Out of curiosity, what were your las 2 t posts focal lengths shot at? I've been watching this thread deciding between the PZ and the 16-25 and thinking that most of the shots were within the 16-25 (there were a few higher but not as many) and that is making me lean more 16-25.
Seabassius wrote:
Out of curiosity, what were your las 2 t posts focal lengths shot at? I've been watching this thread deciding between the PZ and the 16-25 and thinking that most of the shots were within the 16-25 (there were a few higher but not as many) and that is making me lean more 16-25.
Buying a zoom is easier if knowing what focal length area you are looking for. My choice was easy as I knew a share amount of the images would, and will, be taken at the wide end at the same time as 35mm is an old favorite FL of mine.
Then, of course, there is always something wrong and as many other users most of the images are taken at the extreme ends of the range.
Here is an example:
For me the PZ 16-35 is a good choice as a walk around lens. I pair it with a fast 50mm and carry everything in a satchel bag.
Jonas B wrote:
Buying a zoom is easier if knowing what focal length area you are looking for. My choice was easy as I knew a share amount of the images would, and will, be taken at the wide end at the same time as 35mm is an old favorite FL of mine.
Then, of course, there is always something wrong and as many other users most of the images are taken at the extreme ends of the range.
Here is an example: https://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fotoforum2022andfw/Lisbon_fl_mm_and_exposures.jpg
For me the PZ 16-35 is a good choice as a walk around lens. I pair it with a fast 50mm and carry everything in a satchel bag....Show more →
The closest I've had was the 17-28 a few years ago. Looking back through, out of 1100 pictures that I kept, 479 were at 17mm and 319 were at 28mm. Distribution of the rest were mainly below 25mm. That makes me wonder if I had 14 would have used it instead of 17? or same on the long end. Enough of my deliberating outloud, back to the PZ pictures!
Nice sunstar at f11. I was going to sell my 16-35 f4 after getting the 16-25 f2.8 G. This morning I went out with the 16-25, I could use the 26-35 range. I may end up selling the 16-25 in November. The 16-25 is nice if I have a longer lens with me too. But as a single lens, the range is kind of limited to me.
Douglas L wrote:
Nice sunstar at f11. I was going to sell my 16-35 f4 after getting the 16-25 f2.8 G. This morning I went out with the 16-25, I could use the 26-35 range. I may end up selling the 16-25 in November. The 16-25 is nice if I have a longer lens with me too. But as a single lens, the range is kind of limited to me.
I’m pleased with the sunstars from the 16-35PZ, they add to the scene but don’t call too much attention to themselves. I agree that the range up to 35mm can be nice to have, depending on the other lenses in the bag. The PZ feels so ridiculously light mounted on camera, and the IQ for landscapes is very satisfying to me.
For my minimalist landscape kit I pair the 16-35 with the Tamron 50-400 (or the 50-300 if I need lighter). When weight is not a concern such as the trip I’m on right now I also carry an excellent copy of the 24-105 because that range is often so useful.
Here’s one more with the 16-35 from this same small aspen grove, it felt so light-filled and joyous and for me that mood is captured:
ILCE-7RM5FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G lens25mmf/11.01/100s100 ISO0.0 EV
