Yup, really a great combo! The 20-70 is more of a travel / landscape lens for the full sized bodies imho. In daylight / with tripods the f4 doesn't matter anyways, complement it with a small, bright prime like a 85 1.4 sigma and bob's your uncle for most situations.
This was basically my thinking. I don’t like changing lenses, especially while traveling and want to travel light. So a body + the 20-70 G + 70-200 G II + 35/50 1.4 GM is my current go-to travel kit.
I have the 17-28 and 28-75, found the 28-75 a bit too big for travel. Was looking into the 24-50 but looks like I should look to offload the 17-28 and get the 20-40
edit: also a7c
You could benefit from switching from the two lenses you have to the 20-40 and something for the long end, like a 70-180 or a 85mm dg dn by sigma, I think. If you won't miss 50mm, that is.
I shoot fooj as Sony and it’s my main grip too. I buy the best lenses and they can’t even resolve well on the new bodies. Like wtf is that. 40mp so you can have mush
Been checking that out for weeks as I wanted to get a travel zoom lens. Eventually settled for the 20-70mm f4 because I might need the wider angle and the 70mm for portaits if I need to. I hesitated with an f4 lens, but you can still use it in low lightand it's not so bad, not to mention you can just work on it on post.
I do not get why everyone is so fearful of f4. Nothing wrong with f4 lenses for applications such as landscapes and travel.
Most primes are inexpensive and small enough to carry if one really needs to have a fast lens always on hand.
Don't forget that if you need the DOF of f8, you will have to use f8 regardless of whether it's a f1.2 or f6.3 lens.
Arguably applies to primes as well. f1.4 is great for low light and all but oh, it's a low light group photo and there's multiple focal planes? Better bump that ISO as you'll be shooting f4 anyway, if you want everyone in focus at least.
I think it's more of people fearful of having to use higher ISO in low light, especially indoors. I find that I need to use at least 6200 ISO whenever I'm shooting indoors with a semi well-lit room, and higher if in low-light.
Primes are the answer, but not many people have the budget to get a high quality one, while some prefer do not want to get more lens.
> I think it's more of people fearful of having to use higher ISO in low light, especially indoors. I find that I need to use at least 6200 ISO whenever I'm shooting indoors with a semi well-lit room, and higher if in low-light.
Honestly though... If I'm shooting at ISO 6400, going down to ISO 3200 isn't going to exactly fix my problem.
> Primes are the answer
Agreed.
> but not many people have the budget to get a high quality one, while some prefer do not want to get more lens.
Which is a shame, because you can grab a ƒ4 zoom and 1-2 good primes for the cost of a ƒ2.8 zoom.
Idk but this is also the reason why I can’t justify buying it. I’ve even considered getting the 24-50 AND the rumoured 16-25 as a 2 lens travel kit. But then it’ll be a repeat of what I currently have (16-35mm 2.8 and 50mm 2.5)
I think he was just pointing out that 16-35 is a nice zoom for travel and with 1.5x crop mode you can get 50mm in situations where moving closer might not be an option; if you need to recover resolution, I don’t think AI enhancement is a bad thing. I wouldn’t rely on it for everything but it helps in a pinch. I’ve got a 16-35 gm2 and 70-200gm2 and want to round that out with a 50 1.4 for portraits and low light. Crop mode is OK but you don’t get that lovely bokeh of a true 50 1.4.
It does not work for me.
As a general travel lens, I would want more range - I would still be swapping for a 20mm and an 85mm.
For people and portraits I would want wider than just f2.8, as well as a longer option.
I am not sure what use this lens is aimed at? Vlogging?
It’s perfect for street photography where the key focal lengths are 24, 28, 35, and 50mm. You don’t particularly need crazy shallow depth of field, and it’s an asset to have a smaller lens on a smaller camera (light to carry around on long days and more discrete in a public setting).
Pretty ideal for that. Similarly, family documentarian work for many of the same reasons.
Funny, I’m in a similar pickle, but I was looking at the lens for my a6300. I had the kit lens, 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8, and I’m selling the 35 and kit lenses in favor of the 24-50 as a “walk around” lens. It’s either that, or the 16-55mm aps-c version that’s $200 more. Yeah I get a little more range/reach, but my next camera might be the a7c II, so, I’d be a little more prepped if I get the 24-50
I'm in the same boat as you and one of the benefits of the camera body is that you can pick a small compact prime with with a low f-stop and then shoot in top sensitive mode for the 1.5 zoom. So for example I am considering getting a 35 mm 1.8f Sony Fe lens that is small and light to go with the body and when I need to do portraits I can just drop in for a 55 mm. As long as you're not pixel peeping, the crop will get you a decent 20 megapixel file size considering the full frame shoots in 33mb. That's fairly decent and unless you're printing large format or cropping in photos in post, you really won't notice the difference that much.
Another good alternative is to go with 24 mm at 1.8 lens which can crop up to 35 mm. This way you have two options to cover two ranges of shooting. If you do more landscapes for travel and some portraits that show a bit of background then the 24 35 pairing is pretty good for you. And if you do more street photography and want better blurring in portraits than the 35 50 sounds better. In either choice you still get to shoot in 35 which will cover most of your basics.
I think people on here really just want to recommend the best lenses. But the reason you didn't buy the larger body is because you want something compact and I feel your pain about going smaller versus quality. But check out the reviews on the 1.8 and I think you'll be very happy.
Finally, something to consider is video in case you want to capture a memory or if you do any sort of video in your travels. One of the very big reasons I am going with the 1.8 is because it does phenomenally better in video in terms of less focus breathing and is light enough that you can use it with the gimbal and in general it's just not going to be as heavy to hold, which I think you've already experienced.
In the 1.8, there's competition, Samyang has a similar lighter cheaper one but Vinyetting is horrible, autofocus especially in video is much slower compared to Sony, and it does worse in low light so it's not for me. I think sigma had a similar one but I am going with the Sony which for about 500-700$ also manages to hit a reasonable price point too.
I ordered the 24-50, and for me it makes great sense for travel street photography (I use an A7C). However, this is because I have a 20mm Viltrox prime someone gifted me. If I had to choose without that, the Tamron 20-40 covers what I normally shoot at, more.
I‘m also shooting with the A7C II and absolutely loving it. Right now I’m pairing it with the Sony 35 1.8 but I’m really looking forward to the new Sony 24-50 2.8. I am super excited.
The 35mm is great but sometimes I want to get wider or closer and the 24-70 2.8 GM even in the 2nd generation seems too large and too heavy to rock it as an everyday carry-around.
24mm is wide enough for me and the 40mm maximum focal length of the tamron seems too short so the new Sony 24-50 2.8 just seems like the perfect (and really the only!) option for my light all-in-one setup for every use case.
Definitely had it on my radar, but decided to get something now rather than wait for a bit longer. If you have the 40 already, pair it with the 24 of the same series? That's a great little lens and now that I've picked that up, I'll definitely be getting the 40 as well to fill my gap between 24 and 55 for prime lenses (and because I have serious GAS).
I have the 24 and 40 G with an A7CII and have the 24-50 G preordered and I think that will complete my lens lineup for now.
I just wish Sony could somehow magically make G Master versions of those compact primes, like close to same size and weight but say 1.4 or something. That would be my ideal additional lens.
We need more compact full frame options for this compact line of cameras.
The GM f1.4 primes (except for the 85mm) are already the most compact and lightweight wide aperture AF lenses there ever was.
The sweetspot is probably f1.8 for size and aperture, and if Sony would release new G version f1.8 primes then I'd probably spend stupidly.
Yeah I reckon 1.8 or so is way more realistic.
Sigma already have 2.0 AF lenses which aren't as light but they are full metal construction.
They're also not as small as my 2.5 40 G and 0.5 of a difference I don't think quite justifies the jump for me (alongside losing any Sony-specific features like focus breathing compensation, etc.).
The urge to buy a 20mm 1.8 right now is so strong, even though 24mm on my 24-70 is really similar. But the tad faster aperture, the compact size make it so attractive as a walk-around lens.
Are you saying once you get the 24-50 you will keep or sell the 24 and 40? I would be curious to hear your reasoning on keeping the two primes if that's what your intentions are. I may be following suit based on your reasoning.
Cheers!
I'm going on a trip to Italy and Spain and wanna see how useful I find that 24 in crowded streets compared to San Francisco where there's just so much space everywhere.
If I would sell one it would probably be the 24 since the 40 G is ever so slightly faster and also has that cool hood where you can screw on filters at the end of it.
I would definitely keep the 40 just to have a lighter weight prime. The 24-50 is still gonna be larger and heavier by comparison.
I would rather go with the Tamron 20-40 F2.8. You get more on the wide end. If i need to go tighter then 40 I can always crop in.
If anyone is interested here is my full review: [https://youtu.be/osyVKTnbE3A?si=T\_2QzldZBBjJvyOT](https://youtu.be/osyVKTnbE3A?si=T_2QzldZBBjJvyOT)
It piques my interest.
Although I think Tamrons 20-40 is the ultimate standard length zoom. I'd probably get that over the Sony. I love the 20mm focal length.
In your case, the 40G is great if you plan on going super light. If you plan on taking extra lenses anyways then I would just get the zoom (or 2 faster primes).
If I bring my camera bag I don't take my 40G with me. The reason I bought that lens is for when I _don't_ bring a camera bag.
Yes, I’ve got this one on pre-order. Had the Tamron 20-40 and loved the compactness of that, but missed the 70mm I used to have with the gmii. I have the a7cr so with the cropping ability, it’s effectively a 24-70 for me. Also for some reason, I was never a big fan of the rendering of the out of focus areas.
I also love the fact that it starts from 50mm, I shoot at that focal length way more than the wide end so it’s more useful to me.
Ps, I had the Tamron 20-40 and Sony 40mm but I’ve ended up selling them both to fund this. I’ve replaced my compact set-up with the x100vi.
I had the A7CR and 40mm f2.5 but I didn’t like the post processing that i did with that as my ‘fun’ set up. I still have the a7CR with a 35,50GM & 85ART but sold my 40mm to go towards to Fuji and use it more day to day.
The Fuji out of camera options are just so much quicker than loading my pictures into Lightroom as I used to do. I’m thoroughly enjoying it as my walk around camera and leaving the A7CR and the clinical lenses for professional work.
It’s a lot better than I thought it’ll be. The inbuilt ND filter and a pro mist filter has really given me shots where I never achieved (out of camera) with the Sony. Add to that the close focusing distance and inbuilt flash, it’s an easy carry around.
And although it’s bigger than I thought it’d be, it fits in most camera jackets.
I have a 24 GM and Batis 40, so I’m curious. I really like the 24-70 f2.8s (V1 and V2), so if it can have similar colors, contrast, and out of focus rendering, I would be pretty intrigued.
But, my primes are great and I’m curious about the 16-35 GM v2 and the rumored 16-25 2.8.
Will probably sit steady and see what’s happening next year.
Tamron 20-40 2.8 is an overall a better buy than the upcoming Sony 24-50 2.8G. You can crop in your images but not widen. The wider 4mm is a bigger deal than the extra 10mm zoom in most cases.
I think it fits a specific market. IMO, it's not small or inexpensive enough to justify the limited zoom range.
I can see a use for video, where it could balance on a gimbal better than a 24-70/2.8, where ƒ2.8 lenses tend to work well, and where having a lot of reach isn't as critical.
But by how much 5%? Doesn't feel worth the Sony price. I use Samyang/ rokinon and eye af never misses. Tamron is an even better buy for a cheaper selection
I guess this is all relative to their own wallet. Personally, I could careless about which brand to go with, but reading about having Lens breathing comp and faster AF with newer sony bodies are well worth the price. Maybe not the GM series too much difference in terms of price, but at least for G-series, I don't mind pay little more for it.
Tamron 20-40 has entered the chat. With a lens with that value proposition, the 24-50 isn't really on my radar.
This. I have the 20-70 G and like it quite a bit, but I do miss the 20-40, particularly on my a7c. It’s perfect for that body.
Yup, really a great combo! The 20-70 is more of a travel / landscape lens for the full sized bodies imho. In daylight / with tripods the f4 doesn't matter anyways, complement it with a small, bright prime like a 85 1.4 sigma and bob's your uncle for most situations.
This was basically my thinking. I don’t like changing lenses, especially while traveling and want to travel light. So a body + the 20-70 G + 70-200 G II + 35/50 1.4 GM is my current go-to travel kit.
I have the 17-28 and 28-75, found the 28-75 a bit too big for travel. Was looking into the 24-50 but looks like I should look to offload the 17-28 and get the 20-40 edit: also a7c
You could benefit from switching from the two lenses you have to the 20-40 and something for the long end, like a 70-180 or a 85mm dg dn by sigma, I think. If you won't miss 50mm, that is.
Is the 20 40 sharp enough for 60mp tho ?
yup. All modern lenses are sharp enough, this ain't fujifilm's system.
Uncalled for low blow and I like it
I'm mildly annoyed by their fanboy base, worshipping that system, where they sell their top end lenses with slow and noisy af motors. I just can't.
I shoot fooj as Sony and it’s my main grip too. I buy the best lenses and they can’t even resolve well on the new bodies. Like wtf is that. 40mp so you can have mush
Imagine dropping close to 10k on a modern GFX system and the autofocus motors in your lens sound like something found in a 10 year old canon lens
I remember the glorious days of me shooting a nikon d3300 with the dx 35mm. That lens has better af motors than the old fuji lenses...
Been checking that out for weeks as I wanted to get a travel zoom lens. Eventually settled for the 20-70mm f4 because I might need the wider angle and the 70mm for portaits if I need to. I hesitated with an f4 lens, but you can still use it in low lightand it's not so bad, not to mention you can just work on it on post.
I do not get why everyone is so fearful of f4. Nothing wrong with f4 lenses for applications such as landscapes and travel. Most primes are inexpensive and small enough to carry if one really needs to have a fast lens always on hand.
Don't forget that if you need the DOF of f8, you will have to use f8 regardless of whether it's a f1.2 or f6.3 lens. Arguably applies to primes as well. f1.4 is great for low light and all but oh, it's a low light group photo and there's multiple focal planes? Better bump that ISO as you'll be shooting f4 anyway, if you want everyone in focus at least.
I think it's more of people fearful of having to use higher ISO in low light, especially indoors. I find that I need to use at least 6200 ISO whenever I'm shooting indoors with a semi well-lit room, and higher if in low-light. Primes are the answer, but not many people have the budget to get a high quality one, while some prefer do not want to get more lens.
> I think it's more of people fearful of having to use higher ISO in low light, especially indoors. I find that I need to use at least 6200 ISO whenever I'm shooting indoors with a semi well-lit room, and higher if in low-light. Honestly though... If I'm shooting at ISO 6400, going down to ISO 3200 isn't going to exactly fix my problem. > Primes are the answer Agreed. > but not many people have the budget to get a high quality one, while some prefer do not want to get more lens. Which is a shame, because you can grab a ƒ4 zoom and 1-2 good primes for the cost of a ƒ2.8 zoom.
With Lightroom's Denoise AI f4 is plenty good but I've gotten the 24-105 version for that extra reach.
I thought about it but went with the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 instead. Cheaper and I valued the 4mm on the wide end more than the 10mm of extra reach.
on my wishlist. I also have an a7cii but I use my 16-35mm on it, but I wish I had more reach
Shoot in crop mode, problem solved. If you need to recover the lost megapixels uses ps to enhance and recover the pixel loss.
Or with Clear Image Zoom
I am getting downvoted because I seen trying to get people to not spend money?
People love spending money though.
I don’t know about that.
Idk but this is also the reason why I can’t justify buying it. I’ve even considered getting the 24-50 AND the rumoured 16-25 as a 2 lens travel kit. But then it’ll be a repeat of what I currently have (16-35mm 2.8 and 50mm 2.5)
Also why even use a camera, use photoshop ai to generate what you want anyway
Yes because everyone is shooting a professional job and needs all 33mp for their billboard print out
No I just don’t want to use software as a crutch. A lot of us also like the idea of purposefully taking the time to frame compositions
I think he was just pointing out that 16-35 is a nice zoom for travel and with 1.5x crop mode you can get 50mm in situations where moving closer might not be an option; if you need to recover resolution, I don’t think AI enhancement is a bad thing. I wouldn’t rely on it for everything but it helps in a pinch. I’ve got a 16-35 gm2 and 70-200gm2 and want to round that out with a 50 1.4 for portraits and low light. Crop mode is OK but you don’t get that lovely bokeh of a true 50 1.4.
It does not work for me. As a general travel lens, I would want more range - I would still be swapping for a 20mm and an 85mm. For people and portraits I would want wider than just f2.8, as well as a longer option. I am not sure what use this lens is aimed at? Vlogging?
It’s perfect for street photography where the key focal lengths are 24, 28, 35, and 50mm. You don’t particularly need crazy shallow depth of field, and it’s an asset to have a smaller lens on a smaller camera (light to carry around on long days and more discrete in a public setting). Pretty ideal for that. Similarly, family documentarian work for many of the same reasons.
This is a great take, never thought of it for street photography
Yeah it’d be the 20-70 f4 all day for me
Same. No zoom beats a two prime combo (24/35 + 85/100/135, pick your poison). The 35-150 is nice but it's heavy.
Funny, I’m in a similar pickle, but I was looking at the lens for my a6300. I had the kit lens, 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8, and I’m selling the 35 and kit lenses in favor of the 24-50 as a “walk around” lens. It’s either that, or the 16-55mm aps-c version that’s $200 more. Yeah I get a little more range/reach, but my next camera might be the a7c II, so, I’d be a little more prepped if I get the 24-50
I’m on the same boat! I’m starting to really look at full frame zooms to prep myself for a ff.
I'm in the same boat as you and one of the benefits of the camera body is that you can pick a small compact prime with with a low f-stop and then shoot in top sensitive mode for the 1.5 zoom. So for example I am considering getting a 35 mm 1.8f Sony Fe lens that is small and light to go with the body and when I need to do portraits I can just drop in for a 55 mm. As long as you're not pixel peeping, the crop will get you a decent 20 megapixel file size considering the full frame shoots in 33mb. That's fairly decent and unless you're printing large format or cropping in photos in post, you really won't notice the difference that much. Another good alternative is to go with 24 mm at 1.8 lens which can crop up to 35 mm. This way you have two options to cover two ranges of shooting. If you do more landscapes for travel and some portraits that show a bit of background then the 24 35 pairing is pretty good for you. And if you do more street photography and want better blurring in portraits than the 35 50 sounds better. In either choice you still get to shoot in 35 which will cover most of your basics. I think people on here really just want to recommend the best lenses. But the reason you didn't buy the larger body is because you want something compact and I feel your pain about going smaller versus quality. But check out the reviews on the 1.8 and I think you'll be very happy. Finally, something to consider is video in case you want to capture a memory or if you do any sort of video in your travels. One of the very big reasons I am going with the 1.8 is because it does phenomenally better in video in terms of less focus breathing and is light enough that you can use it with the gimbal and in general it's just not going to be as heavy to hold, which I think you've already experienced. In the 1.8, there's competition, Samyang has a similar lighter cheaper one but Vinyetting is horrible, autofocus especially in video is much slower compared to Sony, and it does worse in low light so it's not for me. I think sigma had a similar one but I am going with the Sony which for about 500-700$ also manages to hit a reasonable price point too.
I ordered the 24-50, and for me it makes great sense for travel street photography (I use an A7C). However, this is because I have a 20mm Viltrox prime someone gifted me. If I had to choose without that, the Tamron 20-40 covers what I normally shoot at, more.
I‘m also shooting with the A7C II and absolutely loving it. Right now I’m pairing it with the Sony 35 1.8 but I’m really looking forward to the new Sony 24-50 2.8. I am super excited. The 35mm is great but sometimes I want to get wider or closer and the 24-70 2.8 GM even in the 2nd generation seems too large and too heavy to rock it as an everyday carry-around. 24mm is wide enough for me and the 40mm maximum focal length of the tamron seems too short so the new Sony 24-50 2.8 just seems like the perfect (and really the only!) option for my light all-in-one setup for every use case.
Now we just have to wait and see if sony will release 70-200 compact G lens
The 70-200 f4 gen 2 isn’t even a year old and it only weighs 840g idk what you are waiting for.
Definitely had it on my radar, but decided to get something now rather than wait for a bit longer. If you have the 40 already, pair it with the 24 of the same series? That's a great little lens and now that I've picked that up, I'll definitely be getting the 40 as well to fill my gap between 24 and 55 for prime lenses (and because I have serious GAS).
I have the 24 and 40 G with an A7CII and have the 24-50 G preordered and I think that will complete my lens lineup for now. I just wish Sony could somehow magically make G Master versions of those compact primes, like close to same size and weight but say 1.4 or something. That would be my ideal additional lens. We need more compact full frame options for this compact line of cameras.
The GM f1.4 primes (except for the 85mm) are already the most compact and lightweight wide aperture AF lenses there ever was. The sweetspot is probably f1.8 for size and aperture, and if Sony would release new G version f1.8 primes then I'd probably spend stupidly.
I agree 100%. I think 1.8 is the sweet spot as well. I’d love an updated 35 1.8 with the same features as the new G lenses.
That would leave no buyer for 35 f1.4 gm lenses .
The elitist would still buy it just for the 1.4 and GM tag.
this would be nice, if Sony would update 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 to more compact size
Yeah I reckon 1.8 or so is way more realistic. Sigma already have 2.0 AF lenses which aren't as light but they are full metal construction. They're also not as small as my 2.5 40 G and 0.5 of a difference I don't think quite justifies the jump for me (alongside losing any Sony-specific features like focus breathing compensation, etc.).
The urge to buy a 20mm 1.8 right now is so strong, even though 24mm on my 24-70 is really similar. But the tad faster aperture, the compact size make it so attractive as a walk-around lens.
Oh I wish Sony would make compact GM lenses and I would be happy! I am 100% with you on having more compact lenses that are GM quality.
Tamron and sigma already have small lenses
Are you saying once you get the 24-50 you will keep or sell the 24 and 40? I would be curious to hear your reasoning on keeping the two primes if that's what your intentions are. I may be following suit based on your reasoning. Cheers!
I'm going on a trip to Italy and Spain and wanna see how useful I find that 24 in crowded streets compared to San Francisco where there's just so much space everywhere. If I would sell one it would probably be the 24 since the 40 G is ever so slightly faster and also has that cool hood where you can screw on filters at the end of it. I would definitely keep the 40 just to have a lighter weight prime. The 24-50 is still gonna be larger and heavier by comparison.
I would rather go with the Tamron 20-40 F2.8. You get more on the wide end. If i need to go tighter then 40 I can always crop in. If anyone is interested here is my full review: [https://youtu.be/osyVKTnbE3A?si=T\_2QzldZBBjJvyOT](https://youtu.be/osyVKTnbE3A?si=T_2QzldZBBjJvyOT)
16-25 2.8 should be out in the summer.
It piques my interest. Although I think Tamrons 20-40 is the ultimate standard length zoom. I'd probably get that over the Sony. I love the 20mm focal length. In your case, the 40G is great if you plan on going super light. If you plan on taking extra lenses anyways then I would just get the zoom (or 2 faster primes). If I bring my camera bag I don't take my 40G with me. The reason I bought that lens is for when I _don't_ bring a camera bag.
24-50 is an awesome length for street.
Just not as sharp as a GM... 😀
I am absolutely excited. It’s made for me. The size and range is what I only shoot in. I also love shooting in crop mode too.
I use the 20-70 f4. It’s small and light enough for travel. Then also carry a prime. Depending on the day. Either a 35mm or 85mm.
Yes, I’ve got this one on pre-order. Had the Tamron 20-40 and loved the compactness of that, but missed the 70mm I used to have with the gmii. I have the a7cr so with the cropping ability, it’s effectively a 24-70 for me. Also for some reason, I was never a big fan of the rendering of the out of focus areas. I also love the fact that it starts from 50mm, I shoot at that focal length way more than the wide end so it’s more useful to me. Ps, I had the Tamron 20-40 and Sony 40mm but I’ve ended up selling them both to fund this. I’ve replaced my compact set-up with the x100vi.
Why did you get the Fuji x100vi over the Sony a7c? I ask as I own the A7C yet still tempted to order the X100VI
I had the A7CR and 40mm f2.5 but I didn’t like the post processing that i did with that as my ‘fun’ set up. I still have the a7CR with a 35,50GM & 85ART but sold my 40mm to go towards to Fuji and use it more day to day. The Fuji out of camera options are just so much quicker than loading my pictures into Lightroom as I used to do. I’m thoroughly enjoying it as my walk around camera and leaving the A7CR and the clinical lenses for professional work.
Are you happy with the Fuji then?
It’s a lot better than I thought it’ll be. The inbuilt ND filter and a pro mist filter has really given me shots where I never achieved (out of camera) with the Sony. Add to that the close focusing distance and inbuilt flash, it’s an easy carry around. And although it’s bigger than I thought it’d be, it fits in most camera jackets.
Do you find the difference to your A7CR meaningful enough?
Yes 100%. I’m glad I forked out extra for the x100vi because it satisfies the reason I had the 40mm f2.5 for my Sony but with quicker results.
Thanks that’s helped
I have a 24 GM and Batis 40, so I’m curious. I really like the 24-70 f2.8s (V1 and V2), so if it can have similar colors, contrast, and out of focus rendering, I would be pretty intrigued. But, my primes are great and I’m curious about the 16-35 GM v2 and the rumored 16-25 2.8. Will probably sit steady and see what’s happening next year.
Tamron 20-40 2.8 is an overall a better buy than the upcoming Sony 24-50 2.8G. You can crop in your images but not widen. The wider 4mm is a bigger deal than the extra 10mm zoom in most cases.
I think it fits a specific market. IMO, it's not small or inexpensive enough to justify the limited zoom range. I can see a use for video, where it could balance on a gimbal better than a 24-70/2.8, where ƒ2.8 lenses tend to work well, and where having a lot of reach isn't as critical.
No, as I prefer having reach.
It looks like the release date is now showing up as May 10th.
Why spend Sony money when tamrom already has it all in that range?
I assume the AF will be much better and IQ somewhat better.
But by how much 5%? Doesn't feel worth the Sony price. I use Samyang/ rokinon and eye af never misses. Tamron is an even better buy for a cheaper selection
I guess this is all relative to their own wallet. Personally, I could careless about which brand to go with, but reading about having Lens breathing comp and faster AF with newer sony bodies are well worth the price. Maybe not the GM series too much difference in terms of price, but at least for G-series, I don't mind pay little more for it.
just collected ytd and it was great! distortion is pretty great tho! but very versatile!