Geekapoo wrote: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.interesting you use a smaller 1" for ultra compact adventures, I also use a small setup with the rx100vii, it's just that my thresholds for weight are much lower, both ways

Mr_Win wrote:Geekapoo wrote: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.interesting you use a smaller 1" for ultra compact adventures, I also use a small setup with the rx100vii, it's just that my thresholds for weight are much lower, both waysI will tie a camera bag to my bike rack if traveling with a FF body and the 100-400 or 24-105. Also, will occasionally hang the FF body from my neck BUT then the lens needs to be small AND I always protect the lens with a lens hood and filter. Could see using the 20-70 for such outings! Currently only use the 20mm or 35mm.Kayaking? Wouldn't want to get my FF equipment wet but am willing to risk the RX10IV or my Fuji gear (XE3).Much prefer having the camera around my neck as there have been numerous instances where by the time I got a camera out of the camera bag, the shot opportunity had passed.Hmmm..might have to buy a 20-70! 😁

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.Two completely different type of lens to compare. it will depends on your application and personal preference and shooting style.For me, I use 20mm for Astro/Milky Way landscape a lot, so 20 F1.8 is a no brainer, I will stay away from any F4 for this application even when I using a tracker, you never have enough light when shooting Astro, there is HUGE difference between F1.8 and F4 in this application, in fact, I added the Sigma 20 F1.4 recently and kind of stop using my Sony 20 F1.8.If I am using the lens for general landscape, 20-70 F4 maybe little more attractive. well, even for general landscape, I still prefer manual focus primes and I am currently using the Voigtlander 21 F1.4, Voigtlander 35 F2 APO, Voigtlander 65 APO to cover that Focal range.

I find prime lenses very limiting and frustrating unless they are of some extreme variety.  20mm is not extreme.  It's neither ultra wide nor "normal".  Always feels stuck in between.  If you want something wide, get a really wide prime like a Voigtlander 15mm or 14mm GM.  Otherwise, a zoom is much more usable in travel scenarios.

SmokeAndMirrorless wrote:I find prime lenses very limiting and frustrating unless they are of some extreme variety. 20mm is not extreme. It's neither ultra wide nor "normal". Always feels stuck in between. If you want something wide, get a really wide prime like a Voigtlander 15mm or 14mm GM. Otherwise, a zoom is much more usable in travel scenarios.Agree. 20/21mm to me is wide but not that UW. After used to 16mm wide from a 16-35mm zoom in years, even 20mm is not wide enough to me in many scenes. For me 14 GM is much more useful, UWA, fast and sharp even at 1.8, very useful indoor hand-held (where you will appreciate wide) and for evening sky (again 14mm is much more preferable than 20mm). But 20 G can accept regular filters while 14 GM not but there are 100mm holder systems available for 14 GM that is not that bucky as 150mm holder system. Recently I bought a used copy of CV 15 in great price ($370) and luckily appears a good copy without decentering issue. It's pocketable so it complements to 14 GM for better sunstars (14 GM is not bad but I much prefer 10/12-point sunstars), still UWA and can accept a regular screw-in ND filter. Then I have 16-35 PZ and going to get 20-70 G. After stop-down a bit as usually for landscape or on tripod in low-light scenes, I don't think you can tell much (or actually noticeable) difference in sharpness between 20 G and 20mm from 20-70 G (which itself seems pretty sharp even at f4.0).BTW, I also have CV 21/1.4 Nokton that as sharp as 20 G but has much more pleasing sunstars (to my taste and don't need to stop down much).  I carried in many trips mainly for sunstars in evening cityscapes but it's a bit chunky.  Therefore I bought CV 15, much lighter and also wider which is much needed in cityscape.  In some trips I mainly carried prime lenses - 14GM, CV 21, CV 40/1.2, Loxia 85.

Fantastic shots.  I really enjoyed them.

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,GFThanks all for the input.After reading the comments from you guys and ton of reviews, my only concern of getting 20-70mm is the bokeh at 70mm.  I have done some test shots this morning by using of my GM2 and compared the bokeh of f2.8 and f4 at 70mm. If comparing two photos side by side, I can see the bokeh different between f2.8 and f4.0. If look at individual photo, I may not know the different.  After reviewing the test shots, I decided to sell my 24-70mm GM2 and order the 20-70mm.P.S. For long end, I can use my 85 f/1.8 if I want shallow DOF.Thanks,GF

GF 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,GFThanks all for the input.After reading the comments from you guys and ton of reviews, my only concern of getting 20-70mm is the bokeh at 70mm. I have done some test shots this morning by using of my GM2 and compared the bokeh of f2.8 and f4 at 70mm. If comparing two photos side by side, I can see the bokeh different between f2.8 and f4.0. If look at individual photo, I may not know the different. After reviewing the test shots, I decided to sell my 24-70mm GM2 and order the 20-70mm.You can check this DPR preview of the 20-70G that covers bokeh.  It looks nice.  Sony 24-70 GM II should be better in bokeh but seems just slightly.  Only prime lenses such as various 85mm lenses have much better bokeh.https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0341598683/dpreview-tv-sony-20-70mm-f4-g-reviewP.S. For long end, I can use my 85 f/1.8 if I want shallow DOF.Thanks,GF

GF 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,GFThanks all for the input.After reading the comments from you guys and ton of reviews, my only concern of getting 20-70mm is the bokeh at 70mm. I have done some test shots this morning by using of my GM2 and compared the bokeh of f2.8 and f4 at 70mm. If comparing two photos side by side, I can see the bokeh different between f2.8 and f4.0. If look at individual photo, I may not know the different. After reviewing the test shots, I decided to sell my 24-70mm GM2 and order the 20-70mm.P.S. For long end, I can use my 85 f/1.8 if I want shallow DOF.Thanks,GFI think that is a good choice. I just received the 20-70/4 G yesterday and I think you will like it. The focal range is really fantastic along with the IQ....and the weight and size make it really easy to carry around.

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.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.That's the setup I have. The 20 1.8G has really impressed me with the IQ for sure. So easy to take with the 24-70 it weights nothing. Though must say I am curious about the flare and sunstars of the 20-70 for purely landscapes. I haven't used my 16-35 GM for some time but I don't mind. I am just a GAS addict darn it lol.

Sevan wrote: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.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.That's the setup I have. The 20 1.8G has really impressed me with the IQ for sure. So easy to take with the 24-70 it weights nothing. Though must say I am curious about the flare and sunstars of the 20-70 for purely landscapes. I haven't used my 16-35 GM for some time but I don't mind. I am just a GAS addict darn it lol.https://www.dpreview.com/videos/0341598683/dpreview-tv-sony-20-70mm-f4-g-reviewWhat  above video if you have not that should answer your questions.

GF 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,GFThanks all for the input.After reading the comments from you guys and ton of reviews, my only concern of getting 20-70mm is the bokeh at 70mm. I have done some test shots this morning by using of my GM2 and compared the bokeh of f2.8 and f4 at 70mm. If comparing two photos side by side, I can see the bokeh different between f2.8 and f4.0. If look at individual photo, I may not know the different. After reviewing the test shots, I decided to sell my 24-70mm GM2 and order the 20-70mm.P.S. For long end, I can use my 85 f/1.8 if I want shallow DOF.Thanks,GFJust got my 20-70mm lens.Cheers,GF

GF wrote:GF 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,GFThanks all for the input.After reading the comments from you guys and ton of reviews, my only concern of getting 20-70mm is the bokeh at 70mm. I have done some test shots this morning by using of my GM2 and compared the bokeh of f2.8 and f4 at 70mm. If comparing two photos side by side, I can see the bokeh different between f2.8 and f4.0. If look at individual photo, I may not know the different. After reviewing the test shots, I decided to sell my 24-70mm GM2 and order the 20-70mm.P.S. For long end, I can use my 85 f/1.8 if I want shallow DOF.Thanks,GFJust got my 20-70mm lens.Cheers,GFHf. And please do take some shots with and without the UV-filter in different conditions, just to see if there's a discernible effect, good or bad, on the image quality.(The always-UV-filter-or-not discussion is usually held by people on either end of the spectrum. I'm not sure there is a middle ground. Anyway that's a different and rather meaningless topic)

Becksvart wrote:GF wrote:GF 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,GFThanks all for the input.After reading the comments from you guys and ton of reviews, my only concern of getting 20-70mm is the bokeh at 70mm. I have done some test shots this morning by using of my GM2 and compared the bokeh of f2.8 and f4 at 70mm. If comparing two photos side by side, I can see the bokeh different between f2.8 and f4.0. If look at individual photo, I may not know the different. After reviewing the test shots, I decided to sell my 24-70mm GM2 and order the 20-70mm.P.S. For long end, I can use my 85 f/1.8 if I want shallow DOF.Thanks,GFJust got my 20-70mm lens.Cheers,GFHf. And please do take some shots with and without the UV-filter in different conditions, just to see if there's a discernible effect, good or bad, on the image quality.(The always-UV-filter-or-not discussion is usually held by people on either end of the spectrum. I'm not sure there is a middle ground. Anyway that's a different and rather meaningless topic)The common sense is not to use UV filter or at least to use a good quality one, that more or less will deteriorate IQ, cause flare etc. But I could understand it will protect the lens at beach or floating on sea etc. Personally I don't use UV filter even on most expensive lenses as modern lenses have outer protection glass on top of inner elements anyway.

PWPhotography wrote:Becksvart wrote:GF wrote:GF 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,GFThanks all for the input.After reading the comments from you guys and ton of reviews, my only concern of getting 20-70mm is the bokeh at 70mm. I have done some test shots this morning by using of my GM2 and compared the bokeh of f2.8 and f4 at 70mm. If comparing two photos side by side, I can see the bokeh different between f2.8 and f4.0. If look at individual photo, I may not know the different. After reviewing the test shots, I decided to sell my 24-70mm GM2 and order the 20-70mm.P.S. For long end, I can use my 85 f/1.8 if I want shallow DOF.Thanks,GFJust got my 20-70mm lens.Cheers,GFHf. And please do take some shots with and without the UV-filter in different conditions, just to see if there's a discernible effect, good or bad, on the image quality.(The always-UV-filter-or-not discussion is usually held by people on either end of the spectrum. I'm not sure there is a middle ground. Anyway that's a different and rather meaningless topic)The common sense is not to use UV filter or at least to use a good quality one, that more or less will deteriorate IQ, cause flare etc. But I could understand it will protect the lens at beach or floating on sea etc. Personally I don't use UV filter even on most expensive lenses as modern lenses have outer protection glass on top of inner elements anyway.I use filters on lenses and have several scratched and one broken filter.  On tele lenses, you get a loss of IQ with all but the most expensive filters.  Fortunately tele lenses tend to have long hoods.Andrew