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

 

[NowHearThis]

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 switched from Olympus to Sony just a couple weeks ago. I had the O8-25/4, O12-100/4, PL15/1.7, P42.5/1.7.

Selling all my gear only let me get the A7RIVa and one lens. The only thing that could do what I want is the 20-70/4 it goes just wide enough and 70mm on 60mp is fine. The next thing will be to pair it with a prime for lower light (Sigma 35/2 seems like a good option, but it’ll be a year before I worry about that). I’m going to try to get one lens a year if I’m lucky,

 

[wed7]

You're correct. I almost forgot the 24-105/4.

And for two lens set-up, I would like

Tamron's

16-30/2.8

35-150/2.0-2.8

Thank you for your input.

 

[wed7]

Congrats on your new gear. I am sure you will love that 20-70/4 heck 365 days is fine in warming up with a lens that versatile and has good quality. Happy shooting.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

You're correct. I almost forgot the 24-105/4.

Although some people hope for a Mk. II with certain improvements, IMO for most people it remains the most useful normal zoom for FE, the only real downside being somewhat higher weight than some alternatives.

And for two lens set-up, I would like

Tamron's

16-30/2.8

35-150/2.0-2.8

Just a thought: the Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is quite well-regarded optically, and small and light (that Tamron 16-30 is almost an inch longer and 25% heavier). Unless you really dislike power zoom, or are really convinced you need f/2.8, you might look at that to pair with the 35-150mm.

Thank you for your input.

You're welcome.

 

[UncleVanya]

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.

Same.

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.

Ditto.

• 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.

Adapted Pentax 100 macro plus 1.4x tc and an adapter or more commonly, my Tamron 70-300 RXD. but the new Laowa AF 180/4.5 is looking promising.

 

[UncleVanya]

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.

May Pentax pz-1 normal zoom was a 35-135. I was fine but I had never really explored wide angle before that and I made it work. Now I’d be feeling constrained.

I've had normal zooms starting at 28mm, and I found them usually wide enough but more than rarely not wide enough.

my 28-60 mostly feels ok. 28 is wide but not crazy wide.

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 own the 20-70 and 24-105. Both are great. The 20-70 pairs better with the 70-200 g II and I take the one that seems more likely to fit plans. Urban gets 20-70. Portraits as part of a larger shooting plan without a dedicated lens = 24-105. 105/4 offers more compression and isolation than 70/4.

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 like a little longer but I agree 105 is often long enough.

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).

…And how many miles that extra stop is worth on a hiking trip.

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.

I can attest to the truth of that. 20-70/4 and 70-200 g2 macro f4 is a pair of lenses I use a lot. Sometimes it’s the 28-60 plus the Tamron 70-300…

 

[UncleVanya]

The knock on the 24-105/4 is bulk. It’s awkwardly shaped and larger than the 24-70 making taking it a challenge in some bags when hiking.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

The knock on the 24-105/4 is bulk. It’s awkwardly shaped

For most lenses, weight and bulk are closely-related. Obviously this is somewhat personal, but I don't find the 24-105mm awkwardly-shaped. It's just relatively a lot to hang around my neck. I think back to my old Minolta AF 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5, which was considerably smaller and lighter. Sometimes I'd like a modern equivalent of that. And I've previously suggested that Sony should develop and sell an 'upgraded kit' lens similar to the Nikon F-mount 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR, and offer it in a kit price about $500 over body alone, or maybe $650 - $700 by itself.

larger than the 24-70

I'm assuming you don't mean the old, unloved Sony / Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar. The Sony 24-105mm is shorter (113 vs. 120mm), narrower (83 vs. 88mm), and lighter (663 vs. 695g) than the Sony 24-70mm GM II.

Now if you mean the 20-70mm, no surprise that for any given maximum aperture, a shorter lens with a lower zoom ratio tends to be smaller and lighter than a longer one with a higher zoom ratio. Sony hasn't yet defeated physics.

making taking it a challenge in some bags when hiking.

Focal range, maximum aperture, optical quality, size / weight, and price are all in tension with each other. Life is full of tradeoffs.

 

[UncleVanya]

The knock on the 24-105/4 is bulk. It’s awkwardly shaped

For most lenses, weight and bulk are closely-related. Obviously this is somewhat personal, but I don't find the 24-105mm awkwardly-shaped. It's just relatively a lot to hang around my neck. I think back to my old Minolta AF 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5, which was considerably smaller and lighter. Sometimes I'd like a modern equivalent of that. And I've previously suggested that Sony should develop and sell an 'upgraded kit' lens similar to the Nikon F-mount 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR, and offer it in a kit price about $500 over body alone, or maybe $650 - $700 by itself.

The bulk of the lens is forward and it feels odd sometimes.

larger than the 24-70

I'm assuming you don't mean the old, unloved Sony / Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar. The Sony 24-105mm is shorter (113 vs. 120mm), narrower (83 vs. 88mm), and lighter (663 vs. 695g) than the Sony 24-70mm GM II.

Actually I do mean the ZA 24-70/4. The copy I had was not bad. I sold it because on my a7RIII it rubbed my finger due to the size of my hand and the proximity to the grip of a sharp metal edge.

Now if you mean the 20-70mm, no surprise that for any given maximum aperture, a shorter lens with a lower zoom ratio tends to be smaller and lighter than a longer one with a higher zoom ratio. Sony hasn't yet defeated physics.

The 20-70 is also lighter and smaller as you point out. The point isn't that this is surprising - it's that some people may prefer the smaller lighter package. I like the weight balance on the 20-70 more on a smaller body like an a6600 when I feel like shooting APSC. Also the 20mm starting end is more friendly to APSC than 24mm. But I own both the 20-70 and the 24-105 and previously owned the ZA 24-70.

making taking it a challenge in some bags when hiking.

Focal range, maximum aperture, optical quality, size / weight, and price are all in tension with each other. Life is full of tradeoffs.

True. But modern lens design has really brought a revolution in size/weight compared to older designs. It is honestly crazy to see how much things are lighter now.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

larger than the 24-70

I'm assuming you don't mean the old, unloved Sony / Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar. The Sony 24-105mm is shorter (113 vs. 120mm), narrower (83 vs. 88mm), and lighter (663 vs. 695g) than the Sony 24-70mm GM II.

Actually I do mean the ZA 24-70/4. The copy I had was not bad. I sold it because on my a7RIII it rubbed my finger due to the size of my hand and the proximity to the grip of a sharp metal edge.

My modest experience with a Sony / Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 sounds similar to yours: at least on 24 MP, at least the copy I used was fairly decent. If there had been no Zeiss branding and the original price had been half,* then I think people would have judged it considerably less harshly. But even at the current $1000, it seems difficult to justify, unless bought used for much less.
*It was announced October 2013 for February 2014 delivery at $1199, which is approaching $1700 adjusted for inflation.

 

[UncleVanya]

Can’t disagree. The price of the za 24-70 was criminal. Mine was pretty cheap. Sold on for a good deal as well.

 

[Rod McD]

the new Laowa AF 180/4.5 is looking promising.

It does indeed look good, and fills the Sony compact prime gap at 180mm. At 525g, it's lighter than my Sigma 180/5.6 Apo Macro and adapter.

I'm hoping that in time someone will offer a very light 135mm. The Zeiss Batis (at >600g) must surely be the heaviest non-macro 135/2.8 ever made.

Cheers, Rod

 

[Jacques Cornell]

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

Portraits, travel, landscape. Pretty much comes down to a 24-105/4, 28-105/2.8, or for a Nikon shooter, 24-120/4. For portraiture, I want something longer than 70mm for tight shots.

Oh, also, don't overlook Tamron's 28-200/2.8-5.6. I'd love to have a 28-135/2.8-4.0, but nobody makes one. My 35-150/2.0-2.8 pairs well with a 20-40 on a second body for event work, but it's not wide enough to go solo, and it's heavier than I want to carry on long walks.

FWIW, my travel kit is an a7CR with Tamron 20-40/2.8 and 50-300/4.5-6.3.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+, stills-only.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[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

Portraits, travel, landscape. Pretty much comes down to a 24-105/4, 28-105/2.8, or for a Nikon shooter, 24-120/4. For portraiture, I want something longer than 70mm for tight shots.

For me it's the other way around. I can do the tight shots with a 50mm with a moderate large aperture (f/2.2 of the 35-150mm works) and yet get enough subject separation, but for full body portraits I want more compression than 70mm can give me. Below the tree line I like to have a smooth back ground.

Oh, also, don't overlook Tamron's 28-200/2.8-5.6. I'd love to have a 28-135/2.8-4.0,

Yes that would be a nice range, could even have a darker aperture for hiking for me.

but nobody makes one. My 35-150/2.0-2.8 pairs well with a 20-40 on a second body for event work, but it's not wide enough to go solo, and it's heavier than I want to carry on long walks.

That 35-150mm is my standard zoom now. If I need wider I use a second body or change lenses. (24mm f/1.8 Samyang or 20mm f/2.8 Viltrox)

FWIW, my travel kit is an a7CR with Tamron 20-40/2.8 and 50-300/4.5-6.3.

I don't desperately need longer than 135mm and wider than 28mm, so the Tamron 28-200mm or the new 25-200mm would be better in my case as it avoids lens changes.

 

[RaysJ]

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 use the 20-70 nearly all the time. The others are not wide enough, even 20mm is not sometimes.

 

[Bob A L]

I only have one Sony camera, an A7Riv, and chose the 24-240 as the only Sony lens I found that kinda covered a use for anything lens. It works great, only wish it went longer then 240 on long end. Camera came to me used with only a 16-35mm 2.8 lens that works for indoors, but not all round use.

 

[rashid7]

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 switched from Olympus to Sony just a couple weeks ago. I had the O8-25/4, O12-100/4, PL15/1.7, P42.5/1.7.

Selling all my gear only let me get the A7RIVa and one lens. The only thing that could do what I want is the 20-70/4 it goes just wide enough and 70mm on 60mp is fine. The next thing will be to pair it with a prime for lower light (Sigma 35/2 seems like a good option, but it’ll be a year before I worry about that). I’m going to try to get one lens a year if I’m lucky,

welcome to the club, I think you will be thrilled. I’ve traveled the same path. Keep in mind there are a tremendous array of inexpensive, compact 3rd party lenses that don’t give up much IQ vs expensive Sony lenses!
I’ve owned the sigma 35f2, and while it is a beauty, I suggest the Samyang 35f1.8 will come very close for half the cost and 40% less weight.

the recent viltrox 14f4 is a brilliant cheap little lens!

I have the sweet Sony 40f2.5G, but suggest you get ttartisan 40f2, or viltrox 40f2.5

 

[ahaslett]

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 switched from Olympus to Sony just a couple weeks ago. I had the O8-25/4, O12-100/4, PL15/1.7, P42.5/1.7.

Selling all my gear only let me get the A7RIVa and one lens. The only thing that could do what I want is the 20-70/4 it goes just wide enough and 70mm on 60mp is fine. The next thing will be to pair it with a prime for lower light (Sigma 35/2 seems like a good option, but it’ll be a year before I worry about that). I’m going to try to get one lens a year if I’m lucky,

welcome to the club, I think you will be thrilled. I’ve traveled the same path. Keep in mind there are a tremendous array of inexpensive, compact 3rd party lenses that don’t give up much IQ vs expensive Sony lenses!
I’ve owned the sigma 35f2, and while it is a beauty, I suggest the Samyang 35f1.8 will come very close for half the cost and 40% less weight.

the recent viltrox 14f4 is a brilliant cheap little lens!

I have the sweet Sony 40f2.5G, but suggest you get ttartisan 40f2, or viltrox 40f2.5

The Samyang 35/1.8 has a lot of copy variation and is less robust than the Sigma. Looking across reviews, even a decent copy of the Samyang is noticeably behind the Sigma at f2.2.

Andrew

 

[rashid7]

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 switched from Olympus to Sony just a couple weeks ago. I had the O8-25/4, O12-100/4, PL15/1.7, P42.5/1.7.

Selling all my gear only let me get the A7RIVa and one lens. The only thing that could do what I want is the 20-70/4 it goes just wide enough and 70mm on 60mp is fine. The next thing will be to pair it with a prime for lower light (Sigma 35/2 seems like a good option, but it’ll be a year before I worry about that). I’m going to try to get one lens a year if I’m lucky,

welcome to the club, I think you will be thrilled. I’ve traveled the same path. Keep in mind there are a tremendous array of inexpensive, compact 3rd party lenses that don’t give up much IQ vs expensive Sony lenses!
I’ve owned the sigma 35f2, and while it is a beauty, I suggest the Samyang 35f1.8 will come very close for half the cost and 40% less weight.

the recent viltrox 14f4 is a brilliant cheap little lens!

I have the sweet Sony 40f2.5G, but suggest you get ttartisan 40f2, or viltrox 40f2.5

The Samyang 35/1.8 has a lot of copy variation and is less robust than the Sigma. Looking across reviews, even a decent copy of the Samyang is noticeably behind the Sigma at f2.2.

Andrew

I think u are seriously under-rating the Samyang

 

[ahaslett]

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 switched from Olympus to Sony just a couple weeks ago. I had the O8-25/4, O12-100/4, PL15/1.7, P42.5/1.7.

Selling all my gear only let me get the A7RIVa and one lens. The only thing that could do what I want is the 20-70/4 it goes just wide enough and 70mm on 60mp is fine. The next thing will be to pair it with a prime for lower light (Sigma 35/2 seems like a good option, but it’ll be a year before I worry about that). I’m going to try to get one lens a year if I’m lucky,

welcome to the club, I think you will be thrilled. I’ve traveled the same path. Keep in mind there are a tremendous array of inexpensive, compact 3rd party lenses that don’t give up much IQ vs expensive Sony lenses!
I’ve owned the sigma 35f2, and while it is a beauty, I suggest the Samyang 35f1.8 will come very close for half the cost and 40% less weight.

the recent viltrox 14f4 is a brilliant cheap little lens!

I have the sweet Sony 40f2.5G, but suggest you get ttartisan 40f2, or viltrox 40f2.5

The Samyang 35/1.8 has a lot of copy variation and is less robust than the Sigma. Looking across reviews, even a decent copy of the Samyang is noticeably behind the Sigma at f2.2.

Andrew

I think u are seriously under-rating the Samyang

I’ve had two copies of the Samyang and looked at multiple reviews. I now have the Sigma 35/2 and have looked at multiple views of that too.

Andrew