I used to own the Sony 16-35 GM but sold it for the Sony 16-35 PZ and 24-70 GM II. I now take the two as my travel lens pair. The PZ has become my secondary lens to the 24-70 when I want wider.
However, I don’t enjoy the power zoom (I cope) and I do miss the feeling of the 16-35 GM. I am considering getting the 16-35 GM II.
Perks are the mechanical zoom and I also might be able to leave my 24-70 at home because I have a high resolution body now giving me access to 50mm in aps-c mode. I also like that the 16-35 doesn’t have much external zoom and it’s lighter.
Anyone have any thoughts to share? Maybe you made the move or travel with a 16-35?
For my travels I take my Sony 20-70, &5 1.8, and 14 prime.
I find myself using the 20-70 95% of the time. I have both the 16-35 pz and the 16-35 gm2 and you won’t really get better images with the GM. If I have a choice between the two I much like the weight of the PZ. On my next travel. I will take my 20-70, 85 1.8, and 16-35 pz. The 14 was heavy to carry and it was only used for 1% maybe I’ll take the 35 1.4
The only reason I would switch from one to the other would be for a lighter carry package. I've owned the 16-35 two different times and never used it. My statistics show that I rarely shoot wider than 25mm. I would check my EXIF information, if I were contemplating a lens change, and see statistically what your average or normal-wide needs are based on factual EXIF info. Then you can make an informed choice based solely on your needs.
darrenhaken wrote:
I used to own the Sony 16-35 GM but sold it for the Sony 16-35 PZ and 24-70 GM II. I now take the two as my travel lens pair. The PZ has become my secondary lens to the 24-70 when I want wider.
However, I don’t enjoy the power zoom (I cope) and I do miss the feeling of the 16-35 GM. I am considering getting the 16-35 GM II.
Perks are the mechanical zoom and I also might be able to leave my 24-70 at home because I have a high resolution body now giving me access to 50mm in aps-c mode. I also like that the 16-35 doesn’t have much external zoom and it’s lighter.
Anyone have any thoughts to share? Maybe you made the move or travel with a 16-35?...Show more →
I sold my PZ because i hated the power zoom and I wasn't thrilled with f4. I travel with the 16-35 GM II and found that to work quite well. Great lens, not heavy or large. But it is larger than the f4 or more focal length limited alternatives.
The 20-70/4 is an interesting choice. I bought one, but returned it. I could live with the f4, but there was something about the rendering that I couldn't warm up to. It is sharp enough, but in my inexpert judgement it lacked microcontrast and that made the images feel flat to me. I could easily be mistaken about this as I did not keep the lens for long. I wish I could have been happier with it because it would be a great one or two lens travel solution. But I have to love a lens to keep it.
I’m also one that has owned several 16-35mm zooms (including the first 16-35GM) and hardly ever used them.
Now I use the 12-24GM and 24-70GM II. I use the 24-70 way more than the 12-24, but man! when I need wide angle that 12-24GM delivers! MUCH wider than 16mm and allows for a lot of flexibility. Just a thought.
firstsupport wrote:
For my travels I take my Sony 20-70, &5 1.8, and 14 prime.
I find myself using the 20-70 95% of the time. I have both the 16-35 pz and the 16-35 gm2 and you won’t really get better images with the GM. If I have a choice between the two I much like the weight of the PZ. On my next travel. I will take my 20-70, 85 1.8, and 16-35 pz. The 14 was heavy to carry and it was only used for 1% maybe I’ll take the 35 1.4
Just came back to this thread for my own reading. I was curious, why would you travel with the 16-35 and 20-70. Isn’t that too much overlap?
I never owned the PZ but I did own the Zony 16-35 f4 and moved to 16-35 GM. I have now the 16-35GM II. I find it to be a great lens and a significant upgrade. I use filters all the time so for me it is a better choice than the 12-24 or the 14-24 and don't find 16 a limiting problem. If you buy one, I don't think that you will be disappointed.
darrenhaken wrote:
I used to own the Sony 16-35 GM but sold it for the Sony 16-35 PZ and 24-70 GM II. I now take the two as my travel lens pair. The PZ has become my secondary lens to the 24-70 when I want wider.
However, I don’t enjoy the power zoom (I cope) and I do miss the feeling of the 16-35 GM. I am considering getting the 16-35 GM II.
Perks are the mechanical zoom and I also might be able to leave my 24-70 at home because I have a high resolution body now giving me access to 50mm in aps-c mode. I also like that the 16-35 doesn’t have much external zoom and it’s lighter.
Anyone have any thoughts to share? Maybe you made the move or travel with a 16-35?...Show more →
The question is whether the advantages of the GM2 outweigh the extra weight and cost.
If the weight and size don’t affect you at all, then of course you should get the GM2. It’s a little faster and doesn’t have the very mildly annoying power zoom, which (the only thing I don’t like about that is that you can’t see what focal length is set without looking down at the lens)
But it would be an unusual person for whom the weight and size were irrelevant, especially for travel.
And the extra speed is I think significant for only a few people. These might be people who plan to use the lens mainly at the long end as an alternative to a 35 mm lens. Because at this end a slightly blurry background is often desirable, whereas it matters less at short of focal length. (this is why, while I am tempted by the new 24 to 50 for travel, the new 16 to 25 F2 .8 that is rumoured makes little sense to me)
Maybe the GM2 has slightly better IQ, perhaps in the corners, but the PZ is plenty good enough, even for people who are very (my Loxias get little use these days)
So, for me, I would stick, indeed, I will stick, with the PZ. It’s so small and light, as well as being excellent.
But like I said, if for some reason you just don’t care about size and weight things might look a bit different
DavidBM wrote:
[...]Maybe the GM2 has slightly better IQ, perhaps in the corners, but the PZ is plenty good enough, even for people [...]
I agree - it's a "maybe" and from what I have seen probably depending on copy variation. But a stop faster can be nice sometimes. Carrying the extra weight is a constant. Choices.
I think that they are comparable in performance, frankly.
If you shoot at night the f2.8 will be welcome. The GM II is lighter than I expected, but not as light as the PZ. So, if you shoot mainly in the 16-35mm range, the GM II will be a (marginal and possibly only psychological improvement). If the 16-35 is a just-in-case range, then stick with the PZ.
GMPhotography wrote:
I had the PZ twice and really liked it. Not sure how much gain to the GM though. Now I got the A7Cr maybe not a bad idea again
Why did you sell it?
billsnature wrote:
I never owned the PZ but I did own the Zony 16-35 f4 and moved to 16-35 GM. I have now the 16-35GM II. I find it to be a great lens and a significant upgrade. I use filters all the time so for me it is a better choice than the 12-24 or the 14-24 and don't find 16 a limiting problem. If you buy one, I don't think that you will be disappointed.
Is there a reason you didn’t consider the PZ?
DavidBM wrote:
The question is whether the advantages of the GM2 outweigh the extra weight and cost.
If the weight and size don’t affect you at all, then of course you should get the GM2. It’s a little faster and doesn’t have the very mildly annoying power zoom, which (the only thing I don’t like about that is that you can’t see what focal length is set without looking down at the lens)
But it would be an unusual person for whom the weight and size were irrelevant, especially for travel.
And the extra speed is I think significant for only a few people. These might be people who plan to use the lens mainly at the long end as an alternative to a 35 mm lens. Because at this end a slightly blurry background is often desirable, whereas it matters less at short of focal length. (this is why, while I am tempted by the new 24 to 50 for travel, the new 16 to 25 F2 .8 that is rumoured makes little sense to me)
Maybe the GM2 has slightly better IQ, perhaps in the corners, but the PZ is plenty good enough, even for people who are very (my Loxias get little use these days)
So, for me, I would stick, indeed, I will stick, with the PZ. It’s so small and light, as well as being excellent.
But like I said, if for some reason you just don’t care about size and weight things might look a bit different
Jonas B wrote:
I agree - it's a "maybe" and from what I have seen probably depending on copy variation. But a stop faster can be nice sometimes. Carrying the extra weight is a constant. Choices.
Goodrich wrote:
I think that they are comparable in performance, frankly.
If you shoot at night the f2.8 will be welcome. The GM II is lighter than I expected, but not as light as the PZ. So, if you shoot mainly in the 16-35mm range, the GM II will be a (marginal and possibly only psychological improvement). If the 16-35 is a just-in-case range, then stick with the PZ.
I was tempted by the 16-35 GM II to leave my 24-70 GM II at home more and make the 16-35 my main travel zoom. Most of my shots are 20-50 when travelling I’d say. It would give me a smaller and lighter lens with similar quality.
But, you can cope with f4 when travelling too so there is that…
