Considering that you already have it covered from 24 I would strongly recommend the 12-24 GM. It is a jewel and once you get used to shoot wide you will find yourself looking for angles to use the whole 12 mm almost all the time.
I sold my 12-24 last summer and got a 16-35 PZ in order to downsize (down weight) my luggage for a long trip to Sweden and Norway and missed the GM so much that I bought one immediately after the trip and got rid of the 16-35.
The PZ is a fine lens, but despite being a good performer I found that I did not enjoy at all the experience of shooting with it. Sometimes this happens, there are lenses that are correct and perform well but you do not enjoy using them.
Mucho Betis wrote:
Considering that you already have it covered from 24 I would strongly recommend the 12-24 GM. It is a jewel and once you get used to shoot wide you will find yourself looking for angles to use the whole 12 mm almost all the time.
I sold my 12-24 last summer and got a 16-35 PZ in order to downsize (down weight) my luggage for a long trip to Sweden and Norway and missed the GM so much that I bought one immediately after the trip and got rid of the 16-35.
The PZ is a fine lens, but despite being a good performer I found that I did not enjoy at all the experience of shooting with it. Sometimes this happens, there are lenses that are correct and perform well but you do not enjoy using them.
I should have been clearer. I wondered if the 20-70 could replace my 24-70 GM II as a lighter cheaper option and potentially my 16-35 as well. Then add an ultra wide prime or accept 20mm is as wide as I go.
darrenhaken wrote:
Would you stick with the PZ then?
I am and have always been a sucker for fast primes so the PZ is basically the opposite of what I always have used. A zoom? Focusing and zooming by wire?
Everything turned out well. I read that some "hate" the power zoom function and I honestly don't get it. For me it is about learning your gear rather than demanding that everything should be the same as it always has been.
The lens works fine, I like that both zooming and focusing works internally and of course also that the lens is small and light to carry. I have no objections about it optically. When the 16-35 GM II was released I I saw no reason to even think about upgrading. The lens is slow but with todays cameras and software that's not a problem. You also don't have to stop down to get good performance.
All that is, as always, personally.
So are the other choices. If you find no or very little use for the 16-20mm range the 20-70/4 might be an option. It seems as many like that lens. It's not for me though: at 35-50-70mm I wan't something faster. i have been happy traveling with the PZ 16-35/4 and the FE 50/1.4 GM (which replaced the Samyang 70/1.8).
Jonas B wrote:
I am and have always been a sucker for fast primes so the PZ is basically the opposite of what I always have used. A zoom? Focusing and zooming by wire?
Everything turned out well. I read that some "hate" the power zoom function and I honestly don't get it. For me it is about learning your gear rather than demanding that everything should be the same as it always has been.
The lens works fine, I like that both zooming and focusing works internally and of course also that the lens is small and light to carry. I have no objections about it optically. When the 16-35 GM II was released I I saw no reason to even think about upgrading. The lens is slow but with todays cameras and software that's not a problem. You also don't have to stop down to get good performance.
All that is, as always, personally.
So are the other choices. If you find no or very little use for the 16-20mm range the 20-70/4 might be an option. It seems as many like that lens. It's not for me though: at 35-50-70mm I wan't something faster. i have been happy traveling with the PZ 16-35/4 and the FE 50/1.4 GM (which replaced the Samyang 70/1.8)....Show more →
Helpful information! Do you only travel with the 16-35 PZ and 50mm GM 1.4 or other lenses?
In the mid zoom you mention wanting faster lenses, is f2.8 fast enough for you?
darrenhaken wrote:
Helpful information! Do you only travel with the 16-35 PZ and 50mm GM 1.4 or other lenses?
In the mid zoom you mention wanting faster lenses, is f2.8 fast enough for you?
I'm not into landscapes and nature but rather city oriented so I have managed well with just the PZ and the 50 (or, earlier, the 70mm Samyang). The combo doesn't cover every scenario. I accept the fact that some images are impossible or only barely possible. I also accept that i will miss some images every time I don't bring a tripod. Some want to have lenses covering up to say 200mm. Some don't even own a decent tripod. We are all different.
Is f/2.8 fast enough...? Sometimes it is plenty fast. In an other situations it is slow/too much DOF/too little blur. Sometimes I go light and use the small 40/2.5 G lens only. For the most of the time it is good enough but I still prefer the bigger and heavier 50/1.4 as it offers more options.
This is not to much help, I know. In the end you know what you like. Perhaps you have lenses covering the focal lengths you are interested in today? Then you can force yourself to limit the use of anything faster than say f/4 and see what you think. My opinion is just one random one out there and based on many years of my (limited) way of taking images.
Yes, waiting for the 16-25 to be released to see what I will do. But my take is the PZ is cheaper and might actually be better than the GMII you will buy as this lens seems to have strong copy variations.
darrenhaken wrote:
For context for everyone following along. I have also been considering the Sony 20-70 G F4 as a different path too.
As I said on another site with a similar request from you:
It sounds to me like you're just bored with what you have and are flailing around for something new. In that case I would keep what you have until what you have doesn't give you what you want.
sandycrane wrote:
As I said on another site with a similar request from you:
It sounds to me like you're just bored with what you have and are flailing around for something new. In that case I would keep what you have until what you have doesn't give you what you want.
I’ve largely come to the same conclusion on sticking with my lenses. I am still interested to hear people’s experiences. I think my problem is balancing lightweight lenses with quality - ie having gear I want to pick up. They’ll be an element of boredom though.
The biggest problem with this lens is that you cant zoom at all while drive mode (continuous shooting) is engaged.
Fortunately this is not really an issue for the kind of photography I do now, but for some kinds of work I used to do this is a deal breaker. The work around is shooting everything at 16mm and then cropping...
Other than this, the pz is a very nice lens, it performs well at all focus distances, has good flare suppression, small form factor, aperture ring, lightweight, good zoom range and the pz is a nice feature when doing video, or controlling the camera remotely
darrenhaken wrote:
For context for everyone following along. I have also been considering the Sony 20-70 G F4 as a different path too.
I own the 16-35 PZ and the 20-70 - here's my thoughts:
I love my 20-70, optically very good with nice rendering and sharper than my old 24-105, plus it's nice to go wider where required. Compared to the 16-35 PZ, I'd say the PZ is better at 20mm and 24mm, but from about 28mm the 20-70mm is the sharper lens. However don't let that you put you off, the 20-70 is still very, very good at 20mm and 24mm and you'd not notice on large prints, it's just that the 16-35mm is right in it's sweet spot at 20mm to 24mm so it's to be expected. I have no problems leaving my 16-35mm behind if I need to travel lighter.
If I'm hiking, I'll take the PZ or 20-70 and 70-200 GM II. If I had the new 70-200 F/4 G I'd probably take that one instead for lighter weight and macro. I like that the 20-70 can do the.5 magnification at 70. I like that the 70-200 can take teleconverter and get up to 200. If I want to go more lightweight I might take the 70-350G and shoot in crop mode.
If I was just trying for a 1-lens solution I'd go 20-70 if I think I'll be shooting wide to normal, or tamron 28-200 if I might want longer.
Where the 13-35 GM or GM II would fit in nicely is if I were shooting more events and indoor stuff. With a tamron 35-150 it would make a perfect pair (and then if you need longer, there's the tamron 150-500, and you have three lenses with 82mm filters that get you from 16-500. Heavy kit though. Obviously the 150-500 would not be needed for indoor stuff either, but the kit could be nice for hiking / travel with friends and family to give good portrait options.
If filter use is not needed, since you already have the 24-70 ii, then the 12-24 G or GM or a wide prime might be a better option that doesn't overlap as much and gives you more crop options. If you like to go really wide that is. I opted to sell my 16-35 gm as well as my 14 gm and 20g since I had the 12-24 gm, and anything that needed a bright wide angle could be covered by that. Then I have the PZ for lightweight and, honestly video, where the power zoom and lightweight nature is quite a bonus, and it's pretty much a perfect focal length for indoor video shooting and gimbal work
BigGaz wrote:
I own the 16-35 PZ and the 20-70 - here's my thoughts:
I love my 20-70, optically very good with nice rendering and sharper than my old 24-105, plus it's nice to go wider where required. Compared to the 16-35 PZ, I'd say the PZ is better at 20mm and 24mm, but from about 28mm the 20-70mm is the sharper lens. However don't let that you put you off, the 20-70 is still very, very good at 20mm and 24mm and you'd not notice on large prints, it's just that the 16-35mm is right in it's sweet spot at 20mm to 24mm so it's to be expected. I have no problems leaving my 16-35mm behind if I need to travel lighter....Show more →
Would you take the 20-70 over say the Sigma 28-70 f2.8? My wife uses the Sigma 28-70 right now but I’m considering swapping her to the 20-70 for wider focal range too. But hesitant if it’s bad to get her to give up f2.8.
darrenhaken wrote:
Would you take the 20-70 over say the Sigma 28-70 f2.8? My wife uses the Sigma 28-70 right now but I’m considering swapping her to the 20-70 for wider focal range too. But hesitant if it’s bad to get her to give up f2.8.
How much does she shoot at 2.8. Usually one stop of noise can be taken care of with today’s noise reduction.
darrenhaken wrote:
Would you take the 20-70 over say the Sigma 28-70 f2.8? My wife uses the Sigma 28-70 right now but I’m considering swapping her to the 20-70 for wider focal range too. But hesitant if it’s bad to get her to give up f2.8.
Me personally - no, I don't need f/2.8 for landscape / travel photography. If she needs f/2.8 and it's a non-negotiable to move to an f/4 lens, then the 20-70 will be no use to her.
When I switched from Nikon to Sony last fall I started my adventure with the A7CR, 16-35 PZ, and 50 F1.8 as a lightweight walk around combo. I actually quite liked the 16-35 PZ, did not mind the power zoom, and never wanted the GM as I do not value the added weight to get F2.8 in that focal range . Even though the 16-35 performed spectacularly I did not like 35mm limitation and decided to purchase the 20-70 F4. I love the range of the 20-70 much better and find the sharpness and rendering quite nice so it is pretty much glued to my camera now.
