Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
p.2 #1Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
I’d like to replace my Sony 20-70 with this lens on account of 2.8 @ 20mm and the smaller size.
I would be surprised if the 20-70 was not better than the 20-60. But for real world shooting, I think the 20 - 60 will be close enough optically while being easier to carry.
I would be surprised if the 20-70 was not better than the 20-60. But for real world shooting, I think the 20 - 60 will be close enough optically while being easier to carry.
Sep 10, 2026 at 10:58 AM
p.2 #3Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
20-60mm is a very useful range. I think Sigma tries to mix it up (65mm etc). I would rather it be honestly a F4 instead of 2.8-F4. I hate when you set the Fstop and zooming changes it and in my experience when you zoom back out it don't go back to 2.8 (on previous systems and bodies where I had lenses likt this) which is annoying.
It should be a good walk around lens though an A7C.
It should be a good walk around lens though an A7C.
Sep 10, 2026 at 07:41 PM
p.2 #4Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
j4nu wrote:
A review in polish
https://www.fotopolis.pl/testy/obiektywy/39832-sigma-20-60-mm-f-2-8-4-dg-contemporary-test-praktyczny-raw-do-pobrania
+ RAWs:
https://files.fotopolis.pl/SIGMA_20-60_RAW.zip
Fantastic review. Thanks for sharing
Sep 11, 2026 at 12:08 AM
p.2 #5Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
sonofjesse2010 wrote:
20-60mm is a very useful range. I think Sigma tries to mix it up (65mm etc). I would rather it be honestly a F4 instead of 2.8-F4. I hate when you set the Fstop and zooming changes it and in my experience when you zoom back out it don't go back to 2.8 (on previous systems and bodies where I had lenses likt this) which is annoying.
It should be a good walk around lens though an A7C.
Luckily, this works on Sony quite well - you can keep the lens wide open throughout the zoom range
.
20-60mm is a very useful range. I think Sigma tries to mix it up (65mm etc). I would rather it be honestly a F4 instead of 2.8-F4. I hate when you set the Fstop and zooming changes it and in my experience when you zoom back out it don't go back to 2.8 (on previous systems and bodies where I had lenses likt this) which is annoying.
It should be a good walk around lens though an A7C.
Luckily, this works on Sony quite well - you can keep the lens wide open throughout the zoom range
.Sep 11, 2026 at 02:22 AM
p.2 #6Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
sonofjesse2010 wrote:
20-60mm is a very useful range. I think Sigma tries to mix it up (65mm etc). I would rather it be honestly a F4 instead of 2.8-F4. I hate when you set the Fstop and zooming changes it and in my experience when you zoom back out it don't go back to 2.8 (on previous systems and bodies where I had lenses likt this) which is annoying.
It should be a good walk around lens though an A7C.
Nah if you set the lens to f/4 it will always be f/4 which is exactly what you are asking for.
Then the rest of us can have f/2.8 when we need it.
20-60mm is a very useful range. I think Sigma tries to mix it up (65mm etc). I would rather it be honestly a F4 instead of 2.8-F4. I hate when you set the Fstop and zooming changes it and in my experience when you zoom back out it don't go back to 2.8 (on previous systems and bodies where I had lenses likt this) which is annoying.
It should be a good walk around lens though an A7C.
Nah if you set the lens to f/4 it will always be f/4 which is exactly what you are asking for.
Then the rest of us can have f/2.8 when we need it.
Sep 11, 2026 at 06:35 AM
p.2 #7Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Yea my issue with variable lenses is I will set to 2.8 and Zoom then its F4, then I go wide and its still F4 and not 2.8 where I had set. I would rather it be a F4 lens personally. YMMV.
I'm sure it will be excellent though. Sigma is great and I have had so many of their lenses. They should had just made it a 3.5 maybe.
I'm sure it will be excellent though. Sigma is great and I have had so many of their lenses. They should had just made it a 3.5 maybe.
Sep 11, 2026 at 09:08 PM
p.2 #8Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
On Sony it will stay at 2.8 when you zoom back to 20mm. That's how my Tamron 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 works: set it to 28mm f2.8 then rack to 200mm (i.e. max aperture at 200mm is F5.6) and when going back to 28mm it's still at F2.8. The camera "remembers" you were at maximum aperture and adjusts accordingly.
sonofjesse2010 wrote:
Yea my issue with variable lenses is I will set to 2.8 and Zoom then its F4, then I go wide and its still F4 and not 2.8 where I had set. I would rather it be a F4 lens personally. YMMV.
I'm sure it will be excellent though. Sigma is great and I have had so many of their lenses. They should had just made it a 3.5 maybe.
sonofjesse2010 wrote:
Yea my issue with variable lenses is I will set to 2.8 and Zoom then its F4, then I go wide and its still F4 and not 2.8 where I had set. I would rather it be a F4 lens personally. YMMV.
I'm sure it will be excellent though. Sigma is great and I have had so many of their lenses. They should had just made it a 3.5 maybe.
Sep 12, 2026 at 04:07 AM
p.2 #9Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
I cannot see any significant advantage to this lens over the existing Sony 24-50. Yes, you do get 20mm on the wide end, but if I want wider than 24 I am likely to want the option of wider than 20 too, depending on the composition. The extra 10mm on the long end is not worth considering. The size, weight and price are comparable, but the f2.8, esp. on the long end, is critical. Just my 2c.
Sep 12, 2026 at 05:32 AM
p.2 #10Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
I think the focal length is more versatile.
Dustin Abbott:
https://youtu.be/vxzRgDOLP7g?si=5pb9QmPloz_oIGf9
Edited on Sep 12, 2026 at 09:09 AM · View previous versions
Dustin Abbott:
https://youtu.be/vxzRgDOLP7g?si=5pb9QmPloz_oIGf9
Edited on Sep 12, 2026 at 09:09 AM · View previous versions
Sep 12, 2026 at 08:44 AM
|
p.2 #11Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Very interesting release. This really brings back fond memories of the Sigma 18-50 for me, I really do miss that little thing. I imagine Sigma will sell a lot of these.
The complete lack of switches or buttons is rough though, I think Sigma missed the mark with that. At $850 it should have included at least one button, especially when the Sony 20-70 is so loaded and you can find $200-300 lenses with better features. But if I was in the market, and given what reviewers are saying about optical quality, this would be my choice vs the 20-70 - the price, size, weight, and aperture advantage is just too much.
The complete lack of switches or buttons is rough though, I think Sigma missed the mark with that. At $850 it should have included at least one button, especially when the Sony 20-70 is so loaded and you can find $200-300 lenses with better features. But if I was in the market, and given what reviewers are saying about optical quality, this would be my choice vs the 20-70 - the price, size, weight, and aperture advantage is just too much.
Sep 12, 2026 at 09:01 AM
p.2 #12Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
I hope someone here will get it and let us know how it is really. Reviewers always sweet things up a bit.
Sep 29, 2026 at 03:57 PM
p.2 #13Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
rob_ww wrote:
I cannot see any significant advantage to this lens over the existing Sony 24-50. Yes, you do get 20mm on the wide end, but if I want wider than 24 I am likely to want the option of wider than 20 too, depending on the composition. The extra 10mm on the long end is not worth considering. The size, weight and price are comparable, but the f2.8, esp. on the long end, is critical. Just my 2c.
I have to say I thought that way too until I started using the 20-70 — having the 20-24 bit of range is darn handy. Having it now, I’d definitely give up the 10mm on the long end for it.
Given Dustin’s review, I’d definitely stick with my Sony 20-70 over this Sigma. The Sigma hits f4 quickly anyway, and needs a hefty amount of corrections. Sigma also zooms backwards from Sony which gets confusing when switching between lenses. But I do like the size…
My issue right now, is the 24-70/2.8 GMii is just so darn good optically that I don’t want to use anything else in that range. It’s quickly becoming my goto. It’s a little bigger than I’d like for travel, but it’s so good I’m caving anyway. My 20-70 may hit the B&S soon…
I cannot see any significant advantage to this lens over the existing Sony 24-50. Yes, you do get 20mm on the wide end, but if I want wider than 24 I am likely to want the option of wider than 20 too, depending on the composition. The extra 10mm on the long end is not worth considering. The size, weight and price are comparable, but the f2.8, esp. on the long end, is critical. Just my 2c.
I have to say I thought that way too until I started using the 20-70 — having the 20-24 bit of range is darn handy. Having it now, I’d definitely give up the 10mm on the long end for it.
Given Dustin’s review, I’d definitely stick with my Sony 20-70 over this Sigma. The Sigma hits f4 quickly anyway, and needs a hefty amount of corrections. Sigma also zooms backwards from Sony which gets confusing when switching between lenses. But I do like the size…
My issue right now, is the 24-70/2.8 GMii is just so darn good optically that I don’t want to use anything else in that range. It’s quickly becoming my goto. It’s a little bigger than I’d like for travel, but it’s so good I’m caving anyway. My 20-70 may hit the B&S soon…
Sep 29, 2026 at 04:23 PM
p.2 #14Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Do you also find the 50-70 range helpful? I find a little cropping gets what I need from a 50. IMHO need to go to 85-90 to get a significantly different look.
Sep 30, 2026 at 03:46 AM
p.2 #15Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Jack Flesher wrote:
I have to say I thought that way too until I started using the 20-70 — having the 20-24 bit of range is darn handy. Having it now, I’d definitely give up the 10mm on the long end for it.
Given Dustin’s review, I’d definitely stick with my Sony 20-70 over this Sigma. The Sigma hits f4 quickly anyway, and needs a hefty amount of corrections. Sigma also zooms backwards from Sony which gets confusing when switching between lenses. But I do like the size…
My issue right now, is the 24-70/2.8 GMii is just so darn good optically that...Show more →
I am caught between 3 lenses - the 20-70, 24-70 and 20-200. As you note, the 24-70/2.8 GM II is just on another level for overall sharpness, but the 20-70 is close, small and has a real bonus in that extra on there wide side. The 20-200 is nowhere near as good as either, but I love having the long range, which I find I use more and more in street shooting...
rob_ww wrote
I cannot see any significant advantage to this lens over the existing Sony 24-50. Yes, you do get 20mm on the wide end, but if I want wider than 24 I am likely to want the option of wider than 20 too, depending on the composition. The extra 10mm on the long end is not worth considering. The size, weight and price are comparable, but the f2.8, esp. on the long end, is critical. Just my 2c.Given Dustin’s review, I’d definitely stick with my Sony 20-70 over this Sigma. The Sigma hits f4 quickly anyway, and needs a hefty amount of corrections. Sigma also zooms backwards from Sony which gets confusing when switching between lenses. But I do like the size…
My issue right now, is the 24-70/2.8 GMii is just so darn good optically that...Show more →
I am caught between 3 lenses - the 20-70, 24-70 and 20-200. As you note, the 24-70/2.8 GM II is just on another level for overall sharpness, but the 20-70 is close, small and has a real bonus in that extra on there wide side. The 20-200 is nowhere near as good as either, but I love having the long range, which I find I use more and more in street shooting...
Sep 30, 2026 at 05:49 AM
p.2 #16Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I have to say I thought that way too until I started using the 20-70 — having the 20-24 bit of range is darn handy. Having it now, I’d definitely give up the 10mm on the long end for it.
Given Dustin’s review, I’d definitely stick with my Sony 20-70 over this Sigma. The Sigma hits f4 quickly anyway, and needs a hefty amount of corrections. Sigma also zooms backwards from Sony which gets confusing when switching between lenses. But I do like the size…
My issue right now, is the 24-70/2.8 GMii is just so darn good optically that I don’t want to use anything else in that range. It’s quickly becoming my goto. It’s a little bigger than I’d like for travel, but it’s so good I’m caving anyway. My 20-70 may hit the B&S soon…I am caught between 3 lenses - the 20-70, 24-70 and 20-200. As you note, the 24-70/2.8 GM II is just on another level for overall sharpness, but the 20-70 is close, small and has a real bonus in that extra on there wide side. The 20-200 is nowhere near as good as either, but I love having the long range, which I find I use more and more in street shooting...
If you like wider, the Tamron 12-20 is stellar, nearly on par with the 24-70 GMii. My issue with the 20-200 is optical speed at the long end. But again, the size and range are appealing assuming you adjust to the backwards zoom. As such, my travel trio includes the Tamron 12-20 and Sony 70-200/4 G oss ii. If you decide you want a 20-70, pm me — as much as I will probably regret it, I’m leaning towards selling it and sticking with the larger 24-70.
Jack Flesher wrote
rob_ww wrote
I cannot see any significant advantage to this lens over the existing Sony 24-50. Yes, you do get 20mm on the wide end, but if I want wider than 24 I am likely to want the option of wider than 20 too, depending on the composition. The extra 10mm on the long end is not worth considering. The size, weight and price are comparable, but the f2.8, esp. on the long end, is critical. Just my 2c.Given Dustin’s review, I’d definitely stick with my Sony 20-70 over this Sigma. The Sigma hits f4 quickly anyway, and needs a hefty amount of corrections. Sigma also zooms backwards from Sony which gets confusing when switching between lenses. But I do like the size…
My issue right now, is the 24-70/2.8 GMii is just so darn good optically that I don’t want to use anything else in that range. It’s quickly becoming my goto. It’s a little bigger than I’d like for travel, but it’s so good I’m caving anyway. My 20-70 may hit the B&S soon…
If you like wider, the Tamron 12-20 is stellar, nearly on par with the 24-70 GMii. My issue with the 20-200 is optical speed at the long end. But again, the size and range are appealing assuming you adjust to the backwards zoom. As such, my travel trio includes the Tamron 12-20 and Sony 70-200/4 G oss ii. If you decide you want a 20-70, pm me — as much as I will probably regret it, I’m leaning towards selling it and sticking with the larger 24-70.
Sep 30, 2026 at 08:00 AM
p.2 #17Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Any real world experience? The lens is now in stock (at least here in Europe).
I have a good copy of Sony 20-70, but it feels a bit heavy/large on a7c2, so thinking about swapping it for the Sigma…
I have a good copy of Sony 20-70, but it feels a bit heavy/large on a7c2, so thinking about swapping it for the Sigma…
Oct 03, 2026 at 01:39 AM
p.2 #18Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Same here, going to buy a7cii and this lens, but first would like to see if anyone is using it and how it is in real world experience. For me its either this or 16-35mm f4, for one lens travel kit.
Oct 03, 2026 at 06:46 AM
p.2 #19Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Jack Flesher wrote
rob_ww wrote
I cannot see any significant advantage to this lens over the existing Sony 24-50. Yes, you do get 20mm on the wide end, but if I want wider than 24 I am likely to want the option of wider than 20 too, depending on the composition. The extra 10mm on the long end is not worth considering. The size, weight and price are comparable, but the f2.8, esp. on the long end, is critical. Just my 2c.Given Dustin’s review, I’d definitely stick with my Sony 20-70 over this Sigma. The Sigma hits f4 quickly anyway, and needs a hefty amount of corrections. Sigma also zooms backwards from Sony which gets confusing when switching between lenses. But I do like the size…
My issue right now, is the 24-70/2.8 GMii is just so darn good optically that I don’t want to use anything else in that range. It’s quickly becoming my goto. It’s a little bigger than I’d like for travel, but it’s so good I’m caving anyway. My 20-70 may hit the B&S soon…
There's no universal one right answer, of course. My recent trip was with others, with different interests and some set timing. Kind of rushed and shared things concerns. A 20-200 might be a good choice there. If traveling alone or more opportunities for deliberative work, more "carry" capacity, then more or different choices work.
I'll put my ff lenses on my A6700 to compare size for A7C series roles. Even that is a moving target. I think the 20-200, 28-200 are getting, for me, "might as well go A7s over A7C" size, the A6700 and 70-350 or 50-300 is a nice alternative to the xx-400s for zoos, wild animal parks with crowds and walking.
Oct 03, 2026 at 06:46 AM
p.2 #20Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
phinix wrote:
Same here, going to buy a7cii and this lens, but first would like to see if anyone is using it and how it is in real world experience. For me its either this or 16-35mm f4, for one lens travel kit.
I sold my 20-70/4 yesterday and ordered the Sigma (one local eshop had a great price on it, 25% less than everywhere else), so will have hands on experience in a few days
Oct 05, 2026 at 03:16 PM