GMPhotography Online Upload & Sell: On
|
Good points kind of runs along my thinking. A 35 2.8 really does me no good given I have the 35 1.4 and I'm not selling that but if you did go 12-24 keep the Batis 25 for the extra speed and at 25 it's better than the zoom in the corners almost wide open. I'll use the zoom from 12-21 mostly and than go Batis for the 25 fr most things. I'm still a prime guy in this 24-35 range but the zoom would be handy. Again most of us are waffling on this decision. So everyone's point of view makes some sense. The 12-24 beats the Batis 18 just so you know that one. I say it's extremely close to the Loxia 21 too. Sunstars and flare are really the only downside on the 12-24 otherwise I have the Batis 25 to handle that stuff.
stevei wrote:
I'd been thinking of starting a similar thread myself, as I'm agonizing over the choice between the two.
Many years ago I owned both the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 17-40/4L, using both with full frame Canon. I'm not sure if it was the focal length range, or the fact that the images from the Sigma seemed rather lacklustre, but after a while I sold the 12-24 and decided I could live with 17 as my widest focal length. Truth be told, though, I had the 24-105/4L on the camera most of the time and it was pretty rare I even felt the need to switch to the 17-40, but again that was partly because I just didn't find the 17-40 hugely inspiring in terms of optical quality.
Now my current kit with the A7RII is Batis 18, 25 and 85, Sony 50/2.8 macro, and SZ 35/2.8. I have numerous Canon lenses and a metabones adapter, but almost never feel the urge to put them on the camera. I have owned the SZ 16-35/4 in the past, but it was stolen. I rarely felt it wasn't wide enough, but I did find the image quality lacking, e.g. the Batis 25 absolutely blew it away, and that was the main thing that made me unhappy with images from the 16-35.
So historical precedent suggests I'll prefer the 16-35 to the 12-24. I've been looking at it in terms of what each lens gets you that the other doesn't:
16-35/2.8GM
- gives you 25-35/2.8
- gives you 16-24/2.8 rather than 16-24/4
- image quality at the same aperture seems to exceed that of the 12-24
- more aperture blades give better bokeh and sunstars
- better handling of the sun in or near the frame
- can use standard round filters and has a standard lens cap
12-24/4G
- cheaper
- smaller
- lighter
- gives you 12-15/4
Funnily enough, the 16-35 GM is a fairly similar size and weight to the Canon 17-40/4 + metabones, so I've had that on the camera to see how I feel about the size and weight. I think I can live with it.
From what I've seen, the 16-35 GM can 100% replace my Batis 18, other than it being bigger and heavier in situations where I'd be happy to take only the camera and Batis 18 with me. The 12-24 only gives 18/4, which is probably in practice not a huge problem for me.
The 16-35 GM can also probably allow me to sell the Batis 25. It's not as complete a replacement as it is for the Batis 18, because the Batis 25 focuses significantly closer than either zoom, as well as being faster. But I can probably live with f/2.8 rather than f/2. If I got the 12-24 I'd be tempted to keep the Batis 25, and that would wipe out the cost saving of the 12-24 over the 16-35.
So overall I'm edging towards the 16-35, but I do know that I'll occasionally want to shoot wider than 16, and that keeps nagging away at me........Show more →
|