24-70 GMaster Vs Batis 25mm f2 & 55mm f1.8

[danaldson]

So im in a little predicament with lens choices.  I recently sold my 28mm F2 and am looking to upgrade. 

 

In my bag currently i have: 

sony a7II

sony 28-70 kit lens (which I'm trying to get rid of)

sony 70-200 F4G

 

now i am looking to buy either the  25mm F2 Zeiss bats & the 55mm 1.8, OR the new 24-70 f2.8 GM

 

Now all of these lenses as far as i know have incredible lens quality, a slight advantage to the g master probably.  and either route i take, gives me a well rounded kit. A wide angle, good medium focal length, and a long focal length from my 70-200. 

 

I'm having a tough time deciding for a few reasons:

 

#1 Weight: The master is a heavy lens. possibly feeling off balance (although i have no problem with my 70-200 on my body all day)

 

#2: Having to change lenses all the time. If i go the primes route, I will be needing to change lenses a lot

#3: the G Master is backordered, while the primes are readily available at my local shop.

#4: Do i need the extra few stops of light with the primes? Bokeh good on all lenses? 

#5: I am by no means a professional photographer, and maybe i dont need the best of the best of IQ. so maybe the basis and 55mm would be fine. 

#6 At the end of the day, they are roughy coming in at the same price. 

 

 

Im sure either route i take i will be happy, but I'm just  having a tough time deciding. 

Any opinions are greatly appreciated. 

[dcisive]

I recently sold my 24-70 f2.8 GM as I found, after some comparisons, that my 85mm f1.8 Batis was running rings around it towards it's longer (70mm) end. From 24-55mm the zoom is just as good as any primes I used, BUT not at the long end I'm sorry to say. For me personally I wanted the 70mm end to be tops more so than the wider end ironically. So away it went. I'm more inclined to use my primes when at the 35-85mm range. I have a stellar sharp copy of the 70-200G f4 I rely on for many things above that. Today I take delivery of the 70-300G to test out once again as I had 2 bad copies of it thus far, not sharp at the sides at 300mm which I insist upon. Also a 16-35 Zeiss/Sony f4 which I realize is a highly derided lens in the Sony community due to some bad copies floating around, but if I'm fortunate to get a good one it will fill the bill nicely for any of my potential wide needs. We'll see.

[danaldson]

I recently sold my 24-70 f2.8 GM as I found, after some comparisons, that my 85mm f1.8 Batis was running rings around it towards it's longer (70mm) end. From 24-55mm the zoom is just as good as any primes I used, BUT not at the long end I'm sorry to say. For me personally I wanted the 70mm end to be tops more so than the wider end ironically. So away it went. I'm more inclined to use my primes when at the 35-85mm range. I have a stellar sharp copy of the 70-200G f4 I rely on for many things above that. Today I take delivery of the 70-300G to test out once again as I had 2 bad copies of it thus far, not sharp at the sides at 300mm which I insist upon. Also a 16-35 Zeiss/Sony f4 which I realize is a highly derided lens in the Sony community due to some bad copies floating around, but if I'm fortunate to get a good one it will fill the bill nicely for any of my potential wide needs. We'll see.

 

thanks for your input. 

 

Thats interesting to hear about  the 70mm length. i would probably be using the GM at 25/50 and a little bit of 70mm. But i love how sharp my 70-200 is.  

[Singingsnapper]

Is there a 24 - 70 in existence that is at its strongest at the longest end?  Both the Canon and Nikon are said to be weaker at 50 - 70mm...

 

I actually don't find the lens to be all that heavy or out of balance.  My only issue is the focus by wire and the lag you get with it.  

[beartheben]

Unless you're professional and truly need top of the line image quality at all lengths, I think the biggest factor here is probably the switching of lenses and the weight. Had only a collection of primes until recently got my first zoom lens, and I must say it's awesome to not have to change lenses on the go. Although the image quality is awesome, the GM is quite large though, to a point where I cant appreciate the small size of mirrorless anymore, so I don't think it's quite for me. If you're usually in settings where you don't have to change lenses, primes will probably do you fine, other wise get that GM!

[JimmyD]

I am fortunate to have all three lenses.  As is often the case, the right answer on lens selection depends on what you will be using the lens(es) for most often.  One comment at the outset: as decisive points out, the 24-70 GM does not have the IQ advantage here; IMHO the Batis and the Sony/Zeiss each have better IQ at their respective focal lengths than the 24-70 GM (faster, sharper, lighter, better bokeh, etc.).  Don't get me wrong, the IQ of the 24-70 GM is as good as it gets for a zoom and better than many primes; its just that the Batis 25mm and the Sony/Zeiss 55mm are incredible lenses.  So if you need / want the convenience of not having to switch lenses, the GM will serve you well.  If you don't need to switch lenses quickly (for example, if you are doing landscapes), I think you would do better with the primes.

[Emptymind]

I shoot stills on my A7R2 and video on my A7S2. I do not use zooms - for many reasons.... weight mostly then poor focusing then... on and on.

 

I swopped out my 28mm F2 for the Zeiss Batis 25mm. That is a no brainer - the Batis 25mm is far superior. I also have the Batis 85mm and the Zeiss 55mm. These are the only lenses I take for every shoot including tons of documentary video.

 

I would get used to changing lenses. Overall the A7R2 - A7S2 handle so much better with primes.

[Mathias]

Primes all the way in the mentioned focal lengths imo!

 

About changing lenses: I don't have to do that very often, as I know pretty well what kind of perspective I'm after in advance, I often travel with just one prime.

You will be forced to find a solution with your lens instead of zooming in or out, this will drastically change your understanding of composition and lead you to new ideas.

[Mr_A7s]

First 3 photos were taken with 2470gm. Last 3 were taken with fe35f1.4 and 85gm.

 

My 2cents, if you don't need f2 or faster. The 2470gm is the best overall. Image quality is better than batis. I sold my batis 25/85 and replaced with gm lenses. I'm about to sell fe55 as well.

 

https://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Events/2016-05-26-Ethan-with-Grandma/n-rbb5Nw/

[milkenunny]

I guess I just think a little differently. When I shoot a wide angle, I find I often like to get in close as part of my composition, so the first thing I check is minimum focus distance. The 24-70 is 38cm while the 25 Batis is 20cm. I'd choose the Batis in a heartbeat.

[Emptymind]

(1) The Zeiss Batis 25mm and 85mm together weight less than the 24-70 f2.8 GM. In fact the Zeiss Batis 18mm, 25mm and 85mm together weight just 100 gram more than the zoom.

 

(2). Using primes forces me to think and move when shooting. I compose better by moving my feet and I take the limitation of a fixed focal length as a benefit. Watch the use of using only a wide angle prime on The Revenant movie... 

 

(3). I shoot in manual focus at least half of the time because I shoot video ... this is far easier with a prime where my hand goes straight to the focus ring and stays there.

 

Just my three reasons...

[markphoto4u]

I recently sold my 24-70 f2.8 GM as I found, after some comparisons, that my 85mm f1.8 Batis was running rings around it towards it's longer (70mm) end. From 24-55mm the zoom is just as good as any primes I used, BUT not at the long end I'm sorry to say. For me personally I wanted the 70mm end to be tops more so than the wider end ironically. So away it went. I'm more inclined to use my primes when at the 35-85mm range. I have a stellar sharp copy of the 70-200G f4 I rely on for many things above that. Today I take delivery of the 70-300G to test out once again as I had 2 bad copies of it thus far, not sharp at the sides at 300mm which I insist upon. Also a 16-35 Zeiss/Sony f4 which I realize is a highly derided lens in the Sony community due to some bad copies floating around, but if I'm fortunate to get a good one it will fill the bill nicely for any of my potential wide needs. We'll see.

The 16-35 is soft at 35mm. It is a great lens for 16-28 though.

 

 

markphoto4u

[VirtualRain]

With the A7RII and the cropping options a 42Mpix sensor offers, I decided to go primes... 25, 55, and 85. That effectively covers 25-135 at f/1.8-2. And as someone else pointed out, these three compact primes weigh about the same as the GM zoom.

 

I primarily use my camera for travel photography and shooting interesting things around town.

 

The 55 is my goto lens for most shooting. I'll switch to the 25 for architecture or landscapes, and the 85 for candid street shots.

 

So I don't change lenses on every shot, but when I do switch, it's not a huge deal to do so with my Ona messenger bag.

 

I love the contrast and color on Zeiss lenses and the bokeh is also lovely. And I think using primes has made me think more about composition and I'm not just taking snap shots anymore... I'm thinking about a shot more. It's fun shooting with primes and rewarding. Zooms are boring.

[dcisive]

Hate to tell you markphoto4u but if you check out my post regarding this lens the 16-35 I just got, it is sharp across it's entire range, which according to a plethora of folks on 2 other forums I posted the same info in stated they too had copies that were NOT weak at 35mm. Of course they are stopped down, in my case to f5.6 which is NO big deal to achieve perfection. 

[UnSean]

I use Batis 25mm, it's my stock lens, amazing rendering, 55mm, I use more than Otus 55mm, it;s not quite as good, but stunning none the less.

 

It;s important to remember that zoom lenses are a big compromise, it is not possible to have top level sharpness everywhere, the laws of physics cannot be broken in this case, but the weakest part of any zoom may be at the end your not to bothered about.

Zooms for me just became the equivalent of 2 lenses as I found that I shot at either the wide end or the telephoto end and hardly ever used the middle, I used my feet it seems.

 

I also found that at times I just wanted a light single lens setup and a big zoom is not that.

[steve of stonehenge]

I own the 25 and 85 Batis as well as the Sony 1.8/55.  Also, I used to own the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II lens which is very comparable to the 24-70 G Master.

 

1. The G Master is a beast weight wise just like the Canon 24-70.  I will admit zooms have their place.  I loved the Canon 24-70.  But if you like the weight advantage of the Sony mirrorless system, you are not going to like the weight of the G Master.
2. Your concern about lens changes is valid.  I have noticed that I am getting a dirty sensor much more with mirrorless.  I am having to do a wet clean about monthly.
3. Back ordered Sony lenses is a way of life for them.  I waited five months for both Batis lenses.  And with all the hype of the G Master, you will wait a long time I fear.
4. It will take experts to determine any difference between the Batis and G Master.  This is really not a factor in my view.
5. Same as 4.
6. I think all choices will hold value for re-sale.

In summary, I am happy with the prime route I have taken.  I am enjoying the challenge of zoom with your feet.  If I were an event/wedding photographer, the choice would be easy: buy the G Master zoom.  If I could only own one lens, it would be the Sony 1.8/55.  Hands down.  Just yesterday, I grabbed the A7 II and 55mm to take on a walk with the dog in the park.  Very light and easy to carry.  This was my first lens and still my favorite.  The Batis lenses are awesome with good IQ etc, but overall the Sony 55 is simply the most versatile lens I own.  And don't hesitate to buy it on eBay.

[Golem]

A used A7II is not all that expensive. If the zoom is not

only bothering you size-wise on-camera in-hand in-use,

but also taking up space in, and adding weight to, your

kit bag, then instead of the size and weight of the zoom

go for the more or less equivalent size and weight of a

second a7II and stick with primes. With two bodies you

seldom hafta swap lenses on the fly. 

  

########################################## 

  

There's two ways to alleviate the pain of lens swapping.

The obvious one is a lens on each body. Thaz reeeealy

the ultraschnitz if those two primes handle everything. 

   

Two lenses, rather than three, using two bodies, is such

a great way to work that it should be a real consideration

when choosing what FLs to own. The size of the gaps or

leaps in your FL spectrum effect whether you really need

a third lens for most situations. I own a closely spaced

nearly gap-free lens set, which allows me to choose any

two lenses, with a gap of my intuitive choosing between

them, when packing my bag.

 

But when you really do need three FLs, you put the very

MOST useful on one body and expect to never remove

it on the fly. The other body is in the bag wearing a body

cap. When you need one of the secondary lenses, you

just put it on there. Swapping a body cap for a lens is a

lot less cumbersome or risky than a lens-for-lens swap.

[Golem]

............

#5: I am by no means a professional photographer, and maybe i dont need

the best of the best of IQ. so maybe the basis and 55mm would be fine. 

............

 

I am by all means a professional ... well mostly retired now ... photographer,

and I have NEVER needed "the best of the best of IQ", as you called it. I've

done a huuuge variety of work, got paid well, impressed and often amazed

clients, and I can assure you the gear didn't matter. Some gear was Linhof

and Hasselblad. Some gear was Vivitar. The pay and the accolades are all

the same regardless.

  

We care a whole lot about quality. Mainly build quality cuz that also means

reliability. Quality build usually means quality optics. But not the geekish IQ

standards expressed around here. Miracles were/are not expected nor are

they worth an extra nickel ... cuz beyond the threshhold of "adequate +", if I

hafta put a grading standard on it, further heights of IQ show zero ROI. 

    

Choose whatever gear helps you work efficiently. In commerce that delivers  

more output, good for the budget. On the recreational front, efficient gear

means an easier time, meaning more enjoyment, more fun. Unless you fun

is pixel peeping IQ :-) And if it is, good for you ! I hope you're be efficient at

it, and so having more fun at it. But don't confuse fun with commerce, OK ?

[EmreMusovi]

Get the Batis

 

SM-G935F cihazımdan Tapatalk kullanılarak gönderildi

[GhostWalker]

I doubt this is a decision that it makes sense to base primarily on image quality. The Batis 25mm f2.0, the Sony 55mm f1.8 and the new 24-70mm f2.8 GM all offer superb IQ and will get you as far as you need to go (in that respect) with the a7II. Bokeh on all three is excellent too, and they are all relatively fast (though the primes to have the edge in low light).

 

One difference is that with the primes, even after 'zooming-with-your-feet', you will sometimes need to crop to get the framing you require and in doing so you'll lose a bit of resolution (and, therefore, IQ with it). Conversely, there will be some situations where stopping to change lenses will mean missing the shot altogether (now that's impacting IQ if ever anything did!). ; )

 

#1 Weight: The master is a heavy lens. possibly feeling off balance (although i have no problem with my 70-200 on my body all day)

 

To my mind, that's the key question, I think you've answered it with your comment about being comfortable with the 70-200. If you don't mind that level of bulk and weight, then I think you'll have no problem at all with the GM, and the added flexibility of its zoom capability will be the clincher. Short of buying all three, that is (which would be the best of both worlds...)!  : )

[Asmundma]

I also have all 3 lenses. The 24-70 GM f2.8 is on pair with Canon 24-70 and as such sharp - way much better then the Sony 24-70 f4 which I started to dislike due to mediocre sharpness.

I will not hesitate to take most pictures with it as the quality is excellent. Even if its heavy - i feel I will live it to get the require quality.

It also AF quite good - now closer DSLR AF speed. 

[jstevensphoto]

My 24-70 G is probably the most useful lens I have every owned.   Yes, it's big and heavy, but all 24-70s are big and heavy.   It's on my A7Rii 80% of the time. 

[jstevensphoto]

So im in a little predicament with lens choices.  I recently sold my 28mm F2 and am looking to upgrade. 

 

In my bag currently i have: 

sony a7II

sony 28-70 kit lens (which I'm trying to get rid of)

sony 70-200 F4G

 

now i am looking to buy either the  25mm F2 Zeiss bats & the 55mm 1.8, OR the new 24-70 f2.8 GM

 

Now all of these lenses as far as i know have incredible lens quality, a slight advantage to the g master probably.  and either route i take, gives me a well rounded kit. A wide angle, good medium focal length, and a long focal length from my 70-200. 

 

I'm having a tough time deciding for a few reasons:

 

#1 Weight: The master is a heavy lens. possibly feeling off balance (although i have no problem with my 70-200 on my body all day)

 

#2: Having to change lenses all the time. If i go the primes route, I will be needing to change lenses a lot

#3: the G Master is backordered, while the primes are readily available at my local shop.

#4: Do i need the extra few stops of light with the primes? Bokeh good on all lenses? 

#5: I am by no means a professional photographer, and maybe i dont need the best of the best of IQ. so maybe the basis and 55mm would be fine. 

#6 At the end of the day, they are roughy coming in at the same price. 

 

 

Im sure either route i take i will be happy, but I'm just  having a tough time deciding. 

Any opinions are greatly appreciated. 

 

I have had the 24-70 for a few months now and like it a lot.   It is heavy, but feels pretty good on my a7rii.   I find the focal length very handy, and have cut down on lens changes a lot.    The sensor is so close on these little mirror less cameras and I was getting dust on mine when changing often.   Planning a couple of trips soon and I think with the 24-70, Sony 70-300 and borrowing my wife's 16-35 on occasion is all the lenses I will need. Probably have the 24-70 on the camera 90% of the time.