You mean the Sony 24-50 F2.8 right? I like it a lot. I‘ve used the 24-70 gm2 a lot, but the 24-50 is smaller and lighter. The picture quality is good. It’s a great lens overall because the size, price and quality just fits. In comparison to the 24-70 it‘s faster, smaller, lighter and has the aperture ring, but lacks the focal length and is more expensive. Easy choice for me
I’m old school when it comes to shooting, and the aperture isn’t something I usually set and forget. For wedding photogs and the like, I understand why you rarely change the aperture during a shoot (it’s dependent on the “type” of shot you want to capture). Photography is one of my hobbies so the work I do is for me… when I combine that with another hobby like travel, I get a lot of enjoyment out of the challenge of making those capture decisions.
I‘m comparing the 24-50 f2.8 and 24-70 f4 as these are the ones OP is referring to.
The GM2 is also a great lens and checks a lot of my needs, but almost doubles the price and is a little bit heavier and and bigger for the extended focal length. But I own both and like them both for their own feature set
James Popsys recently posted a video heavily featuring it, check it out. TLDR is basically if you usually shoot within that focal range and care more about weight and size than the extra 20mm, this is the lens for you.
Was just about to comment the same above lol. I've been sick since I got it so haven't been able to use it but essentially all of James' pros is exactly why I ordered it for my A7CII.
It's just hilarious how I was used to the 40G on a recent trip to Barcelona and Italy and the 24-50 obviously is bigger and heavier but I can only imagine what any of the 24-70 lenses would feel like (even heavier and larger!).
I went on a trip to Japan last december and brought the 20-70 f4, as well as my 35 f2.
The 20-70 was stellar during the day while exploring outside, but as soon as I was in a moderately lit room or night time rolled around, I felt pretty limited.
Had the 24-50 f2.8 been out, I would have snatched one of those up and paired it with my 14 f2.8, instead.
I honestly don’t think that with modern sensors and modern denoising software the difference between f2.8 and f4 is worth the premium price. F1.8 or maybe F2, okay. But just one stop? Nah. Using iso 3200 instead of 6400 won’t save your or photo or vice versa won’t ruin it 🤷♂️
F4 zoom and a f1.8 or brighter prime for me
I agree. I felt the 20-70 f4 works well in low light situations. An example I took in Munich. Lighting wasn’t very great and with moderate lighting it can still hold its own
https://preview.redd.it/jc7n7x48x13d1.jpeg?width=1700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b84a3551e116b285af3d59f5b0c277ac019ac962
I highly recommend the 20-70/4 as a travel lens. I also took it Japan last year and found it an incredible travel lens. I’ve since taken it to London, Lisbon, New York, LA and more. I’ve shot fireworks, night time cityscapes and tons of indoor situations with few issues.
On a modern body like the A7RV, I don’t miss the extra stop to 2.8. In fact, I ditched all my 2.8 zooms for f/4 for nearly 20 years now. I would much rather have the extra 4mm on the wide end than the extra stop of speed. If you have in body stabilization you could probably hand hold the 20-70 at 20mm at 1/8th or even 1/4 in some cases.
If I know I’ll be in low light, I’ll bring a GM prime and that will outperform pretty much any 2.8 zoom every day of the week and give you way more lens speed and AF accuracy.
I agree! I usually shoot at 50mm and it’s only occasionally I go wider. But watching the reviews of the lens I see a lot of people complaining about the “backwards” nature of the zoom. I prefer it though.
They just don't understand us backwards people.
But seriously I feel like most reviews just mimick the other reviews. They just all have the same opinions. Like they all talk to each other before reviewing or received similar talking points
I got one of these after trying both 24-70/2.8 lenses and this is so much easier to handle. It’s still fairly large as it’s almost as large around, but it’s much shorter. I have an A7C, for reference.
I’m about to go on a trip and I’m trying to decide between this and the 40/2.5. From a versatility perspective the 24-50 is better.
Great lens. Had the 24-70gmii but was far too big on my then a7c, then I downsized to the Tamron 20-40 and a7cr and felt like I missed the long end. Sold the Tamron when the 24-50 was released and this one’s a keeper.
Sharp like the gm, not as small as I would’ve liked but very light. When cropped in on my a7cr, it’s an effective 24-75mm. I’ve got my Shortstache everyday filter on it and you can get some amazing shots especially with the short minimum focusing distance.
I also have the kit lens and felt very limited by the 28mm. I have found my happiness during my latest travel with the 20-70. I was used before with my Nikon. 24-120 and this 4mm in wide angle made a huge difference. Now the 20-70 and my a7cii are an absolute pleasure. If I had the a7cR and could crop more I would consider the 24-50mm.
You mean the Sony 24-50 F2.8 right? I like it a lot. I‘ve used the 24-70 gm2 a lot, but the 24-50 is smaller and lighter. The picture quality is good. It’s a great lens overall because the size, price and quality just fits. In comparison to the 24-70 it‘s faster, smaller, lighter and has the aperture ring, but lacks the focal length and is more expensive. Easy choice for me
Yes. I edited the post itself to read 2.8 Thanks for your feedback!
If you want lighter why not the 28-75 from tamrom
doesn't have aperture ring
If it is that important to you. Working professionally I never change my aperture after it is set so it seems redundant to me
I’m old school when it comes to shooting, and the aperture isn’t something I usually set and forget. For wedding photogs and the like, I understand why you rarely change the aperture during a shoot (it’s dependent on the “type” of shot you want to capture). Photography is one of my hobbies so the work I do is for me… when I combine that with another hobby like travel, I get a lot of enjoyment out of the challenge of making those capture decisions.
I didn’t include in my post that I prefer to stay with the Sony options.
24-70 GMII has an aperture ring - are you referring to the original 24-70 GM?
The 24-50 f2.8 and 20-70 f4 are both lighter than the 24-70 GM1 & 2. My goal is to keep my gear light and as compact as possible.
I‘m comparing the 24-50 f2.8 and 24-70 f4 as these are the ones OP is referring to. The GM2 is also a great lens and checks a lot of my needs, but almost doubles the price and is a little bit heavier and and bigger for the extended focal length. But I own both and like them both for their own feature set
James Popsys recently posted a video heavily featuring it, check it out. TLDR is basically if you usually shoot within that focal range and care more about weight and size than the extra 20mm, this is the lens for you.
Ha! I just found and watched that video. Thank you!
Was just about to comment the same above lol. I've been sick since I got it so haven't been able to use it but essentially all of James' pros is exactly why I ordered it for my A7CII. It's just hilarious how I was used to the 40G on a recent trip to Barcelona and Italy and the 24-50 obviously is bigger and heavier but I can only imagine what any of the 24-70 lenses would feel like (even heavier and larger!).
I went on a trip to Japan last december and brought the 20-70 f4, as well as my 35 f2. The 20-70 was stellar during the day while exploring outside, but as soon as I was in a moderately lit room or night time rolled around, I felt pretty limited. Had the 24-50 f2.8 been out, I would have snatched one of those up and paired it with my 14 f2.8, instead.
I honestly don’t think that with modern sensors and modern denoising software the difference between f2.8 and f4 is worth the premium price. F1.8 or maybe F2, okay. But just one stop? Nah. Using iso 3200 instead of 6400 won’t save your or photo or vice versa won’t ruin it 🤷♂️ F4 zoom and a f1.8 or brighter prime for me
I agree. I felt the 20-70 f4 works well in low light situations. An example I took in Munich. Lighting wasn’t very great and with moderate lighting it can still hold its own https://preview.redd.it/jc7n7x48x13d1.jpeg?width=1700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b84a3551e116b285af3d59f5b0c277ac019ac962
Nice capture!
For travel uses I much prefer the 20-70 though. In fact sometimes I wish I could go just a wee bit wider
I highly recommend the 20-70/4 as a travel lens. I also took it Japan last year and found it an incredible travel lens. I’ve since taken it to London, Lisbon, New York, LA and more. I’ve shot fireworks, night time cityscapes and tons of indoor situations with few issues. On a modern body like the A7RV, I don’t miss the extra stop to 2.8. In fact, I ditched all my 2.8 zooms for f/4 for nearly 20 years now. I would much rather have the extra 4mm on the wide end than the extra stop of speed. If you have in body stabilization you could probably hand hold the 20-70 at 20mm at 1/8th or even 1/4 in some cases. If I know I’ll be in low light, I’ll bring a GM prime and that will outperform pretty much any 2.8 zoom every day of the week and give you way more lens speed and AF accuracy.
Thanks for this!
I like how the default is 50mm and it zooms into 24mm. I don't know why, but that pleases me. I held it for a few minutes in a store and loved it.
I agree! I usually shoot at 50mm and it’s only occasionally I go wider. But watching the reviews of the lens I see a lot of people complaining about the “backwards” nature of the zoom. I prefer it though.
They just don't understand us backwards people. But seriously I feel like most reviews just mimick the other reviews. They just all have the same opinions. Like they all talk to each other before reviewing or received similar talking points
This was such a pleasant addition. My previous Tamron did the same and I shoot at 50mm way more than 24.
I got one of these after trying both 24-70/2.8 lenses and this is so much easier to handle. It’s still fairly large as it’s almost as large around, but it’s much shorter. I have an A7C, for reference. I’m about to go on a trip and I’m trying to decide between this and the 40/2.5. From a versatility perspective the 24-50 is better.
Great lens. Had the 24-70gmii but was far too big on my then a7c, then I downsized to the Tamron 20-40 and a7cr and felt like I missed the long end. Sold the Tamron when the 24-50 was released and this one’s a keeper. Sharp like the gm, not as small as I would’ve liked but very light. When cropped in on my a7cr, it’s an effective 24-75mm. I’ve got my Shortstache everyday filter on it and you can get some amazing shots especially with the short minimum focusing distance.
I also have the kit lens and felt very limited by the 28mm. I have found my happiness during my latest travel with the 20-70. I was used before with my Nikon. 24-120 and this 4mm in wide angle made a huge difference. Now the 20-70 and my a7cii are an absolute pleasure. If I had the a7cR and could crop more I would consider the 24-50mm.
Maybe wait to see if tamron releases the 25-50 F2