I'm about to do some traveling - some nature, some city - and considering getting the Sony 20-70 F4 G to complement my Sony 70-200 F4, or the Sigma 20-200 (F3.5-6.3) for a one-lens solution.
The one-lens solution is tempting, but I'm wondering if I'll miss IQ of the Sony G pair. Any suggestions, thoughts?
My current kit is Sony A7RV with 24 1.4 GM (for landscapes) and 50 1.4 GM (for everyday), plus the 70-200 F4 for reach. All great, but too much to take and swap around on a trip.
oakrrl wrote:
but I'm wondering if I'll miss IQ of the Sony G pair. Any suggestions, thoughts?
If you resist pixel-peeping on a low PPI screen, you won't see the difference between them. You won't be able to "miss IQ". Moreoer, you won't see the difference between all non-budget lenses by all manufacturers at typical working apertures. That's simply because we're living in 2026, the era of mature computer-assisted design, commodity glass and coatings. And the use case of casually walking around is the least demanding for IQ.
TLDR: for this use case a lens choice doesn't matter.
P.S. Can I give unsolicited advice though? Dump the zooms. Try mounting something super lightweight like the 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss or 35mm f/2.5 G and make it the only lens. You'll love the results.
Thanks. I've avoided zooms, and debated just going with the sony 40 G - nice and light. Lots to be said for that, especially since I can zoom by cropping to some extent with A7RV, and wide-angle I can stitch together. Still, 20-200 is tempting
How about this combination:
-Tamron 28-75 2.8, fairly light and compact, nice bokeh and charming images, fairly bright
-Viltrox 14/4, light, compact and very good image quality, and really wide
-Tamron 50-300, halfway light and compact, wide focal and distance range includes birds and insects, can be kept on quite a while due to the wide range, sharp
I don't have the Sigma 20-200, but I do have the Tamron 28-200 and the IQ from it has always impressed me, even on my A7CR. My travel kit is often the Tamron and a lightweight fast prime for low light. The 61mp A7CR allows me to crop in post or switch to crop mode in camera at the push of a button, thereby expanding my coverage of focal lengths for each lens, all while maintaining very good IQ. I've also now added the Viltrox 14/4 to my travel kit as it has excellent IQ, weighs next to nothing, doesn't take up much space in the bag, cost very little to acquire and is a lot of fun to shoot. Steve
I’ve never been a fan of the super zooms for travel (28-200 or 20-200). Yes, they have a great focal range, but at a steep cost. They both close down very quickly and leave you shooting at small apertures most of the time. I used the Tamron 28-200 for several vacations and never loved the images. Many do, though. I’m not one of them. I like the option to shoot at f1.4-f2.8 more than a massive focal range.
It’s a pain to change lenses while on vacation but if you choose to shoot primes, stick with one prime for the morning and then switch to another in the afternoon. See what you get. It’s fun looking for images your prime lens will give you.
I’ve shot mostly primes on vacation for years, but recently sold most of my lenses and purchased the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8. It’s heavy, but wow, the image quality is superb and the focal range is perfect - along with wide apertures. Paired with a 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, or Tamron 17-28/2.8, it will be my main travel lens for the future. The secret is to carry it in a sling bag for easy access.
Thanks everyone, these suggestions are very helpful. I'll look into the Tamrons. One zoom and one fast prime seem like the way to go - or maybe the Tammy 17-28 and 50-300...
You might want to consider the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN Art lens. It's superb but you might find it heavy and hefty for travel. It's my all in one solution for cityscapes/landscapes/environmental portraits and for the model shoots I do during my travel. Perfect to take to downtown and straight to the beach.
If you are shooting landscape, citiscapes, general family photography, esp during daytime, I think 20-70/4 is a great lens. Bring one of the f/1.4 for the evening shots. Buy it used and it is a great value to boot.
No answer, maybe can direct some questions that may help. (Incidentally, there could be suggestions of lazy or FOMO because some people just don't like that other people have different solutions.)
I've found the idea of a prime or two doesn't work for me. Three or more lenses (primes or zooms) may cover my desired range but suggests swapping is going to happen. Weight and bulk (and cost) considerations can over-ride perfect iq (for me). My generic "travel" range is 16mm to 200mm and driving trips are different than international air travel. Lots of walking differs from lots of driving. My "urban" focal length range preference differs from my general non-urban focal length range Most of the time, for me, it's my 28-200. The 2x-200w generally eliminate the need for a 70-200. The 20-200 does away with much of the 28mm isn't wide enough concerns. (But that may not mean at times 20-70 and 50-300 isn't a good choice, or 17-28 and 28-200, or toss a 14mm in there, too.)
Subject matter? Do you want that gargoyle or long shots or subject isolation? The narrower the focal length range you carry, the more you might need to stitch or crop and there are limits to how much one can crop.
End use? Wall prints? Or social media - and sharing with folks who may be viewing on their phone or a generic laptop or desk top? Is that "IQ difference" a real issue or discussion point? Does it go beyond you to your end uses or just something that you know might be there to some extent? Are "we" wearing blended bifocals, etc., or nose to the corners?
Are you in the "What's wrong with what you have?" or "Enjoy the experience and views and family and don't spend all your time with that camera to your face!" zone. TBH, looking at an upcoming trip - Geneva, wine and champagne country, Paris and the surround and a bit of London with adult family. I'm one of two with photo interests and really, the idea of "one camera and lens" but more/better than my phone" so a 20-200 is tempting. Really tempting. I don't have an answer yet. Just simlar thoughts.
I think Craig makes some great points. My questions to you would be, what conditions will you be shooting under? What apertures do you intend to shoot at and will you have a tripod?
As an owner of too many lenses, I recently made an exhaustive comparison of the 16-35 gmii, 24-105f4, 28-60 plastic kit lens, 40 2.5, 40 1.2 Voight, 28-75 Tamron G2, 85 1.8, Tamron 28-200 and 70-200 gmii.
Here's what I found out - at f/8 to f/11 they are all really close. Shockingly close raw. With a little correction (applying the lens profiles) they are really hard to decipher even at 200%. These were brick wall tests for whatever that is worth. At f/8 & f/11, the 28-200 at 200 with lens profile corrections was shockingly close to the 70-200 gmii center to edges. I know, there's some purple fringing on the 28-200 but that is so easily corrected.
There is no doubt that the fast lenses are IQ engineered to excel at larger apertures. However, f8 becomes an equalizer and the size and weight (and cost) of the "fast lenses" has a negative ROI at F8-F11. In fact, I am now looking into sunstar rendering more and more because the lenses are so close at landscape apertures.
My feeling after the tests was that the 16-35 gmii I own is exceptional and I would not think twice about using it for 2.8 and beyond throughout its entire zoom range - all the way to 35. The 24-105 is weaker than the 28-75g2 until f/8 where they meet (along with most other lenses). The 28-60 is my "pocket lens" that I carry with me when I am out with long teles just in case I see something. It's as light as a 1.4tc. I rarely use the 40 1.2, but when I do it's at f2 or wider.
I cannot get my mind around 1.4 lenses for landscape use unless its astro landscape. F8 and be there still holds true.
If you don't mind switching lenses, I don't know why you need to add to your kit. If you want to limit switches and plan to shoot mostly daytime and landscapes and only want to carry 2 lenses, I guess the 20-70 would work. I had the 20-70 but sold it because I always ended up bringing the 16-35 gmii and using it to 35 anyway, so a wide (20-24) midrange zoom wasn't as necessary. I also felt the 20-70 looked flat, which is a subjective thing. I never felt it had depth. I probably didn't give it enough chance. It was plenty sharp.
If, after the testing, I wanted to go super-light and was taking mostly daylight or tripod landscapes, 16-35 and 28-200. At f8-f11 it's not enough IQ difference with A7RV for me to carry the 24-105, 28-75 or 70-200.
If it's a car trip where weight isn't an issue and I don't mind changing lenses, i'd bring 16-35, 28-75 and 70-200gmii with tcs. I think you have everything already, but if you want 2 lenses, add the 20-70.
ps09, I'm encouraged by your report of the 28-200, and your suggestion of the 16-35 GM II is intriguing. But it's expensive! Maybe too much so for travel. ...I wonder about the 16-35 F4 PZ instead. I've found Sony G lenses are generally fine for IQ, though the GM lenses I have (24 and 50) definitely have that extra something and of course are better in low light situations. I did try the 20-70 G and found it sharp but flat,
Craig, good questions. I won't be lugging a tripod, or printing large images. Mostly will be showing photos to friends/family on iPad M4 and Apple Studio Display (though those are sharp enough so IQ differences are noticeable). "One camera lens and better than my phone" is about where I am, so 20-200 is very tempting; I think I'll try one out on an upcoming weekend trip nearby and see what it's like.
ps09, I'm encouraged by your report of the 28-200, and your suggestion of the 16-35 GM II is intriguing. But it's expensive! Maybe too much so for travel. ...I wonder about the 16-35 F4 PZ instead. I've found Sony G lenses are generally fine for IQ, though the GM lenses I have (24 and 50) definitely have that extra something and of course are better in low light situations. I did try the 20-70 G and found it sharp but flat,
Craig, good questions. I won't be lugging a tripod, or printing large images. Mostly will be showing photos to friends/family on iPad M4 and Apple Studio Display (though those are sharp enough so IQ differences are noticeable). "One camera lens and better than my phone" is about where I am, so 20-200 is very tempting; I think I'll try one out on an upcoming weekend trip nearby and see what it's like.
I'm continually impressed by the little 20-70G. It is one lens that I won't think about selling. I have the 70-200G-II and it is a great lens but the 20-70 and the crop button would be my choice for walking around all day.
ps09, I'm encouraged by your report of the 28-200, and your suggestion of the 16-35 GM II is intriguing. But it's expensive! Maybe too much so for travel. ...I wonder about the 16-35 F4 PZ instead. I've found Sony G lenses are generally fine for IQ, though the GM lenses I have (24 and 50) definitely have that extra something and of course are better in low light situations. I did try the 20-70 G and found it sharp but flat,
Craig, good questions. I won't be lugging a tripod, or printing large images. Mostly will be showing photos to friends/family on iPad M4 and Apple Studio Display (though those are sharp enough so IQ differences are noticeable). "One camera lens and better than my phone" is about where I am, so 20-200 is very tempting; I think I'll try one out on an upcoming weekend trip nearby and see what it's like.
I haven't owned a WA zoom now for nearly five years. It is usually 14GM, 35GM and 28-200 when I travel. For something smaller at the wide end, the 20G is outstanding and works really well at night. And there are 3rd party WA zooms that are probably great stopped down where you can't distinguish the image quality difference at f/5.6 and up from the 16-35GMii but there I am just speculating...
I think usage case is the most important factor for us today when choosing lenses. Very few modern lenses are poor performers if used for their intended purpose. Lenses today are mostly good, it's just a matter of what they are designed for. A fast lens is a wise choice if you are light challenged, need to stop action or want the bokeh/isolation. If you're shooting landscapes, some perform better at the corners than others, but stopping lenses down to landscape apertures levels the field with most lenses. Think of it this way, if a lens isn't sharp at f8, is it sharp at any other aperture?
The 28-200 is a lens I almost love to hate on. I've tried so many lenses up against it at f8-f11 and it really does hold its own - for its intended purpose. I wish it focused faster, but for landscapes I often regret when I don't bring it and end up carrying a heavy bag and switching lenses.
However, if I need 2.8, the tamron 28-75 g2 does perform better than the 28-200. I'm not sure my 24-105 (and it's a great copy) gives me any advantage, except f4 throughout the range. I have never purchased the 24-70 gmii because I know I would use it more at f8 than 2.8, so wasted money. Once again, based on my usage. If I was shooting events, I'd have one.
I have not tried the new Tamron 25-200. Reviews are mixed on whether it is enough of an upgrade over the 28-200 to make it worth buying. Most say the purple fringing is gone with the new lens. to me that is such an easy fix.
The lenses I am interested in, for travel/landscapes are either the Tamron 50-300 or 50-400. Paired with 16-35, those 2 would cover some range. I did rent a 50-400 from lensrentals and tested it. I found it on par with most of my lenses at f8/f11, but from 300-400 the 70-200gmii plus 2x blew it away. I had rented it from lens rentals for a trip to YNP and tested it before leaving. I ended up sending it back to them 15 days early and they refunded me for my unused time. What a great company they are!
I think the 50-300 could displace my 28-200 as my second light lens kit (16-35gmii always in the bag), but I keep trying to kick that 28-200 out of the rotation and it keeps fighting its way back!
So here I sit with 2/3 of the current (mkii) versions of the holy trinity and only one of them is always in my bag (16-35). I guess it's all about end use for me.
fwiw I'm pondering not just a 20-200 "single" lens for some situations, but also "replacing" my 70-350 with the 50-300 which could support a two lens 20-70 and 50-300 lens combo. (The 70-350 is fine, especially when I was in aps-c, but now 300mm with full ff coverage may make more sense.)
There is an extensive 28-200 shots thread here. Haven't really looked but there may be similar 20-70 and 20-200 (and other lens) threads. Those would share actual results people are getting and can go beyond rigid test scenarios to show what's possible?
After my daughter was born 4 years ago all of my travel has been family travel, so most of the time I need to move pretty quick to get the shot. Prior to that I carried 16-35/24-70 2.8's and a longer lens like the 100-400, plus a fast prime or two for night/street. Classic over packer haha. Now I'm firmly in the travel zoom camp. Being present while getting the shot is my new normal, I love my 28-200. Combined with crop mode and even clear image zoom at 1.5x (gasp, JPEG only!) gives you a tremendous amount of flexibility. Plus its dropped the weight of my kit considerably, which is good because I always travel with a drone too ! My other lenses handle low light, any shallow DOF stuff and sunstars - which is the biggest weakness for me with every Tamron zoom I've used - they're just ok.
The minuscule IQ differences between it and a prime are only seen on a screen at obnoxious pixel peeping magnifications. You cannot tell the difference in any real world viewing scenario, even with large prints. People get bogged down with details at 400%, but just like a print with a 12mp camera vs a 61mp camera - the differences just don't translate to most use cases outside of viewing in an editor.
I do carry a UWA (fast wides are fun!) and another fast prime, but after getting the Tamron, it's been so nice to cut down on lens swaps. It pretty much lives on my a7rv and my other lenses usually are on my a7v since I shoot a lot of video as well. I'm trying to further whittle down my kit, maybe replacing the 16-35 GM II with the 16/1.8 G and so on. High mp bodies really expand the use case for any lens because of the amount of cropping you can do while still getting great results. I even use the Sony APS-c 11/1.8 for a tiny ultra wide and it's great.
Rent a travel zoom to take for a test drive, or just pick up a 28-200 on B&S for a little over $400 and live with it for awhile. I did that and wound up liking the lens so much I've completely revamped my travel kit with that as the main lens. At some point I may get the 25-200 because I do live on the wider end a lot. But it's been great, try one on a trip or just daily photo walks, it may change everything for you. We're getting ready to move to the southwestern US, so I'll be doing dedicated photo trips again soon and I will still carry the Tammy.
! My other lenses handle low light, any shallow DOF stuff and sunstars - which is the biggest weakness for me with every Tamron zoom I've used - they're just ok.