p.2 #2 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
Sorry for resurrecting this thread from the dead, but having read the input I am still confused.
We all know the 20-70 is wider and lighter. We all know the GM is faster. There are some comments that seem to imply the sharpness difference isn't great at f8 (surprising) and no comments about color and contrast.
I just sold all my Nikon equipment to be a Sony only guy. I will miss the Z 24-120 as I shoot exclusively landscapes and if I accidently get a person, I crop or clone them out. That was a great landscape lens!!
I am struggling to find a "great" mid zoom in Sony for landscapes. I have previously owned the 24-70 GM version one, the 24-105 f4 G and sold them both to get the Tamron 28-75 Gen 2 which I found better than the previous lenses, but it's still weak above 50mm.
It sounds like the 20-70 is weak above 50mm and has "issues" at 20mm. So, my real question is "How good is the 24-70 GM II as a landscape lens?" Is it really the best mid-range zoom ever made or is it just lighter and a little sharper than the old 24-70 GM? Is the 20-70 really good from 25-55 and the 20-25 and 55-70 are OK, or is the 24-50 G a better choice if what you care about is IQ more than range?
BTW I do own Loxia and CV primes, I just like the convenience of a couple of zooms and need something to go with the 16-35 GM II.
p.2 #3 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
I have the 20-70 and the 24-70GMII. Until now, if the trip is for photography and I need the best performance I'd take the 24-70 (most people don't realize that the 24-70GMII is also sharper at 5.6&8, which are more useful for landscapes). For mixed trips I used to take the 20-70+70-200/4 G.
"However", let me throw an oddball to you: I recently got the Tamron 25-200 and for FL's <~150mm, the lens is incredibly sharp, sometimes more than the 24-70GMII!. And it is 2.8 at the shorter FL's. I think that this new lens deserves a place in this debate. Right now, for mixed trips, I'd carry just that lens and maybe a 16 prime or 16-35PZ....
p.2 #4 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
The chart, below, is from SonyAlpha.blog, a a testing source I have found to be quite reliable. I find the GM 24-70mm f2.8 II to be superior to the 20-70mm f4. In fact, I sold my 20-70mm f4. A lens that I actually use a lot for traveling is the Sigma 20-200mm. This lens is surprisingly sharp.
p.2 #5 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
Maybe I had a strange copy but my 24-105 experience was the polar opposite of what this chart expresses. Mine was much better at 24-50 and weaker at 70-105. Unless I don't understand their relative statements of excellent and very good. I assumed excellent was better.
p.2 #6 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
So for me:
I had the 20-70, the 20-200 , 28-75.....
Sold them all as i found the 24-70 GMII on my RV much much better in any terms.
Yes it is expenisve but it is almost the best you can get.
p.2 #7 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
Avarios wrote:
So for me:
I had the 20-70, the 20-200 , 28-75.....
Sold them all as i found the 24-70 GMII on my RV much much better in any terms.
Yes it is expenisve but it is almost the best you can get.
I agree about 27-70 GMII. It an excellent lens in every way, size, haptics, focusing and optical quality. The GMII feels also lighter and more compact in the camera than it actually is. Center of gravity must be quite close to camera.
I have been thinking of buying 24-50 G for traveling. It is just compact enough to fit into my smallest camera bag. However, I have also 35 GM 40 G and some Fuji compacts which are just fine for relaxing photography while traveling.
p.2 #8 · Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II vs Sony 20-70/4 G for travel
i had a great copy of the 24-105 and sold it for no particular reason. it was plenty sharp for landscapes, but contrast and flare resistance were only decent. i was totally fine with this lens but took a 3 year hiatus from photography and wanted to see which midrange zooms were out that were better.
i also had a 28-200 since it came out and loved the versatility and surprising sharpness of that lens for what it was. also sold it when the 25-200 and 20-200 were announced.
first new lens i tried was the sigma 28-105 f2.8. rented it and bought another copy. 5-10% sharper than the 24-105. better contrast and much better flare resistance, but softish at the longer end and i seemed to miss critical focus more than i am used to with this lens. maybe user error but sold it.
nest i had the 24-70 gm ii and it was crazy sharp at 24-35mm, good at 50 and kinda meh at 70mm. the 70-200 gm ii was LAUGHABLY sharper at 70mm (and i hand held the 70-200 and put the 24-70 on a tripod and shot at a brick wall back to back). compared to the 28-105 it was definitely sharper in extreme frame edges, but similar in central 2/3 of the image. it was not as good as sigma's recent offerings at flare resistance, but they are class leasing at that right now. sigma's colors are much warmer but equally pleasing to me as the gm offerings. finding a great centered copy of the 24-70 gm ii may take some work. mine was pretty average, but i sold it as well.
currently have the 20-200 and haven't used it a ton in the last few months, but did quite a bit of shooting with it when it first came out. i find it surprisingly sharp at closer and midrange distances, but only decent at far distances (regardless of focal length). i loved the images at my local arboretum but was kinda meh on some hikes i took with it in my local mountains. it was still relatively cool and clear at that time but will need to test more to see if it was more atmospheric issues.
i have been chasing the midrange dragon myself and resorted to building a kit around the earth shattering 50-150. currently the 20-200 superzoom is my only "mid range" zoom. i have been using the 35 gm and 50 f1.2 gm as well, and between those and the 50-150 nothing midrange zoom comes close. pairing the 50-150 with a wide zoom is good for me for now, but am eagerly awaiting new midrange zoom releases. or i could try the 28-70 f2
