I'd like wider than my 35art for upcoming weddings. The Sony GM version is too pricey. Any thoughts on/experience with this one? Seems to tick all the boxes. Camera is A7R3.
Thanks
If budget is a concern, and you want wider than 35 for weddings, why not the 28mm f2? It's small, light, cheap, fast, closer to a 26mm uncorrected, and for people shots it should be fine with a bit of distortion.
16-35mm/f4 is more for landscapes, and it does very well at that. But if you are okay with the f4 then go for it.
There are also rumors of a 24mm f1.4 from Sony, but it has yet to materialize.
Ronny crushes it. His photos are great.
I thought of the 28/f2 but I figured if I get a wide angle(for weddings)that it might as well be a zoom,for versatility. I'm cool with f4.
Not sure there are many other options.
Hate to be a downer here, the shots posted are great, but I never fell in love with it in the way I have with the GM. Given how good AF is on the newer bodies with current adapters, I'd probably opt for the Canon 16-35/4 if I didn't want to part with the cash for the GM and the size with the adapter wasn't an issue.
If you're not a pixel peeper it's great, but I find the astigmatism bothersome. It's probably my least favorite aberration, but YMMV as always.
No doubt the GM is better, but it's also $800 more expensive and much larger. If you don't mind the size/weight penalty and have the cash, it's definitely the way to go.
The Canon on an adapter is also not a bad way to go, though I've found adapted lenses to be hit or miss at f/4 indoors (just fine outside).
I've had the Sony 16-35 and really liked it, except I found it difficult to get extreme borders that were as sharp as my canon 16-35 F4L. Possibly due to field curvature?
I've seen great images with both, but with the Canon you can be a bit more lazy with focus and pretty much concentrate on center focus. I also found the FBW on A7r to be awful, is it any better on later bodies?
I do find the Canon a bit bulky with the adapter though.
The 16-35 is an excellent lens. It is best from 16-28. At 35 it is fine, but not as crisply sharp as the other focal lengths. My comments are here re the 4 vs GM vs 35/2.8.
Of course, it depends on your priorities. If you want absolute best image quality in a zoom, then get the GM which is sharper. However, I found it too big for me. It is not a very travel friendly lens (one of my priorities). If you want a really good zoom lens which is excellent from 16-28 that is more suitable for travel, then get the f4. If you want the best image quality period, then get the primes.
Its clearly a landscape lens not many portraits on here. Beautiful photos. I have all primes but with wide angles I guess I might not always want "really" wide (21 instead of 16) etc in any given situation/reception hall. So,I figured a zoom is best.
I had the Canon 16-35/f4 and it was great (sold) but never used it for weddings.
Yada yada yada....we'll see what happens
Cheers all
jharter wrote:
The 16-35 is an excellent lens. It is best from 16-28. At 35 it is fine, but not as crisply sharp as the other focal lengths. My comments are here re the 4 vs GM vs 35/2.8.
Of course, it depends on your priorities. If you want absolute best image quality in a zoom, then get the GM which is sharper. However, I found it too big for me. It is not a very travel friendly lens (one of my priorities). If you want a really good zoom lens which is excellent from 16-28 that is more suitable for travel, then get the f4. If you want the best image quality period, then get the primes....Show more →
I think it is fine for wide angle portraits or environmental portraits. Sure, f2.8 would be nice in low light, but their are tradeoffs already discussed. This is a folder shot with a variety of lenses: 16-35/4, 35/2.8, 55/1.8 and the RV100V. There are many environmental portraits, i.e. market pictures, shot with the 16-35/4: Environmental Portraits
If you can live with f4 I would say it would be fine for wedding/documentary work though for landscapes the GM is much better towards the corners. personally I would really try to get the GM as it really is so versatile and isn't to large or heavy on the A7rIII. Also I would have thought that f2.8 is a necessity for serious wedding work
not many portraits on here. Beautiful photos. I have all primes but with wide angles I guess I might not always want "really" wide (21 instead of 16) etc in any given situation/reception hall. So,I figured a zoom is best.