I am curious about owners experience when using 20-70 with in camera stabilization that (as I understand it) means a 1.1 crop which changes the focal length close to 24.
I know some photograhers, like FM member https://www.albertdros.com, get amazing results from the 24-105/4 but personally I found it underwhelming and lacking in character, so I sold it.
I'd love to see an updated Sony 24-120/4 general purposes travel lens, but know knows. I am thinking of adding the 20-70/4 as a travel lens for this summer - I'd put that and a 50/1.4GM in the bag as a small-ish walking around kit.
I am tempted to get a 20-70, but I really have no complaints about my 24-105 after a little post processing. The 24-105 is the Rodney Dangerfield of Sony lenses.
If I'm going to take one lens, I'd rather have the 20-70. But in a 2 or 3 lens kit the 24-105 fits better without gaps. Either paired with something like a 16-35 / 14-24 or 100-400
No. IBIS does not crop.
Some video mode stabilisation crops but that's not IBIS.
pjmsj21 wrote:
I am curious about owners experience when using 20-70 with in camera stabilization that (as I understand it) means a 1.1 crop which changes the focal length close to 24.
Unless you absolutely need 16-18mm, or fast aperture, Sony 20-70 can replace many lenses. It did for me but I have 35 GM, which is a different lens altogether. As for 16-18mm, i will rather have a 14mm and crop to 16 if required.
I did sell my 20 G though.
To OP, 24-105 is a F8 lens and inferior to newer 20-70. But i am sure they will do a Mark II of 24-105 pretty soon. But 20-70 will still be relevant because for many people it also replaces 16-35 which 24-105 can not.
ddown wrote:
thinking about trading my Sony 16-35 Zeiss 4.0 and Sony Zeiss 35 1.4 in on a new 20-70 lighter better optics. Opinions from the group?
I sold my 20G and 24-70 GM II and replaced them with the 20-70 for a lighter one lens solution as a general purpose lens. When I travel, I plan to carry this one lens or add my 35 GM for low light. I didn't consider the 24-105 as it is an older design, larger and I like having 20 on the wide end.
My 20-70 was a bit soft on the right AND left sides compared to my Tamron 17-28 @20mm which was much much better. I returned the Sony. I must have a sweet copy of the Tamron.
mojoh wrote:
hmm.. now I finally know why Sony and Zeiss could not get along..
Not seeing the joke. You do understand that the top Sony lenses are *optically* better than the best comparable Zeiss lenses?
I always love the "new-lens" adoration at the expense of something preexisting. The 24-105 has been around and has been a stalwart performer for quite a while. There has been nothing better for a mid-range zoom. I've used it for many years - even sold one once and bought a new one - because nothing performed better than the 24-105 - unless you need more reach. That said, if you have the funds to have both, the 20-70 now gives you the ability to roam around inner-city areas with a smaller, wider, lighter lens. However, if you need the reach for a travel, or landscape the range of the 24-105 is far more useful with the only exception if you regularly find 24 too constricting for possibly interiors BUT you will have pretty great distortion that will need to be corrected. I've used the 24-105 in tight mud huts in Africa shooting documentaries and have never had to correct for wide-angle distortion. Pick the one, or both, that works for you however, don't do so by knocking the 24-105 as it remains a great lens.
mdmarcus wrote:
I have the Sony 24-105 and the 20 f1.8. and I have been reading about their newer 20-70 f/4. I find, for me, that the 24-105 is a bit heavy and unbalanced for routine uses on my a7Riii. .......... Next, to complicate my considerations, a while back I got a great deal (half price) from Amazon on a new (sans damaged box and papers) and the often-reviewed with high regard Sony 28-60 kit lens. I find that real-world walkabout images from this almost toy-looking lens fairly match those from the 24-105. So, after all of this overthinking, I conclude that I'll just keep using the 28-60 as my main zoom-walkabout-street lens, and mostly keep the 24-105 in a bag for those times when I think more reach at both ends might be needed, for example, when visiting our national parks and similar dramatic landscapes. Plus, I do have the 20mm for whenever I think a landscape photo needs to be wider and I can't step back. Your thought?...Show more →
Sound judgement. Any longer lens will have less "balance" than everything shorter but, of course, that's what reach gets you. I too have had the 28-60 twice. I had it and sold it when I purchased the 24-70 which turned out to be an inferior lens to the 28-60. So I sold it and repurchased a 28-60 and it stays on one of my bodies because, as you stated, it's a great "little", read tiny, lens. AND it's about 1/3 the weight of the 20-70. I would post a couple of photos from a 28-60 but I'm not paying some BS "upload" fees to do so. I guess it's not enough that I pay the "sell" fees when I'm selling something.
patotts wrote:
I know some photograhers, like FM member https://www.albertdros.com, get amazing results from the 24-105/4 but personally I found it underwhelming and lacking in character, so I sold it.
I'd love to see an updated Sony 24-120/4 general purposes travel lens, but know knows. I am thinking of adding the 20-70/4 as a travel lens for this summer - I'd put that and a 50/1.4GM in the bag as a small-ish walking around kit.
I'm in the same boat. I have the 24-105mm which I got for the extra range at the long end. It doesn't measure up to my copy of the 24-70mm GM...and it's version 1. I want something longer, so the 70-200mm is in my future, and the 24-105mm will be put up for sale.
I like the idea of the 20-70/4. But my "mid-range" is the 28-200. I could swap a 20-70/4 for my17-28, and I'd keep the 28-200. But while convenient, it's a lot cheaper to stick with what I have. (I'm in the western US and seldom need to go with the 17-28/2.8. There are times, like some "big" trips we've made to the east coast or Europe where the 17-28 gets a lot more use and the greater overlap would be welcome.)
But if you swap the 24-105 to the 20-70, it means considering what you need, if anything, in the 70mm and longer range. If never or seldom, maybe that's a purchase that could be deferred or just not needed.
I'd examine how much use the 70-105 range and how many times have to swap to 20mm. You can crop 70mm to 105, but can't crop 24mm to 20. Also if you already cropping from 105mm then 70mm may not long enough.
I find wide angle focal length are little tricky. If you have 24mm then you want 20mm because sometimes 24mm is not wide enough. However there are situations when 20mm also not wide enough and so on.
