Sony 20-70 mm vs 24-105 mm (just an idea)

Martin_99 said:

QuietOC said:

Martin_99 said:

If I compare it with 24-105:

- OSS is not much useful on IBIS bodies

Click to expand...

The 24-105 G OSS is one of four OSS lenses (so far) that supports image stabilization with body-lens coordinated control on the A7RV and presumably future cameras.

Click to expand...

Do you know what is the difference? What I remember from claims of other manufacturers, difference in stabilisation is something like 5EV vs 6EV in coordinated stabilisation, so probably not something you would notice much in real world shooting.

Martin_99 said:

Martin_99 said:

• With some lenses, the camera body and the lens work together to perform image stabilization, making it possible to correct larger blurs than usual. Refer to the following URL for compatible lenses.
  https://www.sony.net/dics/7rm5-s/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sony's documentation leaves a lot to be desired. I asked if DPReview could write an article about whatever this is as part of their A7RV coverage. Maybe Sony doesn't want to tout it too much since they only have it working with four lenses?

QuietOC said:

Martin_99 said:

If I compare it with 24-105:

- OSS is not much useful on IBIS bodies

Click to expand...

The 24-105 G OSS is one of four OSS lenses (so far) that supports image stabilization with body-lens coordinated control on the A7RV and presumably future cameras.

QuietOC said:

• With some lenses, the camera body and the lens work together to perform image stabilization, making it possible to correct larger blurs than usual. Refer to the following URL for compatible lenses.
  https://www.sony.net/dics/7rm5-s/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ever since the A7II, Sony has been claiming that a stabilized lens and a stabilized body work together:

"Additionally, the 5-axis stabilization works cooperatively with Sony α lenses with optical steady shot (OSS) to provide maximum stabilization and clarity..."


I did some tests on my A7RIII, comparing stability with my 24-105 against the unstabilized Tamron 28-200 at the same focal lengths. I could not detect any difference. Perhaps the 24-105 really is better with the A7RV, but I have no plans of buying one of those any time soon.

poipoipoi_2016 said:

vundere said:

I'm very much considering replacing my 24-105 with this for landscape use.

Although if I get a wide zoom like the 12-24, the 20-70 suddenly makes less sense, and I might be better off replacing the 24-105 with a 24-70/2.8 to have something that's more useful outside of just landscape photography.

Click to expand...

Anecdotally, I bought an RX100V and didn't notice 24mm very much, but very very decidedly noticed 70. So then in 2018, I picked up an RIII + 24-105 and it's effectively double-ended where half my pictures are <35mm (A third period were just at 24mm) and a third are >70mm.

So 70mm is too short, 20 isn't wide enough to really get WIDE like the 16 or the 14 prime. And I am a three-humped camel where one hump is 14-18, one hump is 24-35, and Hump #3 is 70-105.

I had to return the 20G because I couldn't see in 20mm like I could 24. Or 14 if the shot composition is right (It needs to be tall, coughs in NYC).

Click to expand...

I've noticed that most of my shots are either on the 24mm end of the 24-105, or with my 21mm, and very few of my shots at 105 are ones I like all that much.


My 21mm Loxia works great for me and what I photograph, and it'd be nice to have the ability to go that wide when I want the convenience of a general purpose zoom AF lens.

4Photos said:

blue_skies said:

LenRivers said:

I see the 20-70 mm announced today and I have to say in all my years that range in one zoom I have never seen or thought possible. Perhaps Sony has this new incredible shrink ray first announced with the GM II lens options.

Unless Sony is going to do a new and improved 70-200 F4, even so, I really like the 24-105 in one lens. That range covers a lot. If you are wanting one lens only.

I can see landscape or wide angle shooters with a 20 - 70. I think all will be known when the 20 mm - 24 mm is compared. More so, the 24mm in both the 24-105 and the 20-70 mm

Click to expand...

The jury is still out, many point to the 'digital correction' at the wide angle.

I like in-camera CP processing, but usually it comes at the cost of resolution.
But if well done, great.

Click to expand...

Has anyone ever seen or reported a loss of resolution in the "real world" due to this (relatively minor) pixel shifting?

Click to expand...

Yes, I saw such test I think on opticallimits. There si allways some loss of resolution, but in general it's still beneficial for lens design. You will get smaller lens with still high sharpness in the corners.

SafariBob said:

LenRivers said:

I see the 20-70 mm announced today and I have to say in all my years that range in one zoom I have never seen or thought possible. Perhaps Sony has this new incredible shrink ray first announced with the GM II lens options.

Unless Sony is going to do a new and improved 70-200 F4, even so, I really like the 24-105 in one lens. That range covers a lot. If you are wanting one lens only.

Click to expand...

I think the 20-70 is superior for all intents and purposes. Speaking as a 24-105 user. The 70-200 lens has been displaced by lenses such as tamrons 70-180 and the 100-400 options.

Click to expand...

You mean old 70-200/4.0 G OSS? But should not 70-200/2.8 GM II OSS that is very versatile. I am replacing 100-400 GM with 70-200 GM II (but still keep 200-600 G). I carried 100-400 GM into several trips mainly used in landscape. Then in such purpose, 70-200 GM II /w 1.4x TC if necessary is more flexibility, faster and sharper upto about 300mm. 300mm is long enough in compressed landscape photos. But then in events etc 100-400 GM is just too slow where 200mm usually is long enough and fast at f2.8.

SafariBob said:

SafariBob said:

I can see landscape or wide angle shooters with a 20 - 70. I think all will be known when the 20 mm - 24 mm is compared. More so, the 24mm in both the 24-105 and the 20-70 mm

Click to expand...

Personally don’t think the 24-105 is that good at 24.

Click to expand...

24-105 G OSS is old. I have no doubt if Sony designed a new 24-105 G II will be sharper in entire FL and smaller/lighter. I could see 20-70 G and 24-105 G both have respective market depend on priority and lens' line up. 24-105 G for example is better together with 16-35 PZ with less overlapping as even 20mm is not wide enough to many including myself.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

PWPhotography said:

SafariBob said:

LenRivers said:

I see the 20-70 mm announced today and I have to say in all my years that range in one zoom I have never seen or thought possible. Perhaps Sony has this new incredible shrink ray first announced with the GM II lens options.

Unless Sony is going to do a new and improved 70-200 F4, even so, I really like the 24-105 in one lens. That range covers a lot. If you are wanting one lens only.

Click to expand...

I think the 20-70 is superior for all intents and purposes. Speaking as a 24-105 user. The 70-200 lens has been displaced by lenses such as tamrons 70-180 and the 100-400 options.

Click to expand...

You mean old 70-200/4.0 G OSS? But should not 70-200/2.8 GM II OSS that is very versatile. I am replacing 100-400 GM with 70-200 GM II (but still keep 200-600 G). I carried 100-400 GM into several trips mainly used in landscape. Then in such purpose, 70-200 GM II /w 1.4x TC if necessary is more flexibility, faster and sharper upto about 300mm. 300mm is long enough in compressed landscape photos. But then in events etc 100-400 GM is just too slow where 200mm usually is long enough and fast at f2.8.

Click to expand...

no, i mean generally. I think the concept of a 70-200 f4 has been outdated. It was always an affordable lens for landscape and say outdoor activities, this is better served by other options now.

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

PWPhotography said:

I can see landscape or wide angle shooters with a 20 - 70. I think all will be known when the 20 mm - 24 mm is compared. More so, the 24mm in both the 24-105 and the 20-70 mm

Click to expand...

Personally don’t think the 24-105 is that good at 24.

Click to expand...

24-105 G OSS is old.

Click to expand...

I consider it new.

PWPhotography said:

I have no doubt if Sony designed a new 24-105 G II will be sharper in entire FL and smaller/lighter.

Click to expand...

not sure there is much room tor improvement, maybe remove the oss and slice of some grams

PWPhotography said:

I could see 20-70 G and 24-105 G both have respective market depend on priority and lens' line up. 24-105 G for example is better together with 16-35 PZ with less overlapping as even 20mm is not wide enough to many including myself.

Click to expand...

Good thing you weren’t born 20 years earlier then, you would miss out on a necesity

PWPhotography said:

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Click to expand...

SafariBob said:

PWPhotography said:

SafariBob said:

LenRivers said:

I see the 20-70 mm announced today and I have to say in all my years that range in one zoom I have never seen or thought possible. Perhaps Sony has this new incredible shrink ray first announced with the GM II lens options.

Unless Sony is going to do a new and improved 70-200 F4, even so, I really like the 24-105 in one lens. That range covers a lot. If you are wanting one lens only.

Click to expand...

I think the 20-70 is superior for all intents and purposes. Speaking as a 24-105 user. The 70-200 lens has been displaced by lenses such as tamrons 70-180 and the 100-400 options.

Click to expand...

You mean old 70-200/4.0 G OSS? But should not 70-200/2.8 GM II OSS that is very versatile. I am replacing 100-400 GM with 70-200 GM II (but still keep 200-600 G). I carried 100-400 GM into several trips mainly used in landscape. Then in such purpose, 70-200 GM II /w 1.4x TC if necessary is more flexibility, faster and sharper upto about 300mm. 300mm is long enough in compressed landscape photos. But then in events etc 100-400 GM is just too slow where 200mm usually is long enough and fast at f2.8.

Click to expand...

no, i mean generally. I think the concept of a 70-200 f4 has been outdated. It was always an affordable lens for landscape and say outdoor activities, this is better served by other options now.

SafariBob said:

SafariBob said:

SafariBob said:

I can see landscape or wide angle shooters with a 20 - 70. I think all will be known when the 20 mm - 24 mm is compared. More so, the 24mm in both the 24-105 and the 20-70 mm

Click to expand...

Personally don’t think the 24-105 is that good at 24.

Click to expand...

24-105 G OSS is old.

Click to expand...

I consider it new.

SafariBob said:

I have no doubt if Sony designed a new 24-105 G II will be sharper in entire FL and smaller/lighter.

Click to expand...

not sure there is much room tor improvement, maybe remove the oss and slice of some grams

SafariBob said:

I could see 20-70 G and 24-105 G both have respective market depend on priority and lens' line up. 24-105 G for example is better together with 16-35 PZ with less overlapping as even 20mm is not wide enough to many including myself.

Click to expand...

Good thing you weren’t born 20 years earlier then, you would miss out on a necesity

Click to expand...

It's more than 5 years old, it is old.

Making it lighter and throwing on an aperture ring would be much appreciated. I actually quite liked the OSS on it, especially once the FL got up to the 100s.

I think this is an ideal zoom and I applaud Sony for tackling this challenging range. I used to have a 22-50 Canon lens (35 mm film) and used it all the time. The extra few mm at the low end is a real benefit, and would make the 20-70 mm lens much more useful (to me) than one that starts out at 24 mm.

But I am using the APS-C Sony cameras and would love to see a comparable zoom range offered for us non-full-frame users. That would be approx 13-50 mm. No, this is not a hopeless request. Sony just released three new wide angle lenses for us APS-C users, suggested they have not abandoned APS-C, despite no new actual new APS-C cameras for years...

wineprof91 said:

I think this is an ideal zoom and I applaud Sony for tackling this challenging range. I used to have a 22-50 Canon lens (35 mm film) and used it all the time. The extra few mm at the low end is a real benefit, and would make the 20-70 mm lens much more useful (to me) than one that starts out at 24 mm.

But I am using the APS-C Sony cameras and would love to see a comparable zoom range offered for us non-full-frame users. That would be approx 13-50 mm. No, this is not a hopeless request. Sony just released three new wide angle lenses for us APS-C users, suggested they have not abandoned APS-C, despite no new actual new APS-C cameras for years...

Click to expand...

I think the last attractive lens sony released in APS-C was the 50mm oss. but the 18-135, 70-350 and 20 2.8 are decent as well.

One thing I might think about is how I want to use filters and or external flash. While 20 mm might be too wide for flash once you get to 28 mm or more it can be effective.

I might think if I was happy with the 24-105 mm maybe adding a 20 mm or wide prime for occasion needs might work better.

I would want to understand the quality difference of that 20-70 mm at 24 mm, 20 mm to decide if I would be better with either keeping the 24-105 f4, and looking at a 20 mm prime.

Just saying how much overlap or FL duplication matters to the individual.

I will say again the Sony GM mark ii (newest) versions of the 24-70 and 70-200 if they existed when I switched from Nikon to Sony few years back I would have thought twice about the 24-105 mm (maybe)

I think all the lenses I mentioned are all very good.