Dear guys,I am owning a 24-70mm GM2. I sold my 16-35mm GM sometimes ago. I am looking to get the 20mm f/1.8 to cover the wider focal length. (Only use it occasionally). Now the 20-70mm is available. I would like to know which lens you guys prefer.Pros of getting 20mm- Cheaper than 20-70mm- Large aperture f/1.8Cons of getting 20mm- Need to carry 2 lenses- 24-70 GM2 + 20mm is 500g heavier than 20-70mm f/4.0- Need to change lens (a bit troublesome)Pros of getting 20-70mm- Light weight- No need to change lens- High magnification (0.39x)Cons of getting 20-70mm- Expensive compare to 20mm- Maximum aperture is f/4.0Thanks,GF

The prime is more than two stops faster and will be stronger overall at 20mm than the zoom will. The large aperture is useful for astro and (my favorite) creative closeups as well as indoors. If you would use it only at f/8-f/11 for landscape shots then the 20-70/4 might work better (because more flexibility with a zoom). I don't necessarily see them as competitors just because they share a focal length.

GF wrote:Dear guys,I am owning a 24-70mm GM2. I sold my 16-35mm GM sometimes ago. I am looking to get the 20mm f/1.8 to cover the wider focal length. (Only use it occasionally). Now the 20-70mm is available. I would like to know which lens you guys prefer.Pros of getting 20mm- Cheaper than 20-70mm- Large aperture f/1.8Cons of getting 20mm- Need to carry 2 lenses- 24-70 GM2 + 20mm is 500g heavier than 20-70mm f/4.0- Need to change lens (a bit troublesome)Pros of getting 20-70mm- Light weight- No need to change lens- High magnification (0.39x)Cons of getting 20-70mm- Expensive compare to 20mm- Maximum aperture is f/4.0Thanks,GFEXACTLY my situation! I sold my 20g to fund the 20-70 which I got yesterday. I only used the 20g a handful of times and times I didn't have it while I had the 24-70gmii on me I wish i had 20mm. I didn't want to carry 3 lenses: 35gm 20g 24-70ii - it's still heavy.Got rid of the 20g, bought the 20-70 to use together with 35gm for my travels this week. Couldn't be happier with the weight savings and 1 less lens.I went to Taiwan 2 months ago with 20g 35gm and 24-70gmii. I'm going again this week with a vengeance. with the 35gm and 20-70 and I know it's going to be perfect this time round when it comes to switching lenses and focal lengths.Really considering selling my 24-70gmii after getting the 20-70, it's just so versatile, sharp, light and small. Bit expensive but couldn't be happier seeing how nicer it looks on my A7iv vs the gmii.24-70gmii did handle night time in Taiwan REALLY WELL and the iso was really low like 640/800. But I used the 35gm most of the time. Excited to try the 20-70G at night for fun with the 35gm in my bag just incase lol.

The 20/1.8 G is an excellent lens.  Unless you need a light all-purpose landscape zoom, I’d get that.You need to think about how you will use your kit, in effect how you weight the pros and cons.I have a Loxia 21/2.8, but would have bough the 20/1.8 if it had been available.I was tempted by the 20-70/4 as an extra lens in addition to Tamron 17-28/2.8 and 28-75/2.8.  So far not impressed by the reported performance of U.K. cost.Maybe my views will change once it’s been in use a while.Andrew

I just replied to a chain you're inhere. A bit of rambling but hopefully relevant for you. TLDR is that the 24-70 plus the 20/1.8 is going to be the best IQ. The 20/1.8 is GM level image quality. So it depends if that's more important to you than not having to change lenses.I owned the 20/1.8 for about a year, and I tried the 16-35 G and GM simultaneously.The 16-35 G is sharper than the 16-35 GM. But the rendering and bokeh of the GM at 35/2.8 is nice and makes for a pretty good portrait lens. I didn't feel that way about the G.Optically the 20/1.8 was the best among these three. Very nice bokeh, and good minimum focus distance. I think it's really about 19 mm and it's a perfect focal length for selfies with 2-4 people as long as you keep the people near the center of the frame.But since I don't shoot 20 mm that often, I opted to keep the 16-35 GM since it's more versatile. Being f/2.8, it's great for travel, architecture, museums, environmental portraits, and family selfies.I have the 40/2.5 G, and I like it a lot, but it's biggest flaw is that the bokeh can look nervous/busy with things like foliage in the background. I see similar rendering in the 20-70 sample photos, so I won't be getting it. I'm bummed because it sounds like a very versatile focal range otherwise.

OCP wrote:GF wrote:Dear guys,I am owning a 24-70mm GM2. I sold my 16-35mm GM sometimes ago. I am looking to get the 20mm f/1.8 to cover the wider focal length. (Only use it occasionally). Now the 20-70mm is available. I would like to know which lens you guys prefer.Pros of getting 20mm- Cheaper than 20-70mm- Large aperture f/1.8Cons of getting 20mm- Need to carry 2 lenses- 24-70 GM2 + 20mm is 500g heavier than 20-70mm f/4.0- Need to change lens (a bit troublesome)Pros of getting 20-70mm- Light weight- No need to change lens- High magnification (0.39x)Cons of getting 20-70mm- Expensive compare to 20mm- Maximum aperture is f/4.0Thanks,GFEXACTLY my situation! I sold my 20g to fund the 20-70 which I got yesterday. I only used the 20g a handful of times and times I didn't have it while I had the 24-70gmii on me I wish i had 20mm. I didn't want to carry 3 lenses: 35gm 20g 24-70ii - it's still heavy.Got rid of the 20g, bought the 20-70 to use together with 35gm for my travels this week. Couldn't be happier with the weight savings and 1 less lens.I went to Taiwan 2 months ago with 20g 35gm and 24-70gmii. I'm going again this week with a vengeance. with the 35gm and 20-70 and I know it's going to be perfect this time round when it comes to switching lenses and focal lengths.Really considering selling my 24-70gmii after getting the 20-70, it's just so versatile, sharp, light and small. Bit expensive but couldn't be happier seeing how nicer it looks on my A7iv vs the gmii.24-70gmii did handle night time in Taiwan REALLY WELL and the iso was really low like 640/800. But I used the 35gm most of the time. Excited to try the 20-70G at night for fun with the 35gm in my bag just incase lol.travelling with a vengeance, lol, I like.Cant wait to travel with ONLY the 20-70, using the fx3 and doing mostly video, low light is not a problem.

I've had the 20G for a couple of years now. Don't think I've used it since I bought the 16-35G. Can't beat the 20 IQ, but it's the usual zoom convenience over the prime. Plus, they are about the same weight, so I take it with me.

Becksvart wrote:The prime is more than two stops faster and will be stronger overall at 20mm than the zoom will. The large aperture is useful for astro and (my favorite) creative closeups as well as indoors. If you would use it only at f/8-f/11 for landscape shots then the 20-70/4 might work better (because more flexibility with a zoom). I don't necessarily see them as competitors just because they share a focal length.When using the 24-70GM2,  most of the time I shoot wide open (f/2.8). If I want more DOF, I will stop down to f/5.6.

OCP wrote:EXACTLY my situation! I sold my 20g to fund the 20-70 which I got yesterday. I only used the 20g a handful of times and times I didn't have it while I had the 24-70gmii on me I wish i had 20mm. I didn't want to carry 3 lenses: 35gm 20g 24-70ii - it's still heavy.Got rid of the 20g, bought the 20-70 to use together with 35gm for my travels this week. Couldn't be happier with the weight savings and 1 less lens.I went to Taiwan 2 months ago with 20g 35gm and 24-70gmii. I'm going again this week with a vengeance. with the 35gm and 20-70 and I know it's going to be perfect this time round when it comes to switching lenses and focal lengths.Really considering selling my 24-70gmii after getting the 20-70, it's just so versatile, sharp, light and small. Bit expensive but couldn't be happier seeing how nicer it looks on my A7iv vs the gmii.24-70gmii did handle night time in Taiwan REALLY WELL and the iso was really low like 640/800. But I used the 35gm most of the time. Excited to try the 20-70G at night for fun with the 35gm in my bag just incase lol.Haha.. I am owning the same set of lenses: 35mm GM / 24-70mm GM2 & 70-350mm.i don’t know how good the image quality of the 20-70mm but the quality of 24-70mm GM2 is excellent. That’s why the decision is not so easy. Even I buy the 20-70mm, I am planning to keep the 24-70mm. For traveling I will use 20-70mm. For general shooting, I will use 24-70mm.I agree with what you said I mostly use the 35mm GM at night because I want to lower down the ISO.

The Ryantist wrote:I just replied to a chain you're inhere. A bit of rambling but hopefully relevant for you. TLDR is that the 24-70 plus the 20/1.8 is going to be the best IQ. The 20/1.8 is GM level image quality. So it depends if that's more important to you than not having to change lenses.Fully agree with my. Changing lens and the additional 500g of weight vs image quality 🤔I owned the 20/1.8 for about a year, and I tried the 16-35 G and GM simultaneously.The 16-35 G is sharper than the 16-35 GM. But the rendering and bokeh of the GM at 35/2.8 is nice and makes for a pretty good portrait lens. I didn't feel that way about the G.Optically the 20/1.8 was the best among these three. Very nice bokeh, and good minimum focus distance. I think it's really about 19 mm and it's a perfect focal length for selfies with 2-4 people as long as you keep the people near the center of the frame.But since I don't shoot 20 mm that often, I opted to keep the 16-35 GM since it's more versatile. Being f/2.8, it's great for travel, architecture, museums, environmental portraits, and family selfies.I have the 40/2.5 G, and I like it a lot, but it's biggest flaw is that the bokeh can look nervous/busy with things like foliage in the background. I see similar rendering in the 20-70 sample photos, so I won't be getting it. I'm bummed because it sounds like a very versatile focal range otherwise.After checking the photos taken by 16-35mm GM,  I found that 98% of my photos were using the 20mm or longer focal length and around 10% between 20-24mm. So I sold my 16-35mm GM (also the 24-105mm) to fund 24-70mm GM2.  In some situations, I found that the 24mm is not wide enough so I am considering to get the 20mm f/1.8.

I have the 20/1.8 G and it is an outstanding lens. However I recently got the Tamron 20-40/2.8 and I use it a lot and I prefer using it over the 20/1.8 G. It's a very versatile lens. I like having 20, 24, 28, 35, and 40mm all at f2.8.I pre-ordered the 20-70/4 but cancelled my order mainly because it really doesn't add anything to my kit. For me, I'd rather have 20-70mm at f2.8 in two lenses, than in one lens at f4. The Sigma 28-70/2.8 DG DN is my go to normal lens and it is so good and so small and lightweight....and along with the Tamron 20-40/2.8 or I also have the Sigma 16-28/2.8 if I need wider I have 16-70mm at f2.8.The Sigma zooms are both excellent!If I were choosing between the prime and the zoom I'd choose the prime. Except for certain travel situations I am gradually shooting more with primes than zooms. Even for travel I could see going with the 20/1.8 G and the Tamron 28-200mm as a two lens kit.

GF wrote:Becksvart wrote:The prime is more than two stops faster and will be stronger overall at 20mm than the zoom will. The large aperture is useful for astro and (my favorite) creative closeups as well as indoors. If you would use it only at f/8-f/11 for landscape shots then the 20-70/4 might work better (because more flexibility with a zoom). I don't necessarily see them as competitors just because they share a focal length.When using the 24-70GM2, most of the time I shoot wide open (f/2.8). If I want more DOF, I will stop down to f/5.6.The 24-70GM2 is a superb lens. I money is no objection, I would not think twice. However, I would not complement it with a 20mm prime for two-lens solution. 20mm and 24mm are too close for my taste. Better get an 18mm or even 16mm super wide angle (and crop as needed with high-res camera body). This way you have two lenses, but better range and better image quality and better bokeh than a 20-70 4 could give you. My 2c.

DP13Photo wrote:I have the 20/1.8 G and it is an outstanding lens. However I recently got the Tamron 20-40/2.8 and I use it a lot and I prefer using it over the 20/1.8 G. It's a very versatile lens. I like having 20, 24, 28, 35, and 40mm all at f2.8.I pre-ordered the 20-70/4 but cancelled my order mainly because it really doesn't add anything to my kit. For me, I'd rather have 20-70mm at f2.8 in two lenses, than in one lens at f4. The Sigma 28-70/2.8 DG DN is my go to normal lens and it is so good and so small and lightweight....and along with the Tamron 20-40/2.8 or I also have the Sigma 16-28/2.8 if I need wider I have 16-70mm at f2.8.The Sigma zooms are both excellent!If I were choosing between the prime and the zoom I'd choose the prime. Except for certain travel situations I am gradually shooting more with primes than zooms. Even for travel I could see going with the 20/1.8 G and the Tamron 28-200mm as a two lens kit.Since you own both, I am curious how much of an image quality difference is there between the 20/1.8 G and the Tamron 20-40. I was excited by the range 20mm~40mm but am a bit disappointed by some of the reviews that came out. Most my other lenses are also primes (Zeiss Loxia and Batis) but for travel I am willing to sacrifice some for convenience.... but not too much.

4Photos wrote:Since you own both, I am curious how much of an image quality difference is there between the 20/1.8 G and the Tamron 20-40. I was excited by the range 20mm~40mm but am a bit disappointed by some of the reviews that came out. Most my other lenses are also primes (Zeiss Loxia and Batis) but for travel I am willing to sacrifice some for convenience.... but not too much.TBH, I don’t know why people are excited about the 20-40mm focal length. If I want a wide angle zoom, I will choose 16-35mm. 16mm is a LOT wider than 20mm. 40mm not much different than 35mm.

It sounds like you have a good handle on the pros and cons of each choice.  The bottom line here is whether you prefer (1) the convenience of a single lens at the cost of a slower aperture, or (2) faster apertures down the line, at the expense of having to carry and swap two lenses.  Only you can answer which of those makes more sense given your preferences and shooting style.I've traditionally tended to prefer pairing slower zooms with faster primes, so the idea of a two lens kit (say, the 20-70 f/4 with the 35 f/1.4 GM) would be an attractive option.  That said, I finally got to a store the other day and got my hands on the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GMii, and it made me start to revisit my thoughts about f/2.8 zooms.  Sony shooters really are spoiled for choice these days...

Get them both!

GF wrote:Dear guys,I am owning a 24-70mm GM2. I sold my 16-35mm GM sometimes ago. I am looking to get the 20mm f/1.8 to cover the wider focal length. (Only use it occasionally). Now the 20-70mm is available. I would like to know which lens you guys prefer.Pros of getting 20mm- Cheaper than 20-70mm- Large aperture f/1.8Cons of getting 20mm- Need to carry 2 lenses- 24-70 GM2 + 20mm is 500g heavier than 20-70mm f/4.0- Need to change lens (a bit troublesome)Pros of getting 20-70mm- Light weight- No need to change lens- High magnification (0.39x)Cons of getting 20-70mm- Expensive compare to 20mm- Maximum aperture is f/4.0Thanks,GF20/1.8 aperture is 2+1/3 stop faster than 20-70G so useful in low-light hand-held, also likely will be a bit sharper at 20mm/F4.0. If 20mm is wide enough to you? As otherwise FL doesn't complement each other well.For me after used to 16mm wide from a 16-35 lens for many years, even 20mm is not wide enough to me at many scenes. Therefore I also have 16-35 PZ (replaced 16-35 GM), and 14/1.8 GM. 14 GM is so useful that is wide, fast and sharp @f1.8, one of lenses I must carry now in trips. So in my line-up will be 14 GM (or/and 16-35 PZ) and 20-70 G. I can live the gap in 14-20mm. I also have CV 21/1.4 Nokton that is fast and has much more pleasing sunstars than any Sony lenses. Therefore recently I also acquired a used-copy CV 15 for sunstars and filters (as 14 GM doesn't accept regular filters).In my Africa trip in August, I will carry these lenses - 14 GM, CV 15 (only for sunstars and filters), 20-70 G, 70-200 GM II (/w 1.4x TC if necessary) and 200-600 G (for wildlife) and 3 cameras. Will leave 16-35 PZ, CV 21 etc at home as already carry enoughNevertheless it's on individual priority in lineup. We all have different options and choices. Others only for your reference but only you can decide what is best to yourself.

GF wrote:4Photos wrote:Since you own both, I am curious how much of an image quality difference is there between the 20/1.8 G and the Tamron 20-40. I was excited by the range 20mm~40mm but am a bit disappointed by some of the reviews that came out. Most my other lenses are also primes (Zeiss Loxia and Batis) but for travel I am willing to sacrifice some for convenience.... but not too much.TBH, I don’t know why people are excited about the 20-40mm focal length. If I want a wide angle zoom, I will choose 16-35mm. 16mm is a LOT wider than 20mm. 40mm not much different than 35mm.I used to have a 16-35 but rarely used the range 16-20. To me that looks unnatural and distorted, but I know many love this look. For landscapes, I am happy to stitch panoramas.So if a 20-40 is smaller, lighter, less $$$ and top-notch image quality, that would be very exciting. Could easily pair this with the Tamron 70-180 and call it a day. (Perhaps adding a normal prime inbetween, depending the situation)

4Photos wrote:GF wrote:4Photos wrote:Since you own both, I am curious how much of an image quality difference is there between the 20/1.8 G and the Tamron 20-40. I was excited by the range 20mm~40mm but am a bit disappointed by some of the reviews that came out. Most my other lenses are also primes (Zeiss Loxia and Batis) but for travel I am willing to sacrifice some for convenience.... but not too much.TBH, I don’t know why people are excited about the 20-40mm focal length. If I want a wide angle zoom, I will choose 16-35mm. 16mm is a LOT wider than 20mm. 40mm not much different than 35mm.Agreed.  16-20mm is very useful to many as if important to you is individual subjective but an option better than none.I used to have a 16-35 but rarely used the range 16-20. To me that looks unnatural and distorted, but I know many love this look. For landscapes, I am happy to stitch panoramas.That is another topic that has several threads debated on that. In many scenarios you cannot resort to stitch that are backed up by many photos. As what FL is 'normal' is highly subjective. For me 14~21mm is normal UWA, also used to own CV 12. 14 GM distortion is pretty low in many reviews.So if a 20-40 is smaller, lighter, less $$$ and top-notch image quality, that would be very exciting. Could easily pair this with the Tamron 70-180 and call it a day. (Perhaps adding a normal prime inbetween, depending the situation)

PWPhotography wrote:4Photos wrote:GF wrote:4Photos wrote:Since you own both, I am curious how much of an image quality difference is there between the 20/1.8 G and the Tamron 20-40. I was excited by the range 20mm~40mm but am a bit disappointed by some of the reviews that came out. Most my other lenses are also primes (Zeiss Loxia and Batis) but for travel I am willing to sacrifice some for convenience.... but not too much.TBH, I don’t know why people are excited about the 20-40mm focal length. If I want a wide angle zoom, I will choose 16-35mm. 16mm is a LOT wider than 20mm. 40mm not much different than 35mm.Agreed. 16-20mm is very useful to many as if important to you is individual subjective but an option better than none.I used to have a 16-35 but rarely used the range 16-20. To me that looks unnatural and distorted, but I know many love this look. For landscapes, I am happy to stitch panoramas.That is another topic that has several threads debated on that. In many scenarios you cannot resort to stitch that are backed up by many photos. As what FL is 'normal' is highly subjective. For me 14~21mm is normal UWA, also used to own CV 12. 14 GM distortion is pretty low in many reviews.So if a 20-40 is smaller, lighter, less $$$ and top-notch image quality, that would be very exciting. Could easily pair this with the Tamron 70-180 and call it a day. (Perhaps adding a normal prime inbetween, depending the situation)Yeah I know, many love that ultra wide look. I just don't. My widest lens is a Loxia 21mm and am quite happy with it. If I could replace it with a 20-40 zoom, that would be great too, depending on how much "hit" I would take in image quality versus the prime. Distortion is what it is all 14mm lenses have exactly the same amount of linear distortion (falling lines in architectural photos for example). You probably refer to barrel type distortion? (Which should be corrected by the lens profiles, I don't worry about those...)