wide enough for a travel lens. 20mm or a little wider then would be a great lens. Way too limiting. I think you will get bored of this lens quickly.

@@markymarkreviews so I tell you that I love 24mm. And you try to impose your point of view, to the point of telling me I'd get bored of a focal length I know I love?

@@E4xtream I was speaking more generally not your particular case. The sub title of the video is “ Do we need this (lens) ?” No. Not in my opinion.

@@markymarkreviews you wrote it in reply to my comment though.

It has nothing in common with small G primes, other than focal range. People buy those primes for the reason they want small and light and this zoom is not. Moreover, people would choose one, not three of those primes, the one that fit their needs most.

got the tamron 20-40mm f2.8 recently and i love it ngl

I didn’t think about it like that, it’s a great way to look at it :)

the bokeh was talked about in other reviews as looking like stop signs and lots of onion rings.

The Fuji is 3x zoom, f4 ff equivalent. This lens is 2x zoom with f2.8. You have to trade zoom range for aperture.

@@withoutpassid I would still take that sony route.

@@miggyloz806 As a Sony user, I would take the 20-70 f4 route :)

The Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 exists and is pretty great

The only real reason to get this lens over the Tamron is that it's native sony glass works a lot better with active steady shot

@@robertconrad6802 That's a good point, I forgot that sony lenses play a bit nicer with the bodies. However, if you're a video person and want to use Gyroflow, you disable all the stabilization anyway.

Actually you can see how the focus is shifting to background instead of being on the face and it's distracting.

I think the 60p looks like ass, it’s terrible 🤣

Yeah because they are so small and cheap Like the 10-25mm.

It's going to cost between 1100 and 1300 dollars so I don't know how affordable that is. I much prefer my more affordable and wider Tamron 20-40 lens.

Us too.

The Sigma is really heavy this one and the 20-70mm f/4 g are much lighter and smaller Coming from the GH5 before the a7siii , my lenses were much smaller. I was happy when Sony 2 years ago started making smaller lenses that I wanted

Gimbal was getting blown around by the wind.

@@PetaPixel That was the other option, it happens. Put up a good fight though.

I’d argue the 20-70 f4 is a much better choice for that. It’s practically the same weight and f/2.8 is mostly pointless if you’re hiking anyway. Events, f2.8 is probably better but at that point you’d probably be better off with the Tamron…

It would be perfect for that! 😂

Sigma/Tamron for event work. Sony for street photography