I am an avid backpacker and enthusiast photographer. I do a lot of hiking and backpacking, so every ounce counts when it comes to photo equipment. However, I am a bit of a pixel peeper and like having superb IQ. I currently use the A7RIII with the 16-35GM for my WA landscape and astro photos. However, with the release of the 24 GM, I thought I would look at alternatives and that lead me to the Loxia 21. Does anyone have experience shooting all three? Has anyone found the benefits of a prime to outweigh the versatility of a zoom? Or are the focal length restrictions just too much? I enjoy using my 16-35GM, but I am always in favor of shaving off 200-300g, possibly getting better low light/astro capabilities and possibly higher IQ (I don't think my copy is fantastic, but is generally good enough. It isn't as sharp as some of my other lenses like the 55 f1.8, 50 f1.4 (replaced by the 55 f1.8) or Batis 135).
Would love to hear your experiences between using these lenses or opinions of using a prime for landscapes/astro.
Thanks!
My photography style for reference - Instagram: @sean.hew
I find basically no difference between my L21 and 16-35 GM, IQ-wise. When backpacking (like legit tent and sleeping bag kind), I find getting at my gear to be a real bitch, and I have to put a premium on versatility and the GM has that, big time. My typical backpacking kit is the 16-35 GM, 35 2.8, 55 1.8, and then the B85 stowed somewhere harder to get in my bag.
Don’t forget the very small CV 21 that just came out. I’m using it in my travel kit. Add a CV 15 as well. Both really small and light weight. Together probably less overall bulk and weight than the GM zoom. But that damn Sony 24 is very nice too
GMPhotography wrote:
Don’t forget the very small CV 21 that just came out. I’m using it in my travel kit. Add a CV 15 as well. Both really small and light weight. Together probably less overall bulk and weight than the GM zoom. But that damn Sony 24 is very nice too
although the CV 21 and 15 wouldn't work too well for astro as OP mentioned astro as well.
Seriously though and I’m not a zoom guy. I would buy the 3 15,21 for hiking and that Sony for everything else or if it’s money the 15,24 is a nice pair
He can buy 'em all, but hauling them all is different
If astro is a strong consideration, seems like an easy choice for the 24GM over the Loxia 21.
So then it comes down to the flexibility of the 16-35/2.8 zoom vs. f1.4 + saving 25% of the weight. You'd be able to crop to 35mm easily with the 24GM, so it's mostly about whether you'd greatly miss access to 16mm. Personally, I'd probably find it hard to replace that wide focal length.
Adding another lens for ultrawide, you could go Batis 18 + 24GM, which would be 775g together and then let you choose whether to pack one or both. But it's heavier than the 680g 16-35/2.8 zoom and more of a hassle with filters/changing lenses. IMO the 16-35/2.8 is hard to beat here.
Personally I'd go with a lightweight/compact prime setup that's optimized for high-res landscapes and astro. I'd roll with this kit:
Laowa 15/2 (great astro lens, incredible corners stopped down, really nice for focus stacking)
24GM (versatile, sharp, environmental portraits, fantastic astro option that doesn't leave much to be desired)
55/1.8 (tack sharp stopped down, can be used to pano if too narrow, and also amazing for stacked astro panoramas)
Truthfully I view this more or less as the holy trinity of native E-mount astro lenses, but all of them are amazing landscape options as well.
If you care about weight, versatility and image quality, stick with the Sony 16-35mm GM. None of the combination of other lenses above is lighter than the zoom by itself or more versatile and won't deliver a meaningful image quality improvement. The Loxia lenses deliver better overall image quality but I'll take the flexibility of the zoom and AF if compactness isn't an issue. I used to travel exclusively with Loxia primes and I got tired of switching lenses all the time so I bought the 16-35mm GM recently. With APS-C crop mode, you're covered from 16 to 50mm.
If you care about compactness, weight, and image quality, go with the Loxia 21. I had it and it's an excellent lens. It is significantly more compact than the Sony 24mm GM or the Batis 25 (I had the Batis 25 before as well). Biggest drawback is no AF and 21mm is too wide to use as a normal lens even with cropping. I recently sold it and replaced it with the Loxia 25 for the more versatile focal length and the Sony 16-35mm GM.
For astrophotography, I don't think the 24mm f1.4 will deliver you meaningfully better results than what you're getting with the GM zoom or with a Loxia prime. You're probably better off buying a light pollution filter rather than getting a f1.4 lens. Either way, keep the 16-35mm GM.
The 16-35 does suffer from copy variation, therefore you might see a difference to the Loxias if your GM is just average, but mostly after 21mm. The Loxias (to me) have better colours, just like the CV lenses Guy mentioned and that I also own. But I would never trade my 16-35 GM and its flexibility, especially when hiking.
I to am an avid hiker/backpacker were every ounce matters. Thank god im not into Astro yet at least. I have been very happy with the rii and 24-105. The one lens sulotion is awesome so I understand we're the op is coming from
I think the 16-35/2.8 would be my choice. Wouldn't it better to have versatility while framing a shot out & about. Maybe on narrow trails or hilltops...? All great choices but I'd want the zoom. They all get stopped down anyway for landscape.
Such a personal decision... I'm trying to decide myself between 16-35GM and Batis 18 / 24 GM combo.
I left the 16-35 GM at home for recent 5 day trip to Santa Fe and brought the Batis 18 and 24GM (plus FE 55). It really is nice to have a lighter weight lens on the camera. Went hiking at Bandelier Nat'l monument and lots of walking around Santa Fe and I really enjoyed less weight on camera, even if that means slightly more in the backpack.
I also tried stitching in any serious way for the first time and it was so easy and the results so great (just using stitch feature in LR) that I'm looking at my lenses in new light (recognizing stitching has limitations).
But 16-35GM plus FE 55 is a great travel/hiking combo.
I had a great copy of the 16-35 for a while and it is indeed a very versatile lens. Sharpness wise, pretty close to good primes at the wide end. If you like the GM color palette and the way the lens handles, it's a good option for hiking. Especially if photography is not necessarily the primary objective.
However, in the end I sold mine because I prefer the colors, contrast, sunstars and slight sharpness advantage with the Loxias, as well as the handling of mechanical MF lenses.
If weight and size were at an absolute premium, but you still want the best possible IQ, I would take just the Loxia 21. Cropped to 3:4 (my preferred aspect) it is about a 23mm lens which I find ideal for immersive landscapes. If I could take two lenses, it would probably be the Loxia 25 (really a 26 and close to 28 cropped in 3:4) and a Laowa 15. That combo is still nice and small, and allows a wide range of landscape an astro (which the CV lenses don't). Personally, I add the Loxia 21 as well to on any trip where photography is the main objective, i.e. always . All three lenses (and a fourth Loxia 35 in fact) plus camera can fit in a small Tenba insert that easily slides in and out of a regular hiking backpack..
I've been going through the same analysis, 16-35 gm (which I currently own) vs 24mm gm. In fact, I spent the last few days with a 24 gm rental. The 24 gm is a very nice fit on the A7riii and is very well balanced. Overall I was very pleased with it with the exception that I was getting some unappealing lens flare when shooting towards the sun. I like shooting starbursts when its appropriate so the ghosting/color glare is a concern.
Regarding the 16-35 gm, I really love the focal length and I've never had any issues with lens flare. I checked the lens for decentering and it was perfect. It is a bit heavier than the 24 alone, but when I'm out hiking it's nice not to have to make lens changes on the trail. Needless to say, I've opted to keep the 16-35.
I'm on a similar boat although I'm not considering the 16-35GM. F/2.8 for landscape is just not a priority and if I really need the speed, then I opt for a prime.
The road I'm going is 12-24G (which I already own and performs great), buy the 24-105G (which will be used the most) and 100-400GM (which I own already but not always carry with me).
I have the L21 and love it but since getting the 12-24G I have been using less and less. Also, when going for walks where I take only one lens, I never pick the L21.
The 24GM is a great lens and I'm having serious GAS for it. To be honest, I don't really need it but I defiantly want it. I'd give way more use to the Voigtlander 40/1.2 instead, which I'm also considering to get (I had the VM version before but sold it).
So one thing is sure, I'm getting the 24-105/4G since it is the most versatile lens for hiking or one lens solution. Then I'm (or rather my GAS) is either getting the 24GM or CV40/1.2. But realistic, I shouldn't get any of them and just keep my money
If you prefer really great colors and contrast right out of the camera take the 21mm Loxia. There is a noticeable difference IMHO. I got never warm with the GM’s except sharpness, nothing to complain in this area. Postprocessing will do a lot for sure but I just prefer the rendering from the Loxias.
