grahamgibson wrote:
Do you have any links that do a comparison (hopefully a written review, not youtube)?
That's what I'm waiting for too. So far we have only impressions from reviewers who may have reviewed pre-release loaner copies of the Tamron or Sigma previously, and yet to see any objective side-by-side comparisons.
I'd be looking out for comparisons of coma and bokeh which have both received relatively little coverage in existing reviews. Improvement in AF speed and accuracy in the 16-25 Vs the competition is a given but it would be good to see an objective difference. Personally I'd be most interested in whether this lens is a viable alternative for astro and general low light work vs fast primes (Viltrox 16/1.8, Sony 20/1.8, 24/1.4 GM). Also I'd like to see does the 11-blade aperture deliver tangible benefits in bokeh rendition over 9 or fewer blades (Sigma 16-28 and Tamron 17-28).
Here's the review, detailed as usual with generous full-sized samples, from the Taiwanese site Mobile01. There are no torture tests here but to my eyes the low-difficulty bokeh shots (fairly flat lighting, close-ups, minimally cluttered backgrounds) look pleasant enough: https://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=254&t=6945720
Well the two new G lenses at 16-25/2.8 and 24-50/2.8 interest me to use on my two compact C bodies (A7CR/A7CII). I already have the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 that I bought used when I had an A7C. Now the question is should I replace them or not. I should mention that for my full size full frame bodies I have the 16-35/2.8 GM II and 24-70/2.8 GM II.
It seams to me the the 16-35/2.8 GM II is really not that much bigger so maybe stay with that but supplement the my midrange with the smaller 24-50. Too many choices. I should mention that I really only shoot still and no video so gimbal usage is not a worry I have. Hard to decide so we will see.
This is guess but I would think the 16-35 GM is the better lens with better distortion and corners. I think the 24-50 maybe the better one out of the two also. That one I’m waiting on the 24-50
mojoh wrote:
Decisions, decisions..
And if rumors are right, a Sony FE 24-70/2.0 GM is expected May / June.
While I probably would love that new f/2 24-70mm GM it’s potential increased size, weight, and cost are probably not down a road I will travel since I’m using my A7CR/A7CIi bodies more and as I said earlier I already have the 24-70/2.8 GM II and plenty of fast primes at 24, 35, and 50mm. Would like to see what the the 85mm looks like though. My A1 bodies mostly get used for wildlife and birds an my A7RV for landscape and architecture and wider FOV lenses.
GMPhotography wrote:
This is guess but I would think the 16-35 GM is the better lens with better distortion and corners. I think the 24-50 maybe the better one out of the two also. That one I’m waiting on the 24-50
The difference in distortion is much smaller than you think between it and either of the GMs. The edges on GMII show an advantage, but, against the original GM, it's a more even race. I think you'd have a difficult time picking out the better lens between it and the 24-50 from an optical performance standpoint. Plus the 16-25 has much less distortion at the long end than the 24-50 does at the short end, so they overlap nicely.
I'd be interested to test this lens for astrophotography (Milky Way mostly). I use a Batis 18mm/2.8 which is superb, and tried a whole bunch of other lenses that were from bad to horrible (aberrations with stars is a very unforgiving test). I had a Tamron 17-28/2.8 that performed well at the short end but was bad at the long end.
16-24mm is an ideal range for MW photography and If this zoom performs well then it'll be a great option. It's nearly impossible to know beforehand how lenses will perform with stars (by looking at specs or reading online reviews) so I always have to try them.
Using 16-25mm for wide angle photography would be fun. I have no doubts, it is another very good Sony lens.
Being a long time 16-35mm photographer, I see I have real problems of composing well at wider than 20mm FL. Or then it is about style, I just prefer pictures that do not shout out being "wide ange". Just a personal choice, but I know I am not alone. The 16-35mm is now sold
20/1.8 G. It is light and good, and faster lens huge benefit when shooting astro. 20mm also pairs well with 24-70mm that is my go to lens. A very narrow wide angle zoom extending only to 25mm is a fairly special tool, although for some it might be the lens they have been waiting for.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Both the 16-25mm and the 24-50mm lenses are in hand now. Let the fun begin.
My 24-50/2.8 G will show up in a day or two after I reset my self in the queue (was going to be away but will now be home) but at the wide side I decided to hold off a little on the 16-25/2.8 G since for now still have my Sigma 16-28/2.8 and it’s not really longer since it zooms internally and Sony extends at the wide end. Also it’s only 450 grams and also takes a 67mm filter. So not much heavier.
So I’m relying on all of you to share your results to convince me to pull the trigger on it. So let’s hear what you think of it.
• To my eyes it's sharp wide open (like most/all recent Sony lenses).
• OOF areas aren't too busy.
• 22-point sunstars when stopped down (not especially nice ones, but I've seen much worse)
• Very nice handling on the a7CR
• I don't mind the extended-when-wide aspect
• Also, this lens extends only about 8mm when zoomed to the wide end (as opposed to the 25-50mm which extends about 23mm)
decent background look (for a wide zoom)
ILCE-7CRFE 16-25mm F2.8 G lens25mmf/2.81/250s100 ISO-1.0 EV
22-point sunstars
ILCE-7CRFE 16-25mm F2.8 G lens25mmf/10.01/40s100 ISO0.0 EV
Lines look good (once profile is applied)
ILCE-7CRFE 16-25mm F2.8 G lens16mmf/2.81/30s100 ISO0.0 EV
