PaulMoorePhoto wrote:
I’m glad to see Sony continuing to frustrate some photographers by releasing small, high-quality, lenses that work well with their A7C-series bodies. 😁 I would not buy the GM version because of price and size/weight, and I would choose this over 3rd party versions because of the aperture ring…assuming image quality holds up, which I assume it will.
Yep…anything over 500gm is not a light lens in my books. U til they can get the GM’s under 500gm, I have zero interest in them. Glad to see Sony understands the need for more compact and lighter lenses.
I think Sony was primarily aiming for the video market with the 16-25 and 24-50 f2.8 lenses where for example not needing to rebalance a gimbal after zooming is a big feature. They also gave the lenses what you would expect from a Sony photography lens since they may very well pick up some sales along the way of photographers wanting a small lens to go with the A7c camera or a cheeper alternative to say the Sony 16-35 f2.8 without going third party.
I doubt may photographers will be switching out there Sony 16-35 f2.8 or 24-70 f2.8 for these lenses. Which is probably why Sony put these out only about 6 months after the 16-35 f2.8 ii was announced. I doubt they would want to hurt sales of such a new lens.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I think Sony was primarily aiming for the video market with the 16-25 and 24-50 f2.8 lenses where for example not needing to rebalance a gimbal after zooming is a big feature. They also gave the lenses what you would expect from a Sony photography lens since they may very well pick up some sales along the way of photographers wanting a small lens to go with the A7c camera or a cheeper alternative to say the Sony 16-35 f2.8 without going third party.
I doubt may photographers will be switching out there Sony 16-35 f2.8 or 24-70 f2.8 for these lenses. Which is probably why Sony put these out only about 6 months after the 16-35 f2.8 ii was announced. I doubt they would want to hurt sales of such a new lens. ...Show more →
I also think Sony is filling in some compact lenses to work with their compact full frame cameras ( A7Cr and A7c2 )
I think this 16-25f2.8 + 35f1.4 might make more sense than 16-35GMII for those who want wide angle lens + 35mm for portraits.
And let's not forget the 16-35f2.8 GMII has some bad quality control issues that are being reported a bit here and on DPReview. At least, here, for the price of the GMII, you have twice the chance of getting a properly centered lens.
I have the 16-35 f/4 PZ. I find it to be an impressively useful lens. I suspect most people, myself included, bought it for the 16 end; I find the wide range to be really useful. What I really like is the size and weight; it's so small and light that taking it along is automatic for me.
Like most of us, I don't like to change lenses. The extra 10mm of range more than makes up for the 1 stop of speed for me.
I'll be interested to see which has better image quality. I suspect it will be hard to tell.
Choice is good. We have an embarrassment of riches in lens choices these days at every level from super expensive and lovely GM's to impressive G's that are hard to tell from the GM's, and don't forget all the Sigma and Tamron offerings (haha! autocorrect just changed Tamron to Tampon!).
I was hoping it would be a 16-28mm f2.8. I ended up buying the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 instead, so now my main "Travel Kit" lenses are the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, Tamron 20-40mm f2.8, and Tamron 28-200mm f2.8/5.6 on my A7c.
TakenWild wrote:
Looks like a great lens, mixed reviews on the flare control. The price and flare control are the two things hold me back. Otherwise very tempted.
Have you found any sources that shows the flare control on the new 16-25/2.8 and also how the sunstar looks?
We have so many UWA-zoom options for E-mount but it is really hard to find one with good flare control and a nice sunstar.
Most YouTube reviewers show sunstars. But the flare results look mixed, contrast is very good against the sun, but does make nasty looking line of objects. The question is how much does do these show up and under what conditions. That is something I’d need to test for myself I think or wait for better reviewers to get their hands on it.
lattesweden wrote:
Have you found any sources that shows the flare control on the new 16-25/2.8 and also how the sunstar looks?
We have so many UWA-zoom options for E-mount but it is really hard to find one with good flare control and a nice sunstar.
Almost half size macro capacity, which is a great feature. There are a lot of positives about this lens. Lack vignette compared to Sigma and Tamron’s offerings, sharper everywhere than Sigma or Tamron (especially the corners). Almost APO in CA control, the Sigma and Tamron aren’t great in those areas. I’d easily give up 3mm of focal length to gain those advantages.
The price is a bit of a show stopper at least here in Australia. And the flare control is a bit of a worry.
doc4x5 wrote:
I have the 16-35 f/4 PZ. I find it to be an impressively useful lens. I suspect most people, myself included, bought it for the 16 end; I find the wide range to be really useful. What I really like is the size and weight; it's so small and light that taking it along is automatic for me.
Like most of us, I don't like to change lenses. The extra 10mm of range more than makes up for the 1 stop of speed for me.
I'll be interested to see which has better image quality. I suspect it will be hard to tell.
Choice is good. We have an embarrassment of riches in lens choices these days at every level from super expensive and lovely GM's to impressive G's that are hard to tell from the GM's, and don't forget all the Sigma and Tamron offerings (haha! autocorrect just changed Tamron to Tampon!)....Show more →
Until I see more reviews with more facts, I can’t help but feeling it’s a team kill situation between PZ and 2.8g.
While the 2.8 & similar size to the pz is tempting...I feel like I'd be risking more by limiting myself to 25mm vs. f/4. But that's me planning on using this lens during the day often. If I was doing a trip to cities in Europe where I'd have a single lens and be shooting in/out of buildings all day & night, I'd probably go for the 16-25.
As it stands I'll be holding onto the 16-35 pz unless something changes in my upcoming needs.
I think the 16-35/4 vignettes so bad you are loosing a lot more than 1 stop in the corners, especially at 16mm.
gocolts wrote:
While the 2.8 & similar size to the pz is tempting...I feel like I'd be risking more by limiting myself to 25mm vs. f/4. But that's me planning on using this lens during the day often. If I was doing a trip to cities in Europe where I'd have a single lens and be shooting in/out of buildings all day & night, I'd probably go for the 16-25.
As it stands I'll be holding onto the 16-35 pz unless something changes in my upcoming needs.
Thank you for the links (also thanks to freaklikeme)!
I have the 16-35/2.8 GM mkI and also kept the 16-35/4 Sony Zeiss and at this point in time with the info we have through those linked tests I can't see a reason to change to the new one.
tuomkok wrote:
Clever move from Sony by first introducing the 16-35 GM II Many 16-35 GM I or II owners would be perfectly happy with 16-25 G.
They have done this several times by releasing the slower options first and later the faster ones.
Now they seem to work their way down with more compact versions but limit the range.
Many 16-35 GM I or II owners would be perfectly happy with 16-25 G.