Very relevant question. There is no good answer without knowing what camera OP is using. Modern mirrorless cameras create usable images at ISO 6400 and higher; for DSLRs the threshold is lower. Full-frame cameras do better than APS-C cameras. Cameras with lower pixel counts generally have better low-light properties. Is the camera image-stabilized? The lens? And so on. Generally, 1/4 of a second invites lots of motion blur, regardless of equipment.

Depth of field is exclusively driven by aperture. If you shoot in aperture priority, your aperture is set and the DoF does not change if you use camera exposure compensation. ISO or exposure time will change to make the adjustment, depending on your settings.

In my humble opinion, it makes no sense to buy a lens with a different mount--whether that is Sony A-mount, Canon, or anything else. Plus the Sony A-mount has been obsolete for years.

I have owned this lens ever since it was released almost five years ago. Even though I own a number of nice primes I take most of my shots with this lens. It truly is my workhorse. It is the perfect travel lens and the best all-purpose zoom you can get for Sony FE. The focal range is perfect, it is sharp corner to corner throughout the range, and at 105mm it has great compression and produces a surprisingly good bokeh, so you can use it for portraits. Color rendition is great, AF is fast and accurate.

At f/4, this is not a fast lens. But the OSS works great in tandem with IBIS. I routinely shoot handheld at ISO 6400 at 1/15 or 1/30 of a second, so you can take night shots or images of dark spaces, like church interiors.

30,000 shots later, I still love this lens. It has never disappointed me. I don't really have anything bad to say about this lens. It always is in my travel bag, together with my Zeiss Batis 18mm (you could pair it with your 20mm) for when I need a little wider. It has been on many trips in the US, Latin America, Europe, and Africa, and its versatility guarantees me great shots in every situation. It has taken quite some abuse on some of my trips, but it still works like on the fast day.

Here are two albums from earlier this year, shot almost entirely with the 24-105mm, the first in Malindi, Kenya, and the second in Berlin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/zug55/albums/72177720300823447
https://www.flickr.com/photos/zug55/albums/72177720299162891

I think that exposure compensation is useful at any setting. It is like a manual override where you tell the camera to produce a slightly overexposed or underexposed image. I usually shoot in aperture priority and set the ISO manually, and I generally underexpose at 1/3 of a stop--just because I like that look.

I hardly ever used it in my DSLR days. I think that exposure compensation is particularly useful with mirrorless cameras because MILCs allow you to see how your image will be exposed. This allows me to adjust exposure if some areas are seriously underexposed or overexposed.

He is a great landscape photographer. Which apparently does not keep him from doing cheesy clickbait videos.

Thanks--I got a real job that pays the bills. I have no need to bamboozle others.

All impressionistic innuendo--this guy does not offer a single piece of evidence to support his silly claims. It comes down to him not liking how the buttons are placed and how they work. He looks like a guy sitting at a piano who does not know how to play it.

I have used Sony gear for five years on four continents under all climactic and environmental conditions--rain, snow, beach, desert, tropical forests, you name it. I have dropped my equipment and have fallen with it. All of it still works perfectly fine. Maybe I should make a video too.

Some people switch gear all the time and monetize it with videos like this one. The very definition of clickbait.

I am old enough not to care anymore what people might think. Take whatever you need to give you the best memories.

If you are happy with your present kit don't worry about it.

I understand all these dilemmas--I too want to keep my kit small while having the lenses I need. I have settled on the Sony 24-105mm f/4 as my main travel lens. I was on sabbatical for seven months earlier this year; I spent half of it in Europe (Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Switzerland) and the other half in Kenya. I had with me two bodies, Sony A7III (similar specs to your A7C) and A7RIII. Lenses: Sony 24-105mm G, Sony 100-400 GM, Zeiss Batis 18mm, Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8, Sony Zeiss 55mm.I used the 24-105 for 90% of the shots, the 100-400 for wildlife and for some landscape shots, the 18mm for when I needed wide (lots of church interiors), and the tiny 35mm for street photography, particularly in Nairobi. I never used the 55mm even though it is a great lens.

I could absolutely trust to get a great image with my Sony 24-105mm under just about any circumstance. I have used it for interior shots in churches and urban night shots. I shoot at f/4 and ISO 6400 which usually lets me shoot at 1/30 of a second, depending on available light. The image stabilization in both body and lens work great in tandem, so I get a good shot to about 1/15 of a second, handheld. On all my travels, shooting at f/4 never kept me from getting the shot, even in poor light. I understand that you have reservations about the lens because of the form factor, and I get that.

Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) works great with all lenses, but it also has limitations. It only works in JPEG. The focus system is not as nimble--you only get zone focusing. For landscape or city shots this generally is not a problem. I get very sharp images. In contrast to cropping, you do not lose pixels, so you still get all the details. I would test it before the trip so you know how to use it. I have it programmed to one of my buttons.

Prime lenses: I think that the Sony 20mm would be a good lens for interiors. It is wide enough to capture interior spaces and fast enough to get shots that are in focus even in dark spaces. The Sony/Zeiss 55mm is a superb lens. I do not shoot much at 55mm, but that is a matter of personal preference. (I never used it on my seven-month trip.) The same with 85mm: I have a nice 85mm prime lens that I never use. I personally think that this is not a useful focal lenght for travel. If you want to take a second prime lens I would take a 35mm lens, or perhaps a 28mm--again, this a personal choice. I use the tiny Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/2.8--it weighs only 120g. Sony also makes a good 35mm lens at f/1.8 that is quite small too. Sony also issued three small primes (24/40/50mm) specifically for the A7C. But the limitation with primes is that you invariably end up changing lenses, which is difficult to do when you are part of a group trip. Taking the Sony 28mm f/2 would be an alternative. I think that 28mm is a useful focal length for travel.

I go through all these questions before each trip. And each time I grab the Sony 24-105mm.The IQ is great across the board, it is extremely versatile, and I can make it work in difficult light situations. If I was on your trip, I would take this lens. I also would take the Sony 20mm (or my Batis 18mm). I also would take a small 28mm or 35mm prime--the Sony 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/1.8 being good options.

The dilemma is that there aren't any small zooms to match the form factor of the A7C, with the exception of the 28-60mm kit lens. So you will have to compromise somewhere. The Sony 24-105mm at 663g is a little larger and heavier. I would stay away from the 24-240mm because it is too heavy, the IQ isn't as good, and you don't really need 240mm on a trip like this. You could use the Sony PZ 16-35mm f/4 as your primary lens and use the 28-60 as a back-up for when you need a longer lens. These may not be the fastest lenses, but shooting at f/4 at night or in dark interiors is workable. You also can extend the reach of your lenses by using Clear Image Zoom.

Photography has helped me see things. Travel photography has helped me develop an eye for things and has sharpened my observation skills. With camera in hand, or in my bag, I process visual information much more consciously. So I would argue that my camera enhances my experience.

PS: I agree with the small kit. Having to fiddle with your equipment all the time indeed can be a distraction. This is why I argued for using the Sony 24-105mm lens above because it is a super-versatile travel lens that can handle just about everything.

There is no "Israel lens." Your trip probably will include the standard travel shots: urban shots, ranging from the narrow streets of Jerusalem to the modern Tel Aviv, landscapes, dark interiors.

Since you will not have much time to change lenses, I would choose a lens that gives you the utmost flexibility. Specifically, I would pick standard zoom lens that opens to 24mm, not 28mm. Those 4mm make a big difference. I travel extensively, and my favorite travel lens is the superb Sony 24-105mm f/4 G. I have taken about 30,000 shots with it in the past four years, including in dark church interiors in a number of European countries. You can shoot at 6400 ISO, which gives you the option of shooting handheld at f/4 in interior spaces and at night (I do this all the time). The IBIS in the A7C with the stabilization of the lens allow you to shoot at 1/20 of a second. (I think that a tripod or a monopod will not be practical. Furthermore, many religious places do not allow them.)

I also would take a wider lens for interior shots or for tight architectural shots. My choice is the outstanding Zeiss Batis 18mm f/2.8; this lens and the Sony 24-105mm form my basic travel kit pretty much for any kind of trip. A good alternative would be the fine Sony 20mm f/1.8 G. If you are looking for a zoom, I would pick the new Sony PZ 16-35mm f/4 G lens. You might like this one so much that it stays on your camera most of the time in places like Jerusalem. The Tamron 17-28mm would work too, but it has a more limited range.

Good luck and enjoy your trip.

PS: taking a second body, like the Sony RX100 VII, is a great idea.

Have you checked your spam box?