I'm looking for something to replace Nikon's 24-120/4 S (and allow me to fully migrate over to Sony). I'm pretty happy with the 20-70/4 G, but for hiking, I find myself wanting more on the long end (and honestly, the 20-24mm range is less useful than I expected out of doors).
The reviews of the 24-105/4 G are not that encouraging though, and the lens is a nearly 8-year old design. Wondering what if any better alternatives exist in that general range.
The only thing I can come up with is Sigma's 28-105/2.8, but, at nearly a kg, it's kind of a tank and you won't have the wide end. There's also Sony's 28-135/4 PZ, but that's an even bigger tank and very expensive (it's made for cine).
You could get a smart Nikon adapter and adapt the F-mount 24-120. AF shouldn't be terrible, especially if you're landscaping with it, and you keep VR.
I had been thinking of a 24-105/4 instead of a 24-70 sort if adding ff but found that I really liked the range on an 18-140 and 18-135 on aps-c. So, I tried the Tamron 28-200 for even more long end over the 24-105/4 and have been pleased with it.
I'm surprised that there aren't other alternatives to Tamron's 28-200mm. It's good for what it is but I'd love to see a better IQ version that isn't a monster. If you could face taking two lenses, I'd go for the Sony 70-200mm f4 Gii. I haven't read a bad thing about it and you get good macro.
I've been advocating/arguing for a Sony 24-120/4 ever since I tried the Nikon ditto, but no joy so far.
While a v2 of the current Sony 24-105/4 would be great, it is not such a bad lens as some people make it out to be. Just look at someone like FM's own member Albert Dros https://www.albertdros.com/ who uses that lens to much success.
Or combine the 20-70/4 with the 70-200/4 v2, and you have a powerful travel kit. Also doubles as somewhat of a macro lens.
So where does weight figure into your priorities during hiking? If it's high up there, then longer reach and decent IQ are going to be an issue. I would suggest looking at the Tamron 28-200 ƒ2.8-5.6. From a landscape perspective I wouldn't want to be out there without at least some form of wide angle lens although I tend to focus on portions of mother nature (which can actually be quite messy) and the ability to isolate sections with a medium zoom up to 200mm is important to me. If weight is not as important, I definitely agree with @patotts, the 20-70/4 and 70-200/4 v2 is a great combo.
The G requires you to post process around it. The Z 24-120 is spectacular down to JPEG shooting. I wish Sony would refresh the G and make a competitive lens.
Having used the G for 4 years, and now the Z for almost 4 years, I’d never choose the G over the Z, full stop. I’d rather buy a Z5ii or Z7ii and dedicate it for 24-120 use than use the G.
What is the state of Z-to-E lens adapters? I see several folks suggested one.
I do not have any Z-lenses, but the quality of autofocus I'm getting out of my Sigma EF-to-E adapter is fantastic. I don't shoot fast action though, but I am keeping all my Canon DSLR lenses now since I got that adapter. I just see no point of getting similar native E-lenses, it's that good.
Z mount has a shorter flange distance than E. Doubt you can go both directions with Z and E.
old-gregg wrote:
What is the state of Z-to-E lens adapters? I see several folks suggested one.
I do not have any Z-lenses, but the quality of autofocus I'm getting out of my Sigma EF-to-E adapter is fantastic. I don't shoot fast action though, but I am keeping all my Canon DSLR lenses now since I got that adapter. I just see no point of getting similar native E-lenses, it's that good.
Have you tried shooting the 20-70 and cropping? Lots of folks in the photo world do that and get an image as sharp as the 24-105g is at 105. For video the 24-105 is still a nice lens because it has OSS and an incredibly useful range, and neither sharpness nor f/4 matter as much in that context.
I just returned from a 2 month trip carrying the 20-70, sigma 90 2.8 and Laowa 9 5.6. Nice and small kit, and worked well for me. The 20-70 was on the camera 90% of the time. However, If I were to do it over again, I’d probably go with the Tamron 28-200, a Sony 55 1.8, and maybe the Tamron 17-28 or a compact 12-24 or something. But it was useful more often than not to have the 20mm range with the normal range, and the times I wanted to go long the 90 usually wasn’t long enough (expect when I unexpectedly became the official photographer for my friend’s wedding…)
If your 24-120 has been serving you well and you want a 1-lens solution, may as well keep it and have a dedicated hiking set up.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I have the Sony 24-105 f4 and Nikon 24-120 f4 S. The Nikon lens is definitely better, but the Sony is not a bad lens either.
Not sure what Nikon body you're using, but you may want to consider buying an E to Z adapter and keeping the Z body and the 24-120 in your kit.
If you want to go fully Sony, maybe consider a 2 lens kit and add a 70-200.
Thanks - this is what I'm leaning to at this point as well.
The Sony 20-70/4 G is a great small lens, and pairs nicely with the A7C II. I previously was shooting Nikon (and before that Olympus) and I'm trying to slowly rationalize my gear down to one system, but loathe to make compromises. The 24-120/4 is really the only Nikon lens I still have that I've not figured an alternative for that I'm happy with.
(Flip side of course is that Nikon has nothing like the Sony 20-70/4 nor the A7C II - which is why I started to transition in the first place).
StoneCrop wrote:
Have you tried shooting the 20-70 and cropping? Lots of folks in the photo world do that and get an image as sharp as the 24-105g is at 105. For video the 24-105 is still a nice lens because it has OSS and an incredibly useful range, and neither sharpness nor f/4 matter as much in that context.
I just returned from a 2 month trip carrying the 20-70, sigma 90 2.8 and Laowa 9 5.6. Nice and small kit, and worked well for me. The 20-70 was on the camera 90% of the time. However, If I were to do it over again, I’d probably go with the Tamron 28-200, a Sony 55 1.8, and maybe the Tamron 17-28 or a compact 12-24 or something. But it was useful more often than not to have the 20mm range with the normal range, and the times I wanted to go long the 90 usually wasn’t long enough (expect when I unexpectedly became the official photographer for my friend’s wedding…)
If your 24-120 has been serving you well and you want a 1-lens solution, may as well keep it and have a dedicated hiking set up....Show more →
Even a Z7ii at 120 will easily best "cropping" to 120 on the 20-70. Gaining 100% more focal range out of a single lens that's better than any lens Sony offers in this space is such a no-brainer to me.
The Nikon 24-120/4 might be the bee's knees, and I agree, and it would be a strong reason for someone to look for Nikon as their primary platform, but I would have such a hard time giving up Sony's AF performance, button customization, as well as lens gems like 20/1.8 G, 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 GM, 50/1.2 GM, 50/1.4 GM, 24-70/2.8 GMII, 70-200/2.8 GMII, etc. One might not need all those lenses, but I find them all to be so phenomenal, and I want them as options. Then again, I guess you can use all of those Sony lenses on a Nikon body...
patotts wrote:
The Nikon 24-120/4 might be the bee's knees, and I agree, and it would be a strong reason for someone to look for Nikon as their primary platform, but I would have such a hard time giving up Sony's AF performance, button customization, as well as lens gems like 20/1.8 G, 24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 GM, 50/1.2 GM, 50/1.4 GM, 24-70/2.8 GMII, 70-200/2.8 GMII, etc. One might not need all those lenses, but I find them all to be so phenomenal, and I want them as options. Then again, I guess you can use all of those Sony lenses on a Nikon body...
The application being discussed here is hiking. You don't need Sony's AF performance for that (nor do you need more than any available Nikon's AF performance for that either).
It's not all that different than people who pick up a medium format body and lens for strict landscape applications. AF is the last thing we care about
