lattesweden wrote:
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.
Same formula is happening between 24-70 GM II and 24-50 G. I am a very happy 24-70 GM II owner, but if making my choice now, I would probably go with 24-50 G and enjoy smaller size and lower cost.
The Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 ate it.
The new 16-25 doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (and neither does the 24-50), especially since there's the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 that has garnered a positive review from Klaus at OpticalLimits, and ESPECIALLY given the price. But maybe I'm missing something.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Same as the 24-50mm, which I'm already getting used to.
Good for you. As for me, I will certainly get confused when using 2 zooms, one zooms-in while another zooms-out when extending the barrel..
*Update:
I just checked the lens images of the 16-25 & 24-50 vs 20-70 & 70-200GII. Their zoom rings all twist right to zoom-in so it shouldn't be confusing.
Zooming in or out that will fade as you get used to shooting it. The bigger issue has always been focusing and zooming direction. If they are different than that's much harder to work with but if focusing and zooming are the same you will wind up ignoring in or out on he zoom. I already ordered the 24-50 and look forward to it. Now I added a Sigma 17 as I like primes with wides and also added the 85mm Sony. Should be a nice setup once it's all here. But I think the zooming in and out stuff we will wind up ignoring it
GMPhotography wrote:
Zooming in or out that will fade as you get used to shooting it. The bigger issue has always been focusing and zooming direction. If they are different than that's much harder to work with but if focusing and zooming are the same you will wind up ignoring in or out on he zoom. I already ordered the 24-50 and look forward to it. Now I added a Sigma 17 as I like primes with wides and also added the 85mm Sony. Should be a nice setup once it's all here. But I think the zooming in and out stuff we will wind up ignoring it...Show more →
The zoom translation might "look" strange, but I agree with you here. The twist direction was my biggest issue with the Sigma 24-70 and swapping between the Sony 70-200 or 200-600 and one of the main reasons this particular lens is a lot more attractive to me than the Sigma 16-28. I don't think I'll really notice the 8mm front element translation if I'm looking through a viewfinder. (or I just go the same route as you and pick up a tiny UWA prime... too many choices!)
Yea we are so lucky to have these lens choices today when a lot of us started with the A7R and glass we looked everywhere to find glass. Today we have tons to choose from . This 16-25 sounds nice but for me if it started at 14mm than I would probably go that direction. Certainly with the 24-50 and the 16-25 would be nice as well. I just hope its a good one once it hits the market
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
The Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 ate it.
The new 16-25 doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (and neither does the 24-50), especially since there's the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 that has garnered a positive review from Klaus at OpticalLimits, and ESPECIALLY given the price. But maybe I'm missing something.
Although I really like the mid-level Sigma lenses in general, I found the vignetting on that lens too much. It felt like shooting a rangefinder wide. And it’s the abrupt fall off the cliff type lol
Seems like a great lens, but I'm not sure it offers much over the already existing Tamron and Sigma versions. I like the tradeoff of limiting focal range to achieve f2.8 in a compact zoom like this, and I've owned the Tamron since it came out. I'm already carrying a normal prime in the 35-50mm range, so this type of ultrawide can pair well with that when traveling.
Curious, anyone seen tests for how this lens does with coma for astro?
A big buying point for me is AF/MF switch plus the ficus hold button. I like custom function buttons. So I pretty much buy Sony although my Sigma 17 has it. Something to consider
For me the question is: As good as this 16-25mm/f2.8 G lens may be, could this displace the existing 12-24mm/f4 G which I already own? I sold my 16-35mm GM v.1 a while ago as I was mostly using it on the wider end and GM primes or the 24-70mm GM v.2 at the upper end.
At this point, I am not convinced, as I do ❤️ those extra millimeters on the wide end. But I have to admit a 67mm filter, f2.8, 409g vs. 565g, and slightly more compact size, are good arguments to buy this lens (and keep the 12-24mm).
Charlie N wrote:
reversing zoom, protrudes at 16mm retracts at 25, at least that's what I caught on the sony video.... not a fan of those types of zooms
After reviewing lenses for 15-20 years, I've found that a lot of our "prejudices" against various designs are becoming outdated. Aside from personal preference and comfort/convenience, I have seen exponential improvements in the "kit type" lenses that I would have otherwise dismissed as "not a fan". Convenience and ergonomics are highly valid factors for photojournalists and other high-action types, from wedding & event photography to action, extreme sports, etc. However, if you're mostly a landscape or other type of "static scene" photographer, I almost always recommend sucking it up and wrapping our brains around an ergonomic inconvenience; the image quality and value is just leaps and bounds ahead of yesteryear's options, usually.
(I haven't gotten my hands on this lens yet, though! I'm partial to the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 still, at this point...)
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.
grahamgibson wrote:
Seems like a great lens, but I'm not sure it offers much over the already existing Tamron and Sigma versions. I like the tradeoff of limiting focal range to achieve f2.8 in a compact zoom like this, and I've owned the Tamron since it came out. I'm already carrying a normal prime in the 35-50mm range, so this type of ultrawide can pair well with that when traveling.
Curious, anyone seen tests for how this lens does with coma for astro?
matthewsaville wrote:
After reviewing lenses for 15-20 years, I've found that a lot of our "prejudices" against various designs are becoming outdated. Aside from personal preference and comfort/convenience, I have seen exponential improvements in the "kit type" lenses that I would have otherwise dismissed as "not a fan". Convenience and ergonomics are highly valid factors for photojournalists and other high-action types, from wedding & event photography to action, extreme sports, etc. However, if you're mostly a landscape or other type of "static scene" photographer, I almost always recommend sucking it up and wrapping our brains around an ergonomic inconvenience; the image quality and value is just leaps and bounds ahead of yesteryear's options, usually.
(I haven't gotten my hands on this lens yet, though! I'm partial to the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 still, at this point...)...Show more →
there arent that many lenses that behaved this way, it's no different than protruding motor of the sony nifty fifty, the Canon EF 24-70L, the sony 10-18, Sigma 10-18, the design is not particularly new, and will always be counter intuitive, and three of the lenses I mention have designs to counter the oddity with bucket hoods, which protects the lens from damage, and it's a plausible design that sony themselves implemented on the 10-18.
Are there any good tests indicating border/corner performance yet? (And by good I don't mean Youtubers taking photos of subjects like brick walls to "test" this.)
Thanks. A lot of their landscape-type samples are taken at F11 which is a bit annoying. This one is probably the most informative test shot they posted from a landscape perspective, but even at F11 I would say it's unremarkable. Diffraction obviously impacting sharpness, which is a given, but if you look at the more distant snowy/foliage area on the left edge there's a fair bit of fine detail here and the lens is not rendering it very well. Seems to have a bit of astigmatism impacting that area of the frame, although hard to tell for sure on compressed JPGs taken at F11. The other side doesn't look quite as bad, although there is less fine detail present so hard to say if it's a bad sample of their own test lens (), field curvature or just the left side is more punishing.
But, based on that image, my expectations have been dampened somewhat, pending more informative evaluations.
Aztatlan wrote:
Thanks. A lot of their landscape-type samples are taken at F11 which is a bit annoying. This one is probably the most informative test shot they posted from a landscape perspective, but even at F11 I would say it's unremarkable. Diffraction obviously impacting sharpness, which is a given, but if you look at the more distant snowy/foliage area on the left edge there's a fair bit of fine detail here and the lens is not rendering it very well. Seems to have a bit of astigmatism impacting that area of the frame, although hard to tell for sure on compressed JPGs taken at F11. The other side doesn't look quite as bad, although there is less fine detail present so hard to say if it's a bad sample of their own test lens (), field curvature or just the left side is more punishing.
But, based on that image, my expectations have been dampened somewhat, pending more informative evaluations....Show more →
Recently picked up the Tamron 35-150mm so now am looking for UW to pair with.
Do wish Sony went 14 at minimum though it would have likely increased the weight, price, and changed to bulbous front. Decisions decisions lol
On my radar:
Sony 16-25
Sony 16-35 GMI
Tamron 17-28
Sigma 16-28
Sigma 14-24
TakenWild wrote:
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.
Do you have any links that do a comparison (hopefully a written review, not youtube)?
