Sony 24–70mm GM II vs My Primes — What Would You Do?

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

flykiller said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

First things first, you’ve not stated your genres or what you’re trying to achieve?

I own the 24-70mm GMII and it’s a very important part of my professional kit.

But it doesn’t replace nor can it replace my faster primes. 20mm 1.8G, 35mm 1.4GM, 50mm 1.2GM and 135mm 1.8GM

Furthermore, my travel zoom is 20-70mm f4.

So, it depends on what you shoot and what you’re trying to achieve really?

I think its just GAS, i would keep the 3 primes all day, maybe even sell the 85mm since you prefer the 50mm 1.4
Just 2 lenses, better quality than the zoom i suppose, 1.4 vs 2.8 and each of these two lenses will have a purpose

Umm 20mm and 24mm are very different focal lengths. Unless you dislike UWA or are happy stitching, not sure how 24/2.8 replaces 20/1.8.

That having been said, the 24-70/2.8 is a great core zoom lens.

If you always wanted one and the deal means you can afford it, buy it. If the deal is the only driver, maybe you don’t need it.

A

I've never found primes and zooms to be mutually exclusive and I dunno why it seems to be an eternal debate. If you're not pressed for cash I'd keep all 4, the 20 & 85 are still notably wider/longer and faster and can do things the zoom can't.

Personally I prefer to own slower more versatile zooms next to my faster primes, but that just comes down to use case. I'll always have a mix of both in my kit, even if right now it skews heavily towards primes (but just two Tamron zooms cover 17-400 for me, I might add a little 28-60 someday).

flykiller said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

Without knowing much of what or how you shoot, what strikes me most is that 20 to 50mm is a massive gap. If you also had say 24 and 35mm primes, or 28 and 40mm primes, then we could talk about primes versus zooms and f/4 versus f/2.8 versus f/2 or faster. But you have no coverage between 20 and 50mm, and to me that would be unworkable / unacceptable. I think you need to buy something to plug the gap.

Then the question is what. Sure, the 24-70mm GM II has a lot of good points, and you found a great deal on one. But in decent condition from an honest seller, it remains quite an expensive lens, and for the same or less money there are a bunch of other options. Also, do you really need or desperately want f/2.8, and if so, why? Personally I find a one-stop difference relatively subtle, whether we're talking depth of field or noise or whatever. If you really need or want as wide as 20mm, what about the Sony 20-70mm f/4? Or what about the other Sony, Sigma, and Tamron 24 / 28mm to 70 / 75 / 105mm lenses of f/2.8 / f/4? Or if you really prefer primes and/or think you need a faster aperture, what about 24 and 35mm primes? There are lots of IMO nice options, and you're focusing on the one that's bigger / heavier than some of the alternative and generally most expensive, maybe just because you're getting a great deal on it.

Personally I have, like, and recommend the Sony 24-105mm f/4, because it's very flexible and pretty good. And depending on any particular user's needs and wants, I think the Sony 20-70mm f/4 is also a great option. But what's right for you involves a bunch of considerations personal to you on which I have little insight.

flykiller said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Click to expand...

Me? Buy the zoom, keep the primes, use all of them less than I should!

Actually, I’m kind of in that scenario but different. I own the FE 20-70 and FE 24-105 f4 zooms. I also have the FE 85/1.8, a Viltrox Air 50/2, a Samyang 24/1.8, and a Viltrox 16/1.8. The zooms are used when I want flexibility. The primes when I need shallower dof or low light options.

flykiller said:

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

I look at how clean it is. I look for wear. I check inside with a flashlight.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

Without knowing much of what or how you shoot, what strikes me most is that 20 to 50mm is a massive gap. If you also had say 24 and 35mm primes, or 28 and 40mm primes, then we could talk about primes versus zooms and f/4 versus f/2.8 versus f/2 or faster. But you have no coverage between 20 and 50mm, and to me that would be unworkable / unacceptable. I think you need to buy something to plug the gap.

Click to expand...

I love shooting with a 21+50 combo when I'm going after a minimalist setup... It's not my ideal spread (20/35/75 or 16/35/135 or some mix of that), but for some use cases you don't need to cover or plug every gap IMO... Just comes down to shooting what you like/enjoy, as an enthusiast at least.

Now if you're a pro, that's an entirely different story, but no enthusiast needs to cover every single FL gap, specially if you're already shooting primes and willingly sacrificing some versatility for other optical characteristics.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Then the question is what. Sure, the 24-70mm GM II has a lot of good points, and you found a great deal on one. But in decent condition from an honest seller, it remains quite an expensive lens, and for the same or less money there are a bunch of other options. Also, do you really need or desperately want f/2.8, and if so, why? Personally I find a one-stop difference relatively subtle, whether we're talking depth of field or noise or whatever. If you really need or want as wide as 20mm, what about the Sony 20-70mm f/4? Or what about the other Sony, Sigma, and Tamron 24 / 28mm to 70 / 75 / 105mm lenses of f/2.8 / f/4? Or if you really prefer primes and/or think you need a faster aperture, what about 24 and 35mm primes? There are lots of IMO nice options, and you're focusing on the one that's bigger / heavier than some of the alternative and generally most expensive, maybe just because you're getting a great deal on it.

Personally I have, like, and recommend the Sony 24-105mm f/4, because it's very flexible and pretty good.

Click to expand...

The minivan of lenses... (don't blame me for that analogy, I'm stealing it from Roger Cicala of LensRentals)

NAwlins Contrarian said:

And depending on any particular user's needs and wants, I think the Sony 20-70mm f/4 is also a great option.

Click to expand...

That one's a little sexier IMO, and undeniably popular.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

But what's right for you involves a bunch of considerations personal to you on which I have little insight.

Click to expand...

Indeed... Without knowing the use cases we're all just navel gazing for the OP, a useful soundboard maybe but not as useful as it could be with a little more insight on use case and preferences.

Impulses said:

Impulses said:

Impulses said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Click to expand...

Without knowing much of what or how you shoot, what strikes me most is that 20 to 50mm is a massive gap.... I think you need to buy something to plug the gap.

Click to expand...

I love shooting with a 21+50 combo when I'm going after a minimalist setup... It's not my ideal spread (20/35/75 or 16/35/135 or some mix of that), but for some use cases you don't need to cover or plug every gap IMO... Just comes down to shooting what you like/enjoy, as an enthusiast at least.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt for a moment that in your experience, going out with only a 20 / 21mm and a 50mm can work fine for certain uses / in certain circumstances. Indeed, depending on the need and intent, going out with only a 20 / 21mm or a 50mm might work fine. But the OP doesn't even have any lens that covers anywhere between 20 and 50mm. Given the OP's want "for travel and everyday use", that strikes me as too serious a limitation not to try to plug in some way.

Impulses said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Impulses said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

Without knowing much of what or how you shoot, what strikes me most is that 20 to 50mm is a massive gap. If you also had say 24 and 35mm primes, or 28 and 40mm primes, then we could talk about primes versus zooms and f/4 versus f/2.8 versus f/2 or faster. But you have no coverage between 20 and 50mm, and to me that would be unworkable / unacceptable. I think you need to buy something to plug the gap.

Click to expand...

I love shooting with a 21+50 combo when I'm going after a minimalist setup... It's not my ideal spread (20/35/75 or 16/35/135 or some mix of that), but for some use cases you don't need to cover or plug every gap IMO... Just comes down to shooting what you like/enjoy, as an enthusiast at least.

Click to expand...

When I shoot primes I frequently carry them with a 2x focal length gap plan. 24/50/100. 16/35/85. 15/31/70 (on Pentax).

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Click to expand...

Without knowing much of what or how you shoot, what strikes me most is that 20 to 50mm is a massive gap.... I think you need to buy something to plug the gap.

Click to expand...

I love shooting with a 21+50 combo when I'm going after a minimalist setup... It's not my ideal spread (20/35/75 or 16/35/135 or some mix of that), but for some use cases you don't need to cover or plug every gap IMO... Just comes down to shooting what you like/enjoy, as an enthusiast at least.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt for a moment that in your experience, going out with only a 20 / 21mm and a 50mm can work fine for certain uses / in certain circumstances. Indeed, depending on the need and intent, going out with only a 20 / 21mm or a 50mm might work fine. But the OP doesn't even have any lens that covers anywhere between 20 and 50mm. Given the OP's want "for travel and everyday use", that strikes me as too serious a limitation not to try to plug in some way.

Click to expand...

What if they like shooting landscapes and 20mm a lot, and mostly shoot people the rest of the time (50/85)? That seems to fit under travel & everyday use no? What if they doesn't mind using the 20mm in crop mode? I do that a lot with my 20G (less so with the small 21, tho I could as well). Then they've got 20-30-50-85, plenty workable...

We don't even know what body they have, how much cropping leeway or tolerance there is, let alone a more definable use case or preference than "for travel and everyday use". Some people hate 35, some people hate 50, how can we conclude they need a 24 and/or 35 (let alone both!), or a 28 (of which there aren't many) and a 40 in addition to the 50. That just seems like a big assumption to me, no offense. I merely offered my minimalist kit as a small example.

That's why I devoted the rest of the comment that fell out of your quote to the things we don't know. I love primes but I never carry more than 3-4 at a time, sometimes just 1-2, I've never felt I need a 24 and a 28 in addition to my 20/21, but that's just me. I got a couple 50s as alternatives to my 35/40, I never carry both, but again that's just me.

You're suggesting that without knowing how or what they shoot (your words) they should jump from a 3-prime kit to a 5-prime one just to plug some supposed holes? Yeah I can't get on board with that. 3 primes might be unworkable for you but it's how a ton of people shoot with primes tbh.

The zoom could very well be a useful addition, we just don't know. Are they tired of lens swapping? What do they shoot? What don't they like about their current kit? Etc etc. Having a zoom in addition to some primes is a reasonable urge, adding more primes willy nilly not so much.

UncleVanya said:

Impulses said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

UncleVanya said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

Without knowing much of what or how you shoot, what strikes me most is that 20 to 50mm is a massive gap. If you also had say 24 and 35mm primes, or 28 and 40mm primes, then we could talk about primes versus zooms and f/4 versus f/2.8 versus f/2 or faster. But you have no coverage between 20 and 50mm, and to me that would be unworkable / unacceptable. I think you need to buy something to plug the gap.

Click to expand...

I love shooting with a 21+50 combo when I'm going after a minimalist setup... It's not my ideal spread (20/35/75 or 16/35/135 or some mix of that), but for some use cases you don't need to cover or plug every gap IMO... Just comes down to shooting what you like/enjoy, as an enthusiast at least.

Click to expand...

When I shoot primes I frequently carry them with a 2x focal length gap plan. 24/50/100. 16/35/85. 15/31/70 (on Pentax).

Click to expand...

Yeah I've heard the 2x suggestion a lot, makes some sense when you start taking cropping leeway into account (1.5x is easy, 2x pushes it)... My combos have never been that neat but I don't fret much about it. On M4/3 I think my most frequent trio was 24/40/85 equivalent, the I realized I vastly prefer 20mm, even alongside 35 or 50... As a prime shooter I just don't mind a gap.

If I have the wrong lens on or if a crop takes a bit more of a toll, so what, I'm shooting for pleasure, no one is paying me to "get the shot". If I was a pro it'd be a different story...

I like that 21+50 combo because I like the unique things both lenses can do at their size (CV21/3.5 & TT50/1.4) and I'm not gonna suffer greatly if a shot would've looked better at 35mm (or 24 / 28 / 40 / 75 / 85 / 100 / etc.). It's a minimalist combo that scratches two itches for me and it's more enjoyable to carry all day at times than my ideal trio. It doesn't have to "plug" XYZ hole, it's just what I enjoy shooting sometimes.

Photography isn't dam building or plumbery... Nor is it Pokemon, we don't gotta catch 'em all. (says the guy with a dozen lenses... heh)

Impulses said:

UncleVanya said:

Impulses said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Impulses said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

Without knowing much of what or how you shoot, what strikes me most is that 20 to 50mm is a massive gap. If you also had say 24 and 35mm primes, or 28 and 40mm primes, then we could talk about primes versus zooms and f/4 versus f/2.8 versus f/2 or faster. But you have no coverage between 20 and 50mm, and to me that would be unworkable / unacceptable. I think you need to buy something to plug the gap.

Click to expand...

I love shooting with a 21+50 combo when I'm going after a minimalist setup... It's not my ideal spread (20/35/75 or 16/35/135 or some mix of that), but for some use cases you don't need to cover or plug every gap IMO... Just comes down to shooting what you like/enjoy, as an enthusiast at least.

Click to expand...

When I shoot primes I frequently carry them with a 2x focal length gap plan. 24/50/100. 16/35/85. 15/31/70 (on Pentax).

Click to expand...

Yeah I've heard the 2x suggestion a lot, makes some sense when you start taking cropping leeway into account (1.5x is easy, 2x pushes it)... My combos have never been that neat but I don't fret much about it. On M4/3 I think my most frequent trio was 24/40/85 equivalent, the I realized I vastly prefer 20mm, even alongside 35 or 50... As a prime shooter I just don't mind a gap.

If I have the wrong lens on or if a crop takes a bit more of a toll, so what, I'm shooting for pleasure, no one is paying me to "get the shot". If I was a pro it'd be a different story...

I like that 21+50 combo because I like the unique things both lenses can do at their size (CV21/3.5 & TT50/1.4) and I'm not gonna suffer greatly if a shot would've looked better at 35mm (or 24 / 28 / 40 / 75 / 85 / 100 / etc.). It's a minimalist combo that scratches two itches for me and it's more enjoyable to carry all day at times than my ideal trio. It doesn't have to "plug" XYZ hole, it's just what I enjoy shooting sometimes.

Photography isn't dam building or plumbery... Nor is it Pokemon, we don't gotta catch 'em all. (says the guy with a dozen lenses... heh)

Click to expand...

21/50 is close enough to 2x to not worry me. I have carried 21/50 before myself. (On crop)

Keeping it short, if you can afford to add it, why not? I'd suggest hanging on to the primes, though, if nothing else until you've had a chance to work out the new focal length range to be sure about either the 20 or 85. Also, the f1.x apertures offer at least some added light in low light or shallower depth of field.

24-70 is a useful range, even some portrait portrait photographers used it, instead of primes, such as Steve McCurry.



lt would be good for travel. Good for street photography, no missed images due to changing lenses.

For landscapes l would want something in between 20 and 50, such as a 35mm. 20mm not always wide enough. I generally use between 16-200, occasionally 300mm.

flykiller said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

In general, I allways had both primes and zooms in similar focal lenghts. I use zooms more, but when I thought about selling primes, I didn't like the idea.

So I would buy the zoom without hesitation. To be more precise, I would probably consider 20-70f4 as smaller and cheaper alternative. Primes cover fast aperture already.

Try to roughly test image quality and check it on notebook/tablet. AF on moving subject. I would also check the optical elements with light a and check how the lens looks in general. If too weared, I would not want it (but this you should already see from photos).

flykiller said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Also — when buying this lens used, besides testing it on my camera, is there anything else I should check?

Click to expand...

There’s a lot of good advice already, and I don’t have much to add. I have both fast primes and zooms, but they serve different use cases. Zooms are great if changing lenses is going to be a problem or you need the flexibility without the faff. However, bear in mind that your 50 wide open is going to give you more subject isolation than the 24-70, even at 70/2.8, the 85 even more so. So if that’s your thing you may find it unsatisfactory. On the other hand if you’re shooting events, or your family are getting fed up with you stopping to change lenses, then a zoom could be ideal.

If adding the zoom, I wouldn’t personally want to sell any of those lenses. One suggestion though, if money is tight, why not the sigma 24-70 art. The first gen is a bit bigger / heavier but cheaper. The G2 is beautiful and will be similar in build to your 50. It should also still be cheaper than the Sony unless you’re getting a really great deal (and then I’d be asking some questions to make sure it isn’t too good to be true).

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

I found a great deal on the Sony 24–70mm f/2.8 GM II and I’m debating how it fits into my kit. Right now, I shoot with:

• Sony 20mm f/1.8
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (my favorite — definitely keeping this one)
• Sony 85mm f/1.8

The zoom would give me way more flexibility for travel and everyday use, while the Sigma 50mm still covers me for low light and shallow depth of field. That makes me wonder — should I sell the 85mm 1.8, maybe even the 20mm 1.8, or keep them for when I want something smaller and faster?

What would you do in my situation?

Click to expand...

Without knowing much of what or how you shoot, what strikes me most is that 20 to 50mm is a massive gap.... I think you need to buy something to plug the gap.

Click to expand...

I love shooting with a 21+50 combo when I'm going after a minimalist setup... It's not my ideal spread (20/35/75 or 16/35/135 or some mix of that), but for some use cases you don't need to cover or plug every gap IMO... Just comes down to shooting what you like/enjoy, as an enthusiast at least.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt for a moment that in your experience, going out with only a 20 / 21mm and a 50mm can work fine for certain uses / in certain circumstances. Indeed, depending on the need and intent, going out with only a 20 / 21mm or a 50mm might work fine. But the OP doesn't even have any lens that covers anywhere between 20 and 50mm. Given the OP's want "for travel and everyday use", that strikes me as too serious a limitation not to try to plug in some way.

Click to expand...

Not in my experience. My 3 lens prime kit is 21 / 50 (ish) / 135. I don’t mind the gaps, that’s part of the point for me of shooting with primes, you can’t cover every focal length anyway and shouldn’t try. I’ve used that kit in plenty of vacations. But then I’ve also done trips where I’ve basically taken almost everything with a 50. It really depends on how you like to shoot.

The 24-70/2.8 GM ii is certainly one of the best lenses. If you don't have any A7Cxxx and small size is not very important, I would get it.

I have A7CR. For me the ideal lenses would be:

Sony 24-50/2.8G

+ ultra wide:

Viltrox 14/4 (only 170 g) - anounced, not available yet

+ tele/DOF:

I am not sure. I have 85/1.4, 105/2.8, 50-300/4.5-6.3. Most time I carry both, Samyang AF ii 85/1.4 and Tamron 50-300 which are the smallest/lightest of their class.

With 24-70 you will maybe not use the 85/1.8 very often.

Years ago, I also owned the Sony 85/1,8 which was very nice. But after acquisition of a Tamron 28-75/2.8 I didn't use the 85/1.8 anymore.

a

The Sony 24-70 GM2 f2.8 is easily one of the best 24-70 lenses one can buy. Highly recommend it. Maybe keep on faster prime for when DoF is particularly important for the shot (like a fast 50 or 85 for portraits).