yet another lens recommendation question.

[wed7]

If you are to own 1 lens assuming you can get them at the same price AND could only afford one lens and to be used for general/rural photography/portraits/travel/landscape

which is worthwhile to to purchase and what lens you are to complement it with another?

Sony 20-70/4

Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art II

Sigma 28-105/2.8

Tamron 35-150/2.0-2.8

Thank you

#SonyA7IV

 

[Sundre]

Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 for me. I tend to take most of my photos at 100+ mm, and the Tamron is superb throughout the range. I even prefer its rendering over the Sony 24-70/2.8 GM II where they overlap.

I currently pair the 35-150 with the superb Sony 20/1.8 G, mostly because the 20 G is so small yet excellent. I would prefer a zoom, but currently only the Sony 12-24/2.8 GM renders well enough for me in that range, and that's a very heavy combo.

 

[Impulses]

Sony 20-70/4

Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art II

Sigma 28-105/2.8

Tamron 35-150/2.0-2.8

Thank you

#SonyA7IV

None of the above. If forced to choose from those I'd probably go with the 20-70/4 plus a fast prime, if weight and size were no object I'd go with the 35-150 & an UWA prime, but I can't imagine that zoom being my main/only lens for stuff like travel, people have very different definitions of that though.

 

[wed7]

Sony 20-70/4

Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art II

Sigma 28-105/2.8

Tamron 35-150/2.0-2.8

Thank you

#SonyA7IV

None of the above. If forced to choose from those I'd probably go with the 20-70/4 plus a fast prime, if weight and size were no object I'd go with the 35-150 & an UWA prime, but I can't imagine that zoom being my main/only lens for stuff like travel, people have very different definitions of that though.

You are correct with people having different definitions, so what would be yours outside of the choices?

Thank you.

 

[ahaslett]

My answer was in reality a discounted 20-70/4 and a deeply discounted A7CR. I shoot landscape and family.

I have a lot of lenses across 2 systems but the 20-70/4 is my first FF choice for sure. Like Impulses, I pair it normally with 1 or 2 primes - CV 15/4.5 for interiors, 35/2 for people in environments, 35/1.2 for certain kinds of landscape, 55/1.8 for lots of things, and 100/2.2 for lots of things.

I’d only miss about 20% of opportunities with the one body one lens bag. I don’t shoot much wildlife or tele landscape but I have kit for that, macro, tilt-shift…

I spent two weeks recently in a photo rich environment and >80% of my keepers came from the 20-70/4. Next up was the 100/2.2, then the 35/2. I also took a handful of shots at 300mm FF equivalent.

A

 

[mr-troels]

I went with the Sigma 28-105mm F2.8, it is an awesome lens.

I think the Tamron 35-150mm is slightly better optically, renders more artistic where the Sigma is a bit more strict, but the lens I mostly use must cover the 28-35 range - to me it was a big deal.

The Zoom range is very good, and the sharpness is high all across the range.

I also dig the close focus ability. Makes it a very versatile package.

 

[wed7]

In real world use, that 20-70/4 is no slouch. Thank you for sharing your insights.

 

[thunder storm]

If you are to own 1 lens assuming you can get them at the same price AND could only afford one lens and to be used for general/rural photography/portraits/travel/landscape

which is worthwhile to to purchase and what lens you are to complement it with another?

Sony 20-70/4

Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art II

Sigma 28-105/2.8

Tamron 35-150/2.0-2.8

Thank you

#SonyA7IV

I a lens should go as least as wide as 28mm to do general photography.

I think it's nice when a lens goes over 70mm for portraits.

Combining these "requirements" it should be the 28-105mm f/2.8.

Ideally you would have both the 20-70mm and the 35-150mm, or combine the 20-70mm with a prime.

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

Of those lenses, I have the 20-70 and enjoy it for travel, landscape, nature and some architecture. Very flexible, focuses reasonably close, and well-featured. Recommended.

The paired lens..... I like pairing the 20-70 with something longer.

• If weight is no object, I pair it with the 70-200/4Gii (which I also have). Gives me 20-200mm from f4 down, and the same 72mm filters.
• If weight is critical, I adapt because Sony offer nothing truly compact in telephoto FLs. So I carry a small legacy MF tele. I have several, but my ongoing favorite is the Pentax M 120/2.8. It weighs just 345g with adapter and caps. Always sharp in the center. Soft in the outer image at f2.8-4. I can live with that for subjects that suit wide apertures. And very sharp across the frame at f8.

Enjoy whatever you decide.

Regards, Rod

 

[Martin_99]

If you really need to make a compromise with only one lens, Sony 20-70f4 seems to me as very interesting option to me. Not ideal for portrait, but nice for all other mentioned genres.

 

[James Stirling]

If you really need to make a compromise with only one lens, Sony 20-70f4 seems to me as very interesting option to me. Not ideal for portrait, but nice for all other mentioned genres.

Yep I agree for a lot of general shooting the 20-70mm F/4 covers a lot of ground add a prime of your liking and it is a great travel option

F/4 is not the faster aperture favoured by portrait shooters but it does a turn in a pinch , my granddaughter



--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Ralf B]

If you really need to make a compromise with only one lens, Sony 20-70f4 seems to me as very interesting option to me. Not ideal for portrait, but nice for all other mentioned genres.

2 points:

"portrait" means many different ways to picture a person or even persons: head only, Head and shoulders, body, environmenatl portraiture, etc.. This includes numerous combinations of focal lengths and apertures to compose the shot. Some of these require "fast" lenses (not discussing DOF needed to get a whole face into DOF...), and most of the times lenses with smooth bokeh are favored for all good reasons to do so.

With that out of the way, and the OP asking for a compromise: If the choice for his single lens is the 20-70/4G, the choice should incororate info avaibable about its bokeh rendering compared to other lenses, and the "limits" of DOF control with a maximum aperture of 4. The educated buyer will then cater for the shot wanted by limiting the potential impact of what some consider as shortfall of the lens while incorporating its strengths (BTW, a recipe for all shots with any gear, there is no perfect gear kit going up to 11...)

I was asked by friends for portraits of their kids at home. In the shot below I tried to take all of the above into account - Environmental portrait with 20-70/4 - EXIF intact, shared at full size for pixel peeps:



Cheers,
Ralf

 

[James Stirling]

If you really need to make a compromise with only one lens, Sony 20-70f4 seems to me as very interesting option to me. Not ideal for portrait, but nice for all other mentioned genres.

2 points:

"portrait" means many different ways to picture a person or even persons: head only, Head and shoulders, body, environmenatl portraiture, etc.. This includes numerous combinations of focal lengths and apertures to compose the shot. Some of these require "fast" lenses (not discussing DOF needed to get a whole face into DOF...), and most of the times lenses with smooth bokeh are favored for all good reasons to do so.

With that out of the way, and the OP asking for a compromise: If the choice for his single lens is the 20-70/4G, the choice should incororate info avaibable about its bokeh rendering compared to other lenses, and the "limits" of DOF control with a maximum aperture of 4. The educated buyer will then cater for the shot wanted by limiting the potential impact of what some consider as shortfall of the lens while incorporating its strengths (BTW, a recipe for all shots with any gear, there is no perfect gear kit going up to 11...)



Cheers,
Ralf

That is a lovely photo Ralf

--
Jim Stirling:
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

 

[Ralf B]

That is a lovely photo Ralf

Thanks!

 

[Impulses]

Sony 20-70/4

Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art II

Sigma 28-105/2.8

Tamron 35-150/2.0-2.8

Thank you

#SonyA7IV

None of the above. If forced to choose from those I'd probably go with the 20-70/4 plus a fast prime, if weight and size were no object I'd go with the 35-150 & an UWA prime, but I can't imagine that zoom being my main/only lens for stuff like travel, people have very different definitions of that though.

You are correct with people having different definitions, so what would be yours outside of the choices?

Thank you.

I've never really shot a 20/24/28-xx zoom as my main lens, the 35-150's range would be a lot more tempting if it wasn't that large/heavy (I'd gladly take a lighter/slower version). I also like primes a lot, but at minimum I take two out on any given outing so that's probably a useless contribution here. As far as zooms go I tend to use an UWA zoom as my main walkabout lens because I really enjoy shooting and experimenting with UWA even tho it's often hit or miss for any given scene or place.

Right now that UWA zoom would be the 17-50mm f4 for it's versatile range (gets me to 75mm in crop mode) and MFD at both ends, it's not a huge departure from the concept of the 20-70, just shifted a bit more to the UWA end. I would pair it with a 135mm if I'm shooting open spaces, or with a fast prime otherwise. Most of the time the bag I'm carrying can accommodate 3 lenses anyway, so it's likely I'd opt for both, or my 11mm f4.5 plus either.

I can see why most would opt for the 20-70/4 as their one lens though (to maybe be complemented by a second). Like I said, if I had to I'd probably go with that paired with the new Viltrox 14/4 Air and the fast wide/normal of your choice (probably 35GM for me if I have the space, TTArtisan 40/2 if not).

14 + 20-70(105) + one prime would cover a lot indeed, hmm... For shooting UWA it requires more lens swapping though, whereas with the 17-50 I only swap to shoot long or fast, keeps it simple.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

If you are to own 1 lens assuming you can get them at the same price AND could only afford one lens and to be used for general/rural photography/portraits/travel/landscape

which is worthwhile to to purchase and what lens you are to complement it with another?

Sony 20-70/4

Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art II

Sigma 28-105/2.8

Tamron 35-150/2.0-2.8

There is no way to provide a good answer to this question without knowing what you shoot, and how. IMO "general/rural photography/portraits/travel/landscape" both is very vague an covers a huge range. How wide do you need or want? How long do you need or want?

I've had a normal zoom starting at 35mm, and I found it frustratingly not wide enough. I've had normal zooms starting at 28mm, and I found them usually wide enough but more than rarely not wide enough. I have a normal zoom starting at 24mm, and it's almost always wide enough for what I think of as normal zoom shooting conditions, but I can certainly see circumstances where a zoom starting at 20mm would be considerably more useful. I've had normal zooms ending at equivalent to 77mm, 80mm, and 85mm, and those were usually long enough, but relatively often I wanted longer. I have a standard zoom ending at 105mm, and it's almost always long enough for what I think of as normal zoom shooting conditions, but I can certainly see circumstances where a zoom ending at 150mm or longer would be useful. I've had an f/2.8 normal zoom and a couple of f/3.5-4.5 normal zooms, and I have an f/4 normal zoom. Personally I don't find those differences important. Then there's weight--everyone has personal ideas about what's good, what's too heavy, and what does or doesn't balance well on your camera(s).

So for me, considering zoom range, optical quality, and weight, the Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 remains the most appealing normal zoom for Sony, but I can certainly see how for some people the Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 would be.

With the idea of a two-lens set ("what lens you are to complement it with") but wanting to avoid the really heavy options, I think something like a Sony 20-70mm for most landscape, travel, and much general use, plus a Sony 70-200mm f/4 II or Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 G2 for portraits, rural, and some landscape, would be a high-quality, very flexible kit.

 

[dcstep]

If you are to own 1 lens assuming you can get them at the same price AND could only afford one lens and to be used for general/rural photography/portraits/travel/landscape

which is worthwhile to to purchase and what lens you are to complement it with another?

Sony 20-70/4

Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art II

Sigma 28-105/2.8

Tamron 35-150/2.0-2.8

Thank you

#SonyA7IV

Sony 20-70/4





View attachment a086dd436c0f4240a14b1d65c70e1649.jpg



--
Dave

 

[Craig Gillette]

I'd want to cover 16mm to 200mm. Several ways to do that. For me, that's currently the 28-200 and a wide of some sort. I have the 17-28/2 8 and added the 20-70/4. I typically don't need the 17-28. But in urban old Europe, found swapping a lot inconvenient. The 17-50 provides a lot of overlap but not highest quality. For some the announced 20-200 is intriguing but the f2.8 and wonders won't find it a fit.

n.

 

[pizzarulez]

As another perspective & data point - I started with the fantastic Sony 24-105 f4 with a Sigma DG DN Art 85mm 1.4, and it was a wonderful combo that covered both every day shooting and dedicated portrait photography. When the Tamron 35-150 released, and as someone who dislikes changing lenses on the fly and the dust that can collect on the A7R series sensors, I sold both and went all in on it as a way to consolidate into one overall lens. If you are open to the size and weight of it - and in full transparency it is a heavy and large lens - thats what I'd suggest. I have never regretted the move, which is saying something as I was super happy with the two lenses I had before.

The Tamron 35-150 is magic, to me. There is nothing like going to an event, around town with the kids, or wherever with just that lens and knowing you'll be able to likely get whatever you want out of it. Its as close to a 5 star lens as I've ever worked with over a few decades of owning cameras and lenses...as long as you don't mind the workout of carrying it around

EDIT: I will also mention that I'm assuming you have a somewhat recent smartphone with you, as for anything that comes up that needs wider than 35mm while I"m out and about and just have the 35-150 with me, I just use my phone. Admittedly I'm not a huge wide-angle shooter outside of some astrophotography, and for that I use a Sony 20mm f1.8, which I would strongly recommend to supplement the 35-150 (and often are found for cheap used).

 

[thunder storm]

If you really need to make a compromise with only one lens, Sony 20-70f4 seems to me as very interesting option to me. Not ideal for portrait, but nice for all other mentioned genres.

2 points:

"portrait" means many different ways to picture a person or even persons: head only, Head and shoulders, body, environmenatl portraiture, etc.. This includes numerous combinations of focal lengths and apertures to compose the shot. Some of these require "fast" lenses (not discussing DOF needed to get a whole face into DOF...), and most of the times lenses with smooth bokeh are favored for all good reasons to do so.

With that out of the way, and the OP asking for a compromise: If the choice for his single lens is the 20-70/4G, the choice should incororate info avaibable about its bokeh rendering compared to other lenses, and the "limits" of DOF control with a maximum aperture of 4. The educated buyer will then cater for the shot wanted by limiting the potential impact of what some consider as shortfall of the lens while incorporating its strengths (BTW, a recipe for all shots with any gear, there is no perfect gear kit going up to 11...)

I was asked by friends for portraits of their kids at home. In the shot below I tried to take all of the above into account - Environmental portrait with 20-70/4 - EXIF intact, shared at full size for pixel peeps:



Cheers,
Ralf

I like this portrait a lot.

There's some subject separation, and, in all fairness, subject separation by a shallow DOF isn't always needed.

That said, there are also kids requiring shutter speeds of 1/200th or so, so from that perspective having two aperture stops extra isn't always a bad thing. ;-)

--
R5 & RV
EF & FE