jaygould wrote:
Last I heard it was going to be an 18-26mm f2 only.
That would be a bit of a disappointment. I'd be willing to forego not having a couple millimeters at the short end but I'd at least light it to go to 28mm as I that starts to leave a gap between my next focal length which starts at 50mm (I currently own 50-150 and 16-35 and would love to replace my 16-35 with an f/2 zoom for low light needs)
I have only heard the rumors on Sony Alpha Rumors. While I expect we will see it - and that it will be excellent (landscape, astro, etc) and expensive - I would be much more interested if it replaced the 12-24/2.8 GM and came in at 12-20/2 or even 14-24/2
Agreed. I need to keep the 12 focal length. It is of no use to me if not that wide, as a replacement...There is never too wide!
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I have only heard the rumors on Sony Alpha Rumors. While I expect we will see it - and that it will be excellent (landscape, astro, etc) and expensive - I would be much more interested if it replaced the 12-24/2.8 GM and came in at 12-20/2 or even 14-24/2
My gut is that a 16-28mm f2 would pair very nicely with the 28-70mm f2, and then if you need something wider, you can add in the 12-24mm f4. Maybe we will even eventually see Sony make a wide angle zoom that goes down to 10mm f4. But, if you need 12mm f2.8, then IDK if it makes as much sense to pair the 12-24mm f2.8 and a 16-28mm f2 together.
In theory, a 16-28mm f2 could replace a 16-35mm f2.8, 14mm f1.8, 20mm f1.8, 24mm f1.4, and 28mm f1.4 in someones bag.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Sony Alpha Rumors still says it's coming.
My gut is that a 16-28mm f2 would pair very nicely with the 28-70mm f2, and then if you need something wider, you can add in the 12-24mm f4. Maybe we will even eventually see Sony make a wide angle zoom that goes down to 10mm f4. But, if you need 12mm f2.8, then IDK if it makes as much sense to pair the 12-24mm f2.8 and a 16-28mm f2 together.
In theory, a 16-28mm f2 could replace a 16-35mm f2.8, 14mm f1.8, 20mm f1.8, 24mm f1.4, and 28mm f1.4 in someones bag....Show more →
It could, but the problem is that the latest rumours point to an 18-26 f/2 which is a significantly less compelling zoom range than 16-28 and indeed an altogether different value proposition to the 28-70 f/2 or 50-150 f/2. It would be conceptually closer to the Sigma 28-45 and you would treat it like a fast prime that happens to zoom a little bit.
I'd say that to make the 18-26 attractive, they'd have to make it so that it comes with a minimal size and weight penalty - putting price aside - vs a single fast prime, otherwise one might as well just use a 20/1.8. I can't think of much that you'd only be able to shoot at 18mm but not 20mm, and likewise it is not a great loss in pixels to crop 20mm into 24mm or 26mm (or just zoom with your feet!).
ryanli wrote:
It could, but the problem is that the latest rumours point to an 18-26 f/2 which is a significantly less compelling zoom range than 16-28
That would be disappointing. I could live with 26 on the long end, but 18 on the wide end would probably make this lens a no go for me, as it would not be wide enough to replace having a wide angle zoom on me. Maybe if they surprised us and priced it around 2k I would be tempted. But if it's 3k + like the other f2 zooms, I would be better off with the 16-35mm f2.8 or 12-24mm f2.8.
Hopefully it ends up being a 16-28mm f2 🤞But Sony did disappoint me with the 50-150mm f2 not taking TCs. I like the idea of F2 zooms being able to simplify my kit and not needing to take zooms + fast primes with me for most situations. But the 50-150 not taking TCs stops it from being a true 70-200 f2.8 replacement for me, and a wide angle zoom stopping at 18mm would stop it from being a true wide angle zoom replacement for me.
Yes, I noticed that too. Perhaps there was a typo somewhere along the way. Let's hope!
Price-wise I agree it will not be cheaper than the 28-70 GM - this will be a niche lens, no question.
I only wish that they manage to keep the weight manageable. The value proposition for such a kind of lens is somewhat lessened if there are no major weight savings to be had a against a handful of primes - not when the very capable 16/1.8, 20/1.8, 24/1.4 are approx 400g (give or take 10%) apiece
ryanli wrote:
Yes, I noticed that too. Perhaps there was a typo somewhere along the way. Let's hope!
Price-wise I agree it will not be cheaper than the 28-70 GM - this will be a niche lens, no question.
I only wish that they manage to keep the weight manageable. The value proposition for such a kind of lens is somewhat lessened if there are no major weight savings to be had a against a handful of primes - not when the very capable 16/1.8, 20/1.8, 24/1.4 are approx 400g (give or take 10%) apiece
To be completely fair from a weight perspective, you would also need to add in something like a 16-25mm f2.8 zoom. Hopefully, this lens will also be smaller in size than a few primes and a zoom.
Personally, what interests me the most is hopefully the space savings in my bag, and the mental decision making of which lens to use.
I have given it more thought, and in thory I could put together a 3 lens kit (16-28mm f2, 28-70mm f2, 70-200mm f2.8 + TCs) and cover most of my needs. If I need wider, I can add my 12-24mm f4, if I need longer, I can add my 200-600mm f6.3, and if I need a more flexible zoom range, I can add my 24-105mm f4. Could also be interesting to add the Sigma 20-200mm f6.3 as a 4th lens, since it would cover most of the range of the 3 zooms if zoom flexibility is needed, and would be almost a perfect backup in case something happened to one of the other lenses. Currently, I usually think of my primes and zooms, and zoom overlaps as backups to each other, so I would like to have some option for redundancy in my kit when needed.
DWOfPaul wrote:
To be completely fair from a weight perspective, you would also need to add in something like a 16-25mm f2.8 zoom. Hopefully, this lens will also be smaller in size than a few primes and a zoom.
Personally, what interests me the most is hopefully the space savings in my bag, and the mental decision making of which lens to use.
I have given it more thought, and in thory I could put together a 3 lens kit (16-28mm f2, 28-70mm f2, 70-200mm f2.8 + TCs) and cover most of my needs. If I need wider, I can add my 12-24mm f4, if I need longer, I can add my 200-600mm f6.3, and if I need a more flexible zoom range, I can add my 24-105mm f4. Could also be interesting to add the Sigma 20-200mm f6.3 as a 4th lens, since it would cover most of the range of the 3 zooms if zoom flexibility is needed, and would be almost a perfect backup in case something happened to one of the other lenses. Currently, I usually think of my primes and zooms, and zoom overlaps as backups to each other, so I would like to have some option for redundancy in my kit when needed. ...Show more →
I haven't purchased any of the f/2 lenses, they are extremely expensive (and relatively heavy) for travel. I do have the 20-200, which I am trying out now; and warming up to (photos here: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCEYqF)
I like to go through the exercise of building a perfect trail kit if money were no object. Like you, I could see the 16-28 replacing the 16-35 and the 16/1.8 if it were small and sharp enough. The 28-70 is a standard zoom that could theoretically knock out most of the need for a prime (70/2 is probably good enough); and then I think the new 100-400G (not GM) for lightweight travel and the 400-800 for dedicated wildlife and birding; but let's see what is announced and how they perform; and then of course, I do not actually have the money to retool my entire kit as such.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I haven't purchased any of the f/2 lenses, they are extremely expensive (and relatively heavy) for travel. I do have the 20-200, which I am trying out now; and warming up to (photos here: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCEYqF)
I like to go through the exercise of building a perfect trail kit if money were no object. Like you, I could see the 16-28 replacing the 16-35 and the 16/1.8 if it were small and sharp enough. The 28-70 is a standard zoom that could theoretically knock out most of the need for a prime (70/2 is probably good enough); and then I think the new 100-400G (not GM) for lightweight travel and the 400-800 for dedicated wildlife and birding; but let's see what is announced and how they perform; and then of course, I do not actually have the money to retool my entire kit as such....Show more →
Nice photos with the 20-200! Looking at that gallery is definitely not helping my temptation to add the 20-200. The ability to capture such a wide range of photos without having to swap lenses or cameras sounds so appealing.
Ya if I were to rework my setup, it would definitely not happen in one go. I also have been overdue to upgrade my 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses, they're still F mount, so it makes it a bit more feasible to go in a new direction.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Nice photos with the 20-200! Looking at that gallery is definitely not helping my temptation to add the 20-200. The ability to capture such a wide range of photos without having to swap lenses or cameras sounds so appealing.
Ya if I were to rework my setup, it would definitely not happen in one go. I also have been overdue to upgrade my 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses, they're still F mount, so it makes it a bit more feasible to go in a new direction.
Thanks - I don't want to go too far off course on this thread, as the 16-28 is an exciting lens, but i may be reaching the limits of the 20-200. I am currently in the mountains and really not liking the level of detail I am getting in landscape shots here, including at f8 and ISO 100. Hoping it was just one shoot - and yet to download the most recent - but let's see. It's a versatile focal length for sure - but I have missed my 35-150 more than once on this trip...
