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.My travel kit is now;A7IV + 16-28 2.8, 20-70 4, 70-180 2.8, intention is not to take them for every trip just as required for the location. I do have the 50-400 which I will probably use in the UK too from time to time but am thinking of getting a 70-300 as a cheap and cheerful light zoom possibly to take abroad, so basically 16-28 2.8/20-70/70-300 and my trusty SY 35 1.8.Sony just has so many options its hard to go wrong.

Dylan10 wrote:My travel kit is now;A7IV + 16-28 2.8, 20-70 4, 70-180 2.8, intention is not to take them for every trip just as required for the location. I do have the 50-400 which I will probably use in the UK too from time to time but am thinking of getting a 70-300 as a cheap and cheerful light zoom possibly to take abroad, so basically 16-28 2.8/20-70/70-300 and my trusty SY 35 1.8.Sony just has so many options its hard to go wrong.Because too many options, I always think I make the wrong decision 🤣🤣 It is like you bring two lenses to shoot and find that always put the wrong lens on the camera.

GF wrote:Dylan10 wrote:My travel kit is now;A7IV + 16-28 2.8, 20-70 4, 70-180 2.8, intention is not to take them for every trip just as required for the location. I do have the 50-400 which I will probably use in the UK too from time to time but am thinking of getting a 70-300 as a cheap and cheerful light zoom possibly to take abroad, so basically 16-28 2.8/20-70/70-300 and my trusty SY 35 1.8.Sony just has so many options its hard to go wrong.Because too many options, I always think I make the wrong decision 🤣🤣Grass is greener on the other side syndrome seem to be a widespread thing in hobbies

It's not a hard choice if you know what you'll be using it for, and both lenses are priced almost the same ($900 vs $1100). Will you need f/1.8 or not? If not then the 20-70 looks like a good deal, but a decent prime is always going to give you better image quality than a zoom, period.

Personally I’d do the 20 mm prime. However ultra wide zooms are and option.  If you really want wider you have the Batis 18 mm as another idea.

But the 20 1.8 has been around a while so you can pick one up used for quite a but less than the retail price where as the 20-70 will sell for full retail, if that is a consideration. Frankly, the f4  of the 20-70 gives me pause. I have shot with an 18-110 f4 for years and the zony 24-70 f4 as well and with both I kept wishing I had something faster. I like the brighter viewfinder in addition to the extra low light capability of 2.8 and faster lenses. The Sony 20 1.8 fits the bill for me,  but of course it is an extra lens you have to carry. You could of course get both and have the best of both worlds. Decisions...decisions.

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.May I ask you why you would not choose the GMII? I am interested to know what would justify less 4mm but f2.8 in a heavier lens as a general purpose lens.

Impulses wrote: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.Really a tough choice! So far I was convinced that the 16-35 PZ & 28-200 was the best travel kit. Being reasonable, I have to entirely agree with you!

JC Cabin wrote:But the 20 1.8 has been around a while so you can pick one up used for quite a but less than the retail price where as the 20-70 will sell for full retail, if that is a consideration. Frankly, the f4 of the 20-70 gives me pause. I have shot with an 18-110 f4 for years and the zony 24-70 f4 as well and with both I kept wishing I had something faster. I like the brighter viewfinder in addition to the extra low light capability of 2.8 and faster lenses. The Sony 20 1.8 fits the bill for me, but of course it is an extra lens you have to carry. You could of course get both and have the best of both worlds. Decisions...decisions.Do you have the preview exposure feature turned off? I wouldn’t expect the viewfinder brightness to vary if your exposures are similar otherwise. On a dslr of corse this would be different.

Rluizsm wrote: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.Tamron FE 28-75/2.8 G2, actually only 540g. Sony FE 24-70/2.8 GM II, 695g. The new Sony FE 20-70/40 G, 488g.I simply would not choose the GMii and especially not the Art in that case.May I ask you why you would not choose the GMII? I am interested to know what would justify less 4mm but f2.8 in a heavier lens as a general purpose lens.Well, to some especially those pros in sports, wedding and events, the one-stop aperture difference is very important. Plus GM II should still better in subject separation and background rendering over the new 20-70G. No much difference in stop-down landscape photos including sharpness. 20-70G otherwise enjoys 4mm wider that is much wider and much lighter/smaller to carry with.  24-70/2.8 is one of standard lenses widely used in sports and news PJs.

Rluizsm wrote: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.May I ask you why you would not choose the GMII? I am interested to know what would justify less 4mm but f2.8 in a heavier lens as a general purpose lens.For travel and one lens carry as the 20-70 is aimed at, you rarely need to go all the way to 16mm. I been in plenty vacation where 20mm would be plenty wide enough. And covering 16-70 range especially in 2.8 is going to add considerable bulk in fact more then twice the weight. Unless you intend to shoot lots of handheld lowlights and be in some excessively tight places 20mm or doing UW landscape, the 20-70 f4 is going to be absolutely fine. I’m also sure it’s going to be desired by tripod users just as the 16-35G has become. I love using UW but it requires an absolute tremendous amount of care to work really well. And for more casual photgraphy that travel often is, especially if you travel with others there is little time and opportunities for that. I also don’t see any sort of point in 2.8 lenses with what I shoot, either these are to fast or to slow, it’s just a middle of nowhere kind of thing.  I’m very much a firm believer of f4 zoom and prime combination.  Having one stop gain and having to carry double the weight just ain’t very appealing to me.

No, I don't have it turned off, but the camera is limited by the amount of light that comes into the viewfinder; the brightness level may remain the same but the quality of the image may change depending on noise, etc.

Malling wrote:Rluizsm wrote: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.May I ask you why you would not choose the GMII? I am interested to know what would justify less 4mm but f2.8 in a heavier lens as a general purpose lens.For travel and one lens carry as the 20-70 is aimed at, you rarely need to go all the way to 16mm. I been in plenty vacation where 20mm would be plenty wide enough. And covering 16-70 range especially in 2.8 is going to add considerable bulk in fact more then twice the weight. Unless you intend to shoot lots of handheld lowlights and be in some excessively tight places 20mm or doing UW landscape, the 20-70 f4 is going to be absolutely fine. I’m also sure it’s going to be desired by tripod users just as the 16-35G has become. I love using UW but it requires an absolute tremendous amount of care to work really well. And for more casual photgraphy that travel often is, especially if you travel with others there is little time and opportunities for that. I also don’t see any sort of point in 2.8 lenses with what I shoot, either these are to fast or to slow, it’s just a middle of nowhere kind of thing. I’m very much a firm believer of f4 zoom and prime combination. Having one stop gain and having to carry double the weight just ain’t very appealing to me.Thank you very much for the clarification, which is quite reasonable! I'm quite inclined to buy the new 20-70G which, compared to the 24-70GII, is 33% cheaper, weighs 207 grams less and is 21 cm shorter in length. In terms of features, both are on pair and the 20-70G performance seems to be excellent, making it a perfect travel/landscape lens for me.

PWPhotography wrote:This so-called distortion is because UWA is wider than your eyes (around 35mm FL) can see in a given moment.Dear PWPhoto, we are in complete agreement, except this is not "so-called" distortion, it is known as "linear" distortion (linear, cause unlike barrel-type straight lines remain straight) or "perspective distortion. It is FOR REAL.Like or not is personal subjective.Agree - and to my eyes, this linear distortion, when it is too extreme looks bad. But I know many like this effect, or at least are not bothered by it.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.Sounds like a good plan! The Southern most parts of Germany are also nice to explore (I am from Germany) but Italy definitely has he nicer weather. Would love to retire in "Nord-Tirol"...

Wordfool wrote:It's not a hard choice if you know what you'll be using it for, and both lenses are priced almost the same ($900 vs $1100). Will you need f/1.8 or not? If not then the 20-70 looks like a good deal, but a decent prime is always going to give you better image quality than a zoom, period.Marginally better image quality at best. Period.Guess the versatility of a 20-70mm zoom will bring a lot more keepers back to the computer than any 20mm fixed focal lenght ever will - regardless of optical quality.There is much more to a lens than sharpness only.Real photographers care about image content, about telling a story, about projects and how the final image works in context. Sharpness for the sake of sharpness only is pretty irrelevant. At least if one care about real world photography.Amateurish photographers are often obsessed with sharpness because it is a metric that is easy to spot - especially in the extreme corners - and to compare by numbers and graphs is also easy. And wonderful to get upset about.But by all means - if sharpness on its own satisfies - well, go ahead and get the sharpest lens you can afford. Period.

Tristimulus wrote:Wordfool wrote:It's not a hard choice if you know what you'll be using it for, and both lenses are priced almost the same ($900 vs $1100). Will you need f/1.8 or not? If not then the 20-70 looks like a good deal, but a decent prime is always going to give you better image quality than a zoom, period.Marginally better image quality at best. Period.Guess the versatility of a 20-70mm zoom will bring a lot more keepers back to the computer than any 20mm fixed focal lenght ever will - regardless of optical quality.There is much more to a lens than sharpness only.Real photographers care about image content, about telling a story, about projects and how the final image works in context. Sharpness for the sake of sharpness only is pretty irrelevant. At least if one care about real world photography.Amateurish photographers are often obsessed with sharpness because it is a metric that is easy to spot - especially in the extreme corners - and to compare by numbers and graphs is also easy. And wonderful to get upset about.But by all means - if sharpness on its own satisfies - well, go ahead and get the sharpest lens you can afford. Period.That seems unwarranted, there's a lot more to IQ than sharpness and Wordfool didn't even say a thing about sharpness... Indeed, I use my 17-28 instead of my 20/1.8 G a lot because stopped down I'd need to pixel peep corners to tell a difference in sharpness, but there's still more than a few advantages to the overall look and IQ of the 20G not to mention practical ones like the shorter MFD or being able to shoot at a lower ISO in low light (far less cat's eye than any other E mount lens I own too, 35GM included, which is wild for an UWA).

I've chosen to use the 20mm f1.8 and the 24-70 GM2 f2.8. I'd rather have the faster lenses and additional DoF options, makes for more potential creativity re compositions. Carrying both lenses is not a burden weight-wise (for me).

Tristimulus wrote:Wordfool wrote:It's not a hard choice if you know what you'll be using it for, and both lenses are priced almost the same ($900 vs $1100). Will you need f/1.8 or not? If not then the 20-70 looks like a good deal, but a decent prime is always going to give you better image quality than a zoom, period.Marginally better image quality at best. Period.Guess the versatility of a 20-70mm zoom will bring a lot more keepers back to the computer than any 20mm fixed focal lenght ever will - regardless of optical quality.There is much more to a lens than sharpness only.Real photographers care about image content, about telling a story, about projects and how the final image works in context. Sharpness for the sake of sharpness only is pretty irrelevant. At least if one care about real world photography.Amateurish photographers are often obsessed with sharpness because it is a metric that is easy to spot - especially in the extreme corners - and to compare by numbers and graphs is also easy. And wonderful to get upset about.But by all means - if sharpness on its own satisfies - well, go ahead and get the sharpest lens you can afford. Period.There's a fair point in here, but this was a weirdly condescending response.

Geekapoo wrote:I've chosen to use the 20mm f1.8 and the 24-70 GM2 f2.8. I'd rather have the faster lenses and additional DoF options, makes for more potential creativity re compositions. Carrying both lenses is not a burden weight-wise (for me).DOF is by far the biggest difference you will see IMOhowever you’re talking about 1kg in lenses vs 480g, and two physical lenses, and a $2000 price difference?There is a crowd for this lens, the ultra obsessed traveler/ documentary  creator. between the cameras mics mounts tripods, I mostly use only 1FF body and one lens. Depending on location the 35-150 monster or 24-70 f4/16-35 f4/20-40 f2.8. This 20-70 has the potential to chop away the lenses maybe more

Mr_Win wrote:Geekapoo wrote:I've chosen to use the 20mm f1.8 and the 24-70 GM2 f2.8. I'd rather have the faster lenses and additional DoF options, makes for more potential creativity re compositions. Carrying both lenses is not a burden weight-wise (for me).DOF is by far the biggest difference you will see IMOhowever you’re talking about 1kg in lenses vs 480g, and two physical lenses, and a $2000 price difference?There is a crowd for this lens, the ultra obsessed traveler/ documentary creator. between the cameras mics mounts tripods, I mostly use only 1FF body and one lens. Depending on location the 35-150 monster or 24-70 f4/16-35 f4/20-40 f2.8. This 20-70 has the potential to chop away the lenses maybe moreYes, DoF difference AND more utility in low light.Yes, one can bump up the ISO and do post processing NR, but that is not my preference.As weight and price are not deciding issues, the 20 f1.8 and 24-70 f2.8 are my choices. If I didn't have an RX10IV for biking/kayaking/long hikes, I'd maybe be considering the 20-70 f4 for those uses. Finally, should note that the 20 f1.8 is a good astro option.