aCuria Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
If your alternative to a 20-70 is a different standard zoom lens like the 24-70, 28-70 or 24-105, which do not hit 20mm at all, perhaps optical performance at 20-23mm should not be considered when evaluating the 20-70 against these alternatives.
What matters more is how the lens compares at f/4 in the shared range to its competitors. For example at 70mm, 50mm, and at 24mm against the 24-70GMii, 24-70 art and 24-105. At 28mm against the 28-75 and 28-70
The second consideration is whether we are willing to lose one stop of light, 105mm or OSS, in exchange for the lighter weight.
The third consideration is how much one values having 20mm tagged onto a standard zoom. I think for someone who is happy with 20mm as their widest focal length, the 20-70 is very compelling
For me, a 20mm is not wide enough to forgo carrying a wider lens in addition. Something like the 12-24, 14-24 or 16-35. Personally I do find myself wanting to zoom out wider than 16mm, but I don’t really want to stomach the far greater weight of the zooms wider than 16mm while holding the camera on a stick.
Due to the 16:9 (1.2x) active stabilization (1.15x) and breathing compensatory crops, a 20mm in video mode has a hfov equivalent of a ~30mm lens in photo mode. This becomes ~42mm equivalent if I also need to factor a 1.5x crop factor for 4K/60
I think the 20-70 has the potential to be an apsc camera killer. Its the same weight as a 16-55/2.8G, has the same amount of bokeh on FF as the f/2.8 on apsc, is wider at 20mm than the 16mm = 24mm equivalent, and is likely to produce a higher resolution image on the FF sensor (lp/ph), is cheaper, and is also a more physically compact lens! It’s really a win win win win win situation when compared to a 2.8 standard zoom on apsc.
If we look at Fuji, their 16-55/2.8 weighs in at 655g which is considerably heavier than the 488g 20-70 too.
This lens turns the idea of apsc setups always being smaller and lighter on its head.
|