Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
p.3 #1Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
I picked up the 20-60 from my LCS on Friday, used it for some local street/architecture shoots already. I haven’t had time to upload samples here yet, but I can share a link to my Flickr album with a few early images I have captured and processed:
https://flickr.com/photos/47265156@N03/sets/72177720335938750
These have been corrected and edited in LR.
https://flickr.com/photos/47265156@N03/sets/72177720335938750
These have been corrected and edited in LR.
Oct 05, 2026 at 09:36 PM
p.3 #2Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Here are a couple samples from the album posted above. Again, these have been corrected and edited in LR:
George Brown House by chris dufresne, on Flickr
The Ryrie Building by chris dufresne, on Flickr
King & Sherbourne by chris dufresne, on Flickr
George Brown House by chris dufresne, on FlickrThe Ryrie Building by chris dufresne, on FlickrKing & Sherbourne by chris dufresne, on FlickrOct 06, 2026 at 07:02 AM
p.3 #3Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
This lens looks amazing regarding your samples…
Oct 06, 2026 at 07:27 AM
p.3 #4Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
tuxounet wrote:
This lens looks amazing regarding your samples…
Yes, I have to say I'm really impressed so far. The IQ stopped down at f8 rivals that of my very good 24-70 GMII. I've yet to test it wide open or at faster apertures, mainly because these type of shots need wider DOF.
This lens looks amazing regarding your samples…
Yes, I have to say I'm really impressed so far. The IQ stopped down at f8 rivals that of my very good 24-70 GMII. I've yet to test it wide open or at faster apertures, mainly because these type of shots need wider DOF.
Oct 06, 2026 at 11:35 AM
p.3 #5Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Got mine today, the size/weight is amazing compared to 20-70/4 (on a7c2), really love how it feels in the hand. The zoom ring is pretty easy to turn from 20 to 28mm, then it becomes a bit stiffer.
My copy is slightly de-centered, the lower right corner/right side is blurrier than the the rest (similar to Christopher Frost's review sample), mainly between 28-50mm. Not sure if other copies will be better though...
My copy is slightly de-centered, the lower right corner/right side is blurrier than the the rest (similar to Christopher Frost's review sample), mainly between 28-50mm. Not sure if other copies will be better though...
Oct 07, 2026 at 03:33 AM
p.3 #6Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Here is another shot at 20mm:
St. Michael's Cathedral Basilica by chris dufresne, on Flickr
St. Michael's Cathedral Basilica by chris dufresne, on Flickr
Oct 09, 2026 at 06:18 PM
p.3 #7Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Just got mine. Like others have said...wow, this thing is small. Amazing. It makes the 20-70mm look big.
No time to shoot yet, but a couple test snaps look good.
No time to shoot yet, but a couple test snaps look good.
ILCE-7CR 20-60mm F2.8-4 DG | Contemporary 026 lens 32mm f/3.5 1/40s 160 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7CR 20-60mm F2.8-4 DG | Contemporary 026 lens 60mm f/4.0 1/60s 250 ISO -0.3 EV
Oct 12, 2026 at 07:45 AM
p.3 #8Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Anybody have both this and the 20-70 f4? Would love to get your thoughts on how they compare, especially in IQ. I know the Sigma has the advantage in weight and size (and somewhat in speed, but I believe that advantage fades off pretty quickly in the zoom range). I have the 20-70 f4 right now as my main travel lens on an A7RC and the smaller size without losing the wide end of the Sigma is appealing (I feel the 10mm on the long end is pretty negligible).
Oct 23, 2026 at 01:54 PM
p.3 #9Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
TheEyesHaveIt wrote:
Anybody have both this and the 20-70 f4? Would love to get your thoughts on how they compare, especially in IQ. I know the Sigma has the advantage in weight and size (and somewhat in speed, but I believe that advantage fades off pretty quickly in the zoom range). I have the 20-70 f4 right now as my main travel lens on an A7RC and the smaller size without losing the wide end of the Sigma is appealing (I feel the 10mm on the long end is pretty negligible).
I have the Sigma 20-60mm, the Sigma 20-200mm and the Sony 20-70mm. I'm planning to run some basic comparisons of the overlapping focal lengths in the next few/several days (weather permitting).
Meanwhile, here's a few from the Sigma...
590mm IR converted camera
Anybody have both this and the 20-70 f4? Would love to get your thoughts on how they compare, especially in IQ. I know the Sigma has the advantage in weight and size (and somewhat in speed, but I believe that advantage fades off pretty quickly in the zoom range). I have the 20-70 f4 right now as my main travel lens on an A7RC and the smaller size without losing the wide end of the Sigma is appealing (I feel the 10mm on the long end is pretty negligible).
I have the Sigma 20-60mm, the Sigma 20-200mm and the Sony 20-70mm. I'm planning to run some basic comparisons of the overlapping focal lengths in the next few/several days (weather permitting).
Meanwhile, here's a few from the Sigma...
ILCE-7RM6 20-60mm F2.8-4 DG | Contemporary 026 lens 32mm f/3.5 1/40s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM6 20-60mm F2.8-4 DG | Contemporary 026 lens 20mm f/7.1 1/500s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
590mm IR converted camera
ILCE-7R 20-60mm F2.8-4 DG | Contemporary 026 lens 35mm f/4.0 1/500s 100 ISO +1.3 EV
Oct 23, 2026 at 03:10 PM
|
p.3 #10Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I have the Sigma 20-60mm, the Sigma 20-200mm and the Sony 20-70mm. I'm planning to run some basic comparisons of the overlapping focal lengths in the next few/several days (weather permitting
That'd be super helpful - thanks! Also, if you have any thoughts on how they compare in terms of center and corner sharpness at different focal lengths and apertures, along with distortion (and how easy it is to correct), that'd be very interesting to hear.
TheEyesHaveIt wrote
Anybody have both this and the 20-70 f4? Would love to get your thoughts on how they compare, especially in IQ. I know the Sigma has the advantage in weight and size (and somewhat in speed, but I believe that advantage fades off pretty quickly in the zoom range). I have the 20-70 f4 right now as my main travel lens on an A7RC and the smaller size without losing the wide end of the Sigma is appealing (I feel the 10mm on the long end is pretty negligible).That'd be super helpful - thanks! Also, if you have any thoughts on how they compare in terms of center and corner sharpness at different focal lengths and apertures, along with distortion (and how easy it is to correct), that'd be very interesting to hear.
Oct 23, 2026 at 03:27 PM
p.3 #11Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I have the Sigma 20-60mm, the Sigma 20-200mm and the Sony 20-70mm. I'm planning to run some basic comparisons of the overlapping focal lengths in the next few/several days (weather permitting).
I await your comparisons with bated breath!
I have to 20-70 and do like it, but notice I use the 20-30 end far more than the 60-70. That lens is heavier than expected on my A7CII. If the 20-60 is somewhat comparable, it's lighter weight could make a compelling case as a backpacking lens. AND - if it could do a serviceable job of astro at 20mm, that would be a slam dunk
Thanks, Mike!!
I have the Sigma 20-60mm, the Sigma 20-200mm and the Sony 20-70mm. I'm planning to run some basic comparisons of the overlapping focal lengths in the next few/several days (weather permitting).
I await your comparisons with bated breath!
I have to 20-70 and do like it, but notice I use the 20-30 end far more than the 60-70. That lens is heavier than expected on my A7CII. If the 20-60 is somewhat comparable, it's lighter weight could make a compelling case as a backpacking lens. AND - if it could do a serviceable job of astro at 20mm, that would be a slam dunk
Thanks, Mike!!
Oct 25, 2026 at 02:47 PM
p.3 #12Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
Hi all! Very interesting thread
Could anyone post sample portrait shots? I'm really on the fence with this lens. Have the Tamron 20-40 2.8 at the moment to complement my Tamron 70-180, but the 20-40 is too short to be a one lens solution when I need to travel light.
Could anyone post sample portrait shots? I'm really on the fence with this lens. Have the Tamron 20-40 2.8 at the moment to complement my Tamron 70-180, but the 20-40 is too short to be a one lens solution when I need to travel light.
Oct 25, 2026 at 04:32 PM
p.3 #13Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
ryanli wrote:
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...Show more →
The 20-60 competes quite well against Micro 43.
For example:
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 DG Contemporary (375 g)
The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (24-80 f/5.6 equivalent, 382g)
Which lens would you rather shoot? The Sigma weighs a bit less, is a stop or more faster in the entire range and hits 90mm in apsc mode.
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...Show more →
The 20-60 competes quite well against Micro 43.
For example:
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 DG Contemporary (375 g)
The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (24-80 f/5.6 equivalent, 382g)
Which lens would you rather shoot? The Sigma weighs a bit less, is a stop or more faster in the entire range and hits 90mm in apsc mode.
Oct 26, 2026 at 03:46 AM
p.3 #14Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I have the Sigma 20-60mm, the Sigma 20-200mm and the Sony 20-70mm. I'm planning to run some basic comparisons of the overlapping focal lengths in the next few/several days (weather permitting).
Meanwhile, here's a few from the Sigma...
Beautiful photos, really nice samples, thank you Mike
TheEyesHaveIt wrote
Anybody have both this and the 20-70 f4? Would love to get your thoughts on how they compare, especially in IQ. I know the Sigma has the advantage in weight and size (and somewhat in speed, but I believe that advantage fades off pretty quickly in the zoom range). I have the 20-70 f4 right now as my main travel lens on an A7RC and the smaller size without losing the wide end of the Sigma is appealing (I feel the 10mm on the long end is pretty negligible).Meanwhile, here's a few from the Sigma...
Beautiful photos, really nice samples, thank you Mike
Oct 27, 2026 at 05:26 AM
p.3 #15Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
aCuria wrote:
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.The 20-60 competes quite well against Micro 43.
For example:
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 DG Contemporary (375 g)
The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (24-80 f/5.6 equivalent, 382g)
Which lens would you rather shoot? The Sigma weighs a bit less, is a stop or more faster in the entire range and hits 90mm in apsc mode.
I don't disagree with you - the kind of comparison you just made was the exact reason why I switched from M4/3 to Sony FE some 8 years ago and never looked back - but not sure why you brought it up? I was making a comparison to existing lenses on E-Mount and L-Mount.
Anyway, my post was a snap reaction to when the lens was first leaked and we didn't have all of the information available. Several months on we now know how incredibly small and light it is in practice and how well regarded it is optically and mechanically.
Personally I am still eagerly MikeEvangelist's three-way comparison between the 20-60, 20-200, and 20-70 G. I have to say that since selling my 20-70 G some months ago and replacing it with the 20-200, I have really enjoyed the shooting opportunities that I got from going into proper telephoto more than I would have done from an extra stop of light at the wide end.
ryanli wrote
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.
For example:
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 DG Contemporary (375 g)
The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (24-80 f/5.6 equivalent, 382g)
Which lens would you rather shoot? The Sigma weighs a bit less, is a stop or more faster in the entire range and hits 90mm in apsc mode.
I don't disagree with you - the kind of comparison you just made was the exact reason why I switched from M4/3 to Sony FE some 8 years ago and never looked back
- but not sure why you brought it up? I was making a comparison to existing lenses on E-Mount and L-Mount.Anyway, my post was a snap reaction to when the lens was first leaked and we didn't have all of the information available. Several months on we now know how incredibly small and light it is in practice and how well regarded it is optically and mechanically.
Personally I am still eagerly MikeEvangelist's three-way comparison between the 20-60, 20-200, and 20-70 G. I have to say that since selling my 20-70 G some months ago and replacing it with the 20-200, I have really enjoyed the shooting opportunities that I got from going into proper telephoto more than I would have done from an extra stop of light at the wide end.
Oct 27, 2026 at 07:07 PM
p.3 #16Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
ryanli wrote:
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.The 20-60 competes quite well against Micro 43.
For example:
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 DG Contemporary (375 g)
The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (24-80 f/5.6 equivalent, 382g)
Which lens would you rather shoot? The Sigma weighs a bit less, is a stop or more faster in the entire range and hits 90mm in apsc mode.I don't disagree with you - the kind of comparison you just made was the exact reason why I switched from M4/3 to Sony FE some 8 years ago and never looked back - but not sure why you brought it up? I was making a comparison to existing lenses on E-Mount and L-Mount.
Anyway, my post was a snap reaction to when the lens was first leaked and we didn't have all of the information available. Several months on we now know how incredibly small and light it is in practice and how well regarded it is optically and...Show more →
When I saw the Sigma 20-60mm announcement, my first thought was that it looked like a lens with a great weight-to-performance ratio. That got me thinking about other lenses in the same category, namely the Sony FE 28-60mm and the OM System ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, both of which I also admire for their excellent weight-to-performance ratio.
However, The Sigma 20-60's (375g) biggest competition is probably the Sony 24-50/2.8 (440g). Its 65g heavier but a stop faster on the long end and can do 120fps. Generally I am willing to carry an extra 65g in exchange for one stop, but on the other hand the Sigma does go down to 20mm
The most obvious reason to buy the Sigma 20-60/2.8-4 over the Sony 20-70/4 is to get f/2.8 on the wide end. However why not carry another 65g and get f/2.8 across the whole range with the 24-50?
If you value 20mm very strongly you probably value 16mm as well, and then the 16-35/4G (353g) starts to make more sense than any of these lenses ( I am in this camp actually )
Edited on Oct 28, 2026 at 02:16 AM · View previous versions
aCuria wrote
ryanli wrote
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.
For example:
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 DG Contemporary (375 g)
The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (24-80 f/5.6 equivalent, 382g)
Which lens would you rather shoot? The Sigma weighs a bit less, is a stop or more faster in the entire range and hits 90mm in apsc mode.
- but not sure why you brought it up? I was making a comparison to existing lenses on E-Mount and L-Mount.Anyway, my post was a snap reaction to when the lens was first leaked and we didn't have all of the information available. Several months on we now know how incredibly small and light it is in practice and how well regarded it is optically and...Show more →
When I saw the Sigma 20-60mm announcement, my first thought was that it looked like a lens with a great weight-to-performance ratio. That got me thinking about other lenses in the same category, namely the Sony FE 28-60mm and the OM System ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, both of which I also admire for their excellent weight-to-performance ratio.
However, The Sigma 20-60's (375g) biggest competition is probably the Sony 24-50/2.8 (440g). Its 65g heavier but a stop faster on the long end and can do 120fps. Generally I am willing to carry an extra 65g in exchange for one stop, but on the other hand the Sigma does go down to 20mm
The most obvious reason to buy the Sigma 20-60/2.8-4 over the Sony 20-70/4 is to get f/2.8 on the wide end. However why not carry another 65g and get f/2.8 across the whole range with the 24-50?
If you value 20mm very strongly you probably value 16mm as well, and then the 16-35/4G (353g) starts to make more sense than any of these lenses ( I am in this camp actually )
Edited on Oct 28, 2026 at 02:16 AM · View previous versions
Oct 27, 2026 at 08:10 PM
p.3 #17Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
https://starlight-code.com/posts/zoom-lens-aperture-comparison/
Interactive comparison of the 28-60's aperture value at each focal length to other variable aperture lenses like the 20-200, 25-200...
Interactive comparison of the 28-60's aperture value at each focal length to other variable aperture lenses like the 20-200, 25-200...
Oct 28, 2026 at 01:55 AM
p.3 #18Sigma 20-60mm F/2.8-4
aCuria wrote:
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.The 20-60 competes quite well against Micro 43.
For example:
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 DG Contemporary (375 g)
The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (24-80 f/5.6 equivalent, 382g)
Which lens would you rather shoot? The Sigma weighs a bit less, is a stop or more faster in the entire range and hits 90mm in apsc mode.I don't disagree with you - the kind of comparison you just made was the exact reason why I switched from M4/3 to Sony FE some 8 years ago and never looked back - but not sure why you brought it up? I was making a comparison to existing lenses on E-Mount and L-Mount.
Anyway, my post was a snap reaction to when the lens was first leaked and we didn't have all of the information available. Several months on we now know how incredibly small and light it is in practice and how well regarded it is optically and mechanically.
Personally I am still eagerly MikeEvangelist's three-way comparison between the 20-60, 20-200, and 20-70 G. I have to say that since selling my 20-70 G some months ago and replacing it with the 20-200, I have really enjoyed the shooting opportunities that I got from going into proper telephoto more than I would have done from an extra stop of light at the wide end.When I saw the Sigma 20-60mm announcement, my first thought was that it looked like a lens with a great weight-to-performance ratio. That got me thinking about other lenses in the same category, namely the Sony FE 28-60mm and the OM System ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, both of which I also admire for their excellent weight-to-performance ratio.
However, The Sigma 20-60's (375g) biggest competition is probably the Sony 24-50/2.8 (440g). Its 65g heavier but a stop faster on the long end and can do 120fps. Generally I am willing to carry an extra 65g in exchange for one stop, but on...Show more →
Yes, that's the solution I went with a while back and it works very well. I like that with both zooms I have 35mm 'normal' available if I need to react quickly. And I find, when I do want wider than 24mm, that I need a zoom which allows me to choose just how wide I want it to be, rather than being stopped again at 20mm. To my eye, both lenses deliver excellent IQ. In fact, the 24-50 lives on my camera. It's like having all my favourite focal lengths without having to constantly change.
ryanli wrote
aCuria wrote
ryanli wrote
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.
For example:
Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4 DG Contemporary (375 g)
The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO (24-80 f/5.6 equivalent, 382g)
Which lens would you rather shoot? The Sigma weighs a bit less, is a stop or more faster in the entire range and hits 90mm in apsc mode.
- but not sure why you brought it up? I was making a comparison to existing lenses on E-Mount and L-Mount.Anyway, my post was a snap reaction to when the lens was first leaked and we didn't have all of the information available. Several months on we now know how incredibly small and light it is in practice and how well regarded it is optically and mechanically.
Personally I am still eagerly MikeEvangelist's three-way comparison between the 20-60, 20-200, and 20-70 G. I have to say that since selling my 20-70 G some months ago and replacing it with the 20-200, I have really enjoyed the shooting opportunities that I got from going into proper telephoto more than I would have done from an extra stop of light at the wide end.
However, The Sigma 20-60's (375g) biggest competition is probably the Sony 24-50/2.8 (440g). Its 65g heavier but a stop faster on the long end and can do 120fps. Generally I am willing to carry an extra 65g in exchange for one stop, but on...Show more →
Yes, that's the solution I went with a while back and it works very well. I like that with both zooms I have 35mm 'normal' available if I need to react quickly. And I find, when I do want wider than 24mm, that I need a zoom which allows me to choose just how wide I want it to be, rather than being stopped again at 20mm. To my eye, both lenses deliver excellent IQ. In fact, the 24-50 lives on my camera. It's like having all my favourite focal lengths without having to constantly change.
Oct 28, 2026 at 05:25 AM