p.1 #1 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
I'm currently facing a somewhat isolated dilemma. I currently own/use two cameras: Sony A7c and Canon R6. My current lenses for each are the following:
For my A7c, I have a Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 and Tamron 28-200mm f2.8/5.6. I had a Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8, but it failed miserably causing my A7c to freeze, shut down and malfunction continuously. I returned it.
I'm trying to put together a manageable (size ÷ weight) outfit for travel.
Here are my issues:
- R6 has a reputation for reliability issues (issues were corrected with the release of the R6II). I don't have the budget now to upgrade to an R6II. Investing in an RF 15-35mm f2.8L would be a setback if/when my R6 decides to fail. I can't afford both an R6II and an RF 15-35mm f4.0L at this time. I can only buy one item (used is not an option for me).
- My A7c is a great compact, full frame camera that was made for travel. Unfortunately Sony (and every 3rd party lens manufacturer) forgot to make compact, affordable wide angle primes for it. The new Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM2 is smaller/lighter than the previous version, but it still looks off balance on an A7c. Also, I've read some complaints about decentering issues with it. Sony is notorious for decentered lenses as I have had/returned a few. I have considered other wide angle options like a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 (read complaints about severe vignetting), Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 (not weather sealed), Sony 14mm f1.8 GM (bulbous front element unprotected, won't allow protective filter). After my Viltrox disaster, I won't consider any Viltrox, Samyang, etc., 3rd party lenses designed and manufactured in China. Only two 3rd party options I'll consider are Tamron and Sigma. I owned/sold a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 because it wasn't wide enough and suffered from vignetting up to f5.6 at all focal lengths.
- Selling off one system to stick with only one system is not something I want to do. I already tried that. Last year I sold all my Sony gear to stick with Canon. Within 3 months I ended up buying a Sony A7c again. I really like the A7c.
Also, I have considered the following options:
- Sony 16-35 f4PZ. I don't like the lack of mechanical zoom and I need a faster aperture for indoor shots.
- Get an R8 as back up for my R6. It doesn't have IBIS, and I don't want to keep spending money on cameras. I prefer to spend money on better lenses.
-Get an R7. Uses same battery as my R6, but I like shooting indoors with wide angle lenses. APS-C is not optimized for that type of shooting.
- Buying a small back up camera. I di this already. I on a Ricoh GRIII Street Edition. It failed me on my last trip.
- Buy an R6II. Great camera, but I won't be able to afford better lenses.
Thanks in advance for any helpful, constructive suggestions.
p.s. (Disclaimer) Not to sound rude, but please don't bother responding to this post if you are only going to provide a condescending remark, or the usual "just get out and shoot with what you have" comment. This is a gear forum, not Philosophy forum. I need actual gear recommendations, not lifestyle changing recommendations.
p.1 #4 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
The 16-35 GM II is only slightly larger than the Viltrox you were using, and about the same weight (actually a hair less). It would still be much more compact than the R6/15-35 combo. The Canon combo is also significantly heavier.
Really tough for other people to guide you here, as you have to be happy with your choice. You have to weigh the various factors that you find most important to you.
p.1 #5 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
freaklikeme wrote:
You could upgrade the R6 and continue using your 16 while you save for a better lens. Maybe the options will have changed some by then.
Upgrading to an R6II is not a bad option. I actually do like the tiny RF 16mm f2.8. Despite what some folks have written about it, mine delivers pretty decent results. The main reason I purchased it when it first came out was because I was hoping to use my R6 with a few lightweight primes as a travel outfit. I ended up buying an RF 24-105mm f4.0L to use in combination with the tiny 16mm, but the RF 24-105mm f4L turned out to be deffective, so I returned it.
p.1 #6 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
Why not just switch to Sony altogether? You only have 3 RF lenses and probably using an adapter for the EF lenses. What’s keeping you in the Canon camp? If I were you I’d sell all the Canon gear and invest in something like the A7IV and keep your A7C for travel. Then start to replace what lenses you need from your Canon setup. I own the version I of the 16-35 GM and it’s great. Recently I tested out the 16-35 GM II and I highly recommend it. It’s light, sharp and balanced well. I used it on an A7CR and it was great. Not trying to be condescending but just trying to offer practical advice.
p.1 #7 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
tsdevine wrote:
The 16-35 GM II is only slightly larger than the Viltrox you were using, and about the same weight (actually a hair less). It would still be much more compact than the R6/15-35 combo. The Canon combo is also significantly heavier.
Really tough for other people to guide you here, as you have to be happy with your choice. You have to weigh the various factors that you find most important to you.
Thank you! The majority of the images I shoot during travels are between ultra-wide and normal. I rarely shoot anything over 85mm. Ironically, while there aren't many overall native lens options for Canon RF mount (excluding EF adapted lenses), Canon has several good ultra-wide options. Sony, on the other hand, has a ton of wide/normal/telephoto options but very few ultra-wide options.
p.1 #8 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
I think I remember your post about your last travel trip. Maybe I’m crossing my wires though. To me a 15/16-35 is probably more useful than a UWA prime, even if it is smaller and lighter. To me the a7C II combo is a great compromise on size/weight vs flexibility. It may be larger than your R6/16 combo, but it is smaller and lighter (noticeably ) than the R6/15-35 combo. With a normal prime you still have a relatively compact/light 2 lens kit. It seems like that range would be super useful for the shooting you do, and would minimize lens changes, assuming you care about that.
snegron7 wrote:
Thank you! The majority of the images I shoot during travels are between ultra-wide and normal. I rarely shoot anything over 85mm. Ironically, while there aren't many overall native lens options for Canon RF mount (excluding EF adapted lenses), Canon has several good ultra-wide options. Sony, on the other hand, has a ton of wide/normal/telephoto options but very few ultra-wide options.
p.1 #9 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
adventure_photo wrote:
Why not just switch to Sony altogether? You only have 3 RF lenses and probably using an adapter for the EF lenses. What’s keeping you in the Canon camp? If I were you I’d sell all the Canon gear and invest in something like the A7IV and keep your A7C for travel. Then start to replace what lenses you need from your Canon setup. I own the version I of the 16-35 GM and it’s great. Recently I tested out the 16-35 GM II and I highly recommend it. It’s light, sharp and balanced well. I used it on an A7CR and it was great. Not trying to be condescending but just trying to offer practical advice. ...Show more →
Thanks! I really only have 5 reasons for sticking with my old Canon gear:
1. If I sell all of it, I wouldn't get enough for it to replace it with similar Sony options.
2. I use my Canon gear for local (non-travel) shooting; backyard wildlife, macro, family pics, etc. My Sony A7c is primarily for travel. Also, I didn't mention it originally, but I still have my old Canon 7dmk2. It's still an amazing camera for wildlife and sports shooting.
3. Ergonomics. I absolutely love the way Canon bodies fit perfectly in my hands!
4. I like to keep my options open with two main systems in case one of them comes out with either an amazing camera or lens. I used to also own a Nikon full frame dslr with lenses, but decided to stick with the top two camera manufacturers (Canon and Sony) after Nikon rendered my entire collection of AF-D lenses obsolete and virtually unusable when they changed to their new Z mount.
5. I tried sticking with one system last year when I sold all my Sony gear, but ended up regretting it.
p.1 #10 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
tsdevine wrote:
I think I remember your post about your last travel trip. Maybe I’m crossing my wires though. To me a 15/16-35 is probably more useful than a UWA prime, even if it is smaller and lighter. To me the a7C II combo is a great compromise on size/weight vs flexibility. It may be larger than your R6/16 combo, but it is smaller and lighter (noticeably ) than the R6/15-35 combo. With a normal prime you still have a relatively compact/light 2 lens kit. It seems like that range would be super useful for the shooting you do, and would minimize lens changes, assuming you care about that.
Thanks! Yes! I recently posted about how both cameras I took with me on an overseas trip failed me! One failure was not so much the camera but the Viltrox lens that made my camera fail. The back up camera I took with me (Ricoh GRIII Street Edition) also failed me on that trip.
Ideally it would be great if Sony would make a 16mm f2.8 G prime in the same size as the Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM prime, but I'm not going to stir that pot up again. I have to deal with the fact that that's never going to happen, so I have to pick which compromise I can live with. I narrowed it down to either getting a 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 for my A7c, or getting an RF 15-35mm f2.8L for my R6. For the focal lengths I shoot the most, these two lenses fit the bill in terms of focal length and aperture.
I don't mind changing lenses while traveling, but I don't love it either. During my last trip my primary lens was my Tamron 20-40mm f2.8. When I walked inside either an old cathedral or castle, I would change to my Viltrox 16mm. That was short lived as soon as the Viltrox started to fail me. I ended up having to rely on my Tamron 20-40mm, but I missed many shots which required a 16mm focal length.
p.1 #11 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks! I really only have 5 reasons for sticking with my old Canon gear:
1. If I sell all of it, I wouldn't get enough for it to replace it with similar Sony options.
2. I use my Canon gear for local (non-travel) shooting; backyard wildlife, macro, family pics, etc. My Sony A7c is primarily for travel. Also, I didn't mention it originally, but I still have my old Canon 7dmk2. It's still an amazing camera for wildlife and sports shooting.
3. Ergonomics. I absolutely love the way Canon bodies fit perfectly in my hands!
4. I like to keep my options open with two main systems in case one of them comes out with either an amazing camera or lens. I used to also own a Nikon full frame dslr with lenses, but decided to stick with the top two camera manufacturers (Canon and Sony) after Nikon rendered my entire collection of AF-D lenses obsolete and virtually unusable when they changed to their new Z mount.
5. I tried stiicking with one system last year when I sold all my Sony gear, but ended up regretting it. ...Show more →
That makes sense, I get it. I too really like Canon ergonomics and the colors straight out of camera look great. If you enjoy being in two systems, nothing wrong with that. What about the Sony 20mm f/1.8 for the A7C for travel, covering your wide option? It's actually slightly wider it seems like around 19mm. I find it to be perfectly wide enough and great for low light. It also takes filters and is not too heavy or big and perfectly balances on an A7C. I know you have the Tamron 20-40 but that lens is much slower and overlaps a bit with the 28-200. An A7C with Sony 20mm f/1.8 and Tamron 28-200 plus maybe another faster mid focal length lens could make for a small, powerful and lightweight travel setup without spending too much.
p.1 #12 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
Well, as you know, there’s more noticeable difference between 16 and 20 than 35 and 40. If you can live with 35 on the long end, the 16-35 means you don’t have to swap between a 16 that doesn’t currently exist for Sony and the 20-40.
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks! Yes! I recently posted about how both cameras I took with me on an overseas trip failed me! One failure was not so much the camera but the Viltrox lens that made my camera fail. The back up camera I took with me (Ricoh GRIII Street Edition) also failed me on that trip.
Ideally it would be great if Sony would make a 16mm f2.8 G prime in the same size as the Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM prime, but I'm not going to stir that pot up again. I have to deal with the fact that that's never going to happen, so I have to pick which compromise I can live with. I narrowed it down to either getting a 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 for my A7c, or getting an RF 15-35mm f2.8L for my R6. For the focal lengths I shoot the most, these two lenses fit the bill in terms of focal length and aperture.
I don't mind changing lenses while traveling, but I don't love it either. During my last trip my primary lens was my Tamron 20-40mm f2.8. When I walked inside either an old cathedral or castle, I would change to my Viltrox 16mm. That was short lived as soon as the Viltrox started to fail me. I ended up having to rely on my Tamron 20-40mm, but I missed many shots which required a 16mm focal length. ...Show more →
p.1 #13 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
Throw in a compact 40 or 50 and you cover the same range. Granted a little bigger and heavier. But less than the R6 options with the 15-35.
tsdevine wrote:
Well, as you know, there’s more noticeable difference between 16 and 20 than 35 and 40. If you can live with 35 on the long end, the 16-35 means you don’t have to swap between a 16 that doesn’t currently exist for Sony and the 20-40.
p.1 #14 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
adventure_photo wrote:
That makes sense, I get it. I too really like Canon ergonomics and the colors straight out of camera look great. If you enjoy being in two systems, nothing wrong with that. What about the Sony 20mm f/1.8 for the A7C for travel, covering your wide option? I find it to be perfectly wide enough and great for low light. It also takes filters and is not too heavy or big and perfectly balances on an A7C.
Thanks! My current Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 is pretty good at 20mm, and not very heavy. Problem is I need a wider focal length, like 16mm. I know Sigma has a 17mm prime, but it's pretty slow at f4.0. I have been considering the Sony 14mm f1.8 GM though. What makes me a bit apprehensive is that the front element requires the lens hood to be attatched permanently, and I'm not sure if 14mm is too extreme for interior pics due to distortion.
p.1 #15 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks! My current Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 is pretty good at 20mm, and not very heavy. Problem is I need a wider focal length, like 16mm. I know Sigma has a 17mm prime, but it's pretty slow at f4.0. I have been considering the Sony 14mm f1.8 GM though. What makes me a bit apprehensive is that the front element requires the lens hood to be attatched permanently, and I'm not sure if 14mm is too extreme for interior pics due to distortion.
Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5? I love mine, it's sharp, well made and fun to use. Not super fast aperture-wise but has crisp contrast and excellent sun stars. Takes 58mm filters too. Manual focus but at this wide focal length Af is not really needed.
p.1 #16 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
If you don't want to get rid of the Sony because you really like it for travel, and you need 16/2.8 for travel (still think you shouldn't 100% rule out the Sigma 17/4).....then I don't know how it makes sense to keep the Sony AND get the 15-35 for your R6, if that's your solution for travel. I'm not saying it can't make sense from your perspective, but I struggle to understand how it makes sense. If you get the 15-35, it would seem to me that size and weight isn't an issue for travel right? Then just get rid of the Sony. (Which I'm not really telling you to do, because you already said you don't want to do that.)
Seems to me that you have to solve for 16/2.8 on Sony. And the 16-35 II does that.
If you take both setups when you travel, the other option is use your 16/2.8 on the R6 when you need UWA. Sit pat and wait for other Sony options. Lenses drop like every couple months.
snegron7 wrote:
Thanks! My current Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 is pretty good at 20mm, and not very heavy. Problem is I need a wider focal length, like 16mm. I know Sigma has a 17mm prime, but it's pretty slow at f4.0. I have been considering the Sony 14mm f1.8 GM though. What makes me a bit apprehensive is that the front element requires the lens hood to be attatched permanently, and I'm not sure if 14mm is too extreme for interior pics due to distortion.
p.1 #17 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
I am not sure it's a wise decision for a person on budget to be a dual system user. It adds to the cost and ends up with some redundancy. You couldn't use your Canon lenses on your Sony body nor your Sony lenses on the Canon body (with the exception of the EF lenses but there are compromises in doing do).
I am a Sony user so naturally, I favour Sony. I think for someone who cares about size and weight, Sony system is the winner without a doubt. I am one of those and I find the A7c line the best compact light FF system when combined with a number of compact lenses either from Sony or third party manufacturers. The new A7c II and A7c r are very exciting. I own the 16-35mm G lens. Like you, I am not a fan of its electronic zoom. However, it's not the end of the world and I still like it very much for, it provides a very high image quality in a compact light package.
You are on the other hand, heavily invested in the Canon system and you may overall prefer to shoot with your Canon. So I can't generalize my own preferences to your case. You need to decide for yourself.
p.1 #18 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
Lightweight ultra wide? Unless you are shooting in the dark all the time, RF 14-35. Not sure what you are saying about reliability issues with the R6, it’s no different than any other body.
p.1 #20 · Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM2 or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8?
tsdevine wrote:
If you don't want to get rid of the Sony because you really like it for travel, and you need 16/2.8 for travel (still think you shouldn't 100% rule out the Sigma 17/4).....then I don't know how it makes sense to keep the Sony AND get the 15-35 for your R6, if that's your solution for travel. I'm not saying it can't make sense from your perspective, but I struggle to understand how it makes sense. If you get the 15-35, it would seem to me that size and weight isn't an issue for travel right? Then just get rid of the Sony. (Which I'm not really telling you to do, because you already said you don't want to do that.)
Seems to me that you have to solve for 16/2.8 on Sony. And the 16-35 II does that.
If you take both setups when you travel, the other option is use your 16/2.8 on the R6 when you need UWA. Sit pat and weight for other Sony options. Lenses drop like every couple months.
At this point for me I'm going to have to live with a compromise regardless of whatever choice I go with.
I don't have the exact numbers, but the last trip I was on I took my A7c, Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8, Tamron 20-40mm f2.8, and Tamron 28-200mm f2.8/5.6. (plus the Ricoh GRIII). Weight-wise is was prety hefty. Only one body with one lens attatched hung around my neck while the rest of the equipment was carried in a bag.
If I go with an RF 15-35mm f2.8L on my R6, I think will weigh less than what I took with me on my last trip (A7c with 3 lenses). Granted, I haven't mentioned much about my short telephoto option; with my A7c it's my Tamron 28-200mm, with my R6 it would be my old EF 85mm f1.8 USM lens with EF/RF adapter.
My ideal setup is impossible with the current options available in either system, so I know I have to settle for some sort of compromise. While the A7c is the perfect travel camera, unfortunately larger/faster lenses take away its compact advantage.
