I have F1.2/F1.4 primes, F2.8 constant and F4 constant zooms. I believe if someone owns fast primes then they should skip F2.8 zooms all together and get F4 for versatility like 24-105, 16-35 PZ, 20-70, 70-200. Spend the extra and carry the heavier F2.8 zooms only if you are not planning to have F1.2/F1.4 primes. Once it goes darker, doesn't matter if it's F2.8 or F4 both are not up to the task. F4 lenses with newer Sony bodies is totally workable, With A7R5 you can do handheld 1/13 and slower. Improved IBIS is very noticeable. I never fell in love with F2.8s, they are neither here nor there. Only time F2.8 zoom makes sense is 70-200 as we don't get fast primes in this focal range other than 135mm. This 20-70 has dethroned most versatile Sony 24-105 F4 G.
It didn’t “dethroned the 24-105 f4. It is still the most versatile landscape lens for me. I recently went to Patagonia and hiked for 8-10 hours. 24-105 was my only lens and that 105 mm on the tele end are invaluable for me.. I also compared it to 28-250 Tamron and found that Sony was just better. Ironically that 4 mm on a wide end was more important that 250 on the tele end. 250 mm was “not here, not there” for me in landscape: too short for wildlife yet too long for tele landscape, 105 is all the tele-landscape one will need. So I ended up preferring 24-105. If I have a clear wildlife situation , like safari or whale watching, 100-400 or new 60-600 Sigma is the way to go.
@@driliagor For backpacking, I carry E11 f/1.8, FE24 f/2.8 and FE50 f/2.5. Changing lenses in the field is a pain so the FE20-70 is pulling at me. It's basically the same weight as those other three lenses. Tradeoff is, of course, the maximum aperture. And 20mm is not quite as wide as the 11m in crop mode (and that difference is meaningful to me). So far, I have not purchased the FE20-70. Wringing my hands though ...
@@coffeemocha get the general zoom. Either 24-105 or 24-70. They are so good now that even with pixel peeping the difference with primes in the same range is inconsequential. Excepting extreme corners. And almost no difference in F range f5-11. For landscape its great. I had MANY more instances of missing a shot while changing lenses than instances of unsatisfactory shot due to worse wide angle or worse sharpness. Remember: “if you didn’t press the shutter, you didn’t get it”
The 20-70 F4 has allowed me to drop one lens from my landscape kit. Any weight saved is a blessing and I rarely shoot wider than 20mm. 20-70 F4 with 70-200 F4 on a A7R3A.
My feeling about f/2.8 zooms has changed. I now realize that during the well lit day, f/4 is more than enough aperture, while in the depth of the shadows and at night, I prefer the 8 times faster apertures of f/1.4 GM primes. It leaves between those two extremes a very narrow band of situations like golden hour and modestly lit interiors where f/2.8 is just right, and considering the cost of the Sony trinity glass, I am finding myself perfectly happy with the bookend system capabilities of f/4 or slower and f/1.4 or faster (while enjoying the smaller and lighter pack of lenses like this)
I've been long debating which zoom to get and as soon as I saw this lens announced I knew this was the one. For low light, if f4 won't be enough, f2.8 probably won't be either. As someone who's been shooting for close to three decades at this point, it was quite a shock to the system to see the 24-70 2.8 S back in 2019 shatter the paradigm that standard zooms essentially *had* to sacrifice printability at one end or another--and quite another to finally see this paradigm shift make its way to more modestly specced (and reasonably sized and priced!) options. While I'm not sure if I would take this over a 28-55 2.8 of similar quality, or perhaps a 28-40 f2, to me this makes much more sense than the 24-70 2.8 GM II or the Tamron 35-150 for unpaid work. As someone who has done weddings, it *miiiiight* be even more useful assuming I was allowed to use flash and could bounce it off the architecture for indoors and could definitely go head to head for daytime use. I think it might replace my 40 G as my outdoor/low profile lens for my main body, with the 35mm f1.4 GM and the 20mm G(M) as my low light/high effort package. I'm curious both as someone who pays quite a bit of attention to the advancements in camera tech & lens design myself, and as someone who noted your own acknowledgement of Sony as having quite the hot hand in lens design recently: in your opinion is there a better player on the market at the moment? I realize this is somewhat of a loaded question, and I'm not trying to set up some trap for you to fall into. Just as someone who's dallied in offerings ranging from Pentax, Zeiss, Canon, Minolta, and Sony through the years I can never remember any manufacturer having such a run of products that were, when taken as a whole and not necessarily *just* IQ, so strong in comparison to the rest of the market. *Especially* for the price.
I shoot Sony and Fuji. Both systems have great glass OEM or 3rd party. Both systems have of late seen the release of some very, very good modern lenses. I can't speak about other systems.
This is the exact comparison I’ve been looking for. I currently carry a 16-35 GM and a 28-200 Tamron for Landscape. The CA, purple fringing, on the Tamron is pretty bad, so I am looking for a 2 lens alternative. I rarely use less than 20mm, and I’m thinking a 20-70 G and 70-200 GM II combination would give me much better IQ with about 1/2 lb more weight. And with that combination, I could throw in a 1.4x or 2x TC and leave my 100-400 at home, saving 40% in the weight of my current 16-35 GM, 24-105 G, and 100-400 GM lens combination.
Well reasoned. 100-400 is not really a useful lens. Too long for landscape (even tele landscapes) too short for wildlife (even big ones, as you want to keep you distance from the big wildlife). Certainly not adequate for birds. Yet it is already heavy so it is not an all day trail lens. It’s what I call a “parking lot” lens. And as such MUCH better alternative is a new Sigma 60-600. It is absolutely fantastic and completely trumps 100-400 GM in IQ, zoom, OSS and focus.
I've found the use of this lens when shooting watches and products, I can get close enough to the subject, there is no chromatic aberration, razor sharp and universal use for travel. I preferred this to the 2.8 zoom, which is usually heavier and larger. Thanks for the great video and photos
I'm a little late to the 'comments' party here but this video was excellent. It was a positive influence and I bought this zoom as 20 mm. is my sweet spot for wide angle. Now instead of a 'holy trinity' of zooms, I have a 'dynamic duo'. This lens and a 70-200 is all I need and f4 is usually bright enough. As backup, I have a very small Rokinon 35mm f1.8 that I can pack for those few situations where I need brighter. But I don't need to carry it everywhere, just leave it in my suitcase just in case. Thanks for your consistently excellent work on this channel!
I bought the 20-70 for my wife’s a7c, for travel. It arrived yesterday and…welll…she’s not getting it. I am. What makes me an even worse husband is that I already own the 24-105 f4, my former all-arounder. And two G Master primes, the 24 and 35. Plus a sigma 24-70 2.8 and a tamron 17-28. What in the world do I need with this lens? Well, damn it, it’s just so perfect. Light and small with great build quality and features and surprising sharpness. When I first pulled the lens from the pouch I thought somebody screwed up and put a G Master in, instead. I’ve always felt constrained by a 24 on the wide end. This thing proves me right. Travel photography and street photography- this baby is never coming off. I’ve the night time covered with the other lenses, but this is now the most versatile lens with pretty much no compromise. Thanks, Hugh, for another great, practical review. You’re right on the money!
I think the holy trinity just became the holy duality. I really hope Sony revisits their 70-200 f4 or 70-300 and gives them the same treatment! 20-70 and 70-200 or 300, plus a prime for low light, would be the perfect travel kit!
I’d have to chose between 20-70/4 + 70-200/4 or 16-35/4 + 24-105/4. And I’d be missing the 16mm much more than anything over 105 for my travels. If I had to choose just one lens than it would be probably the heavier 24-105 as 105mm/4 is pretty much where I start to get some nicely blurred background for headshots etc. But I totally understand that it’s a great range for a lot of people.
And revisit the 70-200 f4 they did! With the 70-200 f4 G OSS II macro offering. Now that I got it (with 1.4x TC) and the 20-70, the only gap left (apart from specific use cases like astro or portraiture) is 35 mm f1.4.
Rewatching this video now that the new FE 24-50/2.8 G has been announced. If I buy either it will be for use on a A7CR or A7cII in my travel kit. I do have plenty of GM/GMII primes and zooms that I use on my full size full frame bodies but most are too big and heavy for casual walking around. Any recommendations on which to go with?
What did you decide? I have the 20-70 and it's an excellent lens on my A7Cii. But I do miss the 2.8 for low light situations. And the 24-50 is just a smidge lighter/smaller than the 20-70. I'm so torn!
Think about use case for a second before just throwing out 'some wedding photographers...' As what do wedding photographers have? At least two cameras on them at all times with different use case lenses and how often are wedding photographers shooting landscapes or architectural photography that benefits from 16-28mm? They're doing primarily environmental or close up portrait work so there's no reason to want 16-24mm range on a whole. They're very willing to give up the wide end and take on any size lens for slightly faster portrait focused lenses. That's simply not the case with travel, hiking, street, architectural, landscape or a vast array of other priorities.
Man, I agree 100% with everything you said and I really loved your analysis. Great video that discusses REAL WORLD use and tech specs. I'm a videographer that shoots the whole gamut... doc work, marketing, lifestyle and even weddings. For ANYTHING run and gun (no gimbal) the Sony 24-105 F4G never leaves the camera. An amazing lens that has IS, great range and will achieve solid background separation if needed, when zoomed in. The F4 is no problem. For any gimbal work, Sony's 16-35 F4G is a phenomenal lens. Internal zoom means no rebalancing, crazy light and the image is stellar. Again a lot of gimbal work (at least from a perspective of shots that require wide angles) doesn't need a crazy shallow DOF. Just like I wouldn't want a drone to have a crazy shallow DOF. The want for shallow DOF comes when conducting interviews or shooting things like hero shots etc. So for gimbal work, I still wouldn't revert to a zoom like the 2.8 Gmaster simply due to the size and rebalancing issue. I'd throw on something like the Sony 35mm 1.8 or whatever prime lens that works for the situation. For interviews (esp doc work), this is where the 2.8 Gmasters can shine due to the great image quality and that extra stop (which can make a difference). But at the end of the day, at least to me, the F4 has never been a reason to completely avoid a lens. In fact, it's often quite the opposite.
I think as a landscape photographer, this is one incredible lens. I myself am super happy with my 24-70 gm ii (3rd copy) and 20 1.8g (excellent copy). If i didn't have a 24-70 and 20 i would get this. Unless I want more low light capability. These newest sony lenses are just making the older ones look weak like the 16-35 pz vs 16-35 gm. Pretty remarkable how much things have improved at least in the optics area. I am curious about the 20-70 flare resistence vs the gm ii tho.
You mentioned a one stop difference. This would not make a difference for a daytime street photographer; it may not work at night street photographers. While I am not a wedding photographer, there often times where events are held in venues where using available light is preferred and f4 may not be fast enough.
I have no complaints about the f/4 70-200 that I bought year ago. Currently I use the Sigma f/2.8 Art lens and am considering a change purely on the size and weight.
@@DavidTwomey3 assuming it's not too late - the Sigma 24-70 Art is a chunky boi at 850 g and 82 mm filter thread with big lens hood, and very front heavy when zoomed in. The second generation of is looks much better at 750 g. The quality is up there though, I'm comparing it with 20-70 now.
Thanks for this comparison! After much thought this past few months, I was completely decided for the 24-70 GM2 because I think "If I'm going for a zoom lens, at least would make an effort to acquire a good one", but while I was waiting for stock for the GM2, this 20-70G got my attention. I was unsure because it cost less than half than the GM2 and almost 40% less than 24-70 GM mark 1. I was afraid that the blur at the edges were too much, or something like that, but after seeing this I think it is a good value for the money. Surely the GM2 is better and surely, I would love to own one, but not at that price, at least for me. It would be more a gearhead decision than a real need. And as you well said, 99% of us can't tell the difference most of the time outside a lab, so it was really good for me seeing you video, because you own both and you have used both, and have the knowledge and the means to compare them. I would love to see more! Thanks.
Shooting concerts with the R5 I may be able to get away with f/4 due to the 8 stops of in body stabilization, maybe drag the shutter a bit more...it would be a great focal range for when you're in the pit. Got me thinking...
I know this might be a weird question but do you know what f stop you used when filming this video? The depth of field is honestly perfect and i'd be curious to know where it might've been at. I'm watching this video to find the lens I want to use for video work similar to what you've done here. 50mm looks slightly too tight for my needs so that helps me narrow down my search. I'd love to know if this was shot at f4 or 5.6 perhaps. If we're talking about 2.8 or a range an f4 can't get, that'll help me figure out which lenses I need to really look at. Appreciate your time!
@@3BMEP I learned there's a 24-50 2.8 coming out. Sounds like the best of both worlds, so I'll probably wait around for that in a couple months. I appreciate you getting back to me!
You might find (were you to pick up the 20-70) that yes, it just might be: you might find that the 16-35 would be gathering dust. But if your use case is real estate interiors, for example., you might still want the even wider field of view of the 16-35. As always, it’s a function of use case.
@@3BMEP Ok well! Nice to see your photo from your meetup with other shooters! Especially b&w photo =D Hugh, maybe you give the source (or RAW) of these comparison 24-70 GM II and 20-70 F4 ???
For me, my immediate reaction was that this would be the perfect lens. I love travel photography, the focal range looks great, the quality is there and I can live with f4. But I’m holding back. My biggest concern; is it fun? I enjoy the constraints of a small lightweight prime or two. I like structuring a walk around one field of view. I think I need those limitations and challenges. I’m not convinced a one-and-done lens would be enjoyable.
I did. You never want to see this lense without LR profile computer correction. I was considering returning it. There wasn't even any corner image. Now I have no real complaints other than with a pola (shooting 5.6-8) it is slower than I like.
Back in the day, last century from about my time, the 70s on, I shot primarily prime lenses. We didn't have that great of a selection of short zooms as we have today. Now I shoot primarily using zooms as they are so good, I can't see using a prime unless I need a fast lens. It's amazing that we argue about who makes the best, etc. But today, we have lenses that would make last century photographers envious. This lens, which I own, sits at the right place of zoom range and convenience. Once we said, 'how do we justify this lens,' to 'how do we NOT justify this lens.' It's not a kit lens, it's the perfect lens for many situations. This is the one I was looking for, now I have it.
Very nice review! I do mainly portraits and travel photography with Sony a7c. Own two sigmas 16-28 and 28-70 as my main group. Also bought 55 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portraits mainly, but took on small trips as well (Very happy with size and performance). For now my favourite lens is sigma 28-70, does most of the work and image quality looks very good to my eyes, but 28 is not wide enough so I have to use 16-28 as well. Don't know why, but I don't enjoy it... Was thinking maybe selling for the Sony 20 1.8 but now that I saw this video I started to think what if I sell both sigma and instead just use this 20-70 baby!
Rented the gm ii today. My thoughts where, didn't go quite as wide as I wanted, and didn't notice any bokeh difference between 2.8 and 4. So put the order in for this! Initially dismissed this lens but now realising it's bloody useful.
This lens would be much more interesting if it did not cost over €1500 here in Europe. I will stay with the 24-105 f4 and the 20mm f1.8. Enjoyed your review.
Bought this lens for hiking and general travel use for use along with the Tamron 50-300 f4.5/6.3 (I will also have my Batis 25 f2, and 50GM 1.4 for low light) but for event and more critical work I'll stick to the Tamron 35-150 and 16-35GM on 2 bodies
Thanks for this breakdown! I sold my A6000 and finally want to get a full-frame for an upcoming trip. Looking at the A7RV + 20-70. Looks like a great combination.
I was watching this video and I thought really similar. I previously had two 24-70 GM I. One fell apart and the other got quite wet. Both total loss. About 9 months ago I bought the 20-70 G 4. I recently took it on a trip to Europe and I found its focal range super practical and its sharpness very good. Yesterday I bought the 70-200 GM II and I was comparing this lens at 70 mm F4, with the 20-70mm and I didn't notice much difference. This 20-70mm lens with a little help in development continues to convince me more than purchasing a 24-70 GM II in the future. By the way, yesterday in the store I had the 24-70 GM II in my hands and I felt it was of similar quality to the 20-70 G. Version I seemed to me to be more robust. Greetings.
I've been there, seeking all of the latest and "greatest" gear, acquiring the 24-70mm's, 70-200mm's, all the f1.4 primes and so on. However all lugging around a 20kg photo case did, let alone all the other equipment I bought, was burn me out and decimate my photography business. 3 years later, having crawled through fiery hell, I am on the cusp of returning to shooting again. I've thought of every option from every angle. I've considered my needs, no more no less. I'm proud to say, this 20-70mm is the final piece of my puzzle. A 20-70mm, Sigma i-series 35mm, 65mm + 90mm, an A7RV, and with the likes, the Phoenix rises. Moving forward, in peace with it all....
'how good does it have to be to meet your needs' even as a budget conscious consumer I forget those words often and keep salivating for expensive ultra sharp lenses 😂
Thanks for the review. This lens interests me. First, I am not a photographer. I am an architect and furniture maker and I needed a good camera to photograph my furniture work. So mostly "studio" photography, though I do also like taking close up pictures of flowers. I recently bought a Sony A7iii body. I decided to get two primes instead of a zoom for the lighter weight; the Sony 40mm F2.5G and the 20mm F1.8 G. I like them both, but I am thinking I would rather just have one lens that I keep on the camera all of the time. I did not realize when I bought the camera the challenges of keeping the sensor clean of dust. I also noticed that despite being exceedingly careful, I somehow managed to get a tiny scratch on the near end of the 20mm glass after just a few uses. I imagine from a photographer's standpoint, not wanting to change lenses to avoid dust and accidental damage is probably a silly reason to opt for a one-size-fits-all zoom instead of primes. But that is where my thinking is at. I don't think I will miss the wider aperatures of the primes. I often shoot above F8 because I don't want such a shallow depth of field; I want the whole piece of furniture to be in focus. My one hestitation of selling my primes and going with the 20-70 F4 is the lens distortion, which another reviewer described as "atrocious". I know this can be corrected in Lightroom, but there currently isn't a profile for this particular lens. I am a newbie to all of this, including Lightroom. Would you recommend this lens for a beginner over primes, and if so, what profile do you use in Lightroom to correct the distortion while we wait for Adobe to provide one for this lens? Thanks!
I generally DON’T like zooms as a first lens, but if one WERE to go zoom, this is a GREAT place to start. I understand your hesitancy when it comes to distortion, but the questions you have to ask yourself are these: 1) since you are shooting in a studio, do you really need RAW files? 2) if you CAN get away with using JPGs, the question then becomes “can I live with the in-camera corrections that DO work with this lens when shooting JPG?” I had no problem in the real world with distortion, but this is always situation specific. There is no magic number in LR for distortion correction (I do it by eye as necessary), but here’s the key: is the distortion uniform? If it is NOT, you won’t be able to correct it perfectly, and that IS a terrible predicament.
Hey there! Amazing video! I’m about to get my first big boy camera, a7R3 and I’m torn between this lens and the sigma art 24-70 2.8 as my starter lens. Landscapes, life, nature, outdoor, even some Astro are my passions. I worry if the f/4 is bright enough maybe I dunno?
If Astro is going to be a thing, you may want to look at an even faster prime. The 20/1.8 G might be a reasonable starting point for that. I’d give the edge to the Sigma for IQ, the edge to Sony for versatility, size and weight.
@@3BMEPamazing, I think I know what I’ll do 😌 it’s all exciting and all ahead of me 😌 Can I just say since finding your channel I have been beyond inspired sir, love the info and the work! Much love from Ireland!
I wish Sony made the 17-50 f2.8 in full frame. I always found the 24-70 an odd focal range. Not wide enough on the wide end yet too zoomed in at the 70 end.
I am loving how manufacturers are starting to experiment with different takes on "standard" zoom lenses. I just love walking around with a lens knowing I can get a shot without having to change lenses. In cities I mostly shoot 35-50mm, and when I do need to change lenses its to hit something at a wider end. This 20-70 F4 is a great option for people that want to be wider but do not care about the F4 aperture. It really does cut the need to switch to a wider lens for the most part. I would though miss F2.8 (it's just very useful when you go inside or end up in tight alleyways). When this lens came out - I started dreaming of what a non-standard wide could be... I was thinking something like an 18-50mm F2.8, or 16-50mm F4...
I was torn several weeks back and forth between the 20/70 G and the sigma 2.8. Finally went with the 20/70. I think this lens stands for modern Photography and maximum flexibility. I think also the modern look is shifting back to - how to say - less shallow depth of field look. It’s hard to explain but back in the past everyone tried to achieve the maximum shallow depth of field look. Nowadays I also think that photographer more and more going for a wider angle look.
This is a great lens that is not available from any other manufacturer. In combination with the new 4/70-200mm v2 plus 1.4x teleconverter it is a very compact travel system with which macro is also possible.
You helped me a lot with this review, thanks a lot! I was hesitating sooo much, because I am about to get the sony a7 iv - I already have a 70-200 F4 lens) and I was crazy mad cause I coudln't figure out what would be the best for me around 4000-4200 EUR (Camera+lens/lenses). I am planning to do more event/wedding/festival/concert photos. Tamron 28-75 or 24-70 with a Tamron 17-28 mm?2 Or maybe 3 prime lenses? Or..... 20-70 f4 with a 50mm/85mm prime. I think I have to get this 20-70 F4 - with higher iso if needed, because.. that's why i got an a7 iv! - , use it as an all around and when I need bokeh in, I pull out the prime lens.
I think a lens like this along with an updated a7c could really serve as an alternative to Fuji shooters looking for a little more. Better AF, faster lenses, lower noise, while retaining as much compactness and reducing weight. At $1100 F4 for a Full Frame lens you're competing with Fuji's $1200 MSRP 16-55mm F2.8 that's older (probably less sharp) and for fuji users this sony lens is less weight and more compact too!
I switched from Fuji to Sony 18 months ago, love the AF etc but aesthetically Sony cameras are terrible, I really miss the dials on Fuji, just a joy to use, Sony gets the results but not fun to use at all.
When I've heard about it, that Sony brings a 20-70mm, it was like a dream come true for me. I check the first tests on UA-cam and directly went to my local dealer to ask when he will get one, and just on the same morning he has got the first one, so I buy it. I couldn't say how lucky I am with this lens. It gives me so much more than my 24-105/4, because I'm more on the wider end - the lack on the longer end makes nothing for me. But with the 20mm I only have to change lenses, when I really need a wider option for landscapes (and I'm surprised, that 20mm will fit most of the situations) , or a really long lens, then I take my 100-400, which I don't use very often. F4 is enough for me, if it was a 2.8, it would be very big and heavy, that's not my cup of coffee. Size and weight were like a dream, it fits perfectly, nice balanced, for my everyday needs and more on the A1, and and optically it's very good (much better than my old 24-105). And with the modern denoise options (DXO, Topaz or the new denoise in Lightroom) higher ISO is really not that problem (I think, in a few years it will be in camera and no-one will talk about high ISO anymore). I can highly recommend it to everyone, who's more on the wider end and want a standard zoom lens, that fits this need.
Is this the death knell of Sony's own APS-C 16-55 2.8 G? The sizes and weights are nearly identical, but the 20-70 f4 G is $300 less, much more feature rich, only gives up one stop, and is FF compatible. At 30-105mm FF equivalent the 20-70 G on an APS-C body isn't much tighter on the wide end than Sony's own 28-60 kit zoom that's available with the A7C, or Tamron's 28-75 2.8 also on a FF body. One could start with this apparently excellent $1100 20-70 G on a new or secondhand APS-C body and have an easy upgrade path to FF. Even APS-C only users could slot this 20-70 f4 G between the Sony 10-20 f4 G or Tamron 11-20 2.8 on the wide end and any of the various 70-xxx E mount lenses on the tele end. Or the 15mm 1.4 G on the wide end. As you said, Hugh, Sony just gives their users more options.
Everything you say about the logic of owning this lens is true, and I do own it. The one aspect of its image quality that didn’t come up though, was the quality of out of focus backgrounds. Unfortunately I find this to be a lens that suffers quite a bit in this area, sometimes to the extent that background detail can only be described as messy. It is an excellent and truly versatile lens though. I am just having to be careful about avoiding complex backgrounds, when shooting at large apertures with this one.
I’m not sure what you’re describing is a function of this particular lens design or the f/4 maximum aperture, but in either case have you tried the latest blur simulations in packages like Lightroom? Can be impressive if one pays careful attention to where it isn’t and dials back from that point.
Thanks for the video! I recently sold all my lenses and have been in the market for a new all purpose lens for my A7rii (just for photos). I just want one lens right now, as I used to have a few and wanted to simplify. The 24-105 was my favorite travel lens by far. The size made it a bit cumbersome. I do shoot weddings occasionally so I wish I could have the 24-70 2.8 for all my needs (travel/weddings)….but that price. I travel far more often than I shoot weddings. Im leaning on the 20-70 for size factor/build quality/and I mostly shoot landscapes (with the occasional closeup).
A couple of thoughts: 1 Sony seems to be releasing new GM lenses 50mm GM, 24-70mm GMii, 70-200mm gmii all of which are superb, and then not long after this they release almost as good, half the price G lenses. GAS aside, it seems to be worth holding back from diving in on new releases. 2 This 20-70mm G will be superb on the A7Cr
This UA-cam Hit the Point! Yes ... 20-70mm is realy a good choice. Not only way Sony Beat ISO Out of the Sensor. Also the newest Bodys have Pixel in a high Count, that crop is every time a Option. BUT more wide you cant compensat in RAW Post Editing. F4 Suite my Style of making Pictures. This Lens is ordered. Your Test on IQ on Same focal length tells a clear Story. I think my 24-70GM V1 isnt on heavy use any more.
This just shows how good these zooms are these days. Biggest issue for me here would be the price of 1700 euros... considerably less than the 24-70 GM Mk.2 of course, but still. Thanks for the informative vid Hugh as always!
If we hadn’t already bought the GM II, we quite probably would have bought this instead and put the difference to the 35/1.4 GM we recently added to our kit.
Good episode. That was a cracking performance. I have the 24-105 f4 and the optical performance is excellent. Had the 20-70 been on the market when I invested in Sony I would probably have gone for this on my A7R IV. I have the 70-200 f4 so at the moment there is an overlap in focal length. So thinking about it, if one is happy with f4 out to 200 this makes far better sense asa partner to the 70-200. Plus less weight to carry. Oh well!!!! PS the new lens is £400 more than the 24-105 in the UK. ☹
@@3BMEP Hope you'll figure it out, as I have been subscribed for many years, and always wondered why your videos didnt appear in my announcements. Love your work
As a single lense travel this may honestly be perfect paired with the A7rV.. My only issue is if you want to shoot low light. My trip to banff last year I had the 24-70mm f2.8 GM mkii. I rarely used F2.8. So the F4 is fine. IIf I were to use this in Paris I would maybe bring along the 55mm f1.8 for some night photos or the 24mm f1.4 GM. Yet day time walking only this.
Honestly I was kind of thinking the opposite for the rv. With the ‘crop zoomimg’ potential of that camera, doesn’t a wide fast prime give more options? The 20f1.8 gloves you a 26mpix ‘zoom’ to an effective 30mm… plus more light and flexibility with depth of field. Or maybe use a 24f1.4 as the ‘base lens’.
@@albedo0point39 The reason for the RV is for the IBIS. It's very useable if you don't want to bring a tripod on trip and no plan for very long exposures.
Hello Hugh. Have not watched your clips for a while, being a videographer, but glad I watched this one. I use a 16-35 on my gimbal to capture interiors or wide landscapes, because that was a the next widest zoom I could get after a 24mm. Sure it is a little too wide at the 35mm for closeups, but it has been doing a great job. The 20-70 has really got my interest. I shoot at f4 or more on my A7 and FX6 anyway, which gives me enough separation in most cases. 20-70 is wide enough to be useful for said scenarios, but long enough that I can push in for face close-ups that do not distort. And at a competitive price. Thank you.
I have F1.2/F1.4 primes, F2.8 constant and F4 constant zooms. I believe if someone owns fast primes then they should skip F2.8 zooms all together and get F4 for versatility like 24-105, 16-35 PZ, 20-70, 70-200. Spend the extra and carry the heavier F2.8 zooms only if you are not planning to have F1.2/F1.4 primes. Once it goes darker, doesn't matter if it's F2.8 or F4 both are not up to the task. F4 lenses with newer Sony bodies is totally workable, With A7R5 you can do handheld 1/13 and slower. Improved IBIS is very noticeable. I never fell in love with F2.8s, they are neither here nor there. Only time F2.8 zoom makes sense is 70-200 as we don't get fast primes in this focal range other than 135mm. This 20-70 has dethroned most versatile Sony 24-105 F4 G.
We’ll reasoned! 👊🏻
It didn’t “dethroned the 24-105 f4. It is still the most versatile landscape lens for me. I recently went to Patagonia and hiked for 8-10 hours. 24-105 was my only lens and that 105 mm on the tele end are invaluable for me.. I also compared it to 28-250 Tamron and found that Sony was just better. Ironically that 4 mm on a wide end was more important that 250 on the tele end. 250 mm was “not here, not there” for me in landscape: too short for wildlife yet too long for tele landscape, 105 is all the tele-landscape one will need. So I ended up preferring 24-105. If I have a clear wildlife situation , like safari or whale watching, 100-400 or new 60-600 Sigma is the way to go.
Good though
@@driliagor For backpacking, I carry E11 f/1.8, FE24 f/2.8 and FE50 f/2.5. Changing lenses in the field is a pain so the FE20-70 is pulling at me. It's basically the same weight as those other three lenses. Tradeoff is, of course, the maximum aperture. And 20mm is not quite as wide as the 11m in crop mode (and that difference is meaningful to me). So far, I have not purchased the FE20-70. Wringing my hands though ...
@@coffeemocha get the general zoom. Either 24-105 or 24-70. They are so good now that even with pixel peeping the difference with primes in the same range is inconsequential. Excepting extreme corners. And almost no difference in F range f5-11. For landscape its great. I had MANY more instances of missing a shot while changing lenses than instances of unsatisfactory shot due to worse wide angle or worse sharpness. Remember: “if you didn’t press the shutter, you didn’t get it”
The 20-70 F4 has allowed me to drop one lens from my landscape kit. Any weight saved is a blessing and I rarely shoot wider than 20mm. 20-70 F4 with 70-200 F4 on a A7R3A.
👍🏻😊
I'v e had the Sony 16-35mm PZ f/4 in the cart for a week. This 20-70 seems way more versatile. Using A7IV without a power zoom button/level. hmmmm
This is also my exact setup
"Any weight saved is a blessing" so you chose wrong system to shoot with
My feeling about f/2.8 zooms has changed. I now realize that during the well lit day, f/4 is more than enough aperture, while in the depth of the shadows and at night, I prefer the 8 times faster apertures of f/1.4 GM primes. It leaves between those two extremes a very narrow band of situations like golden hour and modestly lit interiors where f/2.8 is just right, and considering the cost of the Sony trinity glass, I am finding myself perfectly happy with the bookend system capabilities of f/4 or slower and f/1.4 or faster (while enjoying the smaller and lighter pack of lenses like this)
I've been long debating which zoom to get and as soon as I saw this lens announced I knew this was the one. For low light, if f4 won't be enough, f2.8 probably won't be either. As someone who's been shooting for close to three decades at this point, it was quite a shock to the system to see the 24-70 2.8 S back in 2019 shatter the paradigm that standard zooms essentially *had* to sacrifice printability at one end or another--and quite another to finally see this paradigm shift make its way to more modestly specced (and reasonably sized and priced!) options. While I'm not sure if I would take this over a 28-55 2.8 of similar quality, or perhaps a 28-40 f2, to me this makes much more sense than the 24-70 2.8 GM II or the Tamron 35-150 for unpaid work. As someone who has done weddings, it *miiiiight* be even more useful assuming I was allowed to use flash and could bounce it off the architecture for indoors and could definitely go head to head for daytime use.
I think it might replace my 40 G as my outdoor/low profile lens for my main body, with the 35mm f1.4 GM and the 20mm G(M) as my low light/high effort package. I'm curious both as someone who pays quite a bit of attention to the advancements in camera tech & lens design myself, and as someone who noted your own acknowledgement of Sony as having quite the hot hand in lens design recently: in your opinion is there a better player on the market at the moment? I realize this is somewhat of a loaded question, and I'm not trying to set up some trap for you to fall into. Just as someone who's dallied in offerings ranging from Pentax, Zeiss, Canon, Minolta, and Sony through the years I can never remember any manufacturer having such a run of products that were, when taken as a whole and not necessarily *just* IQ, so strong in comparison to the rest of the market. *Especially* for the price.
I shoot Sony and Fuji. Both systems have great glass OEM or 3rd party.
Both systems have of late seen the release of some very, very good modern lenses.
I can't speak about other systems.
Agreed.
This is the exact comparison I’ve been looking for. I currently carry a 16-35 GM and a 28-200 Tamron for Landscape. The CA, purple fringing, on the Tamron is pretty bad, so I am looking for a 2 lens alternative. I rarely use less than 20mm, and I’m thinking a 20-70 G and 70-200 GM II combination would give me much better IQ with about 1/2 lb more weight. And with that combination, I could throw in a 1.4x or 2x TC and leave my 100-400 at home, saving 40% in the weight of my current 16-35 GM, 24-105 G, and 100-400 GM lens combination.
Thinking along the same lines. Hold that thought.
Well reasoned. 100-400 is not really a useful lens. Too long for landscape (even tele landscapes) too short for wildlife (even big ones, as you want to keep you distance from the big wildlife). Certainly not adequate for birds. Yet it is already heavy so it is not an all day trail lens. It’s what I call a “parking lot” lens. And as such MUCH better alternative is a new Sigma 60-600. It is absolutely fantastic and completely trumps 100-400 GM in IQ, zoom, OSS and focus.
@@driliagor IQ OF THE 100-400 one of the best IMO for sports , and wildlife too.....
@@erg1450 wait till you try that sigma.
agree on the 100-400 IQ, insane
I've found the use of this lens when shooting watches and products, I can get close enough to the subject, there is no chromatic aberration, razor sharp and universal use for travel. I preferred this to the 2.8 zoom, which is usually heavier and larger. Thanks for the great video and photos
I'm a little late to the 'comments' party here but this video was excellent. It was a positive influence and I bought this zoom as 20 mm. is my sweet spot for wide angle. Now instead of a 'holy trinity' of zooms, I have a 'dynamic duo'. This lens and a 70-200 is all I need and f4 is usually bright enough. As backup, I have a very small Rokinon 35mm f1.8 that I can pack for those few situations where I need brighter. But I don't need to carry it everywhere, just leave it in my suitcase just in case. Thanks for your consistently excellent work on this channel!
I bought the 20-70 for my wife’s a7c, for travel. It arrived yesterday and…welll…she’s not getting it. I am. What makes me an even worse husband is that I already own the 24-105 f4, my former all-arounder. And two G Master primes, the 24 and 35. Plus a sigma 24-70 2.8 and a tamron 17-28. What in the world do I need with this lens? Well, damn it, it’s just so perfect. Light and small with great build quality and features and surprising sharpness. When I first pulled the lens from the pouch I thought somebody screwed up and put a G Master in, instead. I’ve always felt constrained by a 24 on the wide end. This thing proves me right. Travel photography and street photography- this baby is never coming off. I’ve the night time covered with the other lenses, but this is now the most versatile lens with pretty much no compromise. Thanks, Hugh, for another great, practical review. You’re right on the money!
Glad to be of service. 😉🖖🏻
How is the size and handling with A7c. Im thinking to get this combination for travel photography.
@@drgashi I think it’s perfect for the a7C. It’s light, not too big, and looks and handles great on camera.
I think the holy trinity just became the holy duality. I really hope Sony revisits their 70-200 f4 or 70-300 and gives them the same treatment! 20-70 and 70-200 or 300, plus a prime for low light, would be the perfect travel kit!
Great point!
I’d have to chose between
20-70/4 + 70-200/4 or
16-35/4 + 24-105/4.
And I’d be missing the 16mm much more than anything over 105 for my travels. If I had to choose just one lens than it would be probably the heavier 24-105 as 105mm/4 is pretty much where I start to get some nicely blurred background for headshots etc.
But I totally understand that it’s a great range for a lot of people.
And revisit the 70-200 f4 they did! With the 70-200 f4 G OSS II macro offering. Now that I got it (with 1.4x TC) and the 20-70, the only gap left (apart from specific use cases like astro or portraiture) is 35 mm f1.4.
Rewatching this video now that the new FE 24-50/2.8 G has been announced. If I buy either it will be for use on a A7CR or A7cII in my travel kit. I do have plenty of GM/GMII primes and zooms that I use on my full size full frame bodies but most are too big and heavy for casual walking around. Any recommendations on which to go with?
What did you decide? I have the 20-70 and it's an excellent lens on my A7Cii. But I do miss the 2.8 for low light situations. And the 24-50 is just a smidge lighter/smaller than the 20-70. I'm so torn!
@@RandumbTech im having to decide between the two right now 😭Also for the a7cii, which would you say I should go for?
Some wedding photographers chose to give up even 24mm for an f/2 zoom (28-70 f/2).
So it really depends on what they’re satisfied with
Think about use case for a second before just throwing out 'some wedding photographers...' As what do wedding photographers have? At least two cameras on them at all times with different use case lenses and how often are wedding photographers shooting landscapes or architectural photography that benefits from 16-28mm? They're doing primarily environmental or close up portrait work so there's no reason to want 16-24mm range on a whole. They're very willing to give up the wide end and take on any size lens for slightly faster portrait focused lenses. That's simply not the case with travel, hiking, street, architectural, landscape or a vast array of other priorities.
Does zoom lens that move the barrel in and out allow water or sand into the lens groups or worse, into the camera sensor? Thanks.
Man, I agree 100% with everything you said and I really loved your analysis. Great video that discusses REAL WORLD use and tech specs. I'm a videographer that shoots the whole gamut... doc work, marketing, lifestyle and even weddings. For ANYTHING run and gun (no gimbal) the Sony 24-105 F4G never leaves the camera. An amazing lens that has IS, great range and will achieve solid background separation if needed, when zoomed in. The F4 is no problem. For any gimbal work, Sony's 16-35 F4G is a phenomenal lens. Internal zoom means no rebalancing, crazy light and the image is stellar. Again a lot of gimbal work (at least from a perspective of shots that require wide angles) doesn't need a crazy shallow DOF. Just like I wouldn't want a drone to have a crazy shallow DOF. The want for shallow DOF comes when conducting interviews or shooting things like hero shots etc. So for gimbal work, I still wouldn't revert to a zoom like the 2.8 Gmaster simply due to the size and rebalancing issue. I'd throw on something like the Sony 35mm 1.8 or whatever prime lens that works for the situation. For interviews (esp doc work), this is where the 2.8 Gmasters can shine due to the great image quality and that extra stop (which can make a difference). But at the end of the day, at least to me, the F4 has never been a reason to completely avoid a lens. In fact, it's often quite the opposite.
Thanks for such a rich contribution to the conversation!
I think as a landscape photographer, this is one incredible lens. I myself am super happy with my 24-70 gm ii (3rd copy) and 20 1.8g (excellent copy). If i didn't have a 24-70 and 20 i would get this. Unless I want more low light capability. These newest sony lenses are just making the older ones look weak like the 16-35 pz vs 16-35 gm. Pretty remarkable how much things have improved at least in the optics area. I am curious about the 20-70 flare resistence vs the gm ii tho.
You mentioned a one stop difference. This would not make a difference for a daytime street photographer; it may not work at night street photographers. While I am not a wedding photographer, there often times where events are held in venues where using available light is preferred and f4 may not be fast enough.
Personally, I prefer primes when I need a lot of light. 😊
I have no complaints about the f/4 70-200 that I bought year ago. Currently I use the Sigma f/2.8 Art lens and am considering a change purely on the size and weight.
I’m about to buy the Sigma with my a7R3, is it heavy? It’s a tough one
@@DavidTwomey3 assuming it's not too late - the Sigma 24-70 Art is a chunky boi at 850 g and 82 mm filter thread with big lens hood, and very front heavy when zoomed in. The second generation of is looks much better at 750 g. The quality is up there though, I'm comparing it with 20-70 now.
Thanks for this comparison! After much thought this past few months, I was completely decided for the 24-70 GM2 because I think "If I'm going for a zoom lens, at least would make an effort to acquire a good one", but while I was waiting for stock for the GM2, this 20-70G got my attention. I was unsure because it cost less than half than the GM2 and almost 40% less than 24-70 GM mark 1. I was afraid that the blur at the edges were too much, or something like that, but after seeing this I think it is a good value for the money. Surely the GM2 is better and surely, I would love to own one, but not at that price, at least for me. It would be more a gearhead decision than a real need. And as you well said, 99% of us can't tell the difference most of the time outside a lab, so it was really good for me seeing you video, because you own both and you have used both, and have the knowledge and the means to compare them. I would love to see more! Thanks.
Shooting concerts with the R5 I may be able to get away with f/4 due to the 8 stops of in body stabilization, maybe drag the shutter a bit more...it would be a great focal range for when you're in the pit. Got me thinking...
i ned a pit lens to get the entire band...but at 4.0 im afraid its too slow. What did you learn?
I know this might be a weird question but do you know what f stop you used when filming this video? The depth of field is honestly perfect and i'd be curious to know where it might've been at.
I'm watching this video to find the lens I want to use for video work similar to what you've done here. 50mm looks slightly too tight for my needs so that helps me narrow down my search. I'd love to know if this was shot at f4 or 5.6 perhaps. If we're talking about 2.8 or a range an f4 can't get, that'll help me figure out which lenses I need to really look at.
Appreciate your time!
Looks like 2.8 to me on my iPhone, but I usually shoot now at f/4.
@@3BMEP I learned there's a 24-50 2.8 coming out. Sounds like the best of both worlds, so I'll probably wait around for that in a couple months. I appreciate you getting back to me!
@@TheNerdArmory It's getting wild with all this new lens tech? Maybe last gen stuff will get a price drop? lol
I've already had 16-35 PZ F4. Would it be too overlapping to get 20-70?
You might find (were you to pick up the 20-70) that yes, it just might be: you might find that the 16-35 would be gathering dust. But if your use case is real estate interiors, for example., you might still want the even wider field of view of the 16-35. As always, it’s a function of use case.
@@3BMEP Ok well! Nice to see your photo from your meetup with other shooters! Especially b&w photo =D
Hugh, maybe you give the source (or RAW) of these comparison 24-70 GM II and 20-70 F4 ???
@@0MGentertainment we don’t do that, sorry! 😊🖖🏻
@@3BMEP 🆗👌
But for you - what kind of lens still in your bag for photo (24-70 GM II or this 20-70f4) ?
@@0MGentertainment 24-70/2.8 GM II - too busy / other priorities to make the switch. 😊🖖🏻
For me, my immediate reaction was that this would be the perfect lens. I love travel photography, the focal range looks great, the quality is there and I can live with f4.
But I’m holding back. My biggest concern; is it fun?
I enjoy the constraints of a small lightweight prime or two. I like structuring a walk around one field of view. I think I need those limitations and challenges. I’m not convinced a one-and-done lens would be enjoyable.
Great concern - I’m a primes kind of guy myself!
Gone are the days I pay the early adopters inflated price and suffer having no lens profiles.
I did. You never want to see this lense without LR profile computer correction. I was considering returning it. There wasn't even any corner image. Now I have no real complaints other than with a pola (shooting 5.6-8) it is slower than I like.
looks like G is sharper in the center, but GM is sharper on the left. Maybe a sample variation on the GM?
You are no doubt one of my new favorite photography channels
Welcome!
Another consideration is that for photos (and, in the not-so-distant future, for video), it’s now trivial to add pleasing bokeh in post.
Great Review. This lens and the new 70-200 f/4 with the 1.4 teleconverter make a very intriguing 2 lens landscape kit. Hmm 🤔
Back in the day, last century from about my time, the 70s on, I shot primarily prime lenses. We didn't have that great of a selection of short zooms as we have today. Now I shoot primarily using zooms as they are so good, I can't see using a prime unless I need a fast lens. It's amazing that we argue about who makes the best, etc. But today, we have lenses that would make last century photographers envious. This lens, which I own, sits at the right place of zoom range and convenience. Once we said, 'how do we justify this lens,' to 'how do we NOT justify this lens.' It's not a kit lens, it's the perfect lens for many situations. This is the one I was looking for, now I have it.
👊🏻😊🖖🏻
Beautiful photos - thanks Hugh!
Greetings - Andreas
Hi Andreas!
Very nice review! I do mainly portraits and travel photography with Sony a7c. Own two sigmas 16-28 and 28-70 as my main group. Also bought 55 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portraits mainly, but took on small trips as well (Very happy with size and performance). For now my favourite lens is sigma 28-70, does most of the work and image quality looks very good to my eyes, but 28 is not wide enough so I have to use 16-28 as well. Don't know why, but I don't enjoy it... Was thinking maybe selling for the Sony 20 1.8 but now that I saw this video I started to think what if I sell both sigma and instead just use this 20-70 baby!
Rented the gm ii today. My thoughts where, didn't go quite as wide as I wanted, and didn't notice any bokeh difference between 2.8 and 4.
So put the order in for this! Initially dismissed this lens but now realising it's bloody useful.
Enjoy!
This lens would be much more interesting if it did not cost over €1500 here in Europe. I will stay with the 24-105 f4 and the 20mm f1.8. Enjoyed your review.
€1600 currently on Amazon de which is normally really competitive for camera gear, not a chance Sony, try harder.
Grey market 899€ now.
Obviously marketed as a cash cow for Sony. Like many others.
@@unclefart5527you know they are a business right?, everything they do is to make money🤷♂️🙄🙄
love the video! ive had this lens for about a month now. pretty much doesn't leave my camera. amazed at how many people are hung up on 2.8!
Bought this lens for hiking and general travel use for use along with the Tamron 50-300 f4.5/6.3 (I will also have my Batis 25 f2, and 50GM 1.4 for low light) but for event and more critical work I'll stick to the Tamron 35-150 and 16-35GM on 2 bodies
Awesome lens! Paired it with my a6700 the image quality is truly impressive! This shows that apsc system still has its mean of existence.
Thanks for this breakdown! I sold my A6000 and finally want to get a full-frame for an upcoming trip. Looking at the A7RV + 20-70. Looks like a great combination.
Why You change lenses sides? Ones left, than right, and than left? 😢
I was watching this video and I thought really similar. I previously had two 24-70 GM I. One fell apart and the other got quite wet. Both total loss. About 9 months ago I bought the 20-70 G 4. I recently took it on a trip to Europe and I found its focal range super practical and its sharpness very good. Yesterday I bought the 70-200 GM II and I was comparing this lens at 70 mm F4, with the 20-70mm and I didn't notice much difference. This 20-70mm lens with a little help in development continues to convince me more than purchasing a 24-70 GM II in the future. By the way, yesterday in the store I had the 24-70 GM II in my hands and I felt it was of similar quality to the 20-70 G. Version I seemed to me to be more robust. Greetings.
Thanks for sharing!
I did NOT expect the G to look that close to the G Master. A little shocked by that if I’m being honest.
Looks like it’s pretty common nowadays. The performance is always great and it’s just about the size. Besides, it’s a newer lens
I've been there, seeking all of the latest and "greatest" gear, acquiring the 24-70mm's, 70-200mm's, all the f1.4 primes and so on. However all lugging around a 20kg photo case did, let alone all the other equipment I bought, was burn me out and decimate my photography business. 3 years later, having crawled through fiery hell, I am on the cusp of returning to shooting again. I've thought of every option from every angle. I've considered my needs, no more no less. I'm proud to say, this 20-70mm is the final piece of my puzzle. A 20-70mm, Sigma i-series 35mm, 65mm + 90mm, an A7RV, and with the likes, the Phoenix rises. Moving forward, in peace with it all....
Its all round great lens. Can i take indoor video inside the house with the lense? F4 is it a concern?
'how good does it have to be to meet your needs' even as a budget conscious consumer I forget those words often and keep salivating for expensive ultra sharp lenses 😂
Lenses like this 20-70/4G and 16-35/4 PZ G are giving people difficulties to choose between them or Tamron/Sigma F2.8 zooms.
High quality problem to have! 😊
Thanks for the review. This lens interests me. First, I am not a photographer. I am an architect and furniture maker and I needed a good camera to photograph my furniture work. So mostly "studio" photography, though I do also like taking close up pictures of flowers. I recently bought a Sony A7iii body. I decided to get two primes instead of a zoom for the lighter weight; the Sony 40mm F2.5G and the 20mm F1.8 G. I like them both, but I am thinking I would rather just have one lens that I keep on the camera all of the time. I did not realize when I bought the camera the challenges of keeping the sensor clean of dust. I also noticed that despite being exceedingly careful, I somehow managed to get a tiny scratch on the near end of the 20mm glass after just a few uses. I imagine from a photographer's standpoint, not wanting to change lenses to avoid dust and accidental damage is probably a silly reason to opt for a one-size-fits-all zoom instead of primes. But that is where my thinking is at. I don't think I will miss the wider aperatures of the primes. I often shoot above F8 because I don't want such a shallow depth of field; I want the whole piece of furniture to be in focus. My one hestitation of selling my primes and going with the 20-70 F4 is the lens distortion, which another reviewer described as "atrocious". I know this can be corrected in Lightroom, but there currently isn't a profile for this particular lens. I am a newbie to all of this, including Lightroom. Would you recommend this lens for a beginner over primes, and if so, what profile do you use in Lightroom to correct the distortion while we wait for Adobe to provide one for this lens? Thanks!
I generally DON’T like zooms as a first lens, but if one WERE to go zoom, this is a GREAT place to start. I understand your hesitancy when it comes to distortion, but the questions you have to ask yourself are these: 1) since you are shooting in a studio, do you really need RAW files? 2) if you CAN get away with using JPGs, the question then becomes “can I live with the in-camera corrections that DO work with this lens when shooting JPG?” I had no problem in the real world with distortion, but this is always situation specific. There is no magic number in LR for distortion correction (I do it by eye as necessary), but here’s the key: is the distortion uniform? If it is NOT, you won’t be able to correct it perfectly, and that IS a terrible predicament.
Hey there! Amazing video! I’m about to get my first big boy camera, a7R3 and I’m torn between this lens and the sigma art 24-70 2.8 as my starter lens. Landscapes, life, nature, outdoor, even some Astro are my passions. I worry if the f/4 is bright enough maybe I dunno?
If Astro is going to be a thing, you may want to look at an even faster prime. The 20/1.8 G might be a reasonable starting point for that. I’d give the edge to the Sigma for IQ, the edge to Sony for versatility, size and weight.
@@3BMEPamazing, I think I know what I’ll do 😌 it’s all exciting and all ahead of me 😌 Can I just say since finding your channel I have been beyond inspired sir, love the info and the work! Much love from Ireland!
@@DavidTwomey3 😊🖖🏻
I wish Sony made the 17-50 f2.8 in full frame. I always found the 24-70 an odd focal range. Not wide enough on the wide end yet too zoomed in at the 70 end.
I am loving how manufacturers are starting to experiment with different takes on "standard" zoom lenses. I just love walking around with a lens knowing I can get a shot without having to change lenses. In cities I mostly shoot 35-50mm, and when I do need to change lenses its to hit something at a wider end. This 20-70 F4 is a great option for people that want to be wider but do not care about the F4 aperture. It really does cut the need to switch to a wider lens for the most part. I would though miss F2.8 (it's just very useful when you go inside or end up in tight alleyways). When this lens came out - I started dreaming of what a non-standard wide could be... I was thinking something like an 18-50mm F2.8, or 16-50mm F4...
I was torn several weeks back and forth between the 20/70 G and the sigma 2.8. Finally went with the 20/70. I think this lens stands for modern Photography and maximum flexibility.
I think also the modern look is shifting back to - how to say - less shallow depth of field look.
It’s hard to explain but back in the past everyone tried to achieve the maximum shallow depth of field look. Nowadays I also think that photographer more and more going for a wider angle look.
Great lens - enjoy!
This is a great lens that is not available from any other manufacturer. In combination with the new 4/70-200mm v2 plus 1.4x teleconverter it is a very compact travel system with which macro is also possible.
You helped me a lot with this review, thanks a lot!
I was hesitating sooo much, because I am about to get the sony a7 iv - I already have a 70-200 F4 lens) and I was crazy mad cause I coudln't figure out what would be the best for me around 4000-4200 EUR (Camera+lens/lenses). I am planning to do more event/wedding/festival/concert photos.
Tamron 28-75 or 24-70 with a Tamron 17-28 mm?2 Or maybe 3 prime lenses? Or..... 20-70 f4 with a 50mm/85mm prime.
I think I have to get this 20-70 F4 - with higher iso if needed, because.. that's why i got an a7 iv! - , use it as an all around and when I need bokeh in, I pull out the prime lens.
Glad to be of service. 😊🖖🏻
Why dont you do a "streets of Antwerp"?
love the video as always but the music might be too energetic...
How does it compare optically to the Lumix 20-60 Kitzoom?
The LUMIX is surprisingly good - but the Sony is clearly better.
@@3BMEP What a pitty. I much prefere LMount and MFT....
should I get this or the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8?
Of course it depends on your use case - as for myself, I’d go to this, but I’m a street photographer and UA-camr.
I think a lens like this along with an updated a7c could really serve as an alternative to Fuji shooters looking for a little more. Better AF, faster lenses, lower noise, while retaining as much compactness and reducing weight. At $1100 F4 for a Full Frame lens you're competing with Fuji's $1200 MSRP 16-55mm F2.8 that's older (probably less sharp) and for fuji users this sony lens is less weight and more compact too!
I thought that. Ive no love for Sony but Fuji X couldnt compete with a A7Cii/20-70mm...
I switched from Fuji to Sony 18 months ago, love the AF etc but aesthetically Sony cameras are terrible, I really miss the dials on Fuji, just a joy to use, Sony gets the results but not fun to use at all.
When I've heard about it, that Sony brings a 20-70mm, it was like a dream come true for me. I check the first tests on UA-cam and directly went to my local dealer to ask when he will get one, and just on the same morning he has got the first one, so I buy it. I couldn't say how lucky I am with this lens. It gives me so much more than my 24-105/4, because I'm more on the wider end - the lack on the longer end makes nothing for me. But with the 20mm I only have to change lenses, when I really need a wider option for landscapes (and I'm surprised, that 20mm will fit most of the situations) , or a really long lens, then I take my 100-400, which I don't use very often.
F4 is enough for me, if it was a 2.8, it would be very big and heavy, that's not my cup of coffee. Size and weight were like a dream, it fits perfectly, nice balanced, for my everyday needs and more on the A1, and and optically it's very good (much better than my old 24-105). And with the modern denoise options (DXO, Topaz or the new denoise in Lightroom) higher ISO is really not that problem (I think, in a few years it will be in camera and no-one will talk about high ISO anymore). I can highly recommend it to everyone, who's more on the wider end and want a standard zoom lens, that fits this need.
Thank you for the great in depth review!
😊🖖🏻🙏🏻
Is this the death knell of Sony's own APS-C 16-55 2.8 G? The sizes and weights are nearly identical, but the 20-70 f4 G is $300 less, much more feature rich, only gives up one stop, and is FF compatible. At 30-105mm FF equivalent the 20-70 G on an APS-C body isn't much tighter on the wide end than Sony's own 28-60 kit zoom that's available with the A7C, or Tamron's 28-75 2.8 also on a FF body. One could start with this apparently excellent $1100 20-70 G on a new or secondhand APS-C body and have an easy upgrade path to FF.
Even APS-C only users could slot this 20-70 f4 G between the Sony 10-20 f4 G or Tamron 11-20 2.8 on the wide end and any of the various 70-xxx E mount lenses on the tele end. Or the 15mm 1.4 G on the wide end. As you said, Hugh, Sony just gives their users more options.
Not a Sony guy but always have to come give you a Like Hugh!!.
Nice to have it, Max!
The Tamron 20-40 f2.8 is also a good alternative for a smaller and lighter package
Everything you say about the logic of owning this lens is true, and I do own it. The one aspect of its image quality that didn’t come up though, was the quality of out of focus backgrounds. Unfortunately I find this to be a lens that suffers quite a bit in this area, sometimes to the extent that background detail can only be described as messy. It is an excellent and truly versatile lens though. I am just having to be careful about avoiding complex backgrounds, when shooting at large apertures with this one.
I’m not sure what you’re describing is a function of this particular lens design or the f/4 maximum aperture, but in either case have you tried the latest blur simulations in packages like Lightroom? Can be impressive if one pays careful attention to where it isn’t and dials back from that point.
Tbf the G does look softer with more color fringing, but man, if you're not pros, there's no need for it.
Thanks for the video! I recently sold all my lenses and have been in the market for a new all purpose lens for my A7rii (just for photos). I just want one lens right now, as I used to have a few and wanted to simplify. The 24-105 was my favorite travel lens by far. The size made it a bit cumbersome. I do shoot weddings occasionally so I wish I could have the 24-70 2.8 for all my needs (travel/weddings)….but that price. I travel far more often than I shoot weddings. Im leaning on the 20-70 for size factor/build quality/and I mostly shoot landscapes (with the occasional closeup).
I just got 20-70 for my A7Rii and it’s fantastic: IQ, weight, size - I don’t know what else I want. Maybe a pony 😂
Well done! It seems like a holy grail one lens contender for urban/street landscapes.
A couple of thoughts:
1 Sony seems to be releasing new GM lenses 50mm GM, 24-70mm GMii, 70-200mm gmii all of which are superb, and then not long after this they release almost as good, half the price G lenses. GAS aside, it seems to be worth holding back from diving in on new releases.
2 This 20-70mm G will be superb on the A7Cr
It IS. 😊🖖🏻
This UA-cam Hit the Point! Yes ... 20-70mm is realy a good choice. Not only way Sony Beat ISO Out of the Sensor. Also the newest Bodys have Pixel in a high Count, that crop is every time a Option. BUT more wide you cant compensat in RAW Post Editing. F4 Suite my Style of making Pictures. This Lens is ordered. Your Test on IQ on Same focal length tells a clear Story. I think my 24-70GM V1 isnt on heavy use any more.
This just shows how good these zooms are these days. Biggest issue for me here would be the price of 1700 euros... considerably less than the 24-70 GM Mk.2 of course, but still. Thanks for the informative vid Hugh as always!
😊🖖🏻
To me this lens sounds so tempting 😊
Even more than a GM II
If we hadn’t already bought the GM II, we quite probably would have bought this instead and put the difference to the 35/1.4 GM we recently added to our kit.
@@3BMEP Agree, im a proud owner of a 35/1.4 GM.
Now just a 20-70/f4 plus 70-200/f4 macro and thats it 😅
phenomenal review, the man's a philosopher
😊🖖🏻
Good episode.
That was a cracking performance. I have the 24-105 f4 and the optical performance is excellent. Had the 20-70 been on the market when I invested in Sony I would probably have gone for this on my A7R IV. I have the 70-200 f4 so at the moment there is an overlap in focal length.
So thinking about it, if one is happy with f4 out to 200 this makes far better sense asa partner to the 70-200. Plus less weight to carry. Oh well!!!!
PS the new lens is £400 more than the 24-105 in the UK. ☹
Well articulated perspective - thanks!
Every time I look at your videos they make me want to shoot in black and white.....but I always end up hating my black and white edits.
Keep at it - you’ll get there!
If it were a 20-85 or 90 with a bit of macro to it. People will start picking it out of the shelves.
Loved this video.........I am SUBSCRIBED/ALL , ....but alas, I do not receive announcements of your videos.........Cheers !
I can’t figure it out… but thanks for subscribing and letting me know!
@@3BMEP Hope you'll figure it out, as I have been subscribed for many years,
and always wondered why your videos didnt appear in my announcements. Love your work
@@3BMEP, he may need to ring the notification bell!
i use a pentax fa 28-70 f4 and its same size and weight of a nifty fifty
3:52 wtf man ?
thats illegal.
I love your speaking cadence
Much appreciated! 😊🖖🏻
As a single lense travel this may honestly be perfect paired with the A7rV.. My only issue is if you want to shoot low light. My trip to banff last year I had the 24-70mm f2.8 GM mkii. I rarely used F2.8. So the F4 is fine.
IIf I were to use this in Paris I would maybe bring along the 55mm f1.8 for some night photos or the 24mm f1.4 GM. Yet day time walking only this.
BINGO! 👍🏻😊🖖🏻
Honestly I was kind of thinking the opposite for the rv. With the ‘crop zoomimg’ potential of that camera, doesn’t a wide fast prime give more options?
The 20f1.8 gloves you a 26mpix ‘zoom’ to an effective 30mm… plus more light and flexibility with depth of field. Or maybe use a 24f1.4 as the ‘base lens’.
@@albedo0point39 The reason for the RV is for the IBIS. It's very useable if you don't want to bring a tripod on trip and no plan for very long exposures.
With such high resolution sensor you can switch to APS-C mode to get 50mm on 35mm prime.
Hello Hugh. Have not watched your clips for a while, being a videographer, but glad I watched this one. I use a 16-35 on my gimbal to capture interiors or wide landscapes, because that was a the next widest zoom I could get after a 24mm. Sure it is a little too wide at the 35mm for closeups, but it has been doing a great job. The 20-70 has really got my interest. I shoot at f4 or more on my A7 and FX6 anyway, which gives me enough separation in most cases. 20-70 is wide enough to be useful for said scenarios, but long enough that I can push in for face close-ups that do not distort. And at a competitive price. Thank you.
For me it looks like the almost perfect focal length. But in Europe it is more like 1700 Dollar and that is (for me) too much for an f4...
😳
you are de best!!!
😊🙏🏻🖖🏻
its sound like SHAKESPEARE .....i love this MAN
😊🖖🏻
Have you tried the FE 20-70/4 G on the ℤ𝑓 yet? I'm loving that combination.
Best Canel ever
Чувак из super adventure club🤣
👍😀👍