Interested in owners of either (or both) these two lenses only opinions on their reasoning for one over the other. Please don’t suggest other lenses - I only care about these two.
I’ll be using this on an A7CR and don’t mind hopping into crop mode for focal lengths greater than 50 for the 24-50.
I will have at least a 55 f/1.8 as a low light lens,
Comes down to focal range versus faster aperture. Everyone has their own views of what is more important to them…so I ask, which is more important to you?
chez wrote:
Comes down to focal range versus faster aperture. Everyone has their own views of what is more important to them…so I ask, which is more important to you?
Lol, that depends on the situation. I had planned on getting the 20-70 f/4 - didn't realize the 24-50 f/2.8 existed until I saw Mark Galer's review. Obviously, I can get to 70 if I jump to ASP-C mode, which I don't mind, but I can't get to 20mm with the 24-50. Also, stating the obvious, I can't get to 2.8 with the f/4.
I guess I was just looking for people's experience with either lens.
George Welch wrote:
Lol, that depends on the situation. I had planned on getting the 20-70 f/4 - didn't realize the 24-50 f/2.8 existed until I saw Mark Galer's review. Obviously, I can get to 70 if I jump to ASP-C mode, which I don't mind, but I can't get to 20mm with the 24-50. Also, stating the obvious, I can't get to 2.8 with the f/4.
I guess I was just looking for people's experience with either lens.
Cheers,
George
But like I said, everyone has different needs…some need the 20mm and others need the f2.8.
I personally don’t feel there is enough difference between f4 and f2.8 to warrant not having the wide end covered…but that’s how I shot.
The 20-70 is one of my most used lenses, and while it's in no way HUGE or too heavy on the A7CR I own, I do find the balance is kind of weird. Then again I was using it mainly on an A7IV initially so that's what I first got used to. Using a small rig baseplate on the A7CR helps a lot, I actually prefer it to the A7CR stock grip extension in this case. The small rig feels like it weighs a bit more, camera feels a little better balanced to me with it.
I also almost never use camera straps only wrist straps, so I'm holding my camera the entire time I'm out using it.
Tarekith wrote:
The 20-70 is one of my most used lenses, and while it's in no way HUGE or too heavy on the A7CR I own, I do find the balance is kind of weird. Then again I was using it mainly on an A7IV initially so that's what I first got used to. Using a small rig baseplate on the A7CR helps a lot, I actually prefer it to the A7CR stock grip extension in this case. The small rig feels like it weighs a bit more, camera feels a little better balanced to me with it.
I also almost never use camera straps only wrist straps, so I'm holding my camera the entire time I'm out using it....Show more →
Thanks Erik,
Appreciate the info.
I got the silver A7CR and the small rig baseplate does look better. Glad it balances things out better.
As others have said, it's personal depending on your shooting habits. In my opinion, it's a choice that the 24-50 will be more flexible with lighting, while the 20-70 is more flexible with perspective. Some people love memorizing a small set of focal lengths and working with what they have (e.g. all the 'one lens' street photographers). But if most of the photos you take are times and places where lighting is available or created (flash), then the 20-70 wins out. Resolution wise, they are both good enough, certainly better than say the old Zeiss 24-70.
For me I find battling light more of an issue than the 4mm gap. And the better weight distribution of the 24-50 wins out as well. So my vote is 24-50.
Tschanrm wrote:
As others have said, it's personal depending on your shooting habits. In my opinion, it's a choice that the 24-50 will be more flexible with lighting, while the 20-70 is more flexible with perspective. Some people love memorizing a small set of focal lengths and working with what they have (e.g. all the 'one lens' street photographers). But if most of the photos you take are times and places where lighting is available or created (flash), then the 20-70 wins out. Resolution wise, they are both good enough, certainly better than say the old Zeiss 24-70.
For me I find battling light more of an issue than the 4mm gap. And the better weight distribution of the 24-50 wins out as well. So my vote is 24-50....Show more →
You could also consider the Tamron 20-40 f/2.8. That gets you the wide angle and lower f number, at the cost of some reach. As others have said, it depends on your use case.
Thanks Will, but only interested in the two Sony's
WillR wrote:
You could also consider the Tamron 20-40 f/2.8. That gets you the wide angle and lower f number, at the cost of some reach. As others have said, it depends on your use case.
George Welch wrote:
Obviously, I can get to 70 if I jump to ASP-C mode, which I don't mind, but I can't get to 20mm with the 24-50. Also, stating the obvious, I can't get to 2.8 with the f/4.
The same reason why I went with Tamron 20-40mm 2.8. Sorry, I know you mentioned not interested with other lenses.
I pair it with 55mm 1.8 as well for walk around, with Tamron 35-150mm for events, and 200-600mm for outings.
Very versatile focal length & speed. Plus small and light it pairs well with my A7CII.
Between your choices, I'm leaning towards Sony 24-50mm. I prefer 2.8 than f4 zooms for indoor use I needed more.
The 55mm 1.8 is quite long for indoor low light on tight spaces.
When uncertain, the best choice for a new standard zoom is usually the one that's available used at a significant discount. A lot of the newer stuff is targeted at vloggers' needs first. If shooting stills the older, standard focal ranges are established from decades of pros shooting SLRs.
Outstanding wrote:
If you think about it, 20-70 F4 is to 24-50 F2.8, what 24-50 F2.8 is to 28-45 F1.8, what 28-45 F1.8 is to 35 F1.4 GM.
I can't wrap my head around why Sony is not releasing a much lighter 24-105 F4 G OSS Mark II with added sharpness and lightning fast AF.
I too would like an upgraded 24-105, although I see no defects in the current product. This lens is probably the most used standard lens for Sony landscape shooters.
I would pay more for f4 GM lenses, Especially if sensor resolution continues to increase. I see high quality 2.8 zooms more for woking photographers shooting people and products. Whereas enthusiasts and working pros who are backpacking mostly are interested in great f4 lightweight zooms and some fast primes in particular focal lengths of interest.
I have a couple of wide GM primes only because Sony made them both great and small.
George Welch wrote:
Lol, that depends on the situation. I had planned on getting the 20-70 f/4 - didn't realize the 24-50 f/2.8 existed until I saw Mark Galer's review. Obviously, I can get to 70 if I jump to ASP-C mode, which I don't mind, but I can't get to 20mm with the 24-50. Also, stating the obvious, I can't get to 2.8 with the f/4.
The 20-70mm can get you 105mm equivalent in crop mode.
Some here are hoping for a new 24-105mm, so it could have some value to have an inherit fake 105mm.
George Welch wrote:
I guess I was just looking for people's experience with either lens.
Cheers,
George
You said there's a bright prime for low light. That bright prime beats the f/2.8 of the short range zoom. If you bring a bright prime anyway I would probably go with the larger range zoom. But I do value the "105mm". If you don't, and you're primarily interested by the f/4.0 zoom because of the 20mm I would probably go with the 24-50mm f/2.8 and add the Viltrox 20mm f/2.8. The Viltrox is small, affordable, and not so bad when stopped down a bit.
I have the 20-70, and it is attached to the camera 90% of the time. I prefer carrying this compared to the 16-35 and 24-105 combo. I would much rather have the 20-24mm range, than to have f/2.8.
The 24-50 2.8 is this weird no man's land... I'd rather have a 24 or 35 prime than this weird 24-50.
For the record, what I usually do is travel with the 24-70 f/4, 70-200 f4 (I version), and a 35 1.4.
nineblade wrote:
I have the 20-70, and it is attached to the camera 90% of the time. I prefer carrying this compared to the 16-35 and 24-105 combo. I would much rather have the 20-24mm range, than to have f/2.8.
The 24-50 2.8 is this weird no man's land... I'd rather have a 24 or 35 prime than this weird 24-50.
For the record, what I usually do is travel with the 24-70 f/4, 70-200 f4 (I version), and a 35 1.4.
Interesting,
Would you rather have a:
24mm f2.8 prime or 24mm f4 prime?
35mm f2.8 prime or 35mm f4 prime?
50mm f2.8 prime or 50mm f4 prime?
The f2.8 zoom equivalent of those focal lengths doesn’t seem weird to me.
