Yes definitely a good point. Reminds me of the sigma 14-24 hsm for nikon i had. Would flare kinda bad with sun in middle but away from middle worked great 😁
I used to have a membership to Digilloyd also but he was so negative that I dropped away. He did have a habit of finding the worst sample of every lens you can find. I don't disagree that it wasn't warranted at times, but his constant negativity made me drop my sub. He is perhaps overly technical at the expense of his actual photography.
I've tried the new 16-35mm and it is truly sublime. Maybe I got a perfect sample but it was close to prime like at all lengths. I have finally got the best 24-70gmII I could find and even that drops off at 24mm a little. I didn't see any issues with the 16-35II.
InFocus2014 wrote:
I once subscribed to Digilloyd, but dropped my subscription when he posted some really quirky evaluations on Sony lenses that did not correlate with my results or those from other testers.
The test results published by Marc Aldeheff at SonyAlpha.blog correlate with my preliminary experience with this lens.
From my preliminary tests, the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 II is really outstanding!
Yeah, Lloyd got a bad copy or two of the Sigma 14-24.....and went on about even if you got a good copy, he didn't think it would stay good after a period of normal use. I've had my copy for years and it's as good as the day I bought it. My subscriptions ran out long ago and I haven't resubscribed either.
tsdevine wrote:
Yeah, Lloyd got a bad copy or two of the Sigma 14-24.....and went on about even if you got a good copy, he didn't think it would stay good after a period of normal use. I've had my copy for years and it's as good as the day I bought it. My subscriptions ran out long ago and I haven't resubscribed either.
That's a weird take from him. I've had PLENTY of bad copies of lenses out of the box (far more bad copies than good copies) but I don't think I've ever had a lens that was once good turn bad which hadn't been physically damaged eg by dropping it.
Not sure I can find the snippet where he made this comment, it might have been behind the paywall. I think he was just saying that these UWA have very little tolerance for misalignment. I sort of get it, but the Sigma is very well made. Nothing about the feel of it makes me think it would be more susceptible in that way than Sony for example.
Anyway, sorry to go off topic.
Aztatlan wrote:
That's a weird take from him. I've had PLENTY of bad copies of lenses out of the box (far more bad copies than good copies) but I don't think I've ever had a lens that was once good turn bad which hadn't been physically damaged eg by dropping it.
I have been following him for a long time, and even subscribed for a short period years ago.
Considering how much hype there is in internet over new gear, I would say Lloyd is the leading figure in anti-hype. If there is something that can go wrong, Lloyd heads dead center to that. Almost funny think Lloyd's opinions must be interpreted through this attitude, and knowing that extreme rarely blends well with truth and realism.
Regarding 16-35 GM II, Sony seems to have winner here. 16-35 GM was maybe the best mk1 GM-zoom, and second version seems to make it incrementally better in many ways.
tsdevine wrote:
Yeah, Lloyd got a bad copy or two of the Sigma 14-24.....and went on about even if you got a good copy, he didn't think it would stay good after a period of normal use. I've had my copy for years and it's as good as the day I bought it. My subscriptions ran out long ago and I haven't resubscribed either.
Yeah, no argument that the 16-35 II looks like a winner.
In Lloyd's blog, it seemed like he had issues with it....but you had to pay to see what those are.....which I didn't.
My challenge with Lloyd is that it's hard to figure out what are the diamonds, and what is the rough (in the info he was providing.) It got to the point where I wasn't sure his critique was based on a good copy of a lens or whether something he fixated on was truly as big an issue as he made it seem.
Not saying there wasn't value in the subscription, it was just that sometimes I came out more confused than when I started.
tuomkok wrote:
I have been following him for a long time, and even subscribed for a short period years ago.
Considering how much hype there is in internet over new gear, I would say Lloyd is the leading figure in anti-hype. If there is something that can go wrong, Lloyd heads dead center to that. Almost funny think Lloyd's opinions must be interpreted through this attitude, and knowing that extreme rarely blends well with truth and realism.
Regarding 16-35 GM II, Sony seems to have winner here. 16-35 GM was maybe the best mk1 GM-zoom, and second version seems to make it incrementally better in many ways.
My first copy of the 16-35 GM II was somewhat decentered. I wound up exchanging it for a second copy which is much better and very nice. I haven't shot anything but test pictures yet, but it looks like a nice upgrade from V1 and feels like a great upgrade! I am surprised how much lighter and smaller it feels. Beyond Ex-specs-tations.
As above first copy was really soft in lower left corner but received 2nd copy today which is good. I would have thought that Sony could have sorted quality control on it's premium lenses by mow
Viramati wrote:
As above first copy was really soft in lower left corner but received 2nd copy today which is good. I would have thought that Sony could have sorted quality control on it's premium lenses by mow
Mine was soft in the right corner. Hoping now for a better copy. Do you have sample from the softness?
photo-nature wrote:
Mine was soft in the right corner. Hoping now for a better copy. Do you have sample from the softness?
I binned them all and don't have a way of showing them here anyway apart from loading to flickr. Anyway the first copy was showing softness in the extreme lower left corner ay 35 that didn't go away even stopped down and strangely seemed to transfer ever so slightly to the lower righthand corner at 16mm. I took test shots of my large book case and sent the files to my dealer who immediately emailed me back saying they would get me another copy. This arrived yesterday and I went into store with my laptop, did some test shots on the replacement, then some more at home and all is good. I have a really good relationship with my camera dealer and they replaced without question and even said if the replacement was not up to scratch they would get another one and so on until I got a good copy. Good luck with finding a good copy
Viramati wrote:
I would be interested to know if anyone who has this lens and had the version1are seeing more field curvature with the mk2.
Personally not me but admit not really able to do a head to head comparison. I might do it at some point.
I ended up getting the GM II after tryin a PZ 16-35/4 when my son borrowed my version 1 semi permanently when he got his A7SIII and it’s at his apartment now 3000 miles away. 😑. By the way my version appears to be OK in all corners. It was bought through B&H.
I also got mine from the ever dependable London Camera Exchange on the Strand.
My main impressions over its predecessor in my kit, the f4 PZ, is that it's lighter than I expected, that the f2.8 is more useful than I had anticipated (it's winter here) but that the lens has a blander look than some of the other GMs. (I haven't tried to work out what it is, as it doesn't much matter after a little post processing.)
I sold my PZ to get this new GM II, and I have a mixed feeling to be honest: at f2.8, at 16mm, the borders of the image are not really sharp, and at f4 and above, at any focal length, it's not sharper than the PZ.
So overall, it's a bigger lens, not sharper at landscape apertures, but it's true it has nice close focus abilities at 35f2.8. I prefer the mechanical zoom for sure, but the PZ was much tinier.
Maybe I had a superb version of the PZ, maybe I'll check and see if my GM II is a bad exception, but so far, I guess I'm cured of GAS: if you have a lens which is good, keep it.
Interesting. I'm not finding it's IQ any better than my mk1 and though if I photograph my test scene (large full bookshelf) it is pretty sharp in the corners at 16mm f/2.8 though I'm not yet sure of it's performance in landscape scenes with close foregrounds. My mark1 was excellent but then most of my images from that lens we're with the A7r3 and I have been testing on the A7r5 with it's larger sensor which will be less forgiving viewing at 100%. I really need f2.8 for event work and then I will be shooting wide open so this is not so much of an issue. Hopefully it's just a matter of getting used to it as I do like the lighter size and aperture ring so hope I don't regret having upgraded to the mk2!!
think Lloyd's opinions must be interpreted through this attitude, and knowing that extreme rarely blends well with truth and realism.
