Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 REVIEW: ONE Thing You NEED to Know Before Buying (vs Sony 20-70 f4)

[@angelamaloney4871]

At first I wondered who the 20-40mm was for too. Then I started doing more video using the 17-28 and the 28-75. I found myself constantly needing to shift between those two focal length ranges. And it didn’t take long to realize it was for me. So now I have one and it’s often the only lens I need for video.

[@NKM_Pixels]

Hello, i need help. I'm confused which one should i get. 17 - 28 or 20 40? For videography and also for photography.

[@angelamaloney4871]

@@NKM_Pixels It depends. Do you need to go wider than 20mm? If so, you need the 17-28. Do you need to go tighter than 28mm? If so, you need the 20-40mm (or maybe even a longer lens). Unfortunately, there’s no way I can answer that question about which one you need. Only you know your own needs.

[@NKM_Pixels]

@@angelamaloney4871 okay thank you so much 👍 . How about the quality? Is there any difference between the 17-28 and 20-40 quality for the video.

[@angelamaloney4871]

@@NKM_Pixels they’re both acceptable quality. I’m sure there are differences, but I am a real world professional user. I don’t nitpick to get into the minuscule differences.

[@NKM_Pixels]

@@angelamaloney4871 okay i will get the 20 40 mm. Thank you so much for helping. Respect to you 🙌♥️

[@johnpeterson7264]

This lens lives on my A7c. It’s a fantastic walk around .

[@selishots]

I picked this lens up a month or 2 ago! I love it but wish you had this review out earlier. I think it's a very underrated lens

[@MediaBunk]

I am a photographer/video producer who does mainly real estate work. What I like about this lens is that it does not go wider than 20. I shoot mainly with a Canon 16-35 f/4 and a Sigma Art 14-24 f/2.8. I find it best to avoid going wider than 20, but too many RE photographers, particularly those who shoot for photo mills who are generally less experienced and knowledgeable, shoot as wide as possibly on their crop sensor cameras with the most affordable wide angle zoom lens they could find and, of course, capture only in jpg. 14-17 mm should be used very sparingly as it artificially exaggerates space. Potential buyers are drawn to see a property because of the photos and are often disappointed when rooms look much different in person. They tend to fell deceived. This lens would be good to use capturing video with a gimbal as you can change focal length without disturbing the camera’s balance. The price is appealing. If Canon eventually allows Sigma to offer this lens with an R mount, I might consider trying it on my R6 M2, which, BTW, I really like

[@TasteofTaboo]

this is so true. I did a lot architectual visualisation aka 3D before becoming a photographer and wider than 20mm never really looks good. Client never liked this. It is often better just to have something cropped of. there is just the point were it looks to artificial - and this doesn't sell. Also besides a cool kubrick-esque central perspective shoot it is always better to have only two walls in the frame and not 3.

[@alexanderpark6779]

I am a travel photographer enthusiast and not professional a all. I generally vlog and do landscape. I mostly use this lens for portraits of my friends and family when im travel. Generally, a light sharp good all around lens for video snd photographer. Doesnt have a far reach but wasn't expecting it too. This lens lives on my camera more than the tamron 28-75mm 2.8. Love the review Jared! Its a great lens to start off with

[@emmanuelcarreon8195]

This is the only lens that make sense for wedding photographer. 70-200 + 20-40 No need for and expensive 15-35mm f4 or 2.8 and the additional range of 40mm is really close to 50mm look. This make so much sense than the 24-70 because why would anyone need the 70focal length when you have the same on 70-200. another combo is 20-40mm and 85 1.2

[@KeAiFu]

A city tour with Sony A7C and two lenses, Tamron 20-40/2.8 and the Zeiss 55/1.8 - very light combo, but very flexible incl. night shots.

[@chilodaone]

That is exactly the set up i was thinking of. I have the 55/1.8 and my last vacation trip it was too tight so i was thinking 20-40/2.8 + 55/1.8 would be perfect to travel light

[@lightlandsky]

i'm going to be trying this out for landscape photography. it's annoying to be changing lenses in bad weather conditions, around rocks/waves, or sandy environments, so instead of constantly switching between 24-70 and 16-35, i feel this one lens can do it all. it's rare i shoot landscapes in the 40-70mm range, and for ultra wide work i have a 14mm prime for those special circumstances where you get a composition to work.

[@halimrahman]

I havent got it yet but at the moment considering this lens as I am "exploring" (a pure beginner) videography and I like Sony 24mm F2.8 G and 40mm F2.5 G. BUT, I need to keep changing the lens between the two. Perhaps this 20-40mm can be a good substitute for a light lens for street photos/videos and also for indoors like annual dinners (and the other 4 seasonal parties).

[@mattbuckley7645]

Can we just get a fro pack of different skittles? Original, wild berry, tropical...etc.

[@johnrus7661]

Called moving some sliders yourself. You don't need a preset, learn to post process yourself. Presets are a waste of time, coming from a 15 year pro photog.

[@isaacmorales2730]

@@johnrus7661 I think it was a joke, serious guy.

[@mattbuckley7645]

​@john rus a 15 year pro photog that has never used skittles... I ain't buying it jon

[@johnrus7661]

@@mattbuckley7645 Real photographers don't use presets at all. every image is different. You adjust accordingly.

[@mattbuckley7645]

@john rus sounds like you really know you're stuff Jon. You got any presets for sale?

[@selishots]

I think this lens pairs really nicely with the Tamron 35-150. Between the 20-40 and the 35-150 I have a really solid range and don't need a 24-70 or a 70-200

[@adam6727]

Why would you not do 16-35 at that point? That’s just unnecessary redundancy at the cost of the more noticeable wide angle.

[@selishots]

@@adam6727 price and use case. For my style of shooting I never need wider then 20mm. I rented the 16-35 and didn't ever shoot past 20mm. 20-40mm is much more versatile as an everyday carry lens or for street photography and video

[@ValentinA-nx9wm]

@@selishots let's not forget the 2.8. A 16-35 with 2.8 is noticeable heavier and more expensive. And 40mm 2.8 aint that bad for portaits if oyu dont wanna change lenses

[@marinrendic600]

Yep, it is for me, and as many people already mentioned-it pairs nicely with the 35-150mm, wot I already got! :) You could have gone a bit more in to deph ..like it has very close focusing distance(not macro) but great notice on the focal movement focus thigy. For a hybrid shooter with the A7IV and only these 2 lenses you can get a very big range for shooting stills and video, and as a pro starter pack these 3 choices cover a LOT!

[@erykdolinski78]

Same pair works well for me 👍🏻 I have also Sony 100-400 to cover full focal lenght range in my scope

[@judiaz03]

Do you think this will beat the sigma 28-70 2.8 in terms of Low light and autofocus ? I’m looking my first lens for the a7c

[@JeromeMorada]

That lens is for gimbal use, my gimbal lens, its amazing. The easy crop mode on sony is also useful.

[@SlotCarNewsOfficial]

So it won't continually focus when zooming? Or is there a lag when zooming?

[@TheTensecondz]

This is my everyday lens. I carry one other lens, either Tamron 35-150mm or 50-400mm, depending on how far I need to reach. These two lens combination does it all! Also with A7R IV 61MP, 20-40mm range does most of what I need to do.

[@fred6464]

I have an A7 iv and a Tamron 50-400mm. Do you think that with a 20-40 would work out for me with just those two lenses? I also have a Samyang 35MM F1.4 AF SERIES II for my very low light needs and that cheap lens does better than expected but it's not sealed. I upgraded from my 9-year-old A6000 so my old lenses are of no value.

[@TheTensecondz]

@@fred6464 I use Tamron 20-40mm lens as my default lens when I go for a landscape or street photography. At night time, I sometimes switch off to Samyang 35mm 1.8 or Sony 35mm 1.4 for a very specific shooting style only. 99% of time, a combination of 20-40mm with either 50-400mm or 35-150mm does a fantastic job. Now, Samyang has a new 35-150mm 2.8 lens as well, which is cheaper than Tamron version.

[@fred6464]

@@TheTensecondz I purchased my first Tamron lens back in the late 1980s and trust that brand. Samyang I'll wait and see how the 35mm holds up. Picked up the Tamron 20-40mm today and I really like it. Glad I did not go with a 28-75. The difference between 20 and 28 is much bigger than I expected. Still a beginner at 40 years of playing around in photography.

[@asa9268]

How does it perfom on 61 megapixels in terms of sharpness?

[@TheTensecondz]

@@asa9268No issue with sharpness with my A7R IV even at 50% cropping.

[@darrenfuson1013]

I have Tamrons 150-500mm, and the 35-150mm, this lens provides the focal lengths I want... so its for me. Using a step up ring I can use the 82mm filters from the previous lenses.

[@SuperDraupnir]

This is my travel & vacation lens. Perfect for that. So light.

[@robertschwarz8702]

I just bought the 20-40 f2.8 to go with my 50-400 on the a7cr, with a 45 f2.8 prime, my kit is complete for my tour to South Africa.

[@disco4178]

It pairs with your 35-150mm f/2-2.8. Two lenses rather than three.

[@wynstunsuk]

I think users of the 35-150 2-2.8 Tamron can add this to their kit if they need a little bit of a wider zoom range. Or maybe vloggers🤷🏻‍♂️ But I do like that Tamron thinks out of the box. Thanks for the video. Love your channel

[@ankurbagai1056]

Would be the perfect go to for any case scenario.

[@Daniel_Zalman]

I'd say the a7c is the entry level camera in their full frame line-up. The a7IV is a bit better in relation to the more "pro" cameras in the SONY FF lineup than the D600 or 6D were when Nikon and Canon started making slightly more affordable FF cameras.

[@mishkathlay]

what does your comment have to do with the video?

[@Daniel_Zalman]

@@mishkathlay can't remember. it's (the comment) from 6 months ago.

[@TorresinhoLFC]

This lens confuses me. Maybe its best paired with 70-180. If you have the 35-150 it would make more sens to pair it with the 17-28 instead of 20-40

[@naijafootballphotographer]

Hi Jared. I am a Sports Photographer in my local community and I am on a small budget. I want to buy the sigma 300mm f/2.8, this lens does not have OS. I want to know if the lack of Optical Stabilizer will give me blurry pictures even if I am shooting with a monopod and all my shoot will be during the day time. Please I need your professional advice.

[@zegzbrutal]

Which camera you will be using it on?

[@AdamHaysPhotography]

As an event photographer, my wife helps out and uses my 24-70mm G Master and 70-200 and I'm usually using the Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 paired with a Sony 24mm F1.4 G or my Sony 12-24mm F2.8 G Master. I'm thinking this would pair pretty well with the 35-150mm. I'm still on the fence. For some reason I don't like the 12-24mm. I can never get a good shot at 12mm. I have never been good at the ultra wide.

[@Forzaguy5]

Hi ! Did you buy it ?

[@DavidOBrien-jq1xr]

I think it's a great range, as I have found that travelling with larger lenses attracts unwanted attention from muggers and the like. It's a perfect lens for street photography and a good solution for those not wanting the really ultra wide but to still get decent portraits without distortion.

[@daveemilio67]

have you been mugged, or had to avoid a mugger? Honest question

[@davidobrien6022]

I've found that on the underground/subway/metro systems and also close to attractions, nothing signals affluent(ish) tourist like a large lense on a newish camera. I've been lucky enough to escape the grasp of three muggers in three different European cities @@daveemilio67

[@mishkathlay]

@@daveemilio67 I can't even remember what year it was I last heard the term "mugger" being used.

[@BenjaminSandness]

I really liked the Sigma 24-35 f/2 as a wide lens to keep on one body for weddings. This looks like a broader range and more compact size at the expense of one stop of light. I love when Tamron does things a little weird. I’m not a Sony guy, so not much interest at the moment personally.

[@frankfeng2701]

Imo this lens could be the first f/2.8 zoom for many new FF users. Affordable, lightweight, and quite versatile.

[@rainy70]

Hi Jared, where I can buy your t-shirts?

[@tuckerholland]

I feel like this would be an alternative to a 16-35 in someones kit. You don’t have the same width but you have more reach. I think comparing it to the sigma 18-50, tamron 17-28, and the Sony 16-35 f4 would be the best lens shootout for space in a kit. All similarly priced and similar functionality.

[@craigmantle5362]

Sony shooters have so many options!

[@joshuachubbphotography]

I can confirm that you do not have to rebalance your gimbal when if you zoom while shooting video!

[@froknowsphoto]

Nice

[@ruff1draft]

Both the Tamron 20-40 and Sony 20-70 are both onnmy list for the Sony A74

[@markshirley01]

Stick it on a A7R5 and you get 60mm at 30mp in crop.

[@BoxxyFan]

26MP, not 30

[@markshirley01]

@@BoxxyFan oh yeah 4mp forgot

[@davidpinedacortes8275]

It is a great zoom range considering that if you have a 7R4/5 you can go to 20-60 using crop mode from 40 to 60. For traveling is great, lighter and faster than the Sony 20-70 ... and $400 cheaper!

[@mphosis]

bought this recently mainly using it for video on a gimbal..its light !

[@HappeningPhotos]

I’m an event pro. This is a much better complement to my 35-150 than my 17-28 is. It’s the perfect zoom range for up-close work on a dance floor, where the 17-28 is too wide and not long enough. It’s also wide enough for most of my venue shots, and I’ve got a 14mm prime if I need more. And, it’ll complement a 50-300 nicely for walkabout scenic work and travel. Now I can ditch my 28-60 and travel with two lenses instead of three. Dual-use, yay!

[@CaleMcCollough]

For my green screen I need a little wider than 24mm because there is a desk in the way and I need the wider angle to block the desk and moving the camera back will not help. Does this lens not have in-body lens correction with Sony cameras?

[@rmclark339]

For me it feels like a nice companion to the 35-150.

[@yangcanggihdotcom]

20-40 is for those who frequently use 24mm and 35mm, and sometimes need to go wider and longer.

[@valerioboccaccini4390]

17/28 of the Tamron covers only 11 mm. The 20/40 covers 20mm. I think the difference between 17mm and 20mm is minimal. But between 28 and 40 mm it is greater. I think the 20mm can be used as a wide angle and the 40mm almost as a portrait lens (not like an 85mm but better than a 28) while the 17/28 is just a wide lens. I think it's a lens for those who want to travel light and have sufficient coverage. I was thinking of buying the 17/28 to complete my 28/75 but for the reasons mentioned above the 20/40 can also be used on its own. There would also be the Sigma 24/75 to have everything (24mm is not a huge difference from 20mm) but you certainly have a very high weight and bulk. It is also very comfortable to use on Gimbal...

[@fredriksvard2603]

There's a bigger difference between 17 and 18mm than between 39 and 40mm. 11mm in the wide range is a lot, and there's a huge difference between 17 and 20. The difference between 14 and 16, or 12 and 14, is massive.

[@womz8203]

⁠@@fredriksvard2603 Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that 20mm has a 9% narrower diagonal field of view compared to 17mm whereas 40mm has a 25% narrower diagonal field of view compared to 28mm.

[@jochenretter]

I never put the lens hood on. So I am not professional looking. Sad.

[@Daniel_Zalman]

Now Tamron has stepped up its game. I have to say that Sigma and Tamron make great lenses for much less than SONY. You get 90% of the quality for 75% of the cost. Especially for a lens that isn't one that you use all of the time, it just makes sense to get a Siggy or a Tammy...I quality is that good.

[@veganpotterthevegan]

Lenses can still affect gimbals without the zoom protruding at all.

[@TheJeof1000]

Love your reviews...

[@ElementaryWatson-123]

What is this lens good for? I find the only reason for it as a substitute for a 20/24/35mm primes to adds a bit of flexibility due to zoom. But then I think about the situations when I use those primes and it's often low light for which f/2.8 is not a good fit. I don't know who this lens is for, it's neither wide enough, nor long enough, nor bright enough for any of the common shooting scenarios.

[@superelectic45]

Maybe people who don't like constantly changing lenses outside

[@ElementaryWatson-123]

@@superelectic45 LOL, it's rather simple. People, who don't like changing lenses outside don't change lenses outside. I can shoot a whole day with one prime. As long as you chose the right lens for the situation, it doesn't have to bee a zoom, especially if it's just 2x. Unless you need something like 10x zoom, i.e. you don't know what comes your way, primes do just fine in most situations.

[@fcurcic]

It's good for indoor events, very good actually. With a 24-70mm, you would rarely go above 40-50mm, while you often need wider than 24mm.

[@HappeningPhotos]

@@fcurcicThis plus 35-150 covers 90% of my event work. Bright 24mm and 85mm primes for low light completes the event kit, with 135/1.8 as a nice but not necessary addition.

[@thesleepione247]

it's for the person who's been in situations where they only own a 16mm and would say "a bit of zoom would be nice"

[@ericbrinkhorst4616]

zooming and backbuttonfocus doesn't work together? 1225 euro here in Holland..

[@borgdylan]

I'm on Canon EF-M, so the lens is not for me. I do use a lens that is close in terms of effective focal length, the EF-M 11-22mm going from 17mm to 35mm (full frame equivalence). It is pretty wide and I use it for architectural shots of big buildings like churches. The lenses I like the most are those have a good decent zoom range and let me do a lot with just one lens like the EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 and EF 24-105 f/4L .

[@heygem]

I'm also an EF-M 11-22 mm lover. Recently got the sigma 16mm for EF-M. Watched this video to learn more about affordable wide angle options when the day comes I want to sell all my EF-M stuff and move on.

[@danielsullivan4360]

For me, pairs very nicely with the Tamron 35 - 150 mm

[@FandCCD]

Always entertaining, Jared. Love your videos!

[@adam6727]

If this were 20-50 I might bite, but the zoom range here is so limited it almost looks like focus breathing.

[@marinrendic600]

if pushed on APS-C i think you get 55mm from the 40mm

[@messylaura]

the much older sigma EX 17-50mm ƒ2.8 os still a great lens today.

[@rajasjaywant]

I feel like this lens would make an AWESOME companion to the (ironically, Tamron) 35-150mm f2-2.8...

[@CC-gt3ro]

I prefer my 17-28 as it works perfectly with my gimbal because the zoom is internal and no need to balance the gimbal. I get 17-42 and can zoom easily.

[@RealtorRod64]

Over the last 20 years the idea of what constitutes "ultra-wide" has shifted. In the 20th century ultra-wide angle nomenclature was typically reserved for lenses wider than 24mm, "standard wide-angle" was 24mm-35mm, and "normal" was 40mm-60mm or so. Then you were into tele-photo ranges. The 21st century has made massive advances in technology and image correction that has allowed formerly exotic ultra-wide angle focal lengths to be available to the masses. It seems now that 20mm is considered part of that "standard wide-angle" range. Tamron referring to it as "ultra wide-angle" is perhaps showing their age a bit. I still think old school and 20mm is ultra-wide. It has to do with the obviously wide look you get and it seems 20mm is the point where even a novice can tell you used a wide-angle lens.

[@RockyColaFizz]

Great for photography. But watch out for video. Sony Active Stab is virtually useless with non native Sony lenses. The difference is huge

[@froknowsphoto]

Yeah, I mentioned that in the Sony 20-70 f4 review. Sony limits the framerate, breathing compensation, active mode, etc in 3rd party lenses

[@R.Hogarth]

I'm not sure if it was the way that the images were processed or if it was a characteristic of the lens, but all of the stills had what I would consider unacceptable and distracting vignetting. On the video, the edges were horribly soft; so soft that it almost looks like it was a deliberate choice, but nothing was mentioned in your video about either of those factors.

[@ankurbagai1056]

A perfect kit for the hybrid photographer who also does Cinematography for products, events, travel, and social media. Sony A7MIV or A7MIII with Tamron 20-40mm f/2.9 which is small, lightweight yet wide & fast enough for Gimbal work and handheld videos while the heavier yet more powerful and versatile Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 would n every other situation from street & travel to portrait & wedding. Add in Tamron 150-600mm for some Sports & Wildlife, and you've got everything from 20mm to 600mm.

[@JC-Joyful7]

6 a good lens for those who dont want to change lenses often, from wide to standard.

[@meynp4337]

I have the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and the 35-150 mm f2/2.8. That covers the whole range for me.

[@auroraflash]

Is this a 30-60 then?

[@PaulMcElligott]

If you put it on an APS-C camera, it would be.

[@Vaquero_interestelar]

That's why I love the 24-105mm f4. You've got great zoom, proper wide angle, and good blur at 105 f4 with depth of field. Now, if there is an incredible lens, it is the Tamron 17-70 f/2.8, which in full frame would be a 24-105 at 2.8

[@markhumus-js7xz]

17mm has a ff equivalent of 25.5mm.

[@johnadams3038]

Nah too heavy

[@GuitarRJP]

And if you put the APS-C lens on a FF camera, you do have 25.5-105mm but at F4 not F2.8. You have to multiply the aperture by 1.5 as well.

[@sanchayansarkar2953]

When you have a 16-35 , why would anyone need this ?

[@tankivulture148]

6:30 Daddy drip🔺

[@ecumenicalheretic]

It would be perfect if it was a little shorter and a little longer, maybe something like an Olympus 8-25mm for full frame

[@NathanHassani-kr4bh]

I want a 16-55mm for my a7cii :(

[@jonqphotography2016]

The range reminds me of the old sigma 17-50 f2. 8, maybe sigma can bring that back for the sony e-mount 😁, but a constant f1.8 would be perfect, atleast f2.0, would cost a bit more, but I think it'll be worth it.

[@corkymiller]

“normal” means no telephoto nor wide angle. Normal should be like looking through clear glass. 50 has been considered normal but actually 43mm is normal in full frame: 24x36x43 diagonal. A 24-70 isn’t a normal zoom, it is a short telephoto zoom that covers the normal focal length. A standard wide zoom has been 16-35 so 20-40 is pushing the range to a more normal long end. I love 20. Wider than that gets funhouse wide. I have also come to love 40. 35 doesn’t quite know what it wants to be- it’s not wide enough and it’s not long enough. 50 starts to get restrictive. 40 is becoming the new 50. I think to have from 20-40 gets you very wide but also 28, 35, and just that little bit more.

[@workingwiththelight3119]

This lens perfectly covers my needs if only was £499 in UK!

[@sonofnothing]

Jared, why do you go out and shoot 3 totally different styles of photography, and show real time evf footage, and examples of your images? Why not put some pretty red and blue lights behind you, sit at your desk and read the specs? Maybe take a few shots of a brick wall or mannequin in your basement studio in perfect lighting? Get with it!

[@frankpaulschulte]

Nice vid, thanks. I would have mentioned the super-35 mode on the a7iv: using this, it makes it a 20 to approx 60… if you dont need the megapixels :) Also: if you start with a aps c cam (which makes it a rather versatile 35 to 60) but already plan to change to full frame in the future, this might be a nice, long living option. Just sayin‘ :) oh, oh, also: for the bloggin folks, 20 to 40 is a nice range: you don‘t need to move your camera that often :) (I know, I know, fro no video bro)

[@muzlee7479]

Why would anyone use the s35 mode on their camera tho

[@AABB-px8lc]

@@muzlee7479 full frame image quality much better than crop apc-c, not only from pixel peeping snobs, just form average ppl "wow it so good, how you do that ?". The reason is significant increase signal/noise ratio. Only price and weight counter that. I forgot when i last time tried to turn my camera in apc-c mode, it is that bad.

[@frankpaulschulte]

@@AABB-px8lc True, true. However: better changing to super35 only from time to time than to constantly having to shoot apsc :). aun my studio, I use (cheaper) a6000er cams for streaming setups and a7iv and a7c for video recording. I regulary switch glass between cams and for this indoor scebario, a 20 to 40 ff zoom might be a nice range.

[@muzlee7479]

@@AABB-px8lc I know that FF is better that's why I don't get why anyone would use super 35 mode on their camera.

[@markshirley01]

on the A7R5 youd get 60mm at 30mp in crop. I think 20 - 60 is a great range, as I do mainly social media shooting Im sure I could crop even further.

[@TheNewArtSchool]

Great video! I am still finding the 17-40 f/4 from canon to be more useful.

[@zegzbrutal]

If you are lucky, vintage EF 20-35L f2.8 will be a good alternative for you

[@darrow_andromeda915]

Don’t shoot Sony but I wish they’d take these opportunists to make a unique lens rather than just targeting price. I’d rather see a faster aperture.

[@francomacko8652]

He just said "the a7iv is a entry fullframe camera???"

[@I_Sv]

20-40 + 50 +85

[@Daniel_Zalman]

A shame that we didn't get a few raw files so that we could pixel-peep to our heart's content.

[@Herkulez1981]

This is a to odd focal lengh fof me … i would always feel like i either dont have enough reach or enough wide. But i love that they make other lenses then the ordinarie

[@outtathyme5679]

I paid like $35 to see that exhibit only to be put into an hour plus line

[@toddlower5546]

"I'm normal" so there, I said it.

[@dhrubo9140]

Love to see some camera battle like canon 90d vs canon r7

[@WhatThePheel]

I believe the word you're looking for is parfocal.

[@jmackultra]

Bet is an awesome word

[@kentlcc]

Sometime when less is more, isn’t this is what photography all about🤔

[@TolarRay]

Odd lens considering the 16-55 mm and 17-70

[@pkfkkknk]

Good for travel

[@d.k.1394]

I am a photographer and yeah.

[@Hodenkat]

It seems like a good "walk-about" lens. Maybe some portraits, maybe some vlogging at around the 20-ish millimeter range. I see it as an affordable mixed media lens. That f/4 though... I have a Canon RF 24-70 f/4 because the f/2.8 is scary amounts more, but the amount of subject isolation is a lot better with the f/2.8. I personally would skip on this and save up for the Sony.

[@MyGroo]

Wait what. This lens is f/2.8, not f/4

[@paulyeung6608]

For vloggers!

[@RoWnaFC3]

Can u do Canon r10 r8 and r7

[@naufworks]

Umm yes

[@AR-vf7vg]

Have You come back to Sony ?? I thought that only lately You decided to quit Sony. No?

[@JourneymanActor]

It's for KZbinrs. Use it mostly for video and then use the photo option for thumbnails.

[@JZTechEngineering]

15 seconds?

[@dhrubo9140]

Pro vs chip camera

[@rudradavesar6755]

ill still chose 24-105 over this lens

[@WilliamAbbate]

Looks like a lot of vignetting at 20 mm.

[@Markobreezy]

smell test convinced me not to get this lens

[@synesthesiafilms]

Only 29.99.

[@d.k.1394]

It's 4 everyone yet no one