Awesome to hear! Thanks for the comparison. I love my 24mm GM, but if I didn't already have it, I might be tempted by this 20mm. It's a tad too wide for what I mainly use it for (environmental portraits and that quick 35mm look with the Super 35 mode on the RIII) but for landscapes, it might be nice to get some of that extra space. Maybe in the future. Stay safe down there, Chris! Much love from Montana!
Being an expat Kiwi in Aussie and Aucklander (now living on the road in my 15' poptop with full photography setup) I'd have to believe you :) Earlier this year I got the A7iii but only have A mount lenses for my A77M2, and also both the #3 &4 adapters, waiting on the new #5> My wide angles, Sigma 10-20, CZ 16-80, and the DT 16-50/2.8 are all aps-c so I'm looking at some thing in the FF range for 'scapes and some astro In a discussion with Kim at Phototronics ( such great guys there) suggested I look at the Sony 20/1.8 so here I am checking out your review,- as well 42 others.. I can get the lens at 20% discount, until Wednesday, at AU$ 1160. Looks like more baked beans and roadkill.
I own the 20mm f1.8 it's my only full frame lens so when I'm out I try to make it work, it's too wide indoors however I have the sony a7iv so 33mp cropped down isn't bad but I struggle to take photos indoors you have to get in someone's face but as more time goes by I realize it's more of a convenience than an inconvenience when I go to events with large crowds while others are backing up to the wall to get everyone in the shot I simply get closer and get the shot. I am impressed with the results the wide open view is cinematic you will miss a few shots that are too far away but I rarely use zoom unless I'm doing video in which case I us my 18-105 f4 apsc g zoom lens.
So now I am torn between the Tamron 17-28mm vs the Sony 20mm f/1.8. The reason for wanting the f/1.8 is not only do I shoot astro, but I like shooting day time wide portraits, however, AT A DISTANCE. Would shooting f/2.8 vs f/1.8 actually make a difference in subject separation if my subject was say, 20 feet away? I love to shoot "little person in a big landscape photos" Thank you, Chris.
Chris! I wish I had not watched this, ha,ha! Like you I have the 24GM and the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and I thought that I was done! But, no, now you and others have tested the 20f1.8. I actually did get to briefly test it out myself on my a7iii the day before they were allowed on sale but as it was so hurried , my settings that were dialed in for a different set up did not show the IQ in my images of the inside the camera store. However, I can vouch for the build quality- it is identical to the 24 GM ,just shrunk down a little. If I hadn't just picked up the Tamron ( which is impressive in its own right) I would be putting an order in for this . The form factor is superb.
Thanks for justifying my decision to bail on the 20mm and opting for the 24mm. Spot on with the “hard to spot a flaw” assessment of the 20mm. Like you, it’s just a tad too wide for my needs.
Great review, thanks! I just bought this lens and amazed with it's size, lightweight but great build quality..on top of that, sharpness right from F1.8...what an amazing little lens. My fav. landscaper now.
Hi. Great comparison video! In only 5 min! Love it!... I recently swipe from apsc to full frame and also get a sony 20mm used from a friend. After seeing several videos of your 24 mm gm portrait footage I realized I like it to much, because I'm more into portrait than landscape. So, my question is: how can I get that 24 style with the 20? How different are the two lenses in terms of distortion and compression? Thanks! Greetings from Argentina!
Don't forget the time axis, as technology always improves over time. That's why it's possible to have G lenses (and even standard lenses in a more distant future) that beat older GM's. Anyway, I know this lens is using 2 advanced aspherical (AA) instead of the superior extreme aspherical (XA) featured in the 24gm, so they held back a bit which is why it's not called GM, however the general technology improved over the past 2 years so they were able to improve the CA for example.
Hi Chris and thanks for your great videos. I am new in videography and may ask a stupid question : on the dance floor with the Sony 20mm at 1.8, do you need extra light with the A74 (I have just bought it) if you record at 25 fps, Shutter speed 50 (Pal system for me) or until which ISO do you go if no extra lights ? Many thanks in advance
I watched another comparison between these two lenses here in youtube ( don't remember the channel) and in that comparison the 24 gm was sharper than the 20mm in the corners
First off love your vids. Second, right now I have the Tamron 17-28 and 20mm 1.8. I am finding I prefer the Tamron's versatility , however it is definitely softer in the corners. The 20mm seems wider than I prefer to be for an everyday lens. I love my 24-105 but f4 is sometimes not enough. I am planning to add a 70-200 soon to the kit. I shoot mostly video (school sports, school events) and some occasional group photos after sports games. I am considering trading both the Tamron 17-28 and 20mm 1.8 to get the 24mm 1.4. What do you think?
I mean I prefer the 24 over both of those but it really depends on you. I use the 17-28 for group shots at weddings sometimes, not too fussed about the corners even for weddings. But yeah. I love the 24
Thanks for the update. I'm considering a low light wide lens that can be used for indoor shots and outdoor environmental portraits on vacation/touring. How do you compare them for these? Thanks.
I'm going to say something that you nor Sony is going to like... I've shot with 3 versions of the 24GM and I have some reason to believe it has some issues with copy variation. If your GM is being out performed by the 20mm I would be very concerned if I we're you.
Doesn’t worry me, I’m sure your right, almost every lens I’ve had suffered from copy variation and same when I was Nikon. Most brands are the same from my experience working in a camera store. Wouldn’t say I’m concerned at all, I really don’t care, both lenses are very very good and do a great job.
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer The sad truth is over my 8 years of working part time at one of two camera stores I've come to despise the rare customer who burns though 2-4 copies of a lens returning it over and over convinced that they keep getting a bad copy so I only posted this to be totally honest. When the 24mm was impossible to get a hold of I rented one and was so blown away by the sharpness that I felt cheated when I finally bought one... so much so I ended up opening up a 3rd copy only to find out mine was the same as the "3rd" copy but I'm still convinced that the first one I rented was considerably sharper... like you I wasn't that concerned since my copy was still plenty sharp. Like you said copy variation undoubtedly exists but I don't much worry about it.
I guess I forgot to mention. I'm currently testing the 20 vs the 24 and getting the opposite results with regard to sharpness. The 20 has been a little soft at 1.8 in the corners.
Jason Christopher yeah I think a few people have found the same as you. But you have to admit in terms of lenses in general both are very sharp either way. How much is enough you know what I mean. Saying that I’ve had my 24 since the week before it was released and I’ve probably shot 100 weddings with it, absolutely thrashed, bumped on stuff, soaked in the rain etc. so maybe it’s lost a little sharpness.
Chris Turner Photographer Thank you, sir. I’m on it! Love your channel. (Anyone else who is interested: I found it under the title “How to Get EPIC Dance Floor Photos.”)
If it was lebeled(!?) GM it would not cost just some less than the Sigma DG DN 14-24 f2.8, but more. I somewhat suspect that Sigma might be not less good. But than there still is the difference from f1.8 to f2.8 (..?), and perhaps truely diffent bokkeh rendering at equal apperture? That's what's intrigues me still. I whent for this zoom before knowing about this 20- witch I probably would otherwise have considered essential after resisting the 24 gm (where I actually do find f1.4 to be very important). I feel the 14-24 (this good) to complement best for me considering that the 35mm f1.2 is my first prime for bokeh ability anyway that would steal away the 24mm's f1.4 strength anyway (to me. And the zoom's 24mm is certainly stellar to me just without 1.4). So; for the wide-angle spectre I invite to this reflection as to if here in this case the f1.8 over 2.8 is "important" or if the still open questions related to their bokeh at f.2.8/f4 (if we (can?) assume sharpness, distortions, chromatic aberration, AF behaviour, are the same) is perhaps the only question left. (Perhaps the argument to not like a zoom than just tape it occasionally or the handling. I admit I would love this 20mm and that pure rational alone is not always best - but I honestly feel that here it is probably justified to spend little more, lose F1.8 to F2.8 for 14mm and 24mm gained -assuming equal quality is .."confirmed".
Either that or my 24 is fucked lol 😂 but download the raws and see for yourself. Stopped down they are very similar but wide open the 20 is clearly better
Nah, check out the tests from places like The Digital Picture and CameraLabs. The 20mm is actually sharper and has better contrast than the 24GM at nearly all f-stops.
20mm is such a weird focal length it’s not wide enough for vlogging or Astro and doesn’t work for portrait… the 24mm is just perfect for 99% of video work 20mm has no place really
Many thanks Chris! Wishing you, your family and everyone in your community health and safety during these difficult times.
Chris, your images are compared with f/1.4 on the 24mm vs f/1.8 on the 20mm. I think sharpness is closer at the same aperture.
Awesome to hear! Thanks for the comparison. I love my 24mm GM, but if I didn't already have it, I might be tempted by this 20mm. It's a tad too wide for what I mainly use it for (environmental portraits and that quick 35mm look with the Super 35 mode on the RIII) but for landscapes, it might be nice to get some of that extra space. Maybe in the future. Stay safe down there, Chris! Much love from Montana!
Being an expat Kiwi in Aussie and Aucklander (now living on the road in my 15' poptop with full photography setup) I'd have to believe you :)
Earlier this year I got the A7iii but only have A mount lenses for my A77M2, and also both the #3 &4 adapters, waiting on the new #5>
My wide angles, Sigma 10-20, CZ 16-80, and the DT 16-50/2.8 are all aps-c so I'm looking at some thing in the FF range for 'scapes and some astro
In a discussion with Kim at Phototronics ( such great guys there) suggested I look at the Sony 20/1.8 so here I am checking out your review,- as well 42 others..
I can get the lens at 20% discount, until Wednesday, at AU$ 1160. Looks like more baked beans and roadkill.
Great video! Straight to the point, and with some excellent sample images. Fast becoming my favourite photography RUclipsr.
Thanks mate!
I own the 20mm f1.8 it's my only full frame lens so when I'm out I try to make it work, it's too wide indoors however I have the sony a7iv so 33mp cropped down isn't bad but I struggle to take photos indoors you have to get in someone's face but as more time goes by I realize it's more of a convenience than an inconvenience when I go to events with large crowds while others are backing up to the wall to get everyone in the shot I simply get closer and get the shot. I am impressed with the results the wide open view is cinematic you will miss a few shots that are too far away but I rarely use zoom unless I'm doing video in which case I us my 18-105 f4 apsc g zoom lens.
I wish you can mark which is 24mm and which is 20mm when comparing the two. The fine words in the pictures are too difficult to recognize
Well done. I actually picked up the 24mm GM for around the price of the 20mm. I like 24 better.
How is that possible? (Price)
Hima Ballapuram found a used like new 24mm on the B&H photo website and jumped on it. Works flawlessly.
So now I am torn between the Tamron 17-28mm vs the Sony 20mm f/1.8. The reason for wanting the f/1.8 is not only do I shoot astro, but I like shooting day time wide portraits, however, AT A DISTANCE. Would shooting f/2.8 vs f/1.8 actually make a difference in subject separation if my subject was say, 20 feet away? I love to shoot "little person in a big landscape photos" Thank you, Chris.
Chris! I wish I had not watched this, ha,ha! Like you I have the 24GM and the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and I thought that I was done! But, no, now you and others have tested the 20f1.8. I actually did get to briefly test it out myself on my a7iii the day before they were allowed on sale but as it was so hurried , my settings that were dialed in for a different set up did not show the IQ in my images of the inside the camera store. However, I can vouch for the build quality- it is identical to the 24 GM ,just shrunk down a little. If I hadn't just picked up the Tamron ( which is impressive in its own right) I would be putting an order in for this . The form factor is superb.
Thanks for justifying my decision to bail on the 20mm and opting for the 24mm. Spot on with the “hard to spot a flaw” assessment of the 20mm. Like you, it’s just a tad too wide for my needs.
Great review, thanks! I just bought this lens and amazed with it's size, lightweight but great build quality..on top of that, sharpness right from F1.8...what an amazing little lens. My fav. landscaper now.
Do you have any thoughts for a casual travel photographer trying to decide on the 20 1.8 vs the Tamron 17-28 2.8?
If it’s only those two your deciding between I’d go with the Tamron
Hi. Great comparison video! In only 5 min! Love it!... I recently swipe from apsc to full frame and also get a sony 20mm used from a friend. After seeing several videos of your 24 mm gm portrait footage I realized I like it to much, because I'm more into portrait than landscape. So, my question is: how can I get that 24 style with the 20? How different are the two lenses in terms of distortion and compression? Thanks! Greetings from Argentina!
Thanks for the good review, how is it compared with the Sigma 14mm f1.8?
Don't forget the time axis, as technology always improves over time. That's why it's possible to have G lenses (and even standard lenses in a more distant future) that beat older GM's. Anyway, I know this lens is using 2 advanced aspherical (AA) instead of the superior extreme aspherical (XA) featured in the 24gm, so they held back a bit which is why it's not called GM, however the general technology improved over the past 2 years so they were able to improve the CA for example.
Hi Chris and thanks for your great videos.
I am new in videography and may ask a stupid question : on the dance floor with the Sony 20mm at 1.8, do you need extra light with the A74 (I have just bought it) if you record at 25 fps, Shutter speed 50 (Pal system for me) or until which ISO do you go if no extra lights ? Many thanks in advance
I go up to about 12,800 iso without worry
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer thanks Chris
I watched another comparison between these two lenses here in youtube ( don't remember the channel) and in that comparison the 24 gm was sharper than the 20mm in the corners
Weird, check the raw files out for yourself
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer maybe the 24mm was set at 1.8 but still, i´m definitely getting the 20mm 1.8
How you handle such big file from the 7R3 on wedding photography?
They aren’t that big, I shoot compressed raw and these days I’ve been using dotphotonraw to convert to DNG
And do you compres the video ?
Sebastian Pizzorno no
First off love your vids. Second, right now I have the Tamron 17-28 and 20mm 1.8. I am finding I prefer the Tamron's versatility , however it is definitely softer in the corners. The 20mm seems wider than I prefer to be for an everyday lens. I love my 24-105 but f4 is sometimes not enough. I am planning to add a 70-200 soon to the kit. I shoot mostly video (school sports, school events) and some occasional group photos after sports games. I am considering trading both the Tamron 17-28 and 20mm 1.8 to get the 24mm 1.4. What do you think?
I mean I prefer the 24 over both of those but it really depends on you. I use the 17-28 for group shots at weddings sometimes, not too fussed about the corners even for weddings. But yeah. I love the 24
Thats great news! The 20mm will be delivered tomorrow… No Regrets to come!
No. Stop. Just stop it. Every time you make a video about a lens I buy it. My wallet can’t take anymore.
Thank you for the video man! Have you tried super 35 on both?
Yep works as you’d expect, well
I love the 20mm f1.8 Sony lens for the Videos. I made a recent video of an EPIC BROLL all by using that lens.
Thanks for the update. I'm considering a low light wide lens that can be used for indoor shots and outdoor environmental portraits on vacation/touring. How do you compare them for these? Thanks.
Same same honestly. Probably 24 would be what I’d pick
Definitely, get the 24- it is superb for night photography without a flash. I was amazed.
Just a heads up the RAW files link is now blocked by Bitly as harmful content
Yeah I know. Heaps of the links are. Already emailed them ages ago
I'm going to say something that you nor Sony is going to like... I've shot with 3 versions of the 24GM and I have some reason to believe it has some issues with copy variation. If your GM is being out performed by the 20mm I would be very concerned if I we're you.
Doesn’t worry me, I’m sure your right, almost every lens I’ve had suffered from copy variation and same when I was Nikon. Most brands are the same from my experience working in a camera store.
Wouldn’t say I’m concerned at all, I really don’t care, both lenses are very very good and do a great job.
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer The sad truth is over my 8 years of working part time at one of two camera stores I've come to despise the rare customer who burns though 2-4 copies of a lens returning it over and over convinced that they keep getting a bad copy so I only posted this to be totally honest. When the 24mm was impossible to get a hold of I rented one and was so blown away by the sharpness that I felt cheated when I finally bought one... so much so I ended up opening up a 3rd copy only to find out mine was the same as the "3rd" copy but I'm still convinced that the first one I rented was considerably sharper... like you I wasn't that concerned since my copy was still plenty sharp. Like you said copy variation undoubtedly exists but I don't much worry about it.
I guess I forgot to mention. I'm currently testing the 20 vs the 24 and getting the opposite results with regard to sharpness. The 20 has been a little soft at 1.8 in the corners.
Jason Christopher yeah I think a few people have found the same as you. But you have to admit in terms of lenses in general both are very sharp either way. How much is enough you know what I mean.
Saying that I’ve had my 24 since the week before it was released and I’ve probably shot 100 weddings with it, absolutely thrashed, bumped on stuff, soaked in the rain etc. so maybe it’s lost a little sharpness.
How do you do those slow shutter dance floor shots where you simultaneously get motion blur but your subject is in focus?
I have a video on it, search it on my channel
Chris Turner Photographer Thank you, sir. I’m on it! Love your channel. (Anyone else who is interested: I found it under the title “How to Get EPIC Dance Floor Photos.”)
Great video, thanks for helping me make my decision!
Chris - saw that you put your last videos in the 2:1 ratio and now your back to normal 16:9. Reasoning?? Thanks 🤙🏼
Mostly cause I had the framing to tight, and laziness due to Coronavirus stress lol. Do you guys prefer it in 2:1?
@@ChrisTurnerPhotographer 16:9 is more of the sensor so I vote for 16:9
Question. I have the 24 1.4... why would I need the 20 1.8?
That’s up to you really. Most people wouldn’t
Both of this which one good for environmental portriat?
24 for me
great vid, got a sub
hi Chris! what extended grip are u using for the sony body?
Heya. It’s the Meike grip
Thanks for this short comparison. I like 5min-videos!
If it was lebeled(!?) GM it would not cost just some less than the Sigma DG DN 14-24 f2.8, but more.
I somewhat suspect that Sigma might be not less good. But than there still is the difference from f1.8 to f2.8 (..?), and perhaps truely diffent bokkeh rendering at equal apperture? That's what's intrigues me still.
I whent for this zoom before knowing about this 20- witch I probably would otherwise have considered essential after resisting the 24 gm (where I actually do find f1.4 to be very important).
I feel the 14-24 (this good) to complement best for me considering that the 35mm f1.2 is my first prime for bokeh ability anyway that would steal away the 24mm's f1.4 strength anyway (to me. And the zoom's 24mm is certainly stellar to me just without 1.4).
So; for the wide-angle spectre I invite to this reflection as to if here in this case the f1.8 over 2.8 is "important" or if the still open questions related to their bokeh at f.2.8/f4 (if we (can?) assume sharpness, distortions, chromatic aberration, AF behaviour, are the same) is perhaps the only question left.
(Perhaps the argument to not like a zoom than just tape it occasionally or the handling. I admit I would love this 20mm and that pure rational alone is not always best - but I honestly feel that here it is probably justified to spend little more, lose F1.8 to F2.8 for 14mm and 24mm gained -assuming equal quality is .."confirmed".
🔥🔥🔥
They are totally different lenses used for separate purposes so I don't know why people keep comparing them.
People keep comparing them because people keep wanting to see the videos.
Kinda want one of these bad bois, not gonna lie.
♥Chris Turner Photographer
It must be that your copy is especially sharp, too, bruh
Either that or my 24 is fucked lol 😂 but download the raws and see for yourself. Stopped down they are very similar but wide open the 20 is clearly better
Also Sony have been known to have copy variances for sure so maybe I do just have the craziest copy ever lol
Nah, check out the tests from places like The Digital Picture and CameraLabs. The 20mm is actually sharper and has better contrast than the 24GM at nearly all f-stops.
GM has way better colour rendering imo.
20mm ain’t wide enough for landscapes if you ask me
20mm is such a weird focal length it’s not wide enough for vlogging or Astro and doesn’t work for portrait… the 24mm is just perfect for 99% of video work 20mm has no place really