the 20 mm is 400 dollar cheaper, lighter, and the popular german site "chip" says with its testings, that the 20 mm is sharper than the 24 mm and the sharpest lens for Sony available. Also it has less chromatic aberation. Also the AF is faster on the 20mm
If you leave price aside, just as Nate said, it's hard to put a finger on a winner. Take into consideration the price difference, the 20mm is the clear winner to me. Especially since i have a 24-70 sigma, the 20mm gives me that extra wide angle for landscapes and night photography, where as the 24mm just gives me an advantage in having a larger aperture. So it also depends on what gear you already carry.
Nateinthevan! I owned the 24gm and sold it once I received my 20mm. The 24 was great, but I always found myself wishing it was a bit wider, for landscapes, architecture, and astro shots. Absolutely no regrets on selling the 24.. I love the 20.
@@end_theinflu i can answer that, think about it this way, you want the 24 but somee pictures need a wider field of view, if you can go a few steps back, not much really, only a few for those 4 mm, same goes for the 20mm, now for landscape, f1.4 is useless for that, no need to pay extra, and for astro, f1.4 is an advantage but, not by much and get this, the wider the lens the longer the exposure before the star trails so you can get the same light in but you can't step back to get a wider field of view, look at the settings this guy used to get same results, same iso, same camera, 5 seconds extra on 20mm, if he went 12 instead of 15 he could have made the star trails much smaller, so i can say 20mm its almost better than 24 on astro too and to top all of that, the 20mm is much cheaper, so you can put those money aside for another lens and explore more and do more.
@@end_theinflu that’s great, mine arrived this week, sadly the weather didn’t allow me to test it properly but I went to the Christmas market at night and it was very nice, the tracking works well on my old A7 mk1, the best so far compared to my other lens, I shot a few people skating on ice and it hold amazingly on the target even if the light was bad. I can’t wait to get the first Astro and landscape photos with it. A7 mk1 is basically the first iteration of phase detection mirror less full frame and it’s bad, very bad compared to yours and i was surprised how well it performed 👍
I picked the 20mm because that extra wideness gives the look I'm going for. I love it. Colors are gorgeous, ultra sharp, that apature ring on the lens is genius for landscapes. I like the lens flare it gives, just enough to be artistic but not so much to be distracting. Worth every penny
Agreed. Same reason I got mine 20 is the sweet spot for photography for me and I use my Sigma 30 1.4 for Video soooo crisp it looks like 4K on a 1080p body
It's fascinating what difference 4mm can make. For example... At 6:39, the foreground seems so insignificant next to the vastness of space, with the monolith peering out into the vast reaches of the galaxy. When I saw it, my thought was "space is so immensely vast and we're so tiny, yet some way, some HOW, we've been blessed to have a place in the grandeur of it all." In essence, it's an introspective composition that evokes emotions of humility, curiosity, and cohesion with nature. At 8:55, the foreground takes far more prominent role in the frame, and the monolith seems to be taking equal importance, if not _greater_ importance, to the galactic core itself. When I saw it, my thought was "we're just bacteria on a speck of dust right now, but if we can just navigate the perils of existence just a _little_ while longer, soon all that lies before us will be ours for the taking." It's a more defiant composition that evokes emotions of pride, hope, and our ambition to be the singular master of our own destiny. Most importantly, though, it just reminded me that lenses are just _tools_ to create art with. Neither one of these shots is better than the other, it just depends on what you're trying to create! They both seem to do a very fine job indeed!
I sold my 24 GM for 20 G. because i prefer wider field of view for astro but i wish they just release 20/1.4 GM insted of 20/1.8G. Thank for a great comparison.
Thanks for zooming in all around the image of that 20mm Milky Way shot, it looks like the plane of focus is very flat at infinity! I had a tough time getting a perfectly flat field on the 24mm, especially when focusing for the corners to have minimal color fringing, and trying to balance it with center sharpness. Very glad to have this new option, that's for sure!
Thank you for this video. I have been researching both of these lenses for about a week now and you are the first person to clearly state which lens is better for me and my style of photography.
Am I the only one who actually LOVES the vignettes so much more than the corrected?? It gives them more of that vintage film look which is so much more interesting to me
It's not an easy choice. I had the 24GM, loved it for its rendering and low light capabilities... but I returned it when I took a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge by night, with the lights of the bridge in the corner being severely distorted (astigmatism). The little bit of chromatic aberration would have been ok to live with, especially if you stop down a little, but that astigmatism was a no go for me. I just got the 20mm yesterday and I have yet to test it in the same condition. Sharpness incredible but the rendering although similar is not as nice IMO (there is something in those contrasts and gradients with the 24GM that is really amazing). The extra reach is a dual sword; for some subjects it's great, for others... it's not. So that 4mm difference is a big deal, including for Milky Way or for any photo where you hope to see some fine details from far away. You just don't capture the same amount of details on 20, 24, 28 and 35mm. With my 35mm I can actually see some details of the lagoon, omega and eagle nebula. I have yet to test, but I am pretty sure that won't be the case with a 20mm.. hope the lens will prove me wrong 😄. For reference, 35mm is enough to fit just the Milky Way core and a little bit of the extra region getting darker. 24mm you do fit all of that + your landscape composition. 20mm is really wide, possibly even too wide for that type of composition, unless you have an amazing landscape around. In short, the two major factors for me are 1) 4mm difference ; 2) astigmatism that I have yet to test on the 20mm with the GGB. IF the 20mm performs as bad on astigmatism as the 24GM, I will return the lens and stick with the 24GM for its rendering and extra reach with distant details.
I do a lot of Landscape Photography, my most used Lens for Landscape are Sony 24mm 1.4 GM, I have a 20mm Lens, but I only use it 2 to 5 days in a year and only for maybe 5 to 10 images (in a year !), so to me the 24mm are the most useful wide angle Lens for Landscape (42 years of experience !).
Thanks for your feedback. I am just beginner in photography field and I planning to purchase A7C or A7IV, so as per your opinion what will be I choose lenses as beginning. Pls guide me 🙏
@@dawoodmethar4639 I think the A7C are too "skinny", the A7IV too expensive and if you not use video (or just sometimes), then a A7RIII or A7RIV will be a much better choice (alternative a A7III). For a starter kit I will get a prime wide angle Lens, fx 35mm and a short prime tele Lens or a Macro Lens.
I spent two weeks to compare between 24 and 20 and I went with 20 at last. 20 is a lot cheaper but has 95% GM performance. Hands down for that. I only buy GM lens but this 20mm is a special one. No other G lens have that mount of GM DNA comparing to this 20mm.
Great comparison! Only, I'd like to point out that what you called "chromatic aberration" at 9:31 is actually the Hydrogen emission of the Laguna Nebula (M 8).
Great work on this video! I love how comprehensive this comparison is and it really seems like you can’t go wrong with either of these lenses, especially if you have a good idea of what you want to shoot with it. 👊🔥
Great comparison. As a landscape photographer, I don't see the point in 24mm and even as a photographer in another genre, double the price doesn't make sense for what you get. Love the intro btw. Keep up the great work!
Good assessment! I own the 24GM and love it ( use case is exactly what you mentioned) For wider angle I have the Tamron 17-28 f2.8 so I have a hard time justifying adding the Sony 20mm to my kit at the moment!
I‘m not having one of them and want to get more into thr astro game. Have to deal with the Tamron 28-70 2.8. What would you choose first, if you not having the 24GM 1.4 and the Tamron 17-28 2.8? Thanks for your help!
Really loving this channel and can't wait to see how big it gets. I've been deciding on a wide angle for what feels like forever and there are just so many good choices. I was between the 24GM and the Tamron 17-28 for so long, but with the release of the 20G, I'm leaning more toward one of the native Sony. I have the Sigma 50 Art and 105 Art, so I think I have portraiture pretty much covered, but I feel this video only makes things more difficult! Thanks for the head to head comparison, I've been looking for this exact thing.
This is just so helpful, you are so kind man. Thank you for this video. This is a lot of money and glad someone like you took the time to compare the FOV's also. Thank you.
Great comparison. Thanks! I own the 24/1.4 and just bought the 14/1.8. I love the 24. I shoot mostly panoramic auroras with it. It does suffer a bit from CA. Mine doesn't look quite as bad for comma and batwings tho. All-in-all I love the speed of the thing, which is necessary for panos. I prefer the 20mm focal length tho so I'm considering selling my Batis 18/2.8 and picking up the 20 Sony. Looks like a very worthwhile lens. As for the 14, lots of batwing distortion wide open, ugh, I'll likely have to crop out the corners if I keep it. Terrific lens otherwise and even works OK for IR photography at f/5.6 or wider (just a tiny bit of an easily dealt with hotspot at that aperture).
welldown! very good comparison, thx. In my opinion the 20 mm is the dealmaker (I do landscape and astro). With respect to chromatic abberation and for better sharpness of the 24mm you´ll have to choose hight aperture value.
thanks for this Nate, I have and love the 20 mm. I bought it after seeing the photos Autumn took in Norway. Im really looking forward to taking it out astro shooting.
You're the first youtuber with under 200k subscribers I've just subscribed to. You're doing and using what I'm aspiring to be doing and using in the near future. Your should feature your camper van, as no other astrophotography youtuber seem to be doing, it adds character especially if you find your vehicle adds practicality in some ways than using SUV/ car/ pickup truck - show them, please. Also, please try to video the nightscape more with your gear in both FF and aspc mode, even if it were just a half minute clip - I would love to see how it looks. Thanks.
Great video, and one I’ve been super eager for someone to make... Thank you. And jealous (yet happy for you) that you’re out shooting Milky Way. Eager to get out and frustrated that each day the nights are getting shorter and shorter. I have, and love, the 24mm and even though I often wish I had something wider, not sure I could justify it. I still have the 16-35gm that I can fall back on but, damn that 20mm is sure tempting! Can’t wait to see what you do next. Have a blast and my best to you and Autumn. Cheers!
The 16-35GM was my go-to astro lens for about 18 months. It’s fantastic for when you need something super wide, and the 24mm is great for when you need a faster aperture. That said, I do love that 20! 😍 hope you can get out for some stars soon! I heard they’re opening Rainier soon.
I bought the Sony 20MM lens and it rocks. I already had a Sigma 24-70MM lens so I already have the 24 MM covered. The 20 MM gives you better landscape shots.
Nice review. Just wanted to say that the chromatic aberration you point out at 9:30 is not actually chromatic aberration at all, but purple nebulosity in the milky way.
To me the 24mm are better for nature landscapes and 20mm better for city scapes ! I have teh Sony 24mm 1.4 GM a GREAT superb Lens together with Sony A7RIV !!! I do have a 20mm which I do not use that much.
Dude that Astro shot is amazing! I’m heading to South African on safari in two weeks… if you can fire any advice on what you set the camera to to capture this sky that would be amazing so I can give it a proper go when I’m on my trip. Hitting that subscribe and bell now! 🙌
@@Nateinthewild this is great thank you! It’s a starting point for me and I can adjust depending. I’m a noob to Astro shots so really appreciate the advice. 👍
Thanks for the review! I actually sold my Batis 18mm 2.8 amd the 24mm 1.4 GM and bought the 20/1.8 to replace both those lenses. I wasn't using them much and for such expensive lenses I could not justify keeping them on a shelf. I love the middle of the road 20mm. It is wide enough for what I shoot and love it for astro. I found the 24mm not wide enough and the 18mm 2.8 not fast enough. For landscapes I already own the 24-104mm so the 20mm is a perfect complement for astro and wide angle since I do not own a 16-35.
Bought both and adding the 14 1.8 as well to really round out my astro kit. Both perform amazingly wide open. The 24 does have severe astigmatism but that's not a deal breaker for me.
Thank you again, my choice for my astrophotography is the 20mm. Until now I shoot with the 16-35 F 2.8 GM on my A7R III but over ISO 5000 there is IMHO too much noise. My only wish now to Sony: Pls make a 14-16mm F 1.8 G(M) that is not so heavy like the Sigma. It would be great for milkyway panos.
Stack a few frames for noise reduction? I want a wider GM prime in the range you mention. I've had samyang in the past, disappointing quality and I've been tempted to try the Laowa 15, don't want to lug around the big sigma 14..
@@sic04250f If you were disappointed by Samyang/Rokinon quality in the past, you won't be much happier with the Laowa 15mm. It's made of mostly metal, but the assembly and workmanship itself is bad enough that the lens will start falling apart after a bit of heavy use. It's also just not very good in the corners, not compared to the likes of this 20mm or the Sigma 14 1.8 or the Sigma 14-24 2.8 DN... The newest Samyang/Rokinons are actually quite good, if you haven't tried them; the Rokinon SP / Samyang XP 14mm f/2.4 is very well-built. But if you're getting an f/2.4 lens you might as well just buy the new 2.8 zoom champion, the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DN. Its sharpness is incredible, better corners than the 14 1.8 Art at 2.8, and better at 24mm than even the 24 GM at 2.8, too. Witchcraft!
@@sic04250f That's why I really want a very wide fast prime from Sony too 😉 I'm working with stacking but stacked panos are time consuming and this can become a problem during the short summer nights.
Was that campsite at Valley of the Gods? I think I know the exact site having driven through there on one afternoon last year! Love the video, I have been waiting for someone to do this exact comparison.
Thank You!!! This comparison will be seen by many...Now do a panorama 3:2 scale at 180 degrees for that rainbow Milky Way or one at a 12mm or 14mm or 16mm view, it is said by many these lenses are made for the panorama because of less distortion than the wide angles. I like my SEL1224G for panos due to fewer shots needed and in Portrait view no second level. Also try the NPF accurate rule (PhotoPills has it), ya shorter shots but perfect round stars even in the corners (500 rule an old film rule).
Noob here looking to replace my iPhone 13 Pro Max for my unboxing videos and live streams. Considering the Sony a7iv but I just need to choose the right lens. Had my eye on Sigma 16-28 but really once I dial in my shot, I won’t need to change it much. If Sony looks better, I might go with one of these. Sony 20mm refurb is the same price as the sigma!!! Question is. With the Sony a7iv being a 7k sensor downsampling to 4k, if I get 20mm and it’s too wide, can I just zoom in until it’s around 24mm to fit my table? And just keep it there and have it look amazing? Or does it not work that way. A friend once told me I was confused and zoom is a whole separate thing from mm. Yet many times people in these reviews do mention super 35 or apsc or clear image zoom saying you can just use those to get to a 50mm for example and stuff. So I was wondering if you can really just dial it in. In that case since I never need to go wider than 20, I could maybe just get the 20 and do everything I need. Right? That min focus distance sounds like exactly what I need. I just can’t stand any distortion. Currently I think the iPhone runs around 24mm equivalent but there’s 0 distortion.
If I'd be using this for a lot of astro, but also real estate, landscape, I want to get into street, and just have more versatility would you say the 24?
Wanna here more about this van. Was out shooting stars on the weekend and it was only a few degrees above freezing, really jealous of you folk (Alyn Wallace has one too) who can actually get a good night's sleep on location. Also sold my Sigma 20mm f/1.4 and Samyang 24mm f/1.4 to get the Sony 20mm f/1.8. Collectively the sharpness and star shape of the Sony is considerably better. You better be getting some fat stacks of cash off Sony for your reviews, it was your original review of the 20mm that got my wallet out of my pocket. Of course it had no money in it so I had to sell stuff, but you get the idea.
Fantastic review!! My adventure or scenic portrait combo and is the 16-35 and 85. Mainly using the 16-35 at 16. But, I really prefer the 35 prime and 85 as a set. So looking into an in the middle prime. I think 24 might be the one 🙌🏽 Thanks for the geek out. New sub here 💯👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
nate cut down time to 8 to 10 seconds and stars be sharper. everything else that may be dark u can lighten up afterwards. got tha1.8 lense.awesome lense
Best overall lens are the Sony 24mm 1.4 GM, I use it primarily for landscape, but also for people (NOT portrait, use at least 60mm !) street, arcitecture and much more, great lens.
Just subbed mate, great review and I look forward to future content on your channel. I currently use the 18mm batis and the 24mm GM. Quite often if I need wider I Pano with the 24.
@@xjuhnx I was using the 24 for Panos and 18 for single shots. Just recently ended up selling both and got the 20mm f1.8 and a Laowa 15 F2. Yet to use the 15. Hear a rumour Sony is to release a 16mm f1.8 GM next year, I will definitely want one.
Hi @Nateinthewild, I have a Sony A7iv and I am looking for a lens capable of recording real time videos of the Northern Lights…Which lens among the two you mentioned do you think could be more suitable for this purpose? Thanks! Do you think the 20mm f1.8 G would be enough?
Just got the 20mm a few days ago, and your video didn't change my mind that I made the right choice. They are clearly both great lenses! But 20mm and closer focus makes the 20mm better for me (did you notice that the 20mm can focus even closer in manual focus? I can get down focus down to less than 5cm from the front element in manual focus!) And comparing to my 16-35 GM I'm surprised how much better color and contrast the 20mm has, as the 16-35 is already a top lens!
The bokeh on that 20 looks way better. Much more natural transition because of the aperture probably. Depends on the need. But it’s really jarring to me to see photos like that 24mm bokeh photo. So many channels do that with their product reviews and I’m like dude…. Time and place. It’s not a flex if it doesn’t belong in the shot. IMO as an onlooker. I need to see the branch fade into focus like it would in person. Not just disappear and have most of the shot be a smudge lol. Like why. Everyone’s eyes are dif though I guess
Man, great video. I’m looking to get into astro/landscape so this video helped a lot. I noticed around 6:55 you said to “forgive the star trails” on the 20mm comparison shot. I’m new to this and guessing those are there because you had to go 15 seconds on the 20mm exposure vs 10 sec on the 24mm exposure - which didn’t have star trails? With that being said, for someone wanting to get into Astro, would you suggest the wider field of view of the 20mm at the cost of a slightly slower aperture - or would you suggest the better light gathering of the 24mm at the cost of a narrower field of view?
Thanks for the nice review. I wonder how these two compare to the Rokinon 12mm f2.0 and the Sigma 16mm f1.4 mounted on the a6x00 series camera for astrophotography. Any chance of comparing them?
@@Nateinthewild awww thanks.. but how you make the rock in the middle look focuse too? Or we should take 2 pics then edit on the photoshop. The one that focus on the rock and the one focus on the star like that...
So, I got the 20mm recently. My only prime for the Sony system. I'm looking at finishing my lens line-up with a 16-35 2.8. I kind of shoot everything; night skies, landscape, cityscape, street, portraits (and other types with other lenses). Of the 2 lenses (20mm 1.8 & 16-35 gm), which do you prefer for landscapes and night sky?
Wasn’t a fan of the 16-35, lots of distortion for astro and it’s nowhere near as sharp as the sigma 14-24, which is $700 cheaper and had zero distortion, even at 14mm. Even at 35 for portraits I was let down and now just use a prime. I want to try the 20mm because I LOVED the 24 GM for astro and this seems to be the closest thing to it!
@@RyanSotelo I'll have to look up any other distortion claims because I hadn't seen that in many reviews. What if you got a bad copy? I had my eye on the Sigma, but the more I think about it, the more things bother me, like how much heavier/bigger it is, and the bulbous outer element preventing screw-on filters (not a fan of rear loading filters)...plus, I guess I wouldn't often use it for astro, as that's what I have the 20mm for, but I would if I couldn't zoom with my feet somewhere. Image quality is stellar, though, and that's the only thing going for it with the price being lower.
@@lynneftw I prob did have a bad copy yea :/ I recently got the 20mm myself and it’s phenomenal for Astro shots, it’s on par with the 24GM. As far as landscapes go I much prefer it over the 16-35.
A7iii NPF SS rules 24mm f/1.4 Accurate 4.5s default 8.99s, 20mm f/1.8 accurate 5.69s default 11.37s .Just info. 500 rule old film rule - no pixel height or distance between pixels or different camera models and makers find with PhotoPills spot stars. But very impressive for a longer SS the both. So the 24 had more doves HUMMM!!!
I’ve owned the 24mm for about a week, not very impressed with it, really sharp, nice bokeh but terrible chromatic aberration, for the price and the gm name tag I don’t think it’s good enough.
Nateinthewild not yet as I’m unsure what I would replace it with. I wanted something for some landscapes and some street. It’s not something I photograph very often. I reduced all my lenses and now just have three, 400 2.8, 100stf and now the 24. I checked out numerous reviews before I got it and it was never really pointed out as that much of an issue. I predominantly shoot jpeg now and the in camera corrections don’t clear it up which a lot of reviews never really cover. The 20mm looks like it controls it better but I think this maybe too wide.
Great video. That’s exactly what I expected for a comparison. I will go for the 24GM. Btw at 9:34, the purple color is not CA caused by the lens. These purple star clusters are just purple nebulas. :D
2nd time I have watch this video and I want to THANK YOU for doing a comprehensive comparison of these two lenses using low light conditions. I have watched 3 other videos and they do not provide us low light comparisons - which is the main reason many of us are here. LMAO @ lens flare 🤣
Which one is for you? if you cannot decide it, follow your wallet. i'd say not worth twice the price for a hair line difference in terms of image quality.
It's not all about image quality though. Focal length and aperture go far beyond simply the final image, they have very specific advantages depending on what and where you're shooting.
