Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
p.1 #1Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
SAR have leaked most of the specs:
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/leaked-sigma-20-60mm-f-2-8-4-0-specs-and-images/
Is it just me or do the specs look "meh"? Yes it is a little smaller than the Sony 20-70 G (no idea about weight yet), but this Sigma pretty much becomes F/4 once you zoom beyond 35mm.
20-22mm: F2.8
23-28mm: F3.2
29-37mm: F3.5
38-60mm: F4
Price is the other aspect that is disappointing. For 849 USD it had better have stellar IQ - which I don't doubt from Sigma - but on E-mount, Sigma's very own 20-200 is a much more interesting and versatile lens. Or I might as well stick with Sony. On the L-mount, the price again makes it a tough sell against the Panasonic 20-60 or even the 24-60 with a constant F/2.8.
Edited on Sep 08, 2026 at 04:57 AM · View previous versions
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/leaked-sigma-20-60mm-f-2-8-4-0-specs-and-images/
Is it just me or do the specs look "meh"? Yes it is a little smaller than the Sony 20-70 G (no idea about weight yet), but this Sigma pretty much becomes F/4 once you zoom beyond 35mm.
20-22mm: F2.8
23-28mm: F3.2
29-37mm: F3.5
38-60mm: F4
Price is the other aspect that is disappointing. For 849 USD it had better have stellar IQ - which I don't doubt from Sigma - but on E-mount, Sigma's very own 20-200 is a much more interesting and versatile lens. Or I might as well stick with Sony. On the L-mount, the price again makes it a tough sell against the Panasonic 20-60 or even the 24-60 with a constant F/2.8.
Edited on Sep 08, 2026 at 04:57 AM · View previous versions
Sep 07, 2026 at 05:39 PM
p.1 #2Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
IMO, Tamron has set a smaller lens trend through less range while maintaining aperture and it seems to be catching on. So I’m not surprised Sigma is attempting to follow suit in their own way.
Sep 07, 2026 at 05:54 PM
p.1 #3Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
I like the size...similar to my 24GM & 16-25 2.8, which I think handles great for travel on an A7cR.
As for f/2.8...basically you get a f/2.8 wide angle lens along with a standard f/4 zoom without having to switch lenses, at least that's the way I look at it.
My issue is I don't think I can justify having both the 16-25 & this lens, and I use the 16-25 on the wide end enough I'd really need to give it some thought before switching up my kit.
As for f/2.8...basically you get a f/2.8 wide angle lens along with a standard f/4 zoom without having to switch lenses, at least that's the way I look at it.
My issue is I don't think I can justify having both the 16-25 & this lens, and I use the 16-25 on the wide end enough I'd really need to give it some thought before switching up my kit.
Sep 07, 2026 at 06:29 PM
p.1 #4Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Jack Flesher wrote:
IMO, Tamron has set a smaller lens trend through less range while maintaining aperture and it seems to be catching on. So I’m not surprised Sigma is attempting to follow suit in their own way.
I will say Sony started it all. And I love it!
Sony 16-25mm f/2.8 alongside the usual 16-35mm f/2.8.
Sony 24-50mm f/2.8 alongside the usual 24-70mm f/2.8.
Sony 20-70mm f/4 alonside the usual 24-105mm f/4
IMO, Tamron has set a smaller lens trend through less range while maintaining aperture and it seems to be catching on. So I’m not surprised Sigma is attempting to follow suit in their own way.
I will say Sony started it all. And I love it!
Sony 16-25mm f/2.8 alongside the usual 16-35mm f/2.8.
Sony 24-50mm f/2.8 alongside the usual 24-70mm f/2.8.
Sony 20-70mm f/4 alonside the usual 24-105mm f/4
Sep 07, 2026 at 08:06 PM
p.1 #5Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
You should fix the thread title since it’s a 20-60, not a 28-60.
Sep 07, 2026 at 08:59 PM
p.1 #6Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
jwpstl wrote:
You should fix the thread title since it’s a 20-60, not a 28-60.
Oops, apologies - hopefully mods can help! Thanks!
You should fix the thread title since it’s a 20-60, not a 28-60.
Oops, apologies - hopefully mods can help! Thanks!
Sep 08, 2026 at 01:50 AM
p.1 #7Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
gocolts wrote:
I like the size...similar to my 24GM & 16-25 2.8, which I think handles great for travel on an A7cR.
As for f/2.8...basically you get a f/2.8 wide angle lens along with a standard f/4 zoom without having to switch lenses, at least that's the way I look at it.
My issue is I don't think I can justify having both the 16-25 & this lens, and I use the 16-25 on the wide end enough I'd really need to give it some thought before switching up my kit.
Having slept on it and now that the lens has been officially announced with full specs (including weight, around 380g), I can increasingly see the appeal of the lens and actually agree with all of your points.
PavSZ makes a similar point to the F/2.8 at the wide end being a bonus:
https://youtu.be/Snb9XR1VASc?si=A8KgWsZDGDAGaqTX
What I hadn't realised was that the Sigma 28-70/2.8 was released with the same RRP. So I would still agree with PavSZ and maintain that it's not a cheap lens and there are many viable alternatives especially within this price range.
What impresses me most is the size which is where I think one would invest the current price premium compared to say a used Sony 20-70 or the Panasonic kit lens. PavSZ's side-by-side with the Panasonic 20-60 makes it look very impressively small for being a full stop brighter than the Panasonic and only 50g heavier. Against the Sony 20-70, the Sigma is actually 100g lighter.
I like the size...similar to my 24GM & 16-25 2.8, which I think handles great for travel on an A7cR.
As for f/2.8...basically you get a f/2.8 wide angle lens along with a standard f/4 zoom without having to switch lenses, at least that's the way I look at it.
My issue is I don't think I can justify having both the 16-25 & this lens, and I use the 16-25 on the wide end enough I'd really need to give it some thought before switching up my kit.
Having slept on it and now that the lens has been officially announced with full specs (including weight, around 380g), I can increasingly see the appeal of the lens and actually agree with all of your points.
PavSZ makes a similar point to the F/2.8 at the wide end being a bonus:
https://youtu.be/Snb9XR1VASc?si=A8KgWsZDGDAGaqTX
What I hadn't realised was that the Sigma 28-70/2.8 was released with the same RRP. So I would still agree with PavSZ and maintain that it's not a cheap lens and there are many viable alternatives especially within this price range.
What impresses me most is the size which is where I think one would invest the current price premium compared to say a used Sony 20-70 or the Panasonic kit lens. PavSZ's side-by-side with the Panasonic 20-60 makes it look very impressively small for being a full stop brighter than the Panasonic and only 50g heavier. Against the Sony 20-70, the Sigma is actually 100g lighter.
Sep 08, 2026 at 02:01 AM
p.1 #8Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
The size, weight and price are all very attractive if you look at it as an updated 24-70mm f/4 lens.
Sep 08, 2026 at 02:51 AM
p.1 #9Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
And if the optical performance of Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 lens is anything like their astounding 18-50mm f/2.8 DC lens, I will take a serious hard look at rejoining the full frame party.
Sony A7C MII (514g)
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 (385g)
Samyang 16mm f/2.8 (207g)
Viltrox 50mm f/2 (205g)
Looks like a super attractive lightweight combo for travellers like me. Notice all the lenses in my line-up are third party... no wonder Canon wants to shut out third party lens manufacturers.
Sony A7C MII (514g)
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 (385g)
Samyang 16mm f/2.8 (207g)
Viltrox 50mm f/2 (205g)
Looks like a super attractive lightweight combo for travellers like me. Notice all the lenses in my line-up are third party... no wonder Canon wants to shut out third party lens manufacturers.
Sep 08, 2026 at 03:08 AM
p.1 #10Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
ryanli wrote:
Oops, apologies - hopefully mods can help! Thanks!
You can change the thread subject line yourself by editing your original post.
Oops, apologies - hopefully mods can help! Thanks!
You can change the thread subject line yourself by editing your original post.
Sep 08, 2026 at 03:10 AM
|
p.1 #11Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Cool. I like its specs. Not sure if it's the Sony 24-50 2.8 or the Sigma 20-60 for me 
Sep 08, 2026 at 04:00 AM
p.1 #12Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
I was thinking of Sony 16-35mm f4 PZ G lens as a good one lens travel kit with a7cII, but now this came out and looks amazing. I shoot mostly at around 20-28mm, so 20mm wide end would be great.
I've recently used 17mm and it was fine, but it will be hard to pick - either wider 16mm, power zoom, fn button, aperture ring which I love vs this new Sigma, no aperture ring or button, but physical zoom and a lot longer end, 60mm will make it really one lens travel kit for me. Weight wise, which is now most importnat for me, 22g heavier than PZ zoom - with a7cII it will not go over 1kg - both are really good contenders.
IQ wise - I dont know - I've seen all those yt reviews of 16-35mm PZ and it sounds like its IQ is amazing. Sigma might be a bit behind, but for me as an amateur, it will be fine.
I've recently used 17mm and it was fine, but it will be hard to pick - either wider 16mm, power zoom, fn button, aperture ring which I love vs this new Sigma, no aperture ring or button, but physical zoom and a lot longer end, 60mm will make it really one lens travel kit for me. Weight wise, which is now most importnat for me, 22g heavier than PZ zoom - with a7cII it will not go over 1kg - both are really good contenders.
IQ wise - I dont know - I've seen all those yt reviews of 16-35mm PZ and it sounds like its IQ is amazing. Sigma might be a bit behind, but for me as an amateur, it will be fine.
Sep 08, 2026 at 05:24 AM
p.1 #13Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Looks like a nice lens, a slightly different flavor of the Tamron 20-40/2.8.
Tough range of choices for a travel zoom. Personally, I find the Tamron 25-200 or Sigma 20-200 more compelling. They are a bit larger, but the most compact way to get the 100-200mm range covered.
Tough range of choices for a travel zoom. Personally, I find the Tamron 25-200 or Sigma 20-200 more compelling. They are a bit larger, but the most compact way to get the 100-200mm range covered.
Sep 08, 2026 at 10:28 AM
p.1 #14Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Not a lens I was expecting, but definitely a useful range. If it's sharp and has good IQ at f4 across the zoom range, it might find its way into my bag for landscapes.
Sep 08, 2026 at 10:32 AM
p.1 #15Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
I do like the size. If it performs as well or better than the Sony 20-70 at f4, I will probably succumb...
Sep 08, 2026 at 10:37 AM
p.1 #16Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Agree - the key comparison is with the Sony 20-70/4. Can it equal or out perform it at a lower cost and size? The Sony 20-70/4 is already very good and pretty light.
Sep 08, 2026 at 04:19 PM
p.1 #17Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Agree - the key comparison is with the Sony 20-70/4. Can it equal or out perform it at a lower cost and size? The Sony 20-70/4 is already very good and pretty light.
And there's the FPS limitation with Sigma, so maybe not unless it's actually notably better than the Sony option in some way. IDK, we'll have to wait and see...
Agree - the key comparison is with the Sony 20-70/4. Can it equal or out perform it at a lower cost and size? The Sony 20-70/4 is already very good and pretty light.
And there's the FPS limitation with Sigma, so maybe not unless it's actually notably better than the Sony option in some way. IDK, we'll have to wait and see...
Sep 08, 2026 at 04:35 PM
p.1 #18Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Jack Flesher wrote:
And there's the FPS limitation with Sigma, so maybe not unless it's actually notably better than the Sony option in some way. IDK, we'll have to wait and see...
For what I would use the lens for, I don't see the FPS limitation bothering me. So, unless it turns out that there is a significant difference in image quality or AF, for me the choice between the Sigma 20-60mm and the Sony 20-70mm comes down to whether I'm willing to give up 10mm of focal length to get a a lens which is just over 1 cm shorter, about 100g lighter, up to a stop faster at the wide end (although I think I read there is no f stop difference after 47mm?), and a bit cheaper.
The other issue for me, though, is that I would be adding a Sigma 20-60mm or Sony 20-70mm to a kit which already has a 24-70mm f/2.8. Unless I was willing to replace that with a Sigma 20-60mm or Sony 20-70mm (and I don't think I am), I am not sure I can justify a Sigma 20-60mm or Sony 20-70mm. However, the Sigma 20-60mm is probably the easier of those two to justify, because of its smaller size and lighter weight.
TravelinBriNY wrote
Agree - the key comparison is with the Sony 20-70/4. Can it equal or out perform it at a lower cost and size? The Sony 20-70/4 is already very good and pretty light.For what I would use the lens for, I don't see the FPS limitation bothering me. So, unless it turns out that there is a significant difference in image quality or AF, for me the choice between the Sigma 20-60mm and the Sony 20-70mm comes down to whether I'm willing to give up 10mm of focal length to get a a lens which is just over 1 cm shorter, about 100g lighter, up to a stop faster at the wide end (although I think I read there is no f stop difference after 47mm?), and a bit cheaper.
The other issue for me, though, is that I would be adding a Sigma 20-60mm or Sony 20-70mm to a kit which already has a 24-70mm f/2.8. Unless I was willing to replace that with a Sigma 20-60mm or Sony 20-70mm (and I don't think I am), I am not sure I can justify a Sigma 20-60mm or Sony 20-70mm. However, the Sigma 20-60mm is probably the easier of those two to justify, because of its smaller size and lighter weight.
Sep 08, 2026 at 05:00 PM
p.1 #19Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
JD07 wrote:
And there's the FPS limitation with Sigma, so maybe not unless it's actually notably better than the Sony option in some way. IDK, we'll have to wait and see...For what I would use the lens for, I don't see the FPS limitation bothering me. So, unless it turns out that there is a significant difference in image quality or AF, for me the choice between the Sigma 20-60mm and the Sony 20-70mm comes down to whether I'm willing to give up 10mm of focal length to get a a lens which is just over 1 cm shorter, about 100g lighter, up to a stop faster at the wide end (although I think I read there is no f stop difference after 47mm?), and a bit cheaper.
The other issue...Show more →
For me the Sony 20-70 (or potentially this Sigma 20-60) is my lighter weight travel option, while the 24-70 GMii is the landscape and serious workhorse. So while there’s significant overlap, I justify both from a weight/size perspective. Definitely a first world decision…
Jack Flesher wrote
TravelinBriNY wrote
Agree - the key comparison is with the Sony 20-70/4. Can it equal or out perform it at a lower cost and size? The Sony 20-70/4 is already very good and pretty light.The other issue...Show more →
For me the Sony 20-70 (or potentially this Sigma 20-60) is my lighter weight travel option, while the 24-70 GMii is the landscape and serious workhorse. So while there’s significant overlap, I justify both from a weight/size perspective. Definitely a first world decision…
Sep 08, 2026 at 05:11 PM
p.1 #20Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
MTF is the only thing that will matter to me. I'm concerned that the wide end is terribly barrel distorted (like a fisheye) and requires large correction, degrading the edges and corners at the wider focal lengths like so many others.
Since the Sigma is only 60mm at the long end it better have some advantage over the Sony 20-70. Being a bit cheaper and flimsier/lighter weight are not it for me. I don't need 30+ FPS on a wide-normal zoom and I suspect that others also accept that. I'm not thrilled with no OS switch on the lens.
EBH
Since the Sigma is only 60mm at the long end it better have some advantage over the Sony 20-70. Being a bit cheaper and flimsier/lighter weight are not it for me. I don't need 30+ FPS on a wide-normal zoom and I suspect that others also accept that. I'm not thrilled with no OS switch on the lens.
EBH
Sep 08, 2026 at 11:42 PM