p.1 #2 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
I have both. I haven't done a comparison between the two in terms of sharpness. I have no doubt the 24-70 GM II is sharper, but is the difference even perceivable by eyes in normal viewing? I personally don't shoot at F2.8 for travel photos. For me, travel photos mean landscape, cityscape and sometimes interior, I don't photograph people. So a light UWA like the new Viltrox 14mm or the CV 15, the 20-70, the 70-200 f4 G II (or even the lighter Batis 135) would be my travel kit. My other travel kit option would be the Sony PZ 16-35 f4 and the Tamron 50-400, if I know I would need longer reach.
p.1 #3 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
Most people don’t keep separate lenses for home and travel. They want one lens that can handle both. The difference between these two options comes down to 4 mm of extra reach, one stop of light, and about 207 grams of weight. Neither lens is small or discreet like the Fuji X100VI, so in my view you are not gaining much by choosing the 20–70 unless you really value those extra 4 mm at the wide end. Between the two, I would choose the 24–70.
That said, I own the 20–70 and I like it a lot. I pair it with the Tamron 35–150, which I’ve had for many years and still consider one of my all‑time favorite lenses. The 20–70 is a great walk‑around lens for me, and I mainly bought it to cover the ultra‑wide end with the versatility of a zoom as a bonus. When I don’t feel like carrying my much bigger and much heavier 35–150, it still lets me get away with carrying just one lens.
p.1 #4 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
For how I shoot I rarely need 20mm, usually 24mm is wide enough (and when it’s not I jump to 16mm). I find f/2.8 useful for evening travel shoots, and the extra weight is not a big deal to me, so I’d take the 24-70/2.8 GMII (my previous Nikon 24-70/2.8 weighed 1,070 grams!). I also have a wonderful copy of the Sony 24-105/4 and because I like more telephoto I would also consider that for travel (maybe with the 35/1.4 GM added for true low light capability).
p.1 #5 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
I like f/2.8 but went with the smaller and lighter FE 16-25/2.8 G and FE 24-50/2.8 G pair. For longer I got the FE 70-200/4 Macro G II, if I need a faster lens for low light I will substitute out one of the zooms for a f/1.8 or f/1.4 prime. Like the 14 or 20mm prime or a 40/2 or 85/1.8 prime.
p.1 #8 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
Depends on what you’re shooting of course, but I found the 20-70 to be a perfect match for my travels. F4 is still plenty usable for low light and portraits. I also took the sigma 90i and for those times I was more focused on portraits I’d put that on instead but most of the time the 20-70 was on the camera. Mark Galer did a great review of that lens for travel, pointing out portraits where he was even stopping down from f4 so he could get the whole face in focus etc. I must say the 20mm came in handy very often, even though there’s some distortion there.
I had the gm ii briefly but sold it, because the 20-70 got me everything I needed for convenience, and I have bright primes for when I want low light and background separation. The gmii also wasn’t light enough that I felt like I could just carry it all day, while the 20-70 is. Also less risk of loss of something happens to your gear while traveling.
With the weight and space you save with the f4, you might be able to add a small bright prime to put on when indoors or at night.
p.1 #9 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
Not all travel is created equal. If I'm on a trip where photography is NOT the primary objective, and I just need better snapshots than a phone provides, then I can see myself using a lightweight zoom. In your case that would be the 20-70 f/4 and, as another comment said, there's no need f/2.8.
But for photography-focused trips I would take 3 manual focus primes. They're faster and usually have a flatter focus field. Individually they're much lighter than any zoom, but I don't need all 3 to be with me at every point on a trip. Being constrained by a fixed focal length works wonders for my creativity and quality of photos I get, which may not be true for everyone. My favorite setup is a small shoulder camera bag with one extra lens, usually 24+50 or 35+85, with one or two lenses left in a hotel room.
p.1 #10 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
Nearly all of my trips are non-photography related but I always want a nice camera along for the journey.
The 20-70 is a dream lens for that job. With the extra stabilization of the A1 II for the most part F4 is not a hinderance during the day and really worth the extra 4mm width. The 20 is really useful in crowded cities and for landscape. If I carried a 24-70 I'd want a separate ultra wide along for the trip.
I'd usually bring the 35 1.4 for night/low outings.
p.1 #11 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
My view is, if people photos are important to you when you are travelling, 24-70 f/2.8. Otherwise, the 20-70 f/4 for travel. (And in either case you may want to carry a faster prime lens too, of course.)
p.1 #12 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
I used to bring the 20-70/4 for travel. Perhaps add a fast prime of choice, but at the end of the day, changing or carrying an extra lens is a hassle, so I'd stick with the 20-70/4 95% of the time.
p.1 #14 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
I had purchased the sony 20-70 f4 for hiking / landscapes _ hikes that 8-12 miles with 1500 ft to 2500 ft elevation gain - rocky mountains. Weight is a big issue where the weight of a I phone is too much (lol). Outdoors most all the shots are f8 (or f5.6, f8 or f11), so the 2.8 isnt needed. I wasnt convinced that the 20-70 was as sharp as it should, so this weekend I tested the 24-70 f2.8 sigma dg dn art ii which is rated almost as sharp as the sony 24-70 gm ii. after taking about 150 pics of identical shots, there was virtually no difference between the two in the f8 or f11 range, F4, the 24-70 was better, but for hiking the f4 is not needed.
p.1 #17 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
If I'm committed to taking a zoom on vacation, I'd rather it be the 24-70 GM II. I'd throw in the Viltrox 14/4 for when I want wider than 24mm. The 14mm gives you 21mm in crop mode which is excellent.
I've not used the 20-70/4, and from what I read here it is a great lens. But for some reason f4 zooms give me zero inspiration and so I don't use them anymore at all. Weird, but true! You have to use the lenses that inspire you to see and also to photograph. If you can get that from the f4 zoom, it may be the perfect tool.
p.1 #18 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
I think we are partly talking about different things here. Many replies seem to assume that travel photography is mainly about convenience, light weight, and getting better snapshots than a smartphone. That is perfectly valid.
For me, however, the first question is a different one: why take a camera at all instead of just using a smartphone. If the goal is mainly documentation, a phone is often more than good enough today.
Once you start caring about deliberate image rendering, light-gathering ability, and strong visual impact, the requirements change completely. Unusual focal lengths, true ultra-wide perspectives, and real light-gathering power are not gimmicks then. They are the reason to carry a camera in the first place.
As long as it is not clear what someone actually wants to achieve photographically and what their real requirements are, any recommendation here is, in my opinion, only of limited value. Otherwise we end up comparing weight, convenience, and specifications instead of the intended photographic result.
p.1 #19 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
I had the 24-70 GM II but downsized to the 20-70 G because I didn't like the weight and bulkiness of the GM. Now, I've got the 24-50 G because I didn't like 20mm much and wanted f/2.8 as well. I think for most, the 20-70 G is the better choice.
I've found that limiting myself to 24-50mm works best for me, since I had primes within those ranges and really liked the use of primes. I don't see many people discussing how the limitation of the focal range could be a positive, as it is for me, but I don't think it'd be the same for everyone. When I had the 20-70 G, my pictures felt like they were all over the place with how wide and tight some of them were for that day. This made me move over to primes, and now I'm back to zooms.
I might also pick up the 16-25 G for wide shots when I want wide pictures.
p.1 #20 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
Another vote for the 20-70.
Like others have said, it depends on the purpose of the trip, but for me, pretty much all my travel is with my wife/family so I typically opt for something compact and versatile so I’m not constantly changing lenses or carrying around bulk. The 24-70 just felt a little too big and unbalanced for me on an A7CR body and I rarely shoot at 2.8 when I’m traveling.
I think a lot of people overestimate the practical difference between f2.8 and f4. The minor bokeh difference just wasn’t worth (at least for me) the cost, weight, and size difference. Low light performance isn’t a huge factor either on modern bodies either especially with AI denoise these days. I recently took a trip to Europe for the Christmas markets and brought the 20-70 and 35GM and found that at night, f4 wasn’t a problem and ended up shooting 99% of the trip with the 20-70. I’m even starting to think that for my next trip (again, family + sightseeing focused), I won’t even bother bringing a GM prime and substitute the 70-200 f4 G II as my 2nd lens.
Again, I think it comes down to what you personally value for travel. For me, it’s something compact, versatile, and small and the 20-70 checks all those boxes for me.
. So a light UWA like the new Viltrox 14mm or the CV 15, the 20-70, the 70-200 f4 G II (or even the lighter Batis 135) would be my travel kit. My other travel kit option would be the Sony PZ 16-35 f4 and the Tamron 50-400, if I know I would need longer reach.