20-70 f4 questions
p.1 #120-70 f4 questions
I have been considering this lens for backpacking landscapes and it seems that, while many people really like it, others have complained about "mushy" corners, especially in the lower half of the zoom. Presumably due to the high vignetting?
So, here are my questions -
1). Of those of you who have this lens, are "mushy" corners a problem?
2). Is this a case of sample variation?
3). How many of you have had to go through more than one copy to get one you are satisfied with?
Thanks for your inputs
Doug
PS - I would be using it on an A7C2
So, here are my questions -
1). Of those of you who have this lens, are "mushy" corners a problem?
2). Is this a case of sample variation?
3). How many of you have had to go through more than one copy to get one you are satisfied with?
Thanks for your inputs
Doug
PS - I would be using it on an A7C2
Jun 06, 2026 at 10:25 PM
p.1 #220-70 f4 questions
There's a 20-70/4 image thread here, might need search to pull it from "archive." These would be user samples. Also, a DPreview thread with full res images. I did a Google search using this, "dpreview sony 20-70/4 image thread full resolution" to get results. Mine there are A7Riv shots and getting them to load/share at full res/size seems to be troublesome. My impression is these would all be "share" type shots so perhaps edited for sharing not technical lens evaluation.
1)? Not that I've noticed. With the caveat of a combination of my vision, how well my glasses do, "progressive lenses," subject choices, etc. quite often I crop to 16:9 for sharing and go to 3840x2160. Combine that with perhaps less critical expectations, not shooting for perfection nor having a set of suitable long term use highest end lenses to have used and be able to compare.
2)? Maybe? I get a feel that some of the complaints are more out of a desire to complain and perhaps misplaced expectations. I don't know how critically some evaluated or over-critically evaluated in respect to what might be appropriate user cases and expectations. It's a $1200 G lens, not a $2500 GM or GMii for example. There does seem to be some discussion of variation and/or field curvature.
3)? I'm on my first/only.
1)? Not that I've noticed. With the caveat of a combination of my vision, how well my glasses do, "progressive lenses," subject choices, etc. quite often I crop to 16:9 for sharing and go to 3840x2160. Combine that with perhaps less critical expectations, not shooting for perfection nor having a set of suitable long term use highest end lenses to have used and be able to compare.
2)? Maybe? I get a feel that some of the complaints are more out of a desire to complain and perhaps misplaced expectations. I don't know how critically some evaluated or over-critically evaluated in respect to what might be appropriate user cases and expectations. It's a $1200 G lens, not a $2500 GM or GMii for example. There does seem to be some discussion of variation and/or field curvature.
3)? I'm on my first/only.
Jun 06, 2026 at 11:37 PM
p.1 #320-70 f4 questions
I am not obsessive with pixel peeping so I really could not tell you if my copy is a "good" or a "bad" one. Shooting on A7IV with the same res as your A7CII I don't know how big you have to print to notice if the corners are smeared. My complaints for the lens is really that it relies on optical correction in software to deal with distortion at the wide end. But it does go unusually wide for a standard zoom that its understandable. And I brought it in place of carrying a wide prime for a recent trip and having the wide end at 20 worked great.
Jun 06, 2026 at 11:58 PM
p.1 #420-70 f4 questions
It’s a great lens perfect for backpacking and I love mine. My copy is the first and only one I purchased brand new from B&H and it’s tack sharp edge to edge at f/8 and f/11 which are generally the apertures I use for landscapes. It’s lightweight and easy to carry. I use mine often with the A7CR and find it balances well. Sometimes I’ll pair it with a Batis 135 for something telephoto or even pair it with the Tamron 28-200. Lots of overlap between those two lenses but that zoom combo works well and covers 20-200 and not too heavy really. Another combo I will use for backpacking or long hikes is Tamron 28-200 + 20mm f/1.8 G especially if I’m doing any astrophotography. I just recently got the Viltrox 14mm Air and I may pair the Tamron with that too depending on where I’m going. But If I were just bringing one lens though it would be the 20-70 for certain. It also makes for a great skiing lens too.
Jun 07, 2026 at 12:04 AM
p.1 #520-70 f4 questions
I bought the 20-70 f/4 a little over 1.5 years ago. I suddenly needed to hike for nearly every photograph I get. Sometimes the hikes are pretty far on fairly primitive trails that require using hands and and feet to traverse obstacles. And I'm old. The weight of my previous system became a huge issue.
Since image quality is irrelevant if you can't get your camera to where the pictures are, I was prepared to make some sacrifices. My goal was to get the best IQ I could carry to the places I want to go.
I use the 20-70 with a Sony A7R-V that I got at the same time. I contemplated the A7CR but opted for a bit more weight, better EVF, and some other features I use that the A7CR doesn't have. At around the same time a friend in the US did get the A7CR along with a 20-70 f/4 for multi-day backpacking trips and other general photography. Both of us got and kept a single copy of the lens. Both of us independently compared our copy under reasonably controlled circumstances against the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II, which both of us also have. The tests were done using the Sony cameras with a Sigma MC-11 adapter for the Canon lenses.
The short answer is that the Sony 20-70 has image quality well beyond its price range. My friend thinks his 20-70, at f/8, is a bit better than his Canon 24-70 L-II at all focal lengths they have in common. I think the Sony 20-70 lens is a little better than my Canon lens at the longer focal lengths and a little worse toward the corners at 24mm.
I did no comparisons at focal lengths wider than 24mm, but from "just looking" at ridiculous photos of brick walls and such at actual pixels, the Sony 20-70 is more than "good enough". Some softness can be seen in the corners if you look for it, but based on other lenses I've owned it's "acceptable". Also, I don't tend to use such wide focal lengths as often as many others do. If the lens is going to live between 20mm and 24mm you might want a different lens. I'd stress that it takes some painful pixel peeping to see any differences, and my results were not completely repeatable.
IMO, the "corner problem" is not due to "bad" optics. The lens is small and lightweight specifically because they allow the distortion to get crazy at the widest focal lengths. I think it's the correction of that distortion by software that creates some corner softness. For me it's better than carrying a large and heavy lens long distances on difficult trails. Unless your hobby is looking at image corners through a microscope, it's probably a non-issue.
Since image quality is irrelevant if you can't get your camera to where the pictures are, I was prepared to make some sacrifices. My goal was to get the best IQ I could carry to the places I want to go.
I use the 20-70 with a Sony A7R-V that I got at the same time. I contemplated the A7CR but opted for a bit more weight, better EVF, and some other features I use that the A7CR doesn't have. At around the same time a friend in the US did get the A7CR along with a 20-70 f/4 for multi-day backpacking trips and other general photography. Both of us got and kept a single copy of the lens. Both of us independently compared our copy under reasonably controlled circumstances against the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II, which both of us also have. The tests were done using the Sony cameras with a Sigma MC-11 adapter for the Canon lenses.
The short answer is that the Sony 20-70 has image quality well beyond its price range. My friend thinks his 20-70, at f/8, is a bit better than his Canon 24-70 L-II at all focal lengths they have in common. I think the Sony 20-70 lens is a little better than my Canon lens at the longer focal lengths and a little worse toward the corners at 24mm.
I did no comparisons at focal lengths wider than 24mm, but from "just looking" at ridiculous photos of brick walls and such at actual pixels, the Sony 20-70 is more than "good enough". Some softness can be seen in the corners if you look for it, but based on other lenses I've owned it's "acceptable". Also, I don't tend to use such wide focal lengths as often as many others do. If the lens is going to live between 20mm and 24mm you might want a different lens. I'd stress that it takes some painful pixel peeping to see any differences, and my results were not completely repeatable.
IMO, the "corner problem" is not due to "bad" optics. The lens is small and lightweight specifically because they allow the distortion to get crazy at the widest focal lengths. I think it's the correction of that distortion by software that creates some corner softness. For me it's better than carrying a large and heavy lens long distances on difficult trails. Unless your hobby is looking at image corners through a microscope, it's probably a non-issue.
Jun 07, 2026 at 03:46 AM
p.1 #620-70 f4 questions
Doug, I have the FE 20-70 F4 and have used the lens on multi day hiking trips, travel, and landscape back at home. I must admit that at first I was sceptical about the 20-70, not expecting too much from it, but the FE 20-70 has exceeded all my expectations and I'm very happy with the performace of the lens.
Sure it is not a perfect lens and my manual primes (Zeiss Loxia) can be a little bit sharper in the edges and corners and maybe have a nicer rendering overall but overall the 20-70 holds up very good and I find the overall IQ very good. I have no complaints at all, and I do consider myself critical for IQ/sharpness.
The versatility is simply great, 20-70 is a great focal range for a one lens solution, and also the magnification/close-focus distance is very usable. For the size and weight it is just a very nice lens in my opinion.
I was maybe fortunate to not have to go through several copies, I bougt mine new almost 2.5 years ago and after brick-wall testing confirmed it was well centered and corners/edges good enough to keep the lens.
It is my main lens now for travel and landscape and I have just purchased the FE 70-200 F4 G2 Macro to supplement is. I think they make a great pairing.
I don't realy notice mushy cornes in my real life images. Sure, sometimes I have a shot where the cornes could be a bit better, but not at the level that it bothers me.
For what ut is worth, I had the great FE 35 F1.4 GM and compared it with against the FE 20-70 and to be honest I couldn't see a meaningfull enough difference. The GM holds a bit better into extreme corners but in center/midframe they are very close in typical landscape apertures (f/5.6 - F/11). I sold the 35 GM since I also have 2 other 35mm primes (Loxia 35 and FE 35 F2.8 Zeiss).
The majority of the images in my Sarek 2024 Album on flickr are taken with FE 20-70, apart from the Northern light images and some telephoto images taken with Loxia 85.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62121798@N08/albums/72177720320535490/with/54016460056
I posted a bunch of landscape / hiking images in flickr page and on DPR topic, see below links.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62121798@N08/albums/72177720316362254/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/sony-fe-20-70-f4-landscape-samples.4742671/page-2#post-68560202
Sure it is not a perfect lens and my manual primes (Zeiss Loxia) can be a little bit sharper in the edges and corners and maybe have a nicer rendering overall but overall the 20-70 holds up very good and I find the overall IQ very good. I have no complaints at all, and I do consider myself critical for IQ/sharpness.
The versatility is simply great, 20-70 is a great focal range for a one lens solution, and also the magnification/close-focus distance is very usable. For the size and weight it is just a very nice lens in my opinion.
I was maybe fortunate to not have to go through several copies, I bougt mine new almost 2.5 years ago and after brick-wall testing confirmed it was well centered and corners/edges good enough to keep the lens.
It is my main lens now for travel and landscape and I have just purchased the FE 70-200 F4 G2 Macro to supplement is. I think they make a great pairing.
I don't realy notice mushy cornes in my real life images. Sure, sometimes I have a shot where the cornes could be a bit better, but not at the level that it bothers me.
For what ut is worth, I had the great FE 35 F1.4 GM and compared it with against the FE 20-70 and to be honest I couldn't see a meaningfull enough difference. The GM holds a bit better into extreme corners but in center/midframe they are very close in typical landscape apertures (f/5.6 - F/11). I sold the 35 GM since I also have 2 other 35mm primes (Loxia 35 and FE 35 F2.8 Zeiss).
The majority of the images in my Sarek 2024 Album on flickr are taken with FE 20-70, apart from the Northern light images and some telephoto images taken with Loxia 85.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62121798@N08/albums/72177720320535490/with/54016460056
I posted a bunch of landscape / hiking images in flickr page and on DPR topic, see below links.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62121798@N08/albums/72177720316362254/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/sony-fe-20-70-f4-landscape-samples.4742671/page-2#post-68560202
Jun 07, 2026 at 03:59 AM
p.1 #720-70 f4 questions
My experience with my 20-70 f/4 G has been excellent. As others have said, it punches above it's price point. I have been more than happy with it's sharpness even at 20mm. If I need really wide I do carry a 16mm f1.8G as well and pair the two of those with a 70-200mm f/4 G II macro. That trio does pretty much everything I need for landscape photography as is still pretty light when paired with a A7R5.
Jun 07, 2026 at 09:52 AM
p.1 #820-70 f4 questions
I really wanted to like the 20-70, great range, size etc.
However my copy (bought used) had a softness on the mid frame on the left hand side somewhere near the middle of the zoom range.
I could reproduce it, and tested at 35mm side by side with the PZ 16-35 and the 20-70 was defo off.
Retailer wouldn't accept a return because I was outside of the return window. Sold it (actually got a wee bit more than I paid) and found a great used Tamron 28-75 G2.
Over the moon with the Tamron, sharp everywhere, one stop faster if you need it.
Do I miss the wider range.....maybe, but at 20mm the 20-70 is ok, defo has a ton of distortion that needs correcting, so I figure just swap out to 16-35 when 28 is not wide enough on the Tamron
However my copy (bought used) had a softness on the mid frame on the left hand side somewhere near the middle of the zoom range.
I could reproduce it, and tested at 35mm side by side with the PZ 16-35 and the 20-70 was defo off.
Retailer wouldn't accept a return because I was outside of the return window. Sold it (actually got a wee bit more than I paid) and found a great used Tamron 28-75 G2.
Over the moon with the Tamron, sharp everywhere, one stop faster if you need it.
Do I miss the wider range.....maybe, but at 20mm the 20-70 is ok, defo has a ton of distortion that needs correcting, so I figure just swap out to 16-35 when 28 is not wide enough on the Tamron
Jun 09, 2026 at 12:32 PM
p.1 #920-70 f4 questions
I used to own and really like the performance actually.
If it is good enough for https://www.albertdros.com it is good enough for 99.8% of us...
If it is good enough for https://www.albertdros.com it is good enough for 99.8% of us...
Jun 09, 2026 at 01:20 PM
|
p.1 #1120-70 f4 questions
I love mine - no mushiness observed. Like adventure_photo I pair mine with an A7cr for hiking. Most of the shots I've posted to FM in the last year were taken with this combo.
Jun 09, 2026 at 02:24 PM
p.1 #1220-70 f4 questions
My copy had strange focus issues in the mid range from around 24 -35mm even stopped down where certain areas would be soft at certain focal lengths (could have been something to do with field curvature) and I sent it back to Sony for calibration. It was a bit better when I got it back but still not right so I sold it. A good lens if you print and don't need ultimate sharpness
Jun 09, 2026 at 03:24 PM
p.1 #1320-70 f4 questions
patotts wrote:
I used to own and really like the performance actually.
If it is good enough for https://www.albertdros.com it is good enough for 99.8% of us...
Where did you read or find that Albert Dros uses or reviewed the 20-70? I never saw him mention this lens on any previous video's/review from him.
I used to own and really like the performance actually.
If it is good enough for https://www.albertdros.com it is good enough for 99.8% of us...
Where did you read or find that Albert Dros uses or reviewed the 20-70? I never saw him mention this lens on any previous video's/review from him.
Jun 09, 2026 at 11:18 PM
p.1 #1420-70 f4 questions
Michel85 wrote:
If it is good enough for https://www.albertdros.com it is good enough for 99.8% of us...Where did you read or find that Albert Dros uses or reviewed the 20-70? I never saw him mention this lens on any previous video's/review from him.
Completely true - I was thinking about the 24-105/4. I don't know what got into my brain :-)
Then again, is the 20-70/4 really a worse performer than the 24-105/4?
patotts wrote
I used to own and really like the performance actually.If it is good enough for https://www.albertdros.com it is good enough for 99.8% of us...
Completely true - I was thinking about the 24-105/4. I don't know what got into my brain :-)
Then again, is the 20-70/4 really a worse performer than the 24-105/4?
Jun 10, 2026 at 12:15 AM
p.1 #1520-70 f4 questions
patotts wrote:
Then again, is the 20-70/4 really a worse performer than the 24-105/4?
I have the 24-105/4 and like it a lot, however, I kept wanting to go wider on sunrises so I got the 20-70/4 and have been very happy with it. I have not noticed any mushy corners and to my untrained eye it appears to produce better IQ than the 24-105 which is no slouch in that regard. I will most likely sell the 24-105 in the end and the 20-70 will take its place as my live-aboard lens on my a7R3A.
Jun 10, 2026 at 07:51 AM
p.1 #1620-70 f4 questions
patotts wrote:
Then again, is the 20-70/4 really a worse performer than the 24-105/4?
Based on my experience with my copies of these two lenses, the 20-70 has to be corrected more for distortion than the 24-105. That said, the 24-105 only goes to 24mm. On the flip side, I always felt that my 24-105 was never quite sharp enough particularly in the corners. I get sufficiently sharp results for my needs out of my 20-70. Overall, the range of the 20-70 f/4 G works well with my 70-200mm f/4 G macro ii. Both are solid performers, compact and light and are a great kit for hiking with.
If you need sharp corner to corner at 20mm without distortion, the 20mm f1.8G is fantastic. Super small, light and outstanding optical performance.
Neither the 20-70 f/4 G and 24-105 f/4 G will be in the realm of the 24-70 f/2.8 GM ii or a set of primes for corner to corner sharpness. There is no free lunch...
Then again, is the 20-70/4 really a worse performer than the 24-105/4?
Based on my experience with my copies of these two lenses, the 20-70 has to be corrected more for distortion than the 24-105. That said, the 24-105 only goes to 24mm. On the flip side, I always felt that my 24-105 was never quite sharp enough particularly in the corners. I get sufficiently sharp results for my needs out of my 20-70. Overall, the range of the 20-70 f/4 G works well with my 70-200mm f/4 G macro ii. Both are solid performers, compact and light and are a great kit for hiking with.
If you need sharp corner to corner at 20mm without distortion, the 20mm f1.8G is fantastic. Super small, light and outstanding optical performance.
Neither the 20-70 f/4 G and 24-105 f/4 G will be in the realm of the 24-70 f/2.8 GM ii or a set of primes for corner to corner sharpness. There is no free lunch...
Jun 10, 2026 at 07:54 AM
p.1 #1720-70 f4 questions
Thank you everyone for you input.
I actually just ordered one from B&H. This will be the third copy I will have tested. The first one was a few years ago now when a friend got the first A7C with a 20-70. I tested it on some landscape shots with my A7R3 and found little difference to my 24-105, despite the claim that it is sharper. I don't know if that means he got a below average copy of the 20-70, or I have a good copy of the 24-105.
The second one was new from B&H last June. As others occasionally mention, I has intermittent focus issues so I sent it back. I could have had them send me another copy, but I didn't. I have a backpacking trip planned for next week, I'll see how that goes with he third one.
I take two types of photos while backpacking. There are those of the epic scenes for which I would want as good of a lens as I am prepared to carry for best IQ, then there are those along the trail snap shots that won't be seen on anything other than the computer screen to just document the trip. Many people would maybe use a cellphone for those, but I wanted something a bit better.
A couple of years ago added an A7C2 to lighten my load (from the A7R3) and the 24-105 is just too heavy. Last year I used the 16-25 + the little 28-60. I also carried the Loxia 50 and Sigma 90. There were often times I wanted wider than 28, but didn't want to stop to switch lenses, so I shot handheld panos to stitch later. A bit of a pain for a simple down the trail shot. The primes gave me the the higher IQ.
I look at the 20-70 as essentially an f4 24-70 with the ability to go to 20 in a pinch, but with compromised IQ a bit, due to distortion correction. If I want better IQ due to the quality of the scene, it would be worth stopping and setting up on a tripod with the 16-25. With stitching, the primes give me around 35-50, if I take the Loxia 50, and about 65-90 with the Sigma.
If the 20-70 doesn't show more utility than the 28-60, I can send it back (again). I'll certainly check it against my 24-105 (again) and the 28-60, which is super light and quite sharp.
At least that is my thinking today. Let me know if you think I am way off base here.
Cheers
Doug
I actually just ordered one from B&H. This will be the third copy I will have tested. The first one was a few years ago now when a friend got the first A7C with a 20-70. I tested it on some landscape shots with my A7R3 and found little difference to my 24-105, despite the claim that it is sharper. I don't know if that means he got a below average copy of the 20-70, or I have a good copy of the 24-105.
The second one was new from B&H last June. As others occasionally mention, I has intermittent focus issues so I sent it back. I could have had them send me another copy, but I didn't. I have a backpacking trip planned for next week, I'll see how that goes with he third one.
I take two types of photos while backpacking. There are those of the epic scenes for which I would want as good of a lens as I am prepared to carry for best IQ, then there are those along the trail snap shots that won't be seen on anything other than the computer screen to just document the trip. Many people would maybe use a cellphone for those, but I wanted something a bit better.
A couple of years ago added an A7C2 to lighten my load (from the A7R3) and the 24-105 is just too heavy. Last year I used the 16-25 + the little 28-60. I also carried the Loxia 50 and Sigma 90. There were often times I wanted wider than 28, but didn't want to stop to switch lenses, so I shot handheld panos to stitch later. A bit of a pain for a simple down the trail shot. The primes gave me the the higher IQ.
I look at the 20-70 as essentially an f4 24-70 with the ability to go to 20 in a pinch, but with compromised IQ a bit, due to distortion correction. If I want better IQ due to the quality of the scene, it would be worth stopping and setting up on a tripod with the 16-25. With stitching, the primes give me around 35-50, if I take the Loxia 50, and about 65-90 with the Sigma.
If the 20-70 doesn't show more utility than the 28-60, I can send it back (again). I'll certainly check it against my 24-105 (again) and the 28-60, which is super light and quite sharp.
At least that is my thinking today. Let me know if you think I am way off base here.
Cheers
Doug
Jun 10, 2026 at 08:40 AM
p.1 #1820-70 f4 questions
Jim Dockery wrote:
I love mine - no mushiness observed. Like adventure_photo I pair mine with an A7cr for hiking. Most of the shots I've posted to FM in the last year were taken with this combo.
https://i.postimg.cc/MTdjb8js/Cathedral-Valley-221-Pano.jpg
Always enjoy your landscapes, Jim!
I love mine - no mushiness observed. Like adventure_photo I pair mine with an A7cr for hiking. Most of the shots I've posted to FM in the last year were taken with this combo.
https://i.postimg.cc/MTdjb8js/Cathedral-Valley-221-Pano.jpg
Always enjoy your landscapes, Jim!
Jun 10, 2026 at 08:43 AM
p.1 #1920-70 f4 questions
Here's a little more data for you Doug! Good luck on your upcoming trip! Steve
https://sonyalpha.blog/2023/02/09/sony-20-70mm-f4-g/
https://sonyalpha.blog/2023/02/09/sony-20-70mm-f4-g/
Jun 13, 2026 at 11:36 AM
p.1 #2020-70 f4 questions
ratherfish wrote:
Here's a little more data for you Doug! Good luck on your upcoming trip! Steve
https://sonyalpha.blog/2023/02/09/sony-20-70mm-f4-g/
Thanks, Steve!
Here's a little more data for you Doug! Good luck on your upcoming trip! Steve
https://sonyalpha.blog/2023/02/09/sony-20-70mm-f4-g/
Thanks, Steve!
Jun 13, 2026 at 03:42 PM