20-70mm F4 for travel?

[alexpler]

I'm happy with my 40mm lens for every day use but now I'm considering a more versatile lens for when I travel, as there you meet pretty diverse situations where your feet can't be your only zoom.

Has anyone tried the new 20-70 from Sony? Is it good? Is it sharp? And most important: is it light and comfortable enough to carry around all day?

Previously I considered the famous 24-105 but I'm afraid that would feel too big and heavy for my compact a7c.

 

[AlphaWorld]

It is an excellent lens. It's light, and it's versatile. It's sharp. And it's small and easy to carry, especially when set to 20mm. I've been using it on an A7RV, and it resolves detail well even on that sensor.

 

[Brownie]

It all depends on whether the extra 35mm on the long end make a difference. To me, the answer is yes. But to be honest, I would get the fantastic Tamron 28-200. Weight falls right in between the other two, and an excellent performer for less cost of the others. You also get the advantage of f/2.8 on the short end.

Travel is one of those things where you either take what you need and carry it, or you understand going in you won't get some shots because of lens limitations. A good superzoom is a fantastic thing.

 

[alexpler]

It all depends on whether the extra 35mm on the long end make a difference. To me, the answer is yes. But to be honest, I would get the fantastic Tamron 28-200. Weight falls right in between the other two, and an excellent performer for less cost of the others. You also get the advantage of f/2.8 on the short end.

Travel is one of those things where you either take what you need and carry it, or you understand going in you won't get some shots because of lens limitations. A good superzoom is a fantastic thing.

View attachment 38943

I will check the Tamron, thanks. I haven't explored the long end, given I only have the 40 and the 28-60, but it could certainly be helpful for travel.

 

[liggy]

I just came back from a 3 week trip. It was a jazz cruise with days prior to departure in Barcelona and after disembarking in Lisbon. This was not a photography trip and none of my traveling companions are interested in photography aside from their phones so I wanted to minimize lens changes and carrying a bag etc.

My previous light travel kit was the excellent Tamron 28-200 + 17-28. Great combo. Light and flexible. The problem is that I oftentimes wanted to get wider than 28 and you don't always have the ability to take a few shots and stitch so that meant having two lenses.

With that in mind I popped for the 20-70. It is an excellent tool for the job. Crop mode on the A1 gives you decent reach. Topaz software handles noise so the slowish F4 wasn't as big a deal as I feared. 20 vs. 17 is close enough to where I didn't really miss the 17-28.

I'll keep the 28-200 for trips other than crowded cities and tight spaces but depending upon the nature of the trip I am absolutely sold on the 20-70.
I like having an aperture ring so that is a plus vs. the 28-200 as well.

 

[alexpler]

I just came back from a 3 week trip. It was a jazz cruise with days prior to departure in Barcelona and after disembarking in Lisbon. This was not a photography trip and none of my traveling companions are interested in photography aside from their phones so I wanted to minimize lens changes and carrying a bag etc.

My previous light travel kit was the excellent Tamron 28-200 + 17-28. Great combo. Light and flexible. The problem is that I oftentimes wanted to get wider than 28 and you don't always have the ability to take a few shots and stitch so that meant having two lenses.

With that in mind I popped for the 20-70. It is an excellent tool for the job. Crop mode on the A1 gives you decent reach. Topaz software handles noise so the slowish F4 wasn't as big a deal as I feared. 20 vs. 17 is close enough to where I didn't really miss the 17-28.

I'll keep the 28-200 for trips other than crowded cities and tight spaces but depending upon the nature of the trip I am absolutely sold on the 20-70.
I like having an aperture ring so that is a plus vs. the 28-200 as well.

Thank you for your helpful input and experiencie. That's precisely why my kit lens 28-60 isn't enough: sometimes you need to go wider. Also depending on the situation / theme it's not sharp enough and that won't be a problem with the 20-70, apparently. I'm not afraid of the slow-ish aperture, at least it's constant (unlike the 28-60). I'm loving the aperture ring of the 40mm and it would be very welcome to have it in the 20-70 too if I go for that lens.

 

[liggy]

Thank you for your helpful input and experiencie. That's precisely why my kit lens 28-60 isn't enough: sometimes you need to go wider. Also depending on the situation / theme it's not sharp enough and that won't be a problem with the 20-70, apparently. I'm not afraid of the slow-ish aperture, at least it's constant (unlike the 28-60). I'm loving the aperture ring of the 40mm and it would be very welcome to have it in the 20-70 too if I go for that lens.

De nada! I could eat from La Boqueria every day - that was fantastic. No experience with the 28-60 but if 28 were wide enough I'd go with the Tamron 28-200. For most of my travels I really want to go wider than 28 so that makes the 20-70 an easy choice.

I may end up selling the 17-28 since it is now redundant with the 20-70. Yes - it's one stop faster and compact but I can't think of too many times I'd choose it over the 20-70 now.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

As much as I love my 28-200mm, the 28mm is pretty annoying for a general walk around lens, I basically see it as my lightweight 70-200mm landscape lens which is what I originally bought it as, and it's absolutely brilliant in this regard. Not to say it isn't a great all purpose lens because it is, but the 28mm is honestly a bit frustrating. It is a super fun walk around lens though...

On the note of the 20-70mm f4. I think it would be amazing 90% of the time as a do it all but for indoor, compressed delicate shots where you want as much background blur as possible it may leave me wondering a little. So the other side is the 24-70mm f2.8 which does come to the rescue for what I've just mentioned. I think these two things are the trade off for me so it comes down to which one was more important, I ended up going with a 24-70mm mainly because I've always had a 16-35mm and now especially with the PZ being much smaller than my GM was it is pretty much always with me anyway.

My advice is to figure out if you will really build a system up or you want to keep your setup minimal. If you are going to get a 16-35mm at some point I'd definitely be going in the direction of a 24-70mm f2.8 right now. But if you aren't going to grab a 16-35mm then the 20-70mm is definitely the go I think, because the option of being able to go wider than 24mm is non negotiable in my world. My 16-35mm is my most used lens overall, I have times where when I go out shooting I specifically keep it off the camera to challenge myself, because once it gets changed on it will not come off again for the rest of that outing, I love it dearly.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

On what I've said above, I've still also been close to buying the 20-70mm a few times since it's release. A mad lens and a mad size! It's basically criminal to not have it on board..!

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I watched The Slanted Lens last night with the A7C against the Canon R8. The A7C still throwing big punches indeed! Good to see the A7C's AF just outdoing the Canon.

 

[alexpler]

As much as I love my 28-200mm, the 28mm is pretty annoying for a general walk around lens, I basically see it as my lightweight 70-200mm landscape lens which is what I originally bought it as, and it's absolutely brilliant in this regard. Not to say it isn't a great all purpose lens because it is, but the 28mm is honestly a bit frustrating. It is a super fun walk around lens though...

On the note of the 20-70mm f4. I think it would be amazing 90% of the time as a do it all but for indoor, compressed delicate shots where you want as much background blur as possible it may leave me wondering a little. So the other side is the 24-70mm f2.8 which does come to the rescue for what I've just mentioned. I think these two things are the trade off for me so it comes down to which one was more important, I ended up going with a 24-70mm mainly because I've always had a 16-35mm and now especially with the PZ being much smaller than my GM was it is pretty much always with me anyway.

My advice is to figure out if you will really build a system up or you want to keep your setup minimal. If you are going to get a 16-35mm at some point I'd definitely be going in the direction of a 24-70mm f2.8 right now. But if you aren't going to grab a 16-35mm then the 20-70mm is definitely the go I think, because the option of being able to go wider than 24mm is non negotiable in my world. My 16-35mm is my most used lens overall, I have times where when I go out shooting I specifically keep it off the camera to challenge myself, because once it gets changed on it will not come off again for the rest of that outing, I love it dearly.

The 24-70 (and the 24-105) were also in consideration but I'm afraid they might be too bulky when paired with the A7C. 20-70 is slightly more compact (maybe not that much but enough... And wider too).

I prefer to keep my gear to the minimum. A main prime for everyday use and a standard zoom for traveling would be my ideal situation. I have the 28-60 but while it's light and compact, it's not wide enough, not fast enough after 35 and certainly not the sharpest lens either. I haven't used it at all since I bought the 40mm.

I will check the Tamron 28-200, that's been mentioned in previous replies as well. And the 16-35 PZ too, which I hadn't even considered. Thank you for your help!