the in-depth comparisons and illustrations of quality between one lens and the other is the reason I love T&C channel. Been watching the channel for 8 years and their work is always thorough and top notch; like I always come out having learned something. Example: the 20-70 zoomed in to 105mm remains sharper than the 24-105 at 105mm. This is critical for any photographer to know before they make the investment in either. Nobody on UA-cam or the web (at least that I know of) does this. Thank you T&C! The other reviews I've seen are fine, but I guess not ultra fine like this one and the other ones T&C make : ) They'll show you the lens, tell you how sharp it is and that it is the best lens Sony has released......and throw in some photos, from which you cannot judge image quality due to compression and the fact that most people are not watching in anything higher than 1080p.
The 24-105mm f4 is an awesome lens for weddings.. and 24mm is plenty wide for 12 person bridal party of family shot.. at 5 feet distance on full frame.. and when you need to get candids you can zoom into 105mm and get compression as well as bokeh and become a sniper to capture those moments...
If I could only have one lens I can see the utility of the 20-70... but I love the 16-35/24-105 combo with my 100-400 creating my holy trinity of lenses for Sony. Thanks for the thoughtful review as always.
I have the Tamron 35-150. It‘s really awesome but it’s heavy. At home and for day trips it’s no problem but I consider getting the 20-70 as my new single lens for longer trips.
Interesting video. I would not choose one lens over the other as they have different purposes. I'd use the 20-70mm lens where I need move wide angle shots and minimal need for telephoto. The 24-105mm would still be my choice as the general purpose or travel lens.
Got mine yesterday, that happy with it instead of my 24-105, which I've sold today. It's really sharp, compact, relatively lightweight, and has the ideal range for me to fit my needs. For me F4 is not really a problem, don't need fast apertures for good bokeh, don't shot people as much, and when I take my 85/1.8. When I need light, I crank up the ISO and use a good denoise software (DXO PR2 and Topas are really amazing for that!). I'm that lucky, that Sony has the buckets to make this lens, because at the moment it's too expensive in Europe (1600€), and it will not reach the mass I think.
@@999slawter It's my allday favorite lens, I use it for about 90% of my photography. Low light is no problem with most of the lenses since AI Denoiser (I use Lightroom, but DXO Raw or Topaz also work) take place in my workflow. I shoot ISO 25600 without problem, print in A3+ and A2 and all is looking fine, so 1 stop from 4 to 2.8 means nothing for me. Only if I want much separation I use my 85/1.8, that fits my needs. Would buy the lens again if it was broken and can recommend it to all, when the range 20-70mm fits their needs.
I would encourage you to re-run your vlog test using the A7RV. With updated firmware, the 24-105 works insanely well since it has OSS. I’m not a big fan of Sony removing this feature from their newer lenses. I’d rather have some mechanical parts stabilizing the image in combination with the electronics instead of the electronics alone. For about the same price as this new 20-70 you could buy mint condition used versions of the 24-105 and 20/1.8. That’s the combo I travel with.
That’s exactly the choice I am going to make 20mm 1.8 + 24-105mm. That extra reach + OSS combine with a wide lens with low aperture for vlogging seem to be the perfect combo while the 24-70mm is not a good compromise and it is too expensive
A German review page measured that the resolution in absolute terms is less with the A7Rv than with the A7RIII (61 vs 42 MP) at the borders. Their explanation: The smaller pixels record oblique light rays less well as bigger pixels -> more pixels but less resolution. Can you confirm this in practice?
When I saw that Sony just released the 20-70mm G, the first thing that came to mind was, how does it compare to the 24-105mm G. Interesting comparison. If I was looking for a travel lens in that range, I would definitely consider the 20-70mm G.
Excellent review. Could you please do a shoot-out of all the 24-105 lenses out there? Its a very useful range and most casual photographers would own this lens.
Thank you Tony and Chelsea for you candid appraisal of both the new 20 to 70 f4 and the 24 to 105 f4. I am switching to Sony, and I haven't come across a convincing argument to invest in the 24 - 105 f4. Sony. I appreciate you reviews on all videos, and I have been watching your reviews for sometime now and what strikes me to being different is, you have a dual opinion, (subjective ideas from 2 individuals shooting both stills and video) on lenses and gear, which help different types of people with their choices, e.g. some people want the full heavy kit with all the glam associated with that, others appreciate light, lighting fast kit which travel light, quick set up and pack down times. When working as a pro these things count, and your formal to candid shots are more achievable, particularly with the focus systems in these modern cameras and the lenses are so accurate, responsive and reliable. So to you both I am sure not just myself but many others out there are grateful for you step back hard realistic look at the gear. On a side note Tony I watched many times your review on the Sony A7r4 and many of the things that you were and were concerned about seemed to be resolved in the new Sony A7rV. I think that these utube video reviews encourage photographic/video manufacturers to improve and keep them on their toes. Thanks again.
You can always crop or move closer but you can't zoom out if you don't have an option & not even step back if there is no space. So wider the better for a zoom.
Great review! I have to 24-105 f4 and its nice. I like that the zoom is 105mm and with clear image zoom at 1.5x this make is a 158mm (for video). The image stabilization helps recording video at this range. For wide angle I would have to use a separate wide-angle lens, So I do have to change lenses meaning it take more time, missing more shots, more weight to carry, requires a bigger bag, and I get more tired on long walks. The weight at (663g / 1.46 lb) makes it unpractical for travel. Meaning I am less likely to take it. Once you add in the wide angle lens and camera body the total weight I carry is 1826g / 4.02 lb. That weight is noticeable on your back and arms. For short moments, its fine but for long travels its uncomfortable and tiresome when your on your feet all day. This new option 20-70 f4 is very interesting. The sharpness is improved even comparing it to 105mm. Meaning you can crop a 70mm image into a 105mm with a slight resolution loss but still have better sharpness. Using clear image zoom at 1.5x you can zoom up to 105mm. You do loose some background blur, but at f4 this lens is not really made for that anyway. You loose stabilization, but its not really needed for 70mm as much. But you gain a wider view and lighter weight due to optics with no stabilization and a smaller 70mm zoom. This make the lens smaller and weighing at only 488g / 1.08 lb. This means I can remove the wide angle lens and only carry this lens with a camera in a smaller bag. This reduced the size and weight to a total of 1146g / 2.5lb. Thats 680g / 1.5 lb lighter. It's noticeable. This comes with all the other benefits for travel. No need to swap lenses and miss shots, no worry about sensor dust (for not needing to switch lenses), less tired while shooting and while walking, less neck / back strain, move quicker, travel further, have more energy. Its more practical. You loose a bit more zoom but not by much. Small compromise for bigger benefit.
Would like to have it when the price drops. In Europe it goes for 1599€, that's plenty more than in the US (for 1000€ I would buy it tomorrow!). I'm a bit more on the wide end, so the lack of 35mm compared to my 24-105 don't touch me as much, but the win of 4mm on the wide end make a huge difference for me. I have my A1 always with me, with 24-105 and 17-28, with the 20-70 I can use just one lens for EDC. When I need other lenses, mostly the 100-400 or 17-28 (wich maybe will be replaces with a 14mm prime or an 14-24 or 12-24 then), this is regularly planned an I can take the lenses with me, when I need. But the 20-70 for me will be the ideal allround-lens. Time will come!
First of all , thx guys for the detailed comparison. I own neither but I want get one . I am on the fence between 24-105 & 20-70. Which one should I go for ? Note that I already have 70-200 F4 and I do photography and videography, both . Thx Pritam
It depends how you will use it. If you always plan on carrying both lenses or using them on two bodies then obviously the 20-70 makes sense. If you plan on using it as a walk around lens, then I think the 24-105 is a more useable range. The sharpness probably doesn't matter so much. They are both sharp lenses and only the photographer actually pixel peeps.
I used to not think so highly of Sony, but, over the last 3 years, it is clear Sony has continued their move to create premium imaging equipment. Several years ago, I eschewed Sony to a friend. In the last few weeks, I openly stated that his need for less heavy gear should get him to seriously consider Sony. I have great respect for the research, development, and quality that Sony has achieved from its investment in its imaging gear. I'm content with my Canon/Fujifilm gear but have no trouble recommending Sony gear if it seems to be a better fit for someone.
How about the 20-70 for use on APS-C? It seems that it might be a very useful range for a travel lens when vlogging is not part of the use. At the same time, it would facilitate an eventual upgrade to full frame.
Great info. I remember you mentioning some years back about how much resolution lenses were able to utilise from camera sensors. Has the technology made meaningful advances in this area? As an example, how much detail could the 20-70 'extract' from say an A7 MKIII sensor compared to pricier lenses?
The 50mm lens wasn't considered the normal lens because everybody was using it. It was considered normal because it approximated the view of the naked eye.
43mm -> fov if you only consider overlapping part between two eyes that is sharp. ~22mm -> fov if you consider the whole frame without rolling eyes. ~10mm ? (not so sure) -> fov if you are allowed to roll eyes around into all corners and merge them into a big picture.
@@TonyAndChelsea Talk about intentionally missing the point. We don't see the world as a distorted, ultrawide, fisheye view... our brains correct for that.
@@TonyAndChelsea he’s talking about focal length compared to how a human eye sees. You of all people should know this. Not sure how you misunderstood his point.
50mm (43mm really) offers the same magnification, in a 1.0x viewfinder, to the human eye. For example, if you view a 1.0x magnification viewfinder in an SLR with a 43mm lens, the magnification of the subject will appear to be the same as if you viewed it with your own eyes. This is why it's considered a normal focal length. It has nothing to do with the field of view or angle of view. It was what's considered natural at the photo taking stage, and doesn't impact the final image. Aside to what Tony and Chelsea mentioned, the field of view of the human eye may be 8mm, but the field of view where the human eye focuses may differ from than too. I would not know what exactly the equivalent focal length for a human eye's field of focus would be and maybe someone would like to run actual tests on it. But for photography, just use whatever focal length makes you happy! (=
Nice comparison. For real estate videos, I was looking at a 2nd lens and considered the 24-105, but with the 20-70 being sharper, lighter and more compact, went with it. 16-35 PZ on A7siii and the 20-70 is for an FX30 as 2nd camera 😊
can you do a test where you move the 20-70mm at 70mm so that the images in the screen matches the image on the screen for the 24-105mm at 105? would like to see off the Bokeh has any differences ..
Thanks for the video. Problem I have is that I never found a slower f/4 lens good for shooting people and event. For still subjects like landscape or travel locations great but I want more light and shallower DOF for people. What are your thoughts here?
Yeh, looks and sounds good. Do they have one for the Nikon? I really like my Nikon 28-85, that was a good focal length. Bringing it down to 20 is suave. The f4 is such an advantage over the variable kit lens apertures. Later on, as I got into digital and aps-c, I opted for the 28-70 f2.8, and then got the 18-105. The 105 focal length was better for pet portraits. But, still I like the 18-70, which is about 27-105 in FX full frame. The 105, of course would equate to 157 on full frame 🖼 Today, the 35mm f1.8 DX lens is my go to lens! My other lens is the 70-300mm telephoto lens. So, my 18-70 and 18-105 don’t see much usage these days. The 28-70mm f2.8 I sold, because it was too big and heavy for my D3300. On my ‘to get’ list are the wide angle and macro, or as Nikon calls them micro, lenses. And that’s my story. Bye
I could see this as a great backpacking lens paired with the A7C (or the coming A7C II ??). I could cut an important pound from my kit weight of A7RIII + 24-105.
I primarily use my 24-105 for landscapes. If I'm normally shooting it at f8 and up, sounds like this would be better if it's sharper even if cropped into 105mm equivalent then? Might be a nice (and expensive) way to have a lighter setup!
There's definitely no way it's sharper cropped in if you're stopping down to f/8. I could MAYBE see them being equal if both are wide open, but even at f/5.6 the 24-105 @ 105mm is excellent.
The Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 would be my choice. You have to go with Fujifilm for aps-c. Although, I think Sony will probably coming out soon with some new aps-c stuff.
Jesus these comments, 15mm or 16mm on APS-C is not the same as 20mm on Full Frame. Hence why Gustavo specifically said "equivalent lenses" and mentioned 13-46mm.
I have the Sigma 24-70 f 2.8 Art lens on my wish list. Now I see the 20-70 f 4 G. I can make arguments for either one. I primarily do landscape and nature photography. What would your take be?
20-70 f4 I’d say, you rarely shoot lower than f4 in landscape anyway but it is lighter and smaller and just as sharp as the 24-70 plus 4mm more wide end.
Aloha Tony and Chelsea, Thanks so much. I love your videos! Would you comment on comparison with the 24-70 sigma and/or others? Obviously this has an advantage with the 4mm of focal length on the wide end, but the others have bokeh/ aperture advantage. It would be interesting to compare the sharpness and general image quality. It would be interesting to see the walk test with the 24-70 2.8s also.
Kind of frustrating as I just bought an A7R4a and the 24-105 at Christmas and now this lens has released with such a bump in clarity and a manual apeture ring to boot. Should I try and sell the 24-105 before the price drops out of it?
Thanks for consistently testing the contrast of any lens you test. This is often missed in many reviews. This lens is enough for me to consider changing system. Would the Tamron 70-300mm be the best companion lens for travel? 1600 dollars combined for the both lenses seems like a good deal.
Great. I have recently acquired the Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G lens. However, one thing is bothering me or rather I would like to clarify whether it is a general issue with this lens or whether it is a defect specifically with my lens. The lens makes a noise when focussing (with autofocus). By the way, the volume of the noise varies depending on the aperture setting. At f/4 the noise is very minimal, almost inaudible. From f/4.5, however, it is clearly audible. And the higher the aperture number (for example f/13), the longer it takes to focus and the longer the noise lasts. However, these differences are small. I am not yet familiar with focusing noises from lenses recently released by Sony. For example, the new Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G and the new Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II are 100% completely silent. The older Sony FE 18mm f/1.8 G, on the other hand, also makes the noise described above, if I remember correctly. Does your lens also make this noise? Many thanks in advance!
This lens is 1600€ in Europe, and for that price, it is a DEFINITE pass for me. Are they out of their minds? A Samyang 18mm 2.8 and Sigma 28-70 2.8 is both faster and cheaper, and it stays really portable.
Hi Chelsea and Tony, I'm looking for your review of the Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8. I looked through your archive to see it, however I could not find a review. I may be using the wrong search terms. Please advise if I'm missing something, thanks. (AKA, Grumpyhighlander)
I am a Sony shooter through and through but I have watched several comparisons with Canon and I can say that compared to BSI the FSI sensors of Canon have one stop less DR. That also matters more in video. Photography can be managed.
@@kapilesh14 Canon non Cine cameras Clog3 is limited to around 10.xEV, where others can go up to 14EV. So pure video shooters should pick something else. And you are right on stills, it's much more manageable as the difference is no more than 2EV
Why are you calling the 24 to 105 the old ones? It's not the kit lens. It's never been the kit lens, the kit lens for all Sony full frame cameras with some shitty 24 to 70 or 28 to 70 variable aperture lens
This might be a good argument for the new lens on the a7r series where the extra sharpness might be more useful then the extra range at least for a lighter weight landscape and travel lens. I know the 24-105 (at release) was sharper than the other kit lenses and even the Sony 24-70 mk1 so this is pretty interesting.
This has been my experience, and the sharpest lenses we've tested haven't had IS. They generally do add at least one element for the lens stabilization.
@@abdulrahmanazmi7042 hope they do it then. It seems highly unlikely though as they have already released this one. I would have loved it if they made a 20-120 though.
How in hell is this new 20-70mm 1100$ in US and 1600€ everywhere in EU!? Seeing how the dollar is currently at virtual parity and VAT adds nothing close to it there is something odd going on!
Yes, definitely! I just bought the 20- 40 and it seems to be a great performer. I am pairing with my Tamron 28-200 for a great two lens travel kit. The Sony 20- 70 would not replace the usefulness of the 28-200 .The Tamron 20- 40 is definitely smaller , lighter, has the consistent 67mm filter size, better macro capability, is a lot cheaper and is a dream pairing on my A7C and my a6500. Btw , I am leaving the Tamron 17-28 and the 28-75 (G1) at home ; the newer combo has rendered these two lenses redundant. Same with my a7iii - haven't touched in ages.
The suggestion of throwing away your kit lens is quite something and very unrealistic. The kitlens is retailing at 450 USD. The lens your are presenting here is twice as expensive. It is a lot of money even though you will get a lot back for it. Anyway, we leave it at that.
07:40 The distinction between G and GM have nothing to do with sharpness, a GM does not have to be sharper than a G released at around the same time. GM is about round bokeh. That was the primary thing from day #1 in GM.
the in-depth comparisons and illustrations of quality between one lens and the other is the reason I love T&C channel. Been watching the channel for 8 years and their work is always thorough and top notch; like I always come out having learned something. Example: the 20-70 zoomed in to 105mm remains sharper than the 24-105 at 105mm. This is critical for any photographer to know before they make the investment in either. Nobody on UA-cam or the web (at least that I know of) does this. Thank you T&C!
The other reviews I've seen are fine, but I guess not ultra fine like this one and the other ones T&C make : ) They'll show you the lens, tell you how sharp it is and that it is the best lens Sony has released......and throw in some photos, from which you cannot judge image quality due to compression and the fact that most people are not watching in anything higher than 1080p.
The 24-105mm f4 is an awesome lens for weddings.. and 24mm is plenty wide for 12 person bridal party of family shot.. at 5 feet distance on full frame.. and when you need to get candids you can zoom into 105mm and get compression as well as bokeh and become a sniper to capture those moments...
I prefer a 70-200 on a second body for candids. I would take the 4mm wider on this lens, that's pretty significant at the wider end.
@@TheAegisClawagreed, the wider end to the lens is harder to replace. It’s easier to get closer to the subject that it is to go wider most of the time
If I could only have one lens I can see the utility of the 20-70... but I love the 16-35/24-105 combo with my 100-400 creating my holy trinity of lenses for Sony. Thanks for the thoughtful review as always.
I will go with 16-35, Tamron 35-150.
I have the Tamron 35-150. It‘s really awesome but it’s heavy. At home and for day trips it’s no problem but I consider getting the 20-70 as my new single lens for longer trips.
@@Hurricane31337 I also have that Tamron but really feels like a brick after a long walk....
Interesting video. I would not choose one lens over the other as they have different purposes. I'd use the 20-70mm lens where I need move wide angle shots and minimal need for telephoto. The 24-105mm would still be my choice as the general purpose or travel lens.
but you wont own both right? thus the comparison, its about each person's priority.
even though all your photos get really blurry compared to the new 20-70?
@@__Mr.White__ What are you even talking about? The 24-105 f/4 G is quite sharp, especially at the wider focal lengths.
Got mine yesterday, that happy with it instead of my 24-105, which I've sold today. It's really sharp, compact, relatively lightweight, and has the ideal range for me to fit my needs. For me F4 is not really a problem, don't need fast apertures for good bokeh, don't shot people as much, and when I take my 85/1.8. When I need light, I crank up the ISO and use a good denoise software (DXO PR2 and Topas are really amazing for that!). I'm that lucky, that Sony has the buckets to make this lens, because at the moment it's too expensive in Europe (1600€), and it will not reach the mass I think.
HEy Andreas! May I ask what you think about this lens 7 months later? Is it working in low light? (without tripod)
@@999slawter It's my allday favorite lens, I use it for about 90% of my photography. Low light is no problem with most of the lenses since AI Denoiser (I use Lightroom, but DXO Raw or Topaz also work) take place in my workflow. I shoot ISO 25600 without problem, print in A3+ and A2 and all is looking fine, so 1 stop from 4 to 2.8 means nothing for me. Only if I want much separation I use my 85/1.8, that fits my needs.
Would buy the lens again if it was broken and can recommend it to all, when the range 20-70mm fits their needs.
Tony, this Canadian citizen thanks you for mentioning the price in my country's currency. Nice of you.
I would encourage you to re-run your vlog test using the A7RV. With updated firmware, the 24-105 works insanely well since it has OSS. I’m not a big fan of Sony removing this feature from their newer lenses. I’d rather have some mechanical parts stabilizing the image in combination with the electronics instead of the electronics alone. For about the same price as this new 20-70 you could buy mint condition used versions of the 24-105 and 20/1.8. That’s the combo I travel with.
Just a correction, IBIS is 100% a mechanical stabilization. Only Active Steady Shot introduces electronic stabilization on top of the IBIS.
@@TechnoBabble True, I meant mechanical OSS in the lens itself, not the body.
That’s exactly the choice I am going to make 20mm 1.8 + 24-105mm. That extra reach + OSS combine with a wide lens with low aperture for vlogging seem to be the perfect combo while the 24-70mm is not a good compromise and it is too expensive
@ivani6311 thing is, when vlogging and walking around; changing lens becomes a hassle
@@exonorated5092 i would keep the 20mm if I mainly filming myself and the zoom lens if I am mainly filming people around me
A German review page measured that the resolution in absolute terms is less with the A7Rv than with the A7RIII (61 vs 42 MP) at the borders. Their explanation: The smaller pixels record oblique light rays less well as bigger pixels -> more pixels but less resolution. Can you confirm this in practice?
When I saw that Sony just released the 20-70mm G, the first thing that came to mind was, how does it compare to the 24-105mm G. Interesting comparison. If I was looking for a travel lens in that range, I would definitely consider the 20-70mm G.
Excellent review. Could you please do a shoot-out of all the 24-105 lenses out there? Its a very useful range and most casual photographers would own this lens.
Get this lens!.. its really nice!!!...
Thank you Tony and Chelsea for you candid appraisal of both the new 20 to 70 f4 and the 24 to 105 f4. I am switching to Sony, and I haven't come across a convincing argument to invest in the 24 - 105 f4. Sony. I appreciate you reviews on all videos, and I have been watching your reviews for sometime now and what strikes me to being different is, you have a dual opinion, (subjective ideas from 2 individuals shooting both stills and video) on lenses and gear, which help different types of people with their choices, e.g. some people want the full heavy kit with all the glam associated with that, others appreciate light, lighting fast kit which travel light, quick set up and pack down times. When working as a pro these things count, and your formal to candid shots are more achievable, particularly with the focus systems in these modern cameras and the lenses are so accurate, responsive and reliable. So to you both I am sure not just myself but many others out there are grateful for you step back hard realistic look at the gear. On a side note Tony I watched many times your review on the Sony A7r4 and many of the things that you were and were concerned about seemed to be resolved in the new Sony A7rV. I think that these utube video reviews encourage photographic/video manufacturers to improve and keep them on their toes. Thanks again.
Have to thank Lumix for such focal length
Yep, the 20-60mm kit lens is good on Lumix S series, and so is the 10-25mm on Micro Four Thirds :)
I'm much more excited about the upcoming 24-105 f/4 II.
How about a comparison with the 24-70 gm2
I threw away my kit lens long time ago, and replaced it with some vintage lenses. :)
That 20-70 f/4 G looks amazing. Thanks for the video.
You can always crop or move closer but you can't zoom out if you don't have an option & not even step back if there is no space. So wider the better for a zoom.
Great review! I have to 24-105 f4 and its nice. I like that the zoom is 105mm and with clear image zoom at 1.5x this make is a 158mm (for video). The image stabilization helps recording video at this range. For wide angle I would have to use a separate wide-angle lens, So I do have to change lenses meaning it take more time, missing more shots, more weight to carry, requires a bigger bag, and I get more tired on long walks. The weight at (663g / 1.46 lb) makes it unpractical for travel. Meaning I am less likely to take it. Once you add in the wide angle lens and camera body the total weight I carry is 1826g / 4.02 lb. That weight is noticeable on your back and arms. For short moments, its fine but for long travels its uncomfortable and tiresome when your on your feet all day.
This new option 20-70 f4 is very interesting. The sharpness is improved even comparing it to 105mm. Meaning you can crop a 70mm image into a 105mm with a slight resolution loss but still have better sharpness. Using clear image zoom at 1.5x you can zoom up to 105mm. You do loose some background blur, but at f4 this lens is not really made for that anyway. You loose stabilization, but its not really needed for 70mm as much. But you gain a wider view and lighter weight due to optics with no stabilization and a smaller 70mm zoom. This make the lens smaller and weighing at only 488g / 1.08 lb. This means I can remove the wide angle lens and only carry this lens with a camera in a smaller bag. This reduced the size and weight to a total of 1146g / 2.5lb. Thats 680g / 1.5 lb lighter. It's noticeable. This comes with all the other benefits for travel. No need to swap lenses and miss shots, no worry about sensor dust (for not needing to switch lenses), less tired while shooting and while walking, less neck / back strain, move quicker, travel further, have more energy. Its more practical. You loose a bit more zoom but not by much. Small compromise for bigger benefit.
Just got my first Full Frame Sony. Love your videos, and the house.
Would like to have it when the price drops. In Europe it goes for 1599€, that's plenty more than in the US (for 1000€ I would buy it tomorrow!). I'm a bit more on the wide end, so the lack of 35mm compared to my 24-105 don't touch me as much, but the win of 4mm on the wide end make a huge difference for me. I have my A1 always with me, with 24-105 and 17-28, with the 20-70 I can use just one lens for EDC. When I need other lenses, mostly the 100-400 or 17-28 (wich maybe will be replaces with a 14mm prime or an 14-24 or 12-24 then), this is regularly planned an I can take the lenses with me, when I need. But the 20-70 for me will be the ideal allround-lens. Time will come!
First of all , thx guys for the detailed comparison. I own neither but I want get one . I am on the fence between 24-105 & 20-70. Which one should I go for ? Note that I already have 70-200 F4 and I do photography and videography, both .
Thx
Pritam
It depends how you will use it. If you always plan on carrying both lenses or using them on two bodies then obviously the 20-70 makes sense. If you plan on using it as a walk around lens, then I think the 24-105 is a more useable range. The sharpness probably doesn't matter so much. They are both sharp lenses and only the photographer actually pixel peeps.
I used to not think so highly of Sony, but, over the last 3 years, it is clear Sony has continued their move to create premium imaging equipment. Several years ago, I eschewed Sony to a friend. In the last few weeks, I openly stated that his need for less heavy gear should get him to seriously consider Sony. I have great respect for the research, development, and quality that Sony has achieved from its investment in its imaging gear. I'm content with my Canon/Fujifilm gear but have no trouble recommending Sony gear if it seems to be a better fit for someone.
I would love to see you two review the new Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8
How about the 20-70 for use on APS-C? It seems that it might be a very useful range for a travel lens when vlogging is not part of the use. At the same time, it would facilitate an eventual upgrade to full frame.
30-105mm (APS-C Mode / APS-C 6xxx series).
Tony didn’t give no warning about the gate lol. He made sure to record it 4:00
Amazing range, can do both landscape and portrait 🙌🏾
Great info. I remember you mentioning some years back about how much resolution lenses were able to utilise from camera sensors. Has the technology made meaningful advances in this area? As an example, how much detail could the 20-70 'extract' from say an A7 MKIII sensor compared to pricier lenses?
The 50mm lens wasn't considered the normal lens because everybody was using it. It was considered normal because it approximated the view of the naked eye.
It's not, though. The human eye is about 8mm equivalent. Look through your 50mm lens and tell me that you can't see way more with your eyes.
43mm -> fov if you only consider overlapping part between two eyes that is sharp.
~22mm -> fov if you consider the whole frame without rolling eyes.
~10mm ? (not so sure) -> fov if you are allowed to roll eyes around into all corners and merge them into a big picture.
@@TonyAndChelsea Talk about intentionally missing the point. We don't see the world as a distorted, ultrawide, fisheye view... our brains correct for that.
@@TonyAndChelsea he’s talking about focal length compared to how a human eye sees. You of all people should know this. Not sure how you misunderstood his point.
50mm (43mm really) offers the same magnification, in a 1.0x viewfinder, to the human eye. For example, if you view a 1.0x magnification viewfinder in an SLR with a 43mm lens, the magnification of the subject will appear to be the same as if you viewed it with your own eyes. This is why it's considered a normal focal length. It has nothing to do with the field of view or angle of view. It was what's considered natural at the photo taking stage, and doesn't impact the final image.
Aside to what Tony and Chelsea mentioned, the field of view of the human eye may be 8mm, but the field of view where the human eye focuses may differ from than too. I would not know what exactly the equivalent focal length for a human eye's field of focus would be and maybe someone would like to run actual tests on it. But for photography, just use whatever focal length makes you happy! (=
Look at that subtle function buttons, the tasteful sharpness of it , the extra 10mil at the long end , oh my god, it even has an aperture ring..
Nice comparison. For real estate videos, I was looking at a 2nd lens and considered the 24-105, but with the 20-70 being sharper, lighter and more compact, went with it. 16-35 PZ on A7siii and the 20-70 is for an FX30 as 2nd camera 😊
Exactly my idea, bravo🥂
love the coffee mug in the bottom corner of the frame. I've got the same one !!
Would love to see this same comparison with the Sony 24-70 GMII vs 20-70 G! Obviously the GM is double the price, but is it also double the quality?
Looks like an awesome upgrade to me, still stuck with the cheap kit lens. And unfortunately no budget to upgrade.
can you do a test where you move the 20-70mm at 70mm so that the images in the screen matches the image on the screen for the 24-105mm at 105? would like to see off the Bokeh has any differences ..
Thanks for mentioning Canadian pricing too
Thanks for the video. Problem I have is that I never found a slower f/4 lens good for shooting people and event. For still subjects like landscape or travel locations great but I want more light and shallower DOF for people. What are your thoughts here?
Yeh, looks and sounds good. Do they have one for the Nikon? I really like my Nikon 28-85, that was a good focal length. Bringing it down to 20 is suave. The f4 is such an advantage over the variable kit lens apertures. Later on, as I got into digital and aps-c, I opted for the 28-70 f2.8, and then got the 18-105. The 105 focal length was better for pet portraits. But, still I like the 18-70, which is about 27-105 in FX full frame. The 105, of course would equate to 157 on full frame 🖼 Today, the 35mm f1.8 DX lens is my go to lens! My other lens is the 70-300mm telephoto lens. So, my 18-70 and 18-105 don’t see much usage these days. The 28-70mm f2.8 I sold, because it was too big and heavy for my D3300. On my ‘to get’ list are the wide angle and macro, or as Nikon calls them micro, lenses. And that’s my story. Bye
I could see this as a great backpacking lens paired with the A7C (or the coming A7C II ??). I could cut an important pound from my kit weight of A7RIII + 24-105.
With my A7 IV I have the 24-105mm f/4 and a 14-24mm Sigma Art f/2.8 and the 200-600mm Sony, it's hard to justify the 20-70mm.
I actually bought the 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens back in the day, and payed full price 😭
Great review, However, how is the autofocus differences?
I primarily use my 24-105 for landscapes. If I'm normally shooting it at f8 and up, sounds like this would be better if it's sharper even if cropped into 105mm equivalent then? Might be a nice (and expensive) way to have a lighter setup!
There's definitely no way it's sharper cropped in if you're stopping down to f/8. I could MAYBE see them being equal if both are wide open, but even at f/5.6 the 24-105 @ 105mm is excellent.
It's a shame there are no equivalent lenses for APSC (13-46) with a constant F4 aperture.
I guess it would be huge.
The Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 would be my choice. You have to go with Fujifilm for aps-c. Although, I think Sony will probably coming out soon with some new aps-c stuff.
Fuji has a 15-45 xc that is kinda similar , but at 3,5-5,6
The 10-24 f4 also exists i thibk
Jesus these comments, 15mm or 16mm on APS-C is not the same as 20mm on Full Frame. Hence why Gustavo specifically said "equivalent lenses" and mentioned 13-46mm.
I have the Sigma 24-70 f 2.8 Art lens on my wish list. Now I see the 20-70 f 4 G. I can make arguments for either one. I primarily do landscape and nature photography. What would your take be?
20-70 f4 I’d say, you rarely shoot lower than f4 in landscape anyway but it is lighter and smaller and just as sharp as the 24-70 plus 4mm more wide end.
Panasonic did the 20-60mm kit lens first, albeit f3.5 - f5.6. And you can get it with the new S5ii as a kit.
Aloha Tony and Chelsea, Thanks so much. I love your videos! Would you comment on comparison with the 24-70 sigma and/or others? Obviously this has an advantage with the 4mm of focal length on the wide end, but the others have bokeh/ aperture advantage. It would be interesting to compare the sharpness and general image quality. It would be interesting to see the walk test with the 24-70 2.8s also.
No way.... They released this and now the 20 F1.8 is becoming a niche lens .... Would be a tough sell
Hmm different use cases, I think. If you want wide angle specifically, the 20mm f1.8 smokes this lens.
Beautiful kitchen and house you got there❤
@@TonyAndchelsea_ That little trick still works?
Kind of frustrating as I just bought an A7R4a and the 24-105 at Christmas and now this lens has released with such a bump in clarity and a manual apeture ring to boot. Should I try and sell the 24-105 before the price drops out of it?
Thanks for consistently testing the contrast of any lens you test. This is often missed in many reviews.
This lens is enough for me to consider changing system. Would the Tamron 70-300mm be the best companion lens for travel? 1600 dollars combined for the both lenses seems like a good deal.
I have the Tamron 28-200 and it is my go to all purpose lens complimented by the 20mm 1.8 for interior, low light shots. The Tammy is a great lens.
As a pro architectural photographer I think this is going to be an awesome companion to Ultra Wide lenses for me. Ordering!
Great.
I have recently acquired the Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G lens.
However, one thing is bothering me or rather I would like to clarify whether it is a general issue with this lens or whether it is a defect specifically with my lens. The lens makes a noise when focussing (with autofocus).
By the way, the volume of the noise varies depending on the aperture setting. At f/4 the noise is very minimal, almost inaudible. From f/4.5, however, it is clearly audible. And the higher the aperture number (for example f/13), the longer it takes to focus and the longer the noise lasts. However, these differences are small.
I am not yet familiar with focusing noises from lenses recently released by Sony. For example, the new Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G and the new Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS II are 100% completely silent. The older Sony FE 18mm f/1.8 G, on the other hand, also makes the noise described above, if I remember correctly.
Does your lens also make this noise? Many thanks in advance!
This lens is 1600€ in Europe, and for that price, it is a DEFINITE pass for me. Are they out of their minds? A Samyang 18mm 2.8 and Sigma 28-70 2.8 is both faster and cheaper, and it stays really portable.
True but at least you have 3rd party lenses to choose from unlike Canon.
@Andreas Buder: blame your EU goverment, not the lens. Have you ever questioned why goods are always more expensive in EU?
@@withoutpassid
Umm... Staying in Singapore, it is still an expensive lens.
@@lokisg3 how much does it cost in Singapore?
Seems like you're trying too hard to sell the 20-70. i'm not buying any of it. Not giving up my 24-105 for this thing.
These 240.9MP photos are unreal, I didn't know that existed
Hi Chelsea and Tony, I'm looking for your review of the Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8. I looked through your archive to see it, however I could not find a review. I may be using the wrong search terms. Please advise if I'm missing something, thanks. (AKA, Grumpyhighlander)
This lens or the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8?
Is there a fix for the atrocious distortion and vignetting at 20mm?
Can you do a video discussing how big the advantage Sony has (or not) with BSI sensors versus Canon's? Thanks!
I am a Sony shooter through and through but I have watched several comparisons with Canon and I can say that compared to BSI the FSI sensors of Canon have one stop less DR. That also matters more in video. Photography can be managed.
@@kapilesh14 Canon non Cine cameras Clog3 is limited to around 10.xEV, where others can go up to 14EV. So pure video shooters should pick something else.
And you are right on stills, it's much more manageable as the difference is no more than 2EV
The biggest benefit to BSI, is being able to better handle ultra fast lenses. FSI sensors suffer from pixel shading at F1.4 and faster.
I love that you all "have things". It's awesome to think about :)
hi, and what about compared to tamron 20-40 f/2.8?
why no oss??? :(
This seems like the perfect walk around landscape lens.
I still use my nikon d810 with sigma 50 mm art. Love it
I believe that it is value for money ( for portraits)
6:07. Did you try any shots in apsc mode?
Your crib is sweet. Huge kitchen island. Pool. Full piano. Sleepy dog. Wifey containment gate. Lightroom coaching to Gold rooms living. Congrats.
now we really need a high quality 70-300mm zoom as complement. forget the old 70-300, i sold years ago.😂
Tamron has one and it's very nice.
Nice lens. 4 Toneh's!
Why are you calling the 24 to 105 the old ones? It's not the kit lens. It's never been the kit lens, the kit lens for all Sony full frame cameras with some shitty 24 to 70 or 28 to 70 variable aperture lens
3:48 look at that palace which they have thanks to youtube 😲😲😲
Ill go all the way on 24/105
Very helpful. Thank you.
This might be a good argument for the new lens on the a7r series where the extra sharpness might be more useful then the extra range at least for a lighter weight landscape and travel lens. I know the 24-105 (at release) was sharper than the other kit lenses and even the Sony 24-70 mk1 so this is pretty interesting.
true that but the 24-70 was a dud. horrid lens.
Nice house! 🤣 I promise never to use it for portrait work. 😉
Optical stabilization seems to require some loss of sharpness.
This has been my experience, and the sharpest lenses we've tested haven't had IS. They generally do add at least one element for the lens stabilization.
Why get this over the tamron 28-75mm f2.8?
Because for many people 8mm wider on the wide end is massively more useful than F2.8.
I will wait for 24-105 mk.ii..
But when will they update it?
@@kapilesh14 According to sony alpha rumor, we will get the lens update this year
@@abdulrahmanazmi7042 hope they do it then. It seems highly unlikely though as they have already released this one. I would have loved it if they made a 20-120 though.
@@kapilesh14 it will be longer and heavier..
No. I think this replace s 24-105G
Great lens, still toooooooo expensive tho
Sony needs to come out with a 24-105 f2.8 like Canon just did. That would be sweet.
How in hell is this new 20-70mm 1100$ in US and 1600€ everywhere in EU!?
Seeing how the dollar is currently at virtual parity and VAT adds nothing close to it there is something odd going on!
the 24-105 is worst of 60-600 sigma at 60mm....this 20-70 is better than 24-105? how? Thanks
Does anyone use a apature ring? I've never seen anyone use it
Yeah I love it.
This is very helpful
1100 ! Let me see...... Oh ! Looks like I'll still have to rely on my S Hand NK 35mm f1.8 DX $75 : )
Tony caught a cold I guess? take care bud
Thanks...
Barbaridad que hermosa casa!
24-105 is still the best for travel.
Ifcthis have oss ill buy it
Almost same price with sigma 24-70mm f2.8 dg dn
Buy once...Cry once. Buy the 24-70 2.8 GM instead. That 20mm though is so nice.
Is the stabilization test on the A7R V or older Sony bodies? (And is the 24-105 firmware updated)
Lovely house!
Would love to see this new lens compared with the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8
Yes, definitely! I just bought the 20- 40 and it seems to be a great performer. I am pairing with my Tamron 28-200 for a great two lens travel kit. The Sony 20- 70 would not replace the usefulness of the 28-200 .The Tamron 20- 40 is definitely smaller , lighter, has the consistent 67mm filter size, better macro capability, is a lot cheaper and is a dream pairing on my A7C and my a6500. Btw , I am leaving the Tamron 17-28 and the 28-75 (G1) at home ; the newer combo has rendered these two lenses redundant. Same with my a7iii - haven't touched in ages.
THROW AWAY YOUR KIT LENS for a $1100 20-70mm ...
It better be "better"...
The conceit being that the 24-105 is a kit lens but I’ve never seen it supplied as a kit lens.
I want to see it for UA-cam talking head videos
My dream camara 😔
The suggestion of throwing away your kit lens is quite something and very unrealistic. The kitlens is retailing at 450 USD. The lens your are presenting here is twice as expensive.
It is a lot of money even though you will get a lot back for it. Anyway, we leave it at that.
I need extra reach 10 times more often then thight. If I was primary a video producer I would pick thee 20-70, but Im not 😊
07:40 The distinction between G and GM have nothing to do with sharpness, a GM does not have to be sharper than a G released at around the same time. GM is about round bokeh. That was the primary thing from day #1 in GM.