My ultra wide journey has taken me through a 10-18 f4, 16-35 f4, Loxia 21, and now I own a 16-35 f2.8, so I'll try my best to compare:
Long story short: the GM gets close enough to the Loxia in terms of sharpness and color for my liking that I prefer the functionality of the AF & zoom over the tiny MF prime. It came down to my use case of candid environmental portraits and landscape pictures while hiking: manually focusing on a moving target is difficult (not impossible), and constantly switching lenses for the correct composition really detracted from my hikes with my partner. Now, I love Zeiss rendering (colors and contrast mainly) and have tried to seek it out in as many lenses as I own (CZ 35-70, CZ 100-300, Batis 85, CV 40, 24 GM), so switching from the Loxia 21 to 16-35 GM wasn't easy. The Loxias will always maintain an extra layer of saturated colors, oozing microcontrast, and probably a tad more sharpness that can make a strong composition really stand out, but I wasn't in a place to consistently get strong compositions from the MF prime in the first place. If I was single and going on solo adventures, sure, but I'm not, so I opted for more compositions with less IQ instead of less compositions with more IQ.
I don't think differences in sharpness would be noticed even til 20*30 prints, and the GM has surprisingly good colors (relative to the 16-35 f4). I'm happy with my decision to keep the 16-35 over the Loxia.
Not sure if that's the kind of answer you were looking for ...
akashyap wrote:
My ultra wide journey has taken me through a 10-18 f4, 16-35 f4, Loxia 21, and now I own a 16-35 f2.8, so I'll try my best to compare:
Long story short: the GM gets close enough to the Loxia in terms of sharpness and color for my liking that I prefer the functionality of the AF & zoom over the tiny MF prime. It came down to my use case of candid environmental portraits and landscape pictures while hiking: manually focusing on a moving target is difficult (not impossible), and constantly switching lenses for the correct composition really detracted from my hikes with my partner. Now, I love Zeiss rendering (colors and contrast mainly) and have tried to seek it out in as many lenses as I own (CZ 35-70, CZ 100-300, Batis 85, CV 40, 24 GM), so switching from the Loxia 21 to 16-35 GM wasn't easy. The Loxias will always maintain an extra layer of saturated colors, oozing microcontrast, and probably a tad more sharpness that can make a strong composition really stand out, but I wasn't in a place to consistently get strong compositions from the MF prime in the first place. If I was single and going on solo adventures, sure, but I'm not, so I opted for more compositions with less IQ instead of less compositions with more IQ.
I don't think differences in sharpness would be noticed even til 20*30 prints, and the GM has surprisingly good colors (relative to the 16-35 f4). I'm happy with my decision to keep the 16-35 over the Loxia.
Not sure if that's the kind of answer you were looking for ... ...Show more →
Great answer; thanks for the lengthy reply.
Yeah; I love the GM for all the same reasons you outlined above.
I do love Zeiss images. I shoot the "classic" 21 and both 25s (2 and 2.8) but they are a bit heavy for travel these days.
Always had a hankering for the native FE mount versions but the zoom is just so convenient for outings with my wife.
As you said; much easier (and faster) to try multiple compositions without the juggle.
akashyap wrote:
My ultra wide journey has taken me through a 10-18 f4, 16-35 f4, Loxia 21, and now I own a 16-35 f2.8, so I'll try my best to compare:
Long story short: the GM gets close enough to the Loxia in terms of sharpness and color for my liking that I prefer the functionality of the AF & zoom over the tiny MF prime. It came down to my use case of candid environmental portraits and landscape pictures while hiking: manually focusing on a moving target is difficult (not impossible), and constantly switching lenses for the correct composition really detracted from my hikes with my partner. Now, I love Zeiss rendering (colors and contrast mainly) and have tried to seek it out in as many lenses as I own (CZ 35-70, CZ 100-300, Batis 85, CV 40, 24 GM), so switching from the Loxia 21 to 16-35 GM wasn't easy. The Loxias will always maintain an extra layer of saturated colors, oozing microcontrast, and probably a tad more sharpness that can make a strong composition really stand out, but I wasn't in a place to consistently get strong compositions from the MF prime in the first place. If I was single and going on solo adventures, sure, but I'm not, so I opted for more compositions with less IQ instead of less compositions with more IQ.
I don't think differences in sharpness would be noticed even til 20*30 prints, and the GM has surprisingly good colors (relative to the 16-35 f4). I'm happy with my decision to keep the 16-35 over the Loxia.
Not sure if that's the kind of answer you were looking for ... ...Show more →
that was a great user review, thanks. The reality of taking photos while hiking with family and friends means less time to set up, for sure. Focal length changes are problematic. The 16-35GM is out of my price range at the moment as I have other lens 'needs' (haha yeah right!) but the promise of solid image quality plus the ability to use a filter is tempting.
I love my L25 and I love the results I get...but sometimes when I'm out and about, the love is more theoretical than actual
akashyap wrote:
I wouldn't swap your GM for the Loxias, but I would definitely swap your classic ZEs for 1 or 2 Loxias. Their IQ, design, and size are peerless.
DaveFP wrote:
Good advice; problem is I love the classics too !
For what it's worth, I think the L25 is the sharpest 24/25mm for landscape purposes, full stop. Trading your Zeiss 2/2.8 combo would likely be a solid move, though I know how one gets attached to long-serving tools.
Dave Sanders wrote:
For what it's worth, I think the L25 is the sharpest 24/25mm for landscape purposes, full stop. Trading your Zeiss 2/2.8 combo would likely be a solid move, though I know how one gets attached to long-serving tools.
Actually - other than the fact that they are all Zeiss 25s they are very different lenses.
The 2.8's specialty is very wide, very close images and the 2's party trick is crazy 3D wide open.
The 2.8 is probably the better landscape lens.
I would never sell them for another 25.
I do like the idea of a small Zeiss 25 for landscape. I shoot at 24-25 all the time; my favorite landscape fov.
I went the other way.. ended up swapping the GM for Loxia's. had the 16-35 for two years, didn't much like it above 28 mm also didn't like how much flaring it had and the sunstars could get ugly. I won a few photo contests with the 16-35 GM. I got the Loxia 21 and it was an immediate love affair. so much I got all the other Loxia except the 25. The 16-35 GM has a good resale value though, I think I'm more of a 24-70 guy when it comes to zooms. right now all my lens are manual focus primes. been thinking about adding an all in one zoom for when switching lens is problematic, right now I cant travel far due to caring for an elderly parent and covid concerns so I make due with what I have.
DaveFP wrote:
Actually - other than the fact that they are all Zeiss 25s they are very different lenses.
The 2.8's specialty is very wide, very close images and the 2's party trick is crazy 3D wide open.
The 2.8 is probably the better landscape lens.
I would never sell them for another 25.
I do like the idea of a small Zeiss 25 for landscape. I shoot at 24-25 all the time; my favorite landscape fov.
I almost bought the 25/2.8 in F mount multiple times...it's a fascinating lens. My brief experience testing it suggested that the many who called it soft we're focusing closer and failed to understand the field curvature. At infinity the sample shots I took suggested that it was very sharp, certainly sharper than my venerable Nikkor AIs 28/2.8, a lens that can also perform some close-up trickery, though I think it's the reverse of the Zeiss, strong up close, weaker at infinity.
Alas, my (amazing) wife bought me a Nikon 24/1.8 for Christmas and the next time I was in the market for that focal length, I wound up with the Loxia. My copy is a bit of a tricky beast to focus at infinity but it's stellar optically in all ways. Optically flawless, more or less.
So, you have my full endorsement to add the L25 to your stable of Zeiss 25s haha. I could own half a dozen lenses in the 85-105 range and claim I needed another for a specific purpose so I respect your unwillingness to part with your unique duo.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I almost bought the 25/2.8 in F mount multiple times...it's a fascinating lens. My brief experience testing it suggested that the many who called it soft we're focusing closer and failed to understand the field curvature. At infinity the sample shots I took suggested that it was very sharp, certainly sharper than my venerable Nikkor AIs 28/2.8, a lens that can also perform some close-up trickery, though I think it's the reverse of the Zeiss, strong up close, weaker at infinity.
Alas, my (amazing) wife bought me a Nikon 24/1.8 for Christmas and the next time I was in the market for that focal length, I wound up with the Loxia. My copy is a bit of a tricky beast to focus at infinity but it's stellar optically in all ways. Optically flawless, more or less.
So, you have my full endorsement to add the L25 to your stable of Zeiss 25s haha. I could own half a dozen lenses in the 85-105 range and claim I needed another for a specific purpose so I respect your unwillingness to part with your unique duo.
I have the GM and I am very familiar with Zeiss lenses and the general pros/cons of the Loxia series.
(I have the 35 and the 50)
Anyone that has owned and shot all three willing to tell me how close the GM gets to the Loxias?
(Sunstars aside)
Thanks
I've never owned the 16-35GM, but I recall people complaining about flare with that lens - possibly worth investigating.
Also, I remember Fred tried multiple copies of the 16-35GM and ended up giving up trying to find a copy that was consistent throughout its range.
The GM probably has better bokeh for shallow depth of field subjects, but that's about it - in all other metrics of image quality, the Loxias will be superior.
Just a shout out to the Daves who understand the ZF 25/2.8. It’s a special lens once you figure out its talents and limits. Most of my photography is nature/environment based (for me “environmental portraits” is literal), and this lens is an essential piece of my kit (more likely to be what I carry initially on the camera, although I’ll sometimes swap when I want something longer/faster).
I don’t have experience with the Loxia 25, but it looks amazing and quite different.
My GM is the equal of my L21 except for sunstars and haptics, though the size of the Loxia certainly is a benefit, though not much of one given the focal lengths covered by a zoom. I enjoy the GM's relative lack of FC as well, it's less tricky to focus. Probably should sell the Loxia, it gets little use these days unless I know sunstars are going to be part of a scene.
I wish Sony will come out with a smaller 16-28 f4 or 16-35 f4. The original 16-35 f4 is fine but it's time for a revision. I only have the 20G for wide right now, but if I ever go do more serious landscape stuff, I want a zoom for sure.
For what it's worth, I think the L25 is the sharpest 24/25mm for landscape purposes, full stop. Trading your Zeiss 2/2.8 combo would likely be a solid move, though I know how one gets attached to long-serving tools.
Really?!? Have you compared the 24GM at comparable aperture? I have not shot the 25 Loxia, but the 24GM is crazy sharp, even at f/1.4, and it continues to sharpen a bit more through f/3.6. It would be hard for me to imagine a lens yet sharper. The ZE 25/2 was lovely, so maybe some of that magic?
