Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony G 20-70 probably best travel lens on 60 MP bodies

Go to last post
Mr_Win said:
yysc said:
I rather travel with my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, I don't mind the weight, that's what the gym is for.

This 20-70 G is of course much wider, but also a lot slower across all focal lengths (F4 is too slow for indoors), and less than half the reach for just a few euros less... no thanks.
Click to expand...
on what earth is the 35-150 a travel lens :-)

I have it and love it, but seriously, the comparison is a bit far fetched. f4 is slow for indoors, however that is an opinion, that I dont really agree with, considering how well hardware and software has matured.

no chance the 20-70 can blur backgrounds like the 35-150, that is in large aperture prime league.
Click to expand...

I travel with it. No pain no gain! :-)

Surely no zoom is substitute for a prime with poor lighting, but F4 indoors is very limiting for stuff that moves (under available light), F2.8 is already at the limit IMO.

I think 1600 euro for the 20-70 F4 zoom is way too much, but I guess this lens can be interesting for people that photographs stuff that doesn't move much.
 
yysc said:
Mr_Win said:
yysc said:
I rather travel with my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, I don't mind the weight, that's what the gym is for.

This 20-70 G is of course much wider, but also a lot slower across all focal lengths (F4 is too slow for indoors), and less than half the reach for just a few euros less... no thanks.
Click to expand...
on what earth is the 35-150 a travel lens :-)

I have it and love it, but seriously, the comparison is a bit far fetched. f4 is slow for indoors, however that is an opinion, that I dont really agree with, considering how well hardware and software has matured.

no chance the 20-70 can blur backgrounds like the 35-150, that is in large aperture prime league.
Click to expand...
I travel with it. No pain no gain! :-)

Surely no zoom is substitute for a prime with poor lighting, but F4 indoors is very limiting for stuff that moves (under available light), F2.8 is already at the limit IMO.

I think 1600 euro for the 20-70 F4 zoom is way too much, but I guess this lens can be interesting for people that photographs stuff that doesn't move much.
Click to expand...
If the lighting is that dim, then even a 2.8 wouldn’t save you…. It’s one stop difference

In very poorly lit situations there no substitute for primes and it’s mostly something you encounter in none professional settings.

however in most professional settings a f4 actually suffices how else would we get away with telephoto in stadium with f4 rating.
 
Malling said:
yysc said:
Mr_Win said:
yysc said:
I rather travel with my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, I don't mind the weight, that's what the gym is for.

This 20-70 G is of course much wider, but also a lot slower across all focal lengths (F4 is too slow for indoors), and less than half the reach for just a few euros less... no thanks.
Click to expand...
on what earth is the 35-150 a travel lens :-)

I have it and love it, but seriously, the comparison is a bit far fetched. f4 is slow for indoors, however that is an opinion, that I dont really agree with, considering how well hardware and software has matured.

no chance the 20-70 can blur backgrounds like the 35-150, that is in large aperture prime league.
Click to expand...
I travel with it. No pain no gain! :-)

Surely no zoom is substitute for a prime with poor lighting, but F4 indoors is very limiting for stuff that moves (under available light), F2.8 is already at the limit IMO.

I think 1600 euro for the 20-70 F4 zoom is way too much, but I guess this lens can be interesting for people that photographs stuff that doesn't move much.
Click to expand...
If the lighting is that dim, then even a 2.8 wouldn’t save you…. It’s one stop difference

In very poorly lit situations there no substitute for primes and it’s mostly something you encounter in none professional settings.

however in most professional settings a f4 actually suffices how else would we get away with telephoto in stadium with f4 rating.
Click to expand...
Having tried to photograph roller darby in an ill lit stadium I wonder how people would use f/4 too. "Topaz", yes maybe, probably not available on Linux. To me this would not be an indoor sports lens, rather an outdoor landscape type lens because again f/2,8 is nicer for bokeh typically. This thing needs stopping down to f/8 for the corners for much of the range which is OK if treated as a landscape lens. Then again it has several of the XD motors everyone thinks is critical nowadays. The mountainside isn't running off but maybe the light is. At more than 1600e I don't personally see the appeal but I do applaud Sony for being somewhat different.
 
Last edited:
yysc said:
Mr_Win said:
yysc said:
I rather travel with my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, I don't mind the weight, that's what the gym is for.

This 20-70 G is of course much wider, but also a lot slower across all focal lengths (F4 is too slow for indoors), and less than half the reach for just a few euros less... no thanks.
Click to expand...
on what earth is the 35-150 a travel lens :-)

I have it and love it, but seriously, the comparison is a bit far fetched. f4 is slow for indoors, however that is an opinion, that I dont really agree with, considering how well hardware and software has matured.

no chance the 20-70 can blur backgrounds like the 35-150, that is in large aperture prime league.
Click to expand...
I travel with it. No pain no gain! :-)

Surely no zoom is substitute for a prime with poor lighting, but F4 indoors is very limiting for stuff that moves (under available light), F2.8 is already at the limit IMO.
Click to expand...
As it happens, check the DPR news report today for their review of Topaz. The point is that raising iso to deal with low light and freezing movement with F4 lenses is not an issue.

I guess you are working with the wrong camera system. Why not go dslr and really give those muscles a workout? Lots of pain for you to get off on.

Seriously, it isn't just the weight on your shoulder. I want a smaller, lighter weight system for when I travel by plane. I don't trust my gear down in the bags in the hold. The 20-70 looks perfect for the kind of shooting I do when I travel overseas.
 
buellom said:
Malling said:
buellom said:
Malling said:
The lens tips review is actually overall positive if you go to conclusion the only negative they really bring up is the “monstrous” distortion at 20-24mm range but most other part of the lens get praised
Click to expand...
It's of course always a question of expectations and what you compare it too. To me it seems the resolution at the edges of full frame are an issue: "The maximum relative aperture is a problem, though, especially in the range from 24 -35 mm where the results are lower than 38 lpmm so a tad below the decency level." However, stopping down helps at least at 20mm as the charts show.
Click to expand...
That’s true for fundamental all standard zooms they don’t have stellar FF corners in this range, we are splitting hairs now. Tamron drop down below 30lpmm and Sigma 2.8 drop down to around 40lpmm at f4, Nikon 24-70/2.8 dos a little better but it’s not massively so. If one doesn’t like such lower performance FF corners one should just ignore Standard zooms to begin with.
Standards has for years been know as the weakest lens especially when it comes to FF corners. You simply won’t find a single lens that dos marvellous here.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree here. The new Sony 24-70 GM might be come close to marvelous though. However, my expectations were higher...
buellom said:
buellom said:
So relative to the task to design such a lens, relative to the covered focal lengths, Sony probably did an amazing job (and a job no one else ever did!). But relative to a wide angle zoom (like an 16-35) the performance seems not that good. The conclusion sounds indeed quite positive, but the lens didn't get a recommendation badge.
Click to expand...
It’s a much easier lens to make, something I said for a long time. 16-35 and 12-24 have better FF corners it take less then 5min to find proof of that reality and the new 16-35GM is going to outperform the 24-70GMii at overlapping range just wait and see. The standard introduced all sort of optical challenges because it covers Wides, mid and short tele this is bound to result in certain optical issues, challenges and compromises, making it go into UW territory is only going to make this even more so. People think it’s an easy lens to make but it just ain’t so, the proof is on the table in ff corners, 16-35 and 12/14-24 lens absolutely demolished the standard at corners, it’s really only in centre sharpness we see very good performance and getting closer to the magical 80lpmm that tele zooms have already reached.
buellom said:
It's especially interesting that the lens struggles with a high res sensor at the edges. Don't know how other lenses behave here. I always was assuming that a high res sensor gives at least the resolution as a lower res sensor when using the same lens. This seems not to be the case with this lens, something I want to look into further...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Since mirrorless first arrived, there have always been issues with the edges. This is because the very short flange distances required much greater bending of the light at the edges to strike the sensor at the desirable angle. To a large extent this was addressed by the addition of micro lenses to the surface of the sensor that helped redirect the light so the angle of incidence is more vertical to the sensor.

ie., it isn't just a lens question, the lens has to be designed to work with the microlenses on the sensor and these are fixed for all lenses that will be mounted on the camera. From what I have seen of images from the 20-70, I think Sony have done a stellar job with a tricky design problem.

I have no evidence of the following but I suspect that one of the reasons that the Sony RX1 produced the remarkable images that it did was because it had a fixed lens that could be precisely matched to the micro lenses of that camera's sensors as it only had one lens to deal with.
 
Mike Fewster said:
Seriously, it isn't just the weight on your shoulder. I want a smaller, lighter weight system for when I travel by plane. I don't trust my gear down in the bags in the hold. The 20-70 looks perfect for the kind of shooting I do when I travel overseas.
Click to expand...
that's it in a nutshell

However I am debating with myself on and on about the distortion at the wide end. It's maybe my perfectionism and interest in the best money can buy at a small footprint that are in conflict.

I guess the smaller, lighter and smarter part will finally win and I have the lens on pre order anyway.

Price is irrelevant since my experience is that you'll get back a good deal of the investment even after years of using gear. I sold my precious Canon lenses with a total loss of some 30 % after using them for 13+ years. In other words a loss of maybe € 5 k translating into some € 30 per month or in other terms € 1 per day - that's less than a cup of coffee from your own high end portafilter with good coffee beans and still water from the brand of your choice - let alone the brown unidentifiable things you get to go 🤣

Please stopp debating about the cost for a hobby and in case you're a pro please make sure you understand the basics of entrepreneurship. Think in terms of return of investment rather than expenses.

I guess this is a very unique lens with a value proposition that's 2nd to none in the market.

Question remains whether you start with a high enough MP sensor to compensate for the loss in anti-distortion correction.

High res bodies become more and more the foundation of a usefully end result. Imagine starting with a 24 or 33 MP body and loosing 10 % linear resolution or roughly 20+ % in pixel count by warping the image to the final result.

I guess this lens will become my go to lens when doing international business trips where I carry my A7R IV as part time interest to utilize the time spent for the job wisely.

When traveling on photo purpose the GM primes are my goto solutions anyway - hard to beat a GM 35 or 50 by any lens on the market - but that's not the purpose of this tool.

I was about to acquire the 28 .. 60 for it's portability - this tool seems to be better on all fronts and it's still comparable lightweight and compact for what it is.

In case we needed a proof point for Sony's willingness to excel in size and weight we have it with this little gem.
 
joger said:
Mike Fewster said:
Seriously, it isn't just the weight on your shoulder. I want a smaller, lighter weight system for when I travel by plane. I don't trust my gear down in the bags in the hold. The 20-70 looks perfect for the kind of shooting I do when I travel overseas.
Click to expand...
that's it in a nutshell

However I am debating with myself on and on about the distortion at the wide end. It's maybe my perfectionism and interest in the best money can buy at a small footprint that are in conflict.

I guess the smaller, lighter and smarter part will finally win and I have the lens on pre order anyway.

Price is irrelevant since my experience is that you'll get back a good deal of the investment even after years of using gear. I sold my precious Canon lenses with a total loss of some 30 % after using them for 13+ years. In other words a loss of maybe € 5 k translating into some € 30 per month or in other terms € 1 per day - that's less than a cup of coffee from your own high end portafilter with good coffee beans and still water from the brand of your choice - let alone the brown unidentifiable things you get to go 🤣

Please stopp debating about the cost for a hobby and in case you're a pro please make sure you understand the basics of entrepreneurship. Think in terms of return of investment rather than expenses.

I guess this is a very unique lens with a value proposition that's 2nd to none in the market.

Question remains whether you start with a high enough MP sensor to compensate for the loss in anti-distortion correction.

High res bodies become more and more the foundation of a usefully end result. Imagine starting with a 24 or 33 MP body and loosing 10 % linear resolution or roughly 20+ % in pixel count by warping the image to the final result.

I guess this lens will become my go to lens when doing international business trips where I carry my A7R IV as part time interest to utilize the time spent for the job wisely.

When traveling on photo purpose the GM primes are my goto solutions anyway - hard to beat a GM 35 or 50 by any lens on the market - but that's not the purpose of this tool.

I was about to acquire the 28 .. 60 for it's portability - this tool seems to be better on all fronts and it's still comparable lightweight and compact for what it is.

In case we needed a proof point for Sony's willingness to excel in size and weight we have it with this little gem.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I havw written here before about my experiences using the 28-60 and having a Samyang 18mm 2.8 as well. Lots depends on your shooting style. For me. I get into the wide end for street work, interiors and some landscapes where I want extreme of. The problem with the 28-60 and 18mm solution is that I found myself swapping too often between the two lenses. The 20-70 would be much better. I still might want something around 16mm in my bag but I wouldn't be reaching for it very often.

Then there is the wa distortion issue. Generally for streetwork this doesn't bother me and I'm quite happy with camera correction. It might bother me for some building and interior shots. These are almost always static shots A possible solution. Go to about 26mm where distortion doesn't seem to be an issue and shoot a series that can be stitched as a panorama. This can be done horizontally, vertically or both. Because it is a multi shot stitch up, the quality will be high if the final image is printed large. Now you have an image as wide as you like with minimal distortion. (assuming the not so wide focal length is giving a flat plane and it usually is.) I used to use this technique for large prints with a wa view back in the apsc days with 12 megapixel sensors. It works fine. I'm still selling large prints that were made like this and they still look good.
 
Mr_Win said:
dth29 said:
Willy79 said:
Djehuty said:
I think a 24-105 is still better.
Click to expand...
I don't know that the 24-105 is better but I will be sticking with it. I know I would miss what I would lose on the long end more than what I would gain on the short end. I know I would enjoy the lighter weight (everything is a trade off).
Click to expand...
+1

The 24-105 is a much more flexible focal range for me. I could add an UWA, or stack. I would definitely miss the 105mm.
Click to expand...
it's a decent lens, good all around

4mm on the wide is a lot

nearly 200 gram difference is very noticeable
Click to expand...
So, Sony ML shooters are still in the hunt for less grams weight, when the bodies don't stop growing in size and weight revisions after revisions... Awkward.
 
SrMi said:
Djehuty said:
I think a 24-105 is still better.
Click to expand...
Lenstip has published their reviews of 24-105 and 20-70.

Resolution-wise, 24-70 is better in the center but worse in the corners. I am a bit concerned about the corner performance of 20-70. We'll see how much it matters in practice.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the heads up, I will compare this review to the lumix S 20-60 IQ wise. Curious to see that.
 
Mike Fewster said:
yysc said:
Mr_Win said:
yysc said:
I rather travel with my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, I don't mind the weight, that's what the gym is for.

This 20-70 G is of course much wider, but also a lot slower across all focal lengths (F4 is too slow for indoors), and less than half the reach for just a few euros less... no thanks.
Click to expand...
on what earth is the 35-150 a travel lens :-)

I have it and love it, but seriously, the comparison is a bit far fetched. f4 is slow for indoors, however that is an opinion, that I dont really agree with, considering how well hardware and software has matured.

no chance the 20-70 can blur backgrounds like the 35-150, that is in large aperture prime league.
Click to expand...
I travel with it. No pain no gain! :-)

Surely no zoom is substitute for a prime with poor lighting, but F4 indoors is very limiting for stuff that moves (under available light), F2.8 is already at the limit IMO.
Click to expand...
As it happens, check the DPR news report today for their review of Topaz. The point is that raising iso to deal with low light and freezing movement with F4 lenses is not an issue.

I guess you are working with the wrong camera system. Why not go dslr and really give those muscles a workout? Lots of pain for you to get off on.

Seriously, it isn't just the weight on your shoulder. I want a smaller, lighter weight system for when I travel by plane. I don't trust my gear down in the bags in the hold. The 20-70 looks perfect for the kind of shooting I do when I travel overseas.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia
Click to expand...
I prefer DXO over Topaz any day of the week.

To reiterate, Topaz just reduces noise, F4 will be always be F4 when it comes down to DOF. A "travel lens" at F4 max is so limiting that you're going to need to carry a fast prime alongside and 70mm is too short in many situations.

Might be okay I guess if you just shoot landscapes or buildings.
 
yysc said:
I rather travel with my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, I don't mind the weight, that's what the gym is for.

This 20-70 G is of course much wider, but also a lot slower across all focal lengths (F4 is too slow for indoors), and less than half the reach for just a few euros less... no thanks.
Click to expand...
The tamron 35-150 is certainly a lens in its own league for weddings. I could easily use such a thing combined with the tamron 15-30/2.8, but I guess you don't travel much.

When you travel to places, you also often have to shoot indoors and probably you'd need more light and a wider aperture but certainly you need more wide focal length than 35mm. 20mm can help in this situation, 14/15/16/17mm is even more suitable.
 
yysc said:
Mr_Win said:
yysc said:
I rather travel with my Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, I don't mind the weight, that's what the gym is for.

This 20-70 G is of course much wider, but also a lot slower across all focal lengths (F4 is too slow for indoors), and less than half the reach for just a few euros less... no thanks.
Click to expand...
on what earth is the 35-150 a travel lens :-)

I have it and love it, but seriously, the comparison is a bit far fetched. f4 is slow for indoors, however that is an opinion, that I dont really agree with, considering how well hardware and software has matured.

no chance the 20-70 can blur backgrounds like the 35-150, that is in large aperture prime league.
Click to expand...
I travel with it. No pain no gain! :-)

Surely no zoom is substitute for a prime with poor lighting, but F4 indoors is very limiting for stuff that moves (under available light), F2.8 is already at the limit IMO.

I think 1600 euro for the 20-70 F4 zoom is way too much, but I guess this lens can be interesting for people that photographs stuff that doesn't move much.
Click to expand...
If you travel with it I guess you pick up something wider than 35mm with you otherwise 35mm indoors like churches/temples can be very limiting.
 
ActionPhotoPassion said:
Mr_Win said:
dth29 said:
Willy79 said:
Djehuty said:
I think a 24-105 is still better.
Click to expand...
I don't know that the 24-105 is better but I will be sticking with it. I know I would miss what I would lose on the long end more than what I would gain on the short end. I know I would enjoy the lighter weight (everything is a trade off).
Click to expand...
+1

The 24-105 is a much more flexible focal range for me. I could add an UWA, or stack. I would definitely miss the 105mm.
Click to expand...
it's a decent lens, good all around

4mm on the wide is a lot

nearly 200 gram difference is very noticeable
Click to expand...
So, Sony ML shooters are still in the hunt for less grams weight, when the bodies don't stop growing in size and weight revisions after revisions... Awkward.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, the MTF looks pretty good, but with 60 MP the lens seems to be overwhelmed, cf. the (German) review at digitalkamera.de. Note that the MTF only goes down to 30 lp/mm.
 
Last edited:
joger said:
ARB1 said:
joger said:
Just compiled the information availbale so far:

GM 24 .. 70 / GM 24 - 70 II and G 20 .. 70
GM 24 .. 70 / GM 24 - 70 II and G 20 .. 70

comparison to other lenses in the range
comparison to other lenses in the range

I was wrong on the pricing though - it's something like 1100 EUR - which is really nice

Let's wait for the MTF charts to understand how good it will be with respect optical quality

this makes me reluctant however:
joger said:
As you might expect for a modern zoom that covers the ultra-wide range, it requires digital correction as part of its design
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
But which lens these days don’t require some in camera digital correction?
Click to expand...
GM 24 / 35 / 50 / 85 / 135 / 400 / 600

G 20 / G 85 G 12 .. 24 fron 15 mm onwards , G 200 .. 600

all are within a low margin of distortion.

Vignetting has always been a physical effect that needed optical ( = center filter ) or post production compensation.
Click to expand...
You're talking of natural vignetting, which is a function of the difference in distance that light rays have to travel to the borders of the frame, as compared to the center. Natural vignetting is not a physical given, as it can be mitigated for example by using a retrofocal or telecentric design. The real problem is aberrations the optical corrections of which preclude each other.
 
Last edited:
joger said:
Just compiled the information availbale so far:

GM 24 .. 70 / GM 24 - 70 II and G 20 .. 70
GM 24 .. 70 / GM 24 - 70 II and G 20 .. 70

comparison to other lenses in the range
comparison to other lenses in the range

I was wrong on the pricing though - it's something like 1100 EUR - which is really nice

Let's wait for the MTF charts to understand how good it will be with respect optical quality

this makes me reluctant however:
joger said:
As you might expect for a modern zoom that covers the ultra-wide range, it requires digital correction as part of its design
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's f4! Never!

--
I love dogs!
Pentaxian and a Canonian!
Food is one of those spices in life!
PENTAX IS UNDERRATED
 
Hawkypuck said:
joger said:
Just compiled the information availbale so far:

GM 24 .. 70 / GM 24 - 70 II and G 20 .. 70
GM 24 .. 70 / GM 24 - 70 II and G 20 .. 70

comparison to other lenses in the range
comparison to other lenses in the range

I was wrong on the pricing though - it's something like 1100 EUR - which is really nice

Let's wait for the MTF charts to understand how good it will be with respect optical quality

this makes me reluctant however:
Hawkypuck said:
As you might expect for a modern zoom that covers the ultra-wide range, it requires digital correction as part of its design
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's f4! Never!

--
I love dogs!
Pentaxian and a Canonian!
Food is one of those spices in life!
PENTAX IS UNDERRATED
Click to expand...
Then you be very much mistaken, making a lens f4 doesn’t somehow means a lens get small and limited in distortions. Most f4 in ultrawide, wide and normal are actually relying on correction it’s not just this it’s majority in the mirrorless ff world across brand.



At Sony 16-35, 20-70, 24-105 all rely on correction, at Nikon 14-30, 24-70, 24-120 all rely on corrections, Canon 14-35 and 24-105.



The distortion here in the ends are 4-10%, but notice here that it is actually only the 24-105/120 that are that modest. For the 14/16-30/35, 20/24-70 the numbers are actually 6-10%
 
I am talking about the aperture, it would be not nearly as good as an f2.8 lens in low light! Especially since northern europe and UK do not get a huge amount of light and sun, and Bill Gates is spraying stuff into the atmosphere to dim the sun light rays, low light performance is important to many pro photographers in the northern countries of the world.

Personally, i would take a heavier but fast lens over a lighter slower lens any day.

-
I love dogs!
Pentaxian and a Canonian!
Food is one of those spices in life!
PENTAX IS UNDERRATED
 
Hawkypuck said:
joger said:
Just compiled the information availbale so far:

GM 24 .. 70 / GM 24 - 70 II and G 20 .. 70
GM 24 .. 70 / GM 24 - 70 II and G 20 .. 70

comparison to other lenses in the range
comparison to other lenses in the range

I was wrong on the pricing though - it's something like 1100 EUR - which is really nice

Let's wait for the MTF charts to understand how good it will be with respect optical quality

this makes me reluctant however:
Hawkypuck said:
As you might expect for a modern zoom that covers the ultra-wide range, it requires digital correction as part of its design
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It's f4! Never!
Click to expand...
always with me - RRS TFA-01 Ultra - just a few grams and no discussion about not having one ;-)
always with me - RRS TFA-01 Ultra - just a few grams and no discussion about not having one ;-)

BTW - it's a Pyrrhic victory since you loose depth of field and you'll need f/5.6 or f/8.0 sometimes for enough field of view.

I never shoot city- or landscapes with f/2.8 - I need smaller aperture anyway.

BUT in case I need a faster prime it's normally much faster than f/2.8 and for that I own ultra fast primes.

Just think about it this way:
  • Imagine you have an unlimited selection of lenses
  • Photographing is imagining a sujet and selecting the right gear
  • When shooting specific sujets - specific gear is needed
    • walk about => lean traveling
    • studio and indoors => potentially different gear and / or heavy tripods
  • There is no such thing as one size fits all
There are times when a lightweight tool suits your needs and times where a sherpa is with you carying your gear.

This lens is for the times when you have no sherpa - and with sherpa I literally mean an assistant or car nearby.

This weekend I am flying to Valencia for photographing - I will have 3 kg tripod, 6 kg camera a lenses and LapTop and lots of batteries. But the distances are really small - maybe 5 .. 10 km - for everything longer a smaller lens and an emergency tripod at 0.15 kg is more than sufficient - remember you stop down for DOF and image quality anyway.



BTW - I hate shooting outside of ISO 100 🙃

I almost always finde a fence or a house wall where I can place the mini tripod

--
__________________________________
... having is better than needing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Question Question
Please kindly help me choose my one and only lens for travel
2 3
Replies
43
Views
44
PWPhotography
P
T
  • Question Question
Sony FE 16-35mm f4 Vario-Tessar T* ZA OSS Lens Vrs the Sony 16-35 GM F 2.8
2
Replies
29
Views
292
tcbarb
T
joger
Sigma S200 f/2.0 | Laowa 180 f/4.5 macro | GM 300 | G 70-200 II macro ~ shootout | peak lens @ SONY
Replies
18
Views
89
Impulses
I
ray_burnimage
Sony 16-25mm 2.8G - £899 on Amazon UK
Replies
19
Views
20
Matt2134
Matt2134
B
24-70 GM ii vs 28-70 f2 GM vs 20-70 f4 G
2 3
Replies
53
Views
210
PWPhotography
P

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top