4Photos wrote: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 oflinear 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...)You mean converging vertical in architectures?   All WA lenses have such even 35mm.  But easily can be fixed in software such as in Lr.  14mm is much wider than 20mm, 24mm, 28mm etc.  So after software correction, photos from 14mm are still much wider anywayAll these are from 14 GM in my trips, no mention 14mm and f1.8 is so useful in low-light indoor hand-held.  It only gives me a great option that otherwise would miss lots of opportunities.  I did many stitching photos in every trip but that are real pano look that no any UWA lenses can capture.

Nice photos !!! Which city is that?The ones that are not to my liking are the red "Jungfraubahn" and the the one below, the IPSO Bahn, and also the yellow castle. It is this linear distortion, super wide-angle near/far effect that I find too much exaggerated. I know, many people love this look, just not me. If everything is in the distance (as in your city panoramas) then everything is fine, because it does not have this exaggerated near/far effect. It's probably just me

I think a nice kit for travel, street photography or general photography would be:20mm 1.824-105Tamron 50-400And a macro lens.  And you can add the 40mm 2.5 to that (when you just want a nice street lens).

Everyone should try the 20.mm once. It’s a fun and fast little lens.

Of course, it's two lenses, but:- It's f2.8 from 24 to 70, where it matters- 20f1.8 is way better for interior architecture than 20f4I wouldn't hesitate at all. The 20f1.8G and the 24-70GMII are two of the best lenses one can get in Sony mount, don't swap them for a 20-70f4 which is intriguing for sure, but not the best anywhere.

4Photos wrote:Nice photos !!! Which city is that?Thx. #1,5 Zurich, #2,3 Luzern, #4 train to the Jungfraujoch - Top of Europe, #6 Interlaken, then last 4 are in Portugal (Lisbon, Sintra).The ones that are not to my liking are the red "Jungfraubahn" and the the one below, the IPSO Bahn, and also the yellow castle. It is this linear distortion, super wide-angle near/far effect that I find too much exaggerated. I know, many people love this look, just not me. If everything is in the distance (as in your city panoramas) then everything is fine, because it does not have this exaggerated near/far effect. It's probably just meThose are personal subjective as you said. To me and many they look very normal, wider than your eyes can see that is sure if this is reason 'distortion'As said such UWA lens just give me more option. I usually carry 2 bodies so I can imagine 14 GM default on A7r IV and 20-70 G default on A1. I usually have multiple shots at the same scenes and even from different lenses, so I'd have different AOV photos at the same scenes even from the same spots, 14mm, 15mm (from CV 15), 20mm (and other FLs) from 20-70 G, and > 70mm from 70-200 GM IIIt just gives me lots more choices and selections.Here are two 14 GM reviews. Check what kind of creative looks can be be generated from a such UWA lens that also can very close to subjects with f1.8 fast aperture for subject separation.https://dustinabbott.net/2021/05/sony-fe-14mm-f1-8-g-master-review/https://www.albertdros.com/post/sony-14mm-f-1-8-in-the-fieldNo mention it is likely the best UWA lens for astrophotography. It's a very useful lens for me therefore it's one of lenses I must carry into trips regardless.

4Photos wrote: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.I am not the best one to ask when it comes to comparing image quality, but I have never felt the 20-40/2.8 was lacking in any way in that regard. It's a cheaper lens no doubt....no buttons, no aperture dial, no switches...that said I really love using it....the focal range just clicks with me, as does f2.8 at all focal lengths is sharp.... and the close focus ability to get some nice bokeh was a really nice surprise. The 20 G on the other hand is top notch in quality...doesn't feel cheap in any way, even the plastic seems higher quality (metal would be too heavy). It also has almost the same close focus ability (7.1" vs 6.7") but due to the f1.8 you can get better results. I'm sure if you were to look closely you'd find that the prime has better IQ...they usually do. Not sure if that was much help. I recommend that you try it...you can always return it, but I'd guess you won't. It's a fun lens to use...20, 24, 28, 35, & 40mm all at f2.8 are some of the most important focal lengths. I have primes at each of the 5 so to have them all in a lightweight, did I say lightweight, f2.8 zoom is very useful for my style.

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.In my opinion… you just answered your own question. If you routinely shoot @f2.8, f4 isn’t a good substitute. Full stop.As for the 20/1.8 - is that wide enough from 24 to warrant carrying an additional lens?

PWPhotography wrote:Those are personal subjective as you said. To me and many they look very normal, wider than your eyes can see that is sure if this is reason 'distortion'Yes, completely subjective of course. It is not the wide angle that I find aesthetically unpleasing (to the contrary), it is the exaggeration of the near/front perspective. The train looks HUGE near the camera and becomes very TINY at the far end. This is "linear distortion" and characteristic for wide angle lenses. For this very reason you don't take portraits with a 20mm lens, but with a 50mm lens, or even better with an 85mm lens....LOVE SWITZERLAND..... if only it were not so expensive...

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,GFIt’s impossible to answer without knowing what you intend to shoot.If you want to shoot handheld indoor in dim light or in poor light outdoor the faster glass is preferable.If you intend to shoot architecture etc. where distortion is problematic you probably want to use the faster and less distorted glass.If you want more separation potential you want the faster glass.if you intend to do sports or other fast paces you want the faster glass.if you do astro you need the faster glass, f4 is on the brink of being useful.if you going to hike several km and need to carry a lot of other stuff, you want to reduce weight and keep a more simplistic line up.  Especially trips where lens changes is a hassle and a hazard you want the all in one light system.If your flying internationally and are restricted in baggage, you probably want to reduce gear, again 20-70 is preferable.if you’re on relaxed vacation where photos is casual and secondary carry heavy equipment might not be all that practical.If you shoot landscape on tripod there not need for heavy, big bulky fast glass as stopped down there won’t be any discernible difference today. Several landscape use slow lenses of that reason, because they need to carry and sometimes need to walk longer distances to get to location. So reducing weight is just making it more enjoyable experience.

Malling wrote:It’s impossible to answer without knowing what you intend to shoot.If you want to shoot handheld indoor in dim light or in poor light outdoor the faster glass is preferable.If you intend to shoot architecture etc. where distortion is problematic you probably want to use the faster and less distorted glass.If you want more separation potential you want the faster glass.if you intend to do sports or other fast paces you want the faster glass.if you do astro you need the faster glass, f4 is on the brink of being useful.if you going to hike several km and need to carry a lot of other stuff, you want to reduce weight and keep a more simplistic line up. Especially trips where lens changes is a hassle and a hazard you want the all in one light system.If your flying internationally and are restricted in baggage, you probably want to reduce gear, again 20-70 is preferable.if you’re on relaxed vacation where photos is casual and secondary carry heavy equipment might not be all that practical.If you shoot landscape on tripod there not need for heavy, big bulky fast glass as stopped down there won’t be any discernible difference today. Several landscape use slow lenses of that reason, because they need to carry and sometimes need to walk longer distances to get to location. So reducing weight is just making it more enjoyable experience.Mainly use for traveling as a walk around lens. As what you said reducing weight is just  making it more enjoyable experience. BUT I also want to take a lot of high quality images as I am not sure whether I will visit again.

GF wrote:Malling wrote:It’s impossible to answer without knowing what you intend to shoot.If you want to shoot handheld indoor in dim light or in poor light outdoor the faster glass is preferable.If you intend to shoot architecture etc. where distortion is problematic you probably want to use the faster and less distorted glass.If you want more separation potential you want the faster glass.if you intend to do sports or other fast paces you want the faster glass.if you do astro you need the faster glass, f4 is on the brink of being useful.if you going to hike several km and need to carry a lot of other stuff, you want to reduce weight and keep a more simplistic line up. Especially trips where lens changes is a hassle and a hazard you want the all in one light system.If your flying internationally and are restricted in baggage, you probably want to reduce gear, again 20-70 is preferable.if you’re on relaxed vacation where photos is casual and secondary carry heavy equipment might not be all that practical.If you shoot landscape on tripod there not need for heavy, big bulky fast glass as stopped down there won’t be any discernible difference today. Several landscape use slow lenses of that reason, because they need to carry and sometimes need to walk longer distances to get to location. So reducing weight is just making it more enjoyable experience.Mainly use for traveling as a walk around lens. As what you said reducing weight is just making it more enjoyable experience. BUT I also want to take a lot of high quality images as I am not sure whether I will visit again.For that a f4 zoom of new G is fine. I used my 16-35G for that in my latest trip to Italy and as I was shooting f4-11 most times it was no problem, but then I always carry a tripod… for low light, but stays in my room when not needed (it’s insuranced)My picture plenty sharp enough corner to corner to hang decently seize on my wall. I can’t imagine it will be any different with this.

Malling wrote:GF wrote:Malling wrote:It’s impossible to answer without knowing what you intend to shoot.If you want to shoot handheld indoor in dim light or in poor light outdoor the faster glass is preferable.If you intend to shoot architecture etc. where distortion is problematic you probably want to use the faster and less distorted glass.If you want more separation potential you want the faster glass.if you intend to do sports or other fast paces you want the faster glass.if you do astro you need the faster glass, f4 is on the brink of being useful.if you going to hike several km and need to carry a lot of other stuff, you want to reduce weight and keep a more simplistic line up. Especially trips where lens changes is a hassle and a hazard you want the all in one light system.If your flying internationally and are restricted in baggage, you probably want to reduce gear, again 20-70 is preferable.if you’re on relaxed vacation where photos is casual and secondary carry heavy equipment might not be all that practical.If you shoot landscape on tripod there not need for heavy, big bulky fast glass as stopped down there won’t be any discernible difference today. Several landscape use slow lenses of that reason, because they need to carry and sometimes need to walk longer distances to get to location. So reducing weight is just making it more enjoyable experience.Mainly use for traveling as a walk around lens. As what you said reducing weight is just making it more enjoyable experience. BUT I also want to take a lot of high quality images as I am not sure whether I will visit again.For that a f4 zoom of new G is fine. I used my 16-35G for that in my latest trip to Italy and as I was shooting f4-11 most times it was no problem, but then I always carry a tripod… for low light, but stays in my room when not needed (it’s insuranced)My picture plenty sharp enough corner to corner to hang decently seize on my wall. I can’t imagine it will be any different with this.I have been traveling recently and although I have the 20mm f.1.8 G, my choice was the 16-35 G PZ with the Tamron 28-200. Now I have been thinking if I should or not buy the 20-70.

4Photos wrote:PWPhotography wrote:Those are personal subjective as you said. To me and many they look very normal, wider than your eyes can see that is sure if this is reason 'distortion'Yes, completely subjective of course. It is not the wide angle that I find aesthetically unpleasing (to the contrary), it is the exaggeration of the near/front perspective. The train looks HUGE near the camera and becomes very TINY at the far end. This is "linear distortion" and characteristic for wide angle lenses. For this very reason you don't take portraits with a 20mm lens, but with a 50mm lens, or even better with an 85mm lens....As I said this is a different topic. This so-called distortion is because UWA is wider than your eyes (around 35mm FL) can see in a given moment. But if you focus on the near end the train cabin that next to you indeed is that big and wide. Then if you shift focus to far end, the remote train cabins do look that small. Your eyes just cannot capture entire scene once. It's just a different perspective view. As I said it's just an option. Like or not is personal subjective.But 20mm is still not wide enough to me at many scenes after used to 16mm wide from a 16-35mm many years.  I have so many photos from a 16-35 lens at 16mm that you can find in my Flickr albums, they look very normal to meLOVE SWITZERLAND..... if only it were not so expensive...Will go there again after retirement. Plan to live in some interesting countries such as Switzerland, Italy etc at least one month for each, and then tour places in slow pace. Yes indeed everything is expensive there but is very very safe.

4Photos wrote: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.FWIW the Sony 20/1.8 G is actually a little closer to a 19mm than a 20mm, I know every mm at this end makes a big difference but I wouldn't grab say the Batis 18/2.8 over it based on that ~1mm difference... Maybe the Samyang 18/2.8 if just looking to save money/space, and I don't think there's actually any 16mm prime options for FF E mount at all. Most everything else seems to cluster around 14-15mm.Edit: Heh, just saw that rumor/leak about the upcoming Sigma 17/4, so I guess that'll be another possibility to complement a zoom. Looks like it'll be even tinier than the SY 18/2.8 and with a usefully shorter MFD.A 15mm cropped by 1.33x to 20mm does take you down to 13MP (from 24MP) or 24MP (from 42MP), and if you started with an f2 it's effectively like having shot at f2.7. I'm all for cropping (nearly half the reason I bought my A7R IV), but in that instance if shooting more towards 20mm than towards 15mm I'd rather just have the lowly SY 18/2.8, or y'know a zoom (16-35/4 G PZ won't take take up any more space than some of the UWA primes).I love my 20/1.8 G FWIW, unusually great rendering for an UWA prime, usefully short MFD, nice handling, pretty flat field of focus, it does a lot of things very well with few flaws; but I do end up using my 17-28/2.8 more often than the 20G just because of it's versatility (I don't shoot a 24/28-xx zoom at all tho so YYMV).

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.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)If you need the speed at the long end often, sure, OTOH 17-28 + 50-400 leaves a similar or smaller gap with an even more versatile range without sacrificing any speed or IQ at the wide end. Just playing devil's advocate from my obviously biased PoV (since I own those two zooms heh). I think body choice plays into it too, I don't mind cropping into 28mm some but I might object to it more on a lower res body.Anyway, I can definitely notice rendering and corner sharpness differences between my 20/1.8 G (as good a prime as any) and my 17-28 (at least as good as the 20-40 AFAIK), but I don't think those differences are make or break for the vast majority of stopped down shots where they're largely minimized (subjective of course). I do use both ends of my 17-28 often which makes it pretty appealing despite the short range.I'd probably feel the same about the 20-40 if I didn't like UWA as much as I do, it's nice to have that extra versatility, particularly if using it as a walk around lens.

Rluizsm wrote:Malling wrote:GF wrote:Malling wrote:It’s impossible to answer without knowing what you intend to shoot.If you want to shoot handheld indoor in dim light or in poor light outdoor the faster glass is preferable.If you intend to shoot architecture etc. where distortion is problematic you probably want to use the faster and less distorted glass.If you want more separation potential you want the faster glass.if you intend to do sports or other fast paces you want the faster glass.if you do astro you need the faster glass, f4 is on the brink of being useful.if you going to hike several km and need to carry a lot of other stuff, you want to reduce weight and keep a more simplistic line up. Especially trips where lens changes is a hassle and a hazard you want the all in one light system.If your flying internationally and are restricted in baggage, you probably want to reduce gear, again 20-70 is preferable.if you’re on relaxed vacation where photos is casual and secondary carry heavy equipment might not be all that practical.If you shoot landscape on tripod there not need for heavy, big bulky fast glass as stopped down there won’t be any discernible difference today. Several landscape use slow lenses of that reason, because they need to carry and sometimes need to walk longer distances to get to location. So reducing weight is just making it more enjoyable experience.Mainly use for traveling as a walk around lens. As what you said reducing weight is just making it more enjoyable experience. BUT I also want to take a lot of high quality images as I am not sure whether I will visit again.For that a f4 zoom of new G is fine. I used my 16-35G for that in my latest trip to Italy and as I was shooting f4-11 most times it was no problem, but then I always carry a tripod… for low light, but stays in my room when not needed (it’s insuranced)My picture plenty sharp enough corner to corner to hang decently seize on my wall. I can’t imagine it will be any different with this.I have been traveling recently and although I have the 20mm f.1.8 G, my choice was the 16-35 G PZ with the Tamron 28-200. Now I have been thinking if I should or not buy the 20-70.Would you give up 16-20 and/or 70-200? I'd rather travel with the two lenses covering a line range than just the one for some marginal IQ gains (at best, possibly not even), most kinds of bags won't be much smaller just because you slim the kit down to a 20-70 vs two relatively similar size zooms.

GF wrote:Dear guys,I have the 20-70 but also I have the Sigma 16-28. There's no free lunch, but if you shoot wide open with the 24-70, combine it with the Sigma, that way you maintain 2.8 and you have a lovely compact option to transition to and from the 24-70 2.8. Minimal overlap and the 16-28 is 75gr and only tiny bit larger than the 20 1.8.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

Dylan10 wrote:GF wrote:Dear guys,I have the 20-70 but also I have the Sigma 16-28. There's no free lunch, but if you shoot wide open with the 24-70, combine it with the Sigma, that way you maintain 2.8 and you have a lovely compact option to transition to and from the 24-70 2.8. Minimal overlap and the 16-28 is 75gr and only tiny bit larger than the 20 1.8.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,GFMost people probably don’t need anything wider then 20 for what the 20-70 is mostly intended for.Also it’s not exactly relaxed carrying over 1kg of lenses. Also having 1.16-1.28kg for 16-70 range coverage are not really all that light.For me personally insisting on 2.8 I would take the Tamron 28-75 G2 that’s at least only 990g and that can be reduced by 70g going with the Sigma 28-70. I simply would not choose the GMii and especially not the Art in that case.

Malling wrote:Dylan10 wrote:GF wrote:Dear guys,I have the 20-70 but also I have the Sigma 16-28. There's no free lunch, but if you shoot wide open with the 24-70, combine it with the Sigma, that way you maintain 2.8 and you have a lovely compact option to transition to and from the 24-70 2.8. Minimal overlap and the 16-28 is 75gr and only tiny bit larger than the 20 1.8.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,GFMost people probably don’t need anything wider then 20 for what the 20-70 is mostly intended for.Also it’s not exactly relaxed carrying over 1kg of lenses. Also having 1.16-1.28kg for 16-70 range coverage are not really all that light.For me personally insisting on 2.8 I would take the Tamron 28-75 G2 that’s at least only 990g and that can be reduced by 70g going with the Sigma 28-70. I simply would not choose the GMii and especially not the Art in that case.Heh, there's so many ways to skin this cat, while other systems barely have 1-2 relevant zooms at this size & price (if that) plus maybe one UWA that small, E mount ends up with a good 3-4 alternatives for small-ish standard zooms plus 3-4 more small-ish UWA zoom options... Other systems might have one small UWA AF prime, or none, E mount will soon have 3+. I think that's worth celebrating a bit more.