MikeEvangelist wrote:
If you shoot Nikon, the 24-120mm is certainly a nice lens. And, yes, the 20-70mm has less reach. But...in practice, I find the difference to be a less than the numbers suggest. Because: you only get 46mpx from Nikon (Z7, Z8, Z9-class), but 67mpx from the a7Rvi. Which means you can crop the 70mm to an 85mm FOV and still have 46mpx.
I've shot both lenses and much prefer the 20-70mm. The 20mm is far more useful for me when I travel. Plus, the 24-120mm is a bit of a beast (~50% bigger and heavier than the Sony).
I do as others have already suggested - 20-70mm as main lens. If I anticipate needing something longer, I will add the Tamron 70-180mm....Show more →
I like the idea of 20-70 F4 plus Tamron 70-180 f2.8. I have used 20-70 f4 back in the days when I owned my last Sony (A7r IV). I already have Tamron 70-180 fG2 that I have used with Z8 and it works really well. But as other poster below you mentioned, I find that I either use it at 70 or 180 and because of that reason, I really take it with me.
Tamron 35-150 is an amazing lens and I owned it on both Z8 and Sony. I even dragged it on an international trip with me with Z8 (along with 14-35 f4). Results were definitely great but I hated the fact that I was attached to a boat anchor not matter where I go. So would have liked a smaller/lighter options for just walking around.
What entices me about A7r VI is the the extra resolution, not that I need it, but it gives flexibility of using smaller lenses and then getting more reach in DX mode, while still getting very usable 30 mpx.
One lens not often mentioned in these discussions is the Samyang 35-150 with nearly identical specs to the Tamron, optically neck and neck, a few grams heavier, but several hundred dollars cheaper.
Jack Flesher wrote:
One lens not often mentioned in these discussions is the Samyang 35-150 with nearly identical specs to the Tamron, optically neck and neck, a few grams heavier, but several hundred dollars cheaper.
Anybody have one?
Back when I owned Sony, I was very tempted to try out but initial release had AF issues so never got around trying it.
I'm another that loves the combination of the 20-70 on an R series body. Pair it with a faster compact prime for when the sun goes down and it covers the majority of what I want to shoot when traveling.
90 percent of the time I think to grab my camera for a trip or something, I don't because it's cumbersome and annoying when I pack. So, a 20-200 or 25-200 seems like such a good solution. I'm still torn as to which I want to try. If I was shooting at dark, I'd look for a lightweight 24, 28 or 35 1.8? Idk.
Have the 20-70, it's great, but short.
Had the Tamron 35-150. Too heavy, generally excellent otherwise. Did not like it's ghosting/lack of contrast when shooting back lit stuff. Also saw some concerns about dust/durability 🤷
Not sure why anyone would grab the 20-70 while the sigma 20-200 (and tamron 25-200) matches it in IQ. Though they may be subject to much more copy variation given how all over the place some reviews are. I’m quite pleased with my 25-200 but still may give the 20-200 a go.
20-200 hits on the 24-70 neither wide enough nor long enough. As 28-200 or 20-70 did one or the other pretty well.
Does one "need" a fast prime or something wider than 20mm or wide and fast? Does one need or want f2.8 and at which focal lengths. FWIW, I'm finding noise reduction works for me but it's not a shallow depth of field for those wanting that.
For some, nothing out there is good enough, others too much good stuff and hard to choose.
cxpics wrote:
Not sure why anyone would grab the 20-70 while the sigma 20-200 (and tamron 25-200) matches it in IQ. Though they may be subject to much more copy variation given how all over the place some reviews are. I’m quite pleased with my 25-200 but still may give the 20-200 a go.
For those on this thread. When you come back and look at your images, are they substantially different than images you can find via an Internet search?
cxpics wrote:
Not sure why anyone would grab the 20-70 while the sigma 20-200 (and tamron 25-200) matches it in IQ. Though they may be subject to much more copy variation given how all over the place some reviews are. I’m quite pleased with my 25-200 but still may give the 20-200 a go.
I grabbed my 20-70 before the gen 2 Tamron and the Sigma superzooms came out so they weren't part of the choice matrix for me. I didn't care for the Tamron 28-200, it was pretty good at 28 but I thought it was lackluster at the tele end.
I'll admit to being a weirdo, for me, if 70mm isn't long enough when cropped for what I want to shoot, then 200 is going to fall short too. However, I also don't want to be traveling with a 100-400 or longer unless I have a specific subject that I want to shoot.
cxpics wrote:
Not sure why anyone would grab the 20-70 while the sigma 20-200 (and tamron 25-200) matches it in IQ. Though they may be subject to much more copy variation given how all over the place some reviews are. I’m quite pleased with my 25-200 but still may give the 20-200 a go.
I got mine after a trip with a lot of swapping a 17-28 and 28-200 at 28mm. But before the 20-200 and 25-200 came out. I might do things differently now?
The 20-70 is somewhat smaller than the 2x-200s, maybe don't mind stopping at 70mm or have other "long" approaches.. The 25-200 and 28-200 start at f2.8, for a bit vs f4 or f3.5 and up.
cxpics wrote:
Not sure why anyone would grab the 20-70 while the sigma 20-200 (and tamron 25-200) matches it in IQ. Though they may be subject to much more copy variation given how all over the place some reviews are. I’m quite pleased with my 25-200 but still may give the 20-200 a go.
Aperture for me, then size/weight. F4 is as slow as I'm willing to go for a compact lens in the wide to light tele range. Respect other's opinions on this vary.
bwcolor wrote:
For those on this thread. When you come back and look at your images, are they substantially different than images you can find via an Internet search?
And there are so many great images of every major travel destination already, why bother to travel at all?
Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMV
TimCC wrote:
I grabbed my 20-70 before the gen 2 Tamron and the Sigma superzooms came out so they weren't part of the choice matrix for me. I didn't care for the Tamron 28-200, it was pretty good at 28 but I thought it was lackluster at the tele end.
I'll admit to being a weirdo, for me, if 70mm isn't long enough when cropped for what I want to shoot, then 200 is going to fall short too. However, I also don't want to be traveling with a 100-400 or longer unless I have a specific subject that I want to shoot....Show more →
I'm pondering a 20-70 and 50-300 combo for some places. Although not thinking for use in urbanish walk-around. It might be the "just in case" alternative to needing longer and the larger xx or xxx-400, 500,or 600s are too much. Landscaping and a deer, coyote, etc., pops in. Or riding the front seat.
I agree that when the only choice was the 28-200, the 20-70 was clearly the better option. I owned it for a while and mostly enjoyed its output. Granted it’s somewhat smaller than the 2x-200s but, if you need the 70-200 range, you’re getting all that that for about an extra 75g of weight plus no required lens changes and IQ matching the 20-70. Packing an extra 700g or so for the 50-300 or 70-200g2 lenses feels extreme, plus required lens changes. Upgrading from the 20-70 + 50-300 to the 25-200 for me was mostly a side-grade in IQ, removed lens changes, and lightened my pack significantly. Obviously ymmv based on weight carry demands and most used focal ranges.
I think the 20-70 still perhaps makes the most sense if you’re pairing it with a much longer zoom such as 100-400.
IMHO, the 28-200 has been slightly maligned in this thread. It is the lens to grab if:
- you don't need to shoot (very) wide or are happy to stitch
- your subjects are not moving all that fast
- you're OK with a little softness at 200
- you like to blow out the background a bit
Because all those criteria fit how I shoot, the 28-200 has been a centerpiece of my travel kit for five years. I thought about replacing it with the 25-200 or 20-200 but I am biased more towards speed than width.
I think the answer here on the "replacement for a 24-120S" is highly dependent upon your shooting style. Depending on your preferences, the 20-200, 25-200, 20-70 or 28-200 could all be the "best choice" for you. I left out the 24-105 because I feel there are very few situations where 105 reach vs 70 reach makes a difference, but you just can't shoot 20mm with the 24-105.
It all varies. I have a 70-350. Wthat I got before adding FF. It was a good option for an A6400, A6700 user compared to the 70-300s or 100-400s at the time. Now with more FF involvement, the 50-300 is a bit shorter than 350 but full ff coverage too. Especially with the A7Rs, even A1s, the xx-300 works the 70-300 slot pretty well. It moves well into the 200mm isn't long enough.
Jack Flesher wrote:
And there are so many great images of every major travel destination already, why bother to travel at all?
Sarcasm aside, I do find my own images distinct from canned postcard images. Plus in my files there are lots with family and friends in them, and lots with unconventional perspectives and isolations. YMMV
I asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.
bwcolor wrote:
I asked because I’ve seen so many focal lengths, apertures, small, large, but no discussion of what type of subject,/shooting environments, what style, or type of images were of interest.
Most of us, meaning travel photographers that participate on this site, are not into the generic "post card" travel type images. We will for sure take them while we're "there," but have more a photographer's vision than a travel agent's vision about what we want to capture on any given trip. In addition, it peaks our interest to search out and see different things than many won't bother with.
The sadder (saddest?) part really, is when we pass our heirs will probably look at the 10 terra byte arrays full of image catalogs we have, and instead of going through those many thousands of images will probably erase and repurpose the drives, or worse, just bin and e-cycle them .
Yes. Mine are horrible, everyone else's are better, and I don't start liking most of my photos until I come back to them months later lol.
bwcolor wrote:
For those on this thread. When you come back and look at your images, are they substantially different than images you can find via an Internet search?
.