16-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
p.1 #116-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
Last year I got the 16-35 GM II, but ended up returning it as my copy had a weird ghosting issue. Other than that I really liked the image quality, size, etc and would have kept it. Not sure why I didn’t order a replacement at the time. Anywho it’s currently on “sale” and I’ll be moving to a state with sales tax soon (no sales tax where I currently live) so I’m thinking about grabbing it again to complete my GM II trinity. Back when I had it I did sometimes feel limited by 35mm and wished it was a bit longer. recently I have come to really appreciate the 35mm focal length but also use 50mm and 70mm on my 24-70 GM II frequently.
I have an a1 II, a7rv, and a7cR so I have plenty of megapixels for cropping if I need it. I was reluctant to do so in the past, but I’m trying to embrace it a little more. I hardly ever print large so there’s really no point in me having so much resolution if I’m not willing to crop. Given all this have you felt limited by the range of the 16-35 for landscape/travel/events etc? It’s obviously not going to replace a telephoto lens, but could allow me to leave my 24-70mm at home sometimes I would think. I’ve been intrigued by the tamron 17-50 F4 as it’s cheaper and the 50mm would be great to have, however it’s not as wide, and the image quality gets mixed reviews. With the 16-35 GM II and crop mode I can get a 52.5 mm focal length with 21/26 mp when I need it at about an F4 depth of field. Hell if I really want I can get a 4k image with a 2.25x (78mm) or 2.5x (87mm) crop.
I have tried the 16-35 pz but didn’t like the zoom functionality. The 12-24, 14-24, 16-25 all seem great but I’ve come to recognize those 11 mm from 24-35 can do a lot for versatility and minimizing lens switching.
I have an a1 II, a7rv, and a7cR so I have plenty of megapixels for cropping if I need it. I was reluctant to do so in the past, but I’m trying to embrace it a little more. I hardly ever print large so there’s really no point in me having so much resolution if I’m not willing to crop. Given all this have you felt limited by the range of the 16-35 for landscape/travel/events etc? It’s obviously not going to replace a telephoto lens, but could allow me to leave my 24-70mm at home sometimes I would think. I’ve been intrigued by the tamron 17-50 F4 as it’s cheaper and the 50mm would be great to have, however it’s not as wide, and the image quality gets mixed reviews. With the 16-35 GM II and crop mode I can get a 52.5 mm focal length with 21/26 mp when I need it at about an F4 depth of field. Hell if I really want I can get a 4k image with a 2.25x (78mm) or 2.5x (87mm) crop.
I have tried the 16-35 pz but didn’t like the zoom functionality. The 12-24, 14-24, 16-25 all seem great but I’ve come to recognize those 11 mm from 24-35 can do a lot for versatility and minimizing lens switching.
Jun 19, 2026 at 06:50 PM
p.1 #216-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I like the idea of the Tamron as well. It'd be a fantastic walk-around focal length range for city travels. I like the price, too, but I'd pay a few hundred more if they took the optics more seriously.
I'd see the problem of using the 16-35 as a solo lens being the fact that the 35mm end won't be the lens at its strongest. You'll get a decent but problemed 35 cropped to a meh 50 and further cropped to a poor 70. What if you added a lightweight 50 to the carry? The Viltrox EVO 55/1.8 comes to mind since I've had a coworker's for the last week. It's an excellent little guy and the price is great. The Air 50/2 also has its fans, but it hasn't fallen into my hands, so I can't say anything else about it. Something like that could ease coverage concerns and keep the load lighter than adding in your 24-70GMII.
I'd see the problem of using the 16-35 as a solo lens being the fact that the 35mm end won't be the lens at its strongest. You'll get a decent but problemed 35 cropped to a meh 50 and further cropped to a poor 70. What if you added a lightweight 50 to the carry? The Viltrox EVO 55/1.8 comes to mind since I've had a coworker's for the last week. It's an excellent little guy and the price is great. The Air 50/2 also has its fans, but it hasn't fallen into my hands, so I can't say anything else about it. Something like that could ease coverage concerns and keep the load lighter than adding in your 24-70GMII.
Jun 20, 2026 at 12:02 AM
p.1 #316-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
freaklikeme wrote:
I'd see the problem of using the 16-35 as a solo lens being the fact that the 35mm end won't be the lens at its strongest.
This is one of the things I look for in a 16-35. The 35mm performance must be good.
The 16-35G PZ and 16-35 GMii are both very good at 35mm
For event shooting if you need 16mm you really need 16mm. People can accept a shot cropped from 35mm to 70mm, but if you chop someones head off thats not acceptable.
One problem Nikkon has now is that they dont even have a 16-35.
I'd see the problem of using the 16-35 as a solo lens being the fact that the 35mm end won't be the lens at its strongest.
This is one of the things I look for in a 16-35. The 35mm performance must be good.
The 16-35G PZ and 16-35 GMii are both very good at 35mm
For event shooting if you need 16mm you really need 16mm. People can accept a shot cropped from 35mm to 70mm, but if you chop someones head off thats not acceptable.
One problem Nikkon has now is that they dont even have a 16-35.
Jun 20, 2026 at 01:18 AM
p.1 #416-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
Most people who mostly use wide-angle focal lengths should rather ask themselves whether their photos are actually good or whether they perhaps would be better served by shooting tighter anyway.
Jun 20, 2026 at 01:47 AM
p.1 #516-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
hasenbein wrote:
Most people who mostly use wide-angle focal lengths should rather ask themselves whether their photos are actually good or whether they perhaps would be better served by shooting tighter anyway.
Horses for courses, I use primes in low light and a 70-200 for more distant stuff
Most people who mostly use wide-angle focal lengths should rather ask themselves whether their photos are actually good or whether they perhaps would be better served by shooting tighter anyway.
Horses for courses, I use primes in low light and a 70-200 for more distant stuff
Jun 20, 2026 at 01:49 AM
p.1 #616-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
aCuria wrote:
This is one of the things I look for in a 16-35. The 35mm performance must be good.
The 16-35G PZ and 16-35 GMii are both very good at 35mm
For event shooting if you need 16mm you really need 16mm. People can accept a shot cropped from 35mm to 70mm, but if you chop someones head off thats not acceptable.
One problem Nikkon has now is that they dont even have a 16-35.
Very good in comparison to any other 16-35, sure, but it's still the end of the lens with the most distortion, highest astigmatism, highest transverse CA, lowest resolution at infinity, and worst at retaining its resolution the closer you focus. It's decent, once corrected, but I'd have a hard time accepting a crop from it when I could just carry a light, inexpensive ace of prime when I need something a little longer.
freaklikeme wrote
I'd see the problem of using the 16-35 as a solo lens being the fact that the 35mm end won't be the lens at its strongest.The 16-35G PZ and 16-35 GMii are both very good at 35mm
For event shooting if you need 16mm you really need 16mm. People can accept a shot cropped from 35mm to 70mm, but if you chop someones head off thats not acceptable.
One problem Nikkon has now is that they dont even have a 16-35.
Very good in comparison to any other 16-35, sure, but it's still the end of the lens with the most distortion, highest astigmatism, highest transverse CA, lowest resolution at infinity, and worst at retaining its resolution the closer you focus. It's decent, once corrected, but I'd have a hard time accepting a crop from it when I could just carry a light, inexpensive ace of prime when I need something a little longer.
Jun 20, 2026 at 02:02 AM
p.1 #716-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I have a Tamron 17-28/2.8 vs 16-35 of some sort. My "next up" mid-range is the 28-200/2.8-5.6. I would think a "long end limitation" would be highly individual. That spot in the "trinity" from 16-35 (or ?? depending on brand and era?) might have been to the 24-70s or 28-75s. An event shooter with two or three camera and or lenses in use might look at it differently compared to a landscape or urban "travel" user, how fast one might need to respond to changing subjects or opportunities.
In my personal uses, typically one might say "travel," in my home area southwestern US, the 17-28 got/gets very limited use. I have found on a couple of occasions, though, the travel was urban, crowded or compact cities, newer or older, and I was bumping up against that crossover point. But while I found 28mm to wider or 28mm to longer inconvenient, the limitations weren't really critical. OTOH, if 28mm or 35mm not quite or really not long enough, for some the answer might have to be having a second camera at the ready.
I would think a high end 16-50 or similar would be desirable, the Tamron 17-50 gets some praise but, I'd think, if quality and price were like the Sony 20-70/4 it could be a much more popular lens. The 20-70 and 20-200 are neither f2.8, "professional" quality nor 16mm or 17mm, but they do a pretty good job of dealing with the wides ending at 28mm or 35mm.
In my personal uses, typically one might say "travel," in my home area southwestern US, the 17-28 got/gets very limited use. I have found on a couple of occasions, though, the travel was urban, crowded or compact cities, newer or older, and I was bumping up against that crossover point. But while I found 28mm to wider or 28mm to longer inconvenient, the limitations weren't really critical. OTOH, if 28mm or 35mm not quite or really not long enough, for some the answer might have to be having a second camera at the ready.
I would think a high end 16-50 or similar would be desirable, the Tamron 17-50 gets some praise but, I'd think, if quality and price were like the Sony 20-70/4 it could be a much more popular lens. The 20-70 and 20-200 are neither f2.8, "professional" quality nor 16mm or 17mm, but they do a pretty good job of dealing with the wides ending at 28mm or 35mm.
Jun 20, 2026 at 09:37 AM
p.1 #816-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
like the OP I have the A1ii and A7r5 and have an excellent copy of the GM16-35 mk1 (tried 3 copies of the mk2 and they all had quite serious issues). I combine this with the tamron 50-300 and tend to keep the 16-35 on the A1 and 50-300 on the A7r5 as this gives a bit more cropping capability. This is my main landscape setup
Jun 20, 2026 at 11:00 AM
p.1 #916-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I am not a zoom person, but back in my Canon EOS days I **loved** the 17-40mm f/4L. It gave me my two favorite focal lengths (20+40) in a most lightweight package possible for the time. I didn't even mind soft far corners.
The popularity of 16-35mm or even 16-30mm zooms baffles me: my photos wider than 20mm are painful to look at due to mismanaged distortions. I rarely find interesting images wider than 20mm on the Internet either, even the sky is often stretched. Yuck. Of cousre there are skillfull photographers out there who mastered the ultra wide angle, but they're elusive like UFOs.
20-50mm is my sweet range. The combo of two primes + legs works quite well. If Sony made a G/GM quality zoom like that, I'd be getting one.
The popularity of 16-35mm or even 16-30mm zooms baffles me: my photos wider than 20mm are painful to look at due to mismanaged distortions. I rarely find interesting images wider than 20mm on the Internet either, even the sky is often stretched. Yuck. Of cousre there are skillfull photographers out there who mastered the ultra wide angle, but they're elusive like UFOs.
20-50mm is my sweet range. The combo of two primes + legs works quite well. If Sony made a G/GM quality zoom like that, I'd be getting one.
Jun 20, 2026 at 11:57 AM
p.1 #1016-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I feel the opposite, that a 16-35 is not wide enough on the short end. Maybe that was fine 25 years ago.
Is the 20-70 not an option for you?
EBH
Is the 20-70 not an option for you?
EBH
Jun 20, 2026 at 12:39 PM
|
p.1 #1116-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
@EBH please don't laugh, but I had no idea the 20-70 f/4 existed until I saw your comment. As I said, I am not a zoom person. It looks great. In fact, the B&H page is open in a separate tab right now 
Jun 20, 2026 at 01:52 PM
p.1 #1216-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I don’t own — should say instead I no longer own — a 16-35. I’ve always been happier with primes for my UW’s below 20mm, and have generally found the 24-70 or 24-105/120 zooms a lot more useful overall. That out of the way, I do/did find 35 somewhat limiting; never quite long enough for a lot of what I shoot with zooms. Generally for me the 50-60 range is a sweet spot. At the wide end, the 22-26 range is most used. At the ultra-wide end, a really wide I’ve generally found a 14mm focal is more beneficial for my needs there than a 16 — hence my current choice is the 20-70/4 zoom* with a faster 50 prime; and then I’ll add a 14 if I think I’m going to need it. Thus why I no longer bother with an ultra-wide zoom. Obviously everyone is different and this just me offering my thoughts FWIW.
*A caveat. This lens is new to me with my switch over to Sony. Depending on how much I end up using it at wider than 24 or don’t, I may revert back to a 24-70/2.8. But so far I have been enjoying the convenient size, weight and focal range of this particular lens.
*A caveat. This lens is new to me with my switch over to Sony. Depending on how much I end up using it at wider than 24 or don’t, I may revert back to a 24-70/2.8. But so far I have been enjoying the convenient size, weight and focal range of this particular lens.
Jun 20, 2026 at 02:43 PM
p.1 #1316-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I have the 16-35 f4 for my wide landscapes. I would definitely feel limited if 35 was my longest focal length. I always have a 85-100 focal length whether I’m shooting landscapes or street.
Jun 20, 2026 at 03:11 PM
p.1 #1416-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
freaklikeme wrote:
I like the idea of the Tamron as well. It'd be a fantastic walk-around focal length range for city travels. I like the price, too, but I'd pay a few hundred more if they took the optics more seriously.
I'd see the problem of using the 16-35 as a solo lens being the fact that the 35mm end won't be the lens at its strongest. You'll get a decent but problemed 35 cropped to a meh 50 and further cropped to a poor 70. What if you added a lightweight 50 to the carry? The Viltrox EVO 55/1.8 comes to mind...Show more →
That’s how I feel about the tamron as well. Seems like it would be a perfect focal length for cities and landscapes, but I wish they didn’t go for more of a budget option with it. Tamron is making some of the more interesting focal length options now a days but I would gladly pay a bit more for better optics for some of their lenses.
I definitely wouldn’t only carry the 16-35 as I really like telephoto landscapes as well. I have the 70-200 GM II which is fantastic but have also considered the tamron 50-400 to simplify things to 2 lenses versus my current set up of 3 lenses for landscape (viltrox 14mm, Sony 24-70 GM II, Sony 70-200 GM II). I actually have the viltrox 50mm and it’s great! Not a bad idea to bring that along as well, but then I’d still be in a 3 lens situation.
Jun 20, 2026 at 03:45 PM
p.1 #1516-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
aCuria wrote:
freaklikeme wrote
I'd see the problem of using the 16-35 as a solo lens being the fact that the 35mm end won't be the lens at its strongest.The 16-35G PZ and 16-35 GMii are both very good at 35mm
For event shooting if you need 16mm you really need 16mm. People can accept a shot cropped from 35mm to 70mm, but if you chop someones head off thats not acceptable.
One problem Nikkon has now is that they dont even have a 16-35.
Yeah I really liked the look of my 35mm shots on the 16-35 GM II when I had it. I think cropping them to 50mm on a high res body wouldn’t be a big deal at all and likely no one would ever know
Jun 20, 2026 at 03:47 PM
p.1 #1616-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
hasenbein wrote:
Most people who mostly use wide-angle focal lengths should rather ask themselves whether their photos are actually good or whether they perhaps would be better served by shooting tighter anyway.
I tend to agree with this. I think ultra wide angles have a time and a place but work a lot less often than normal or telephoto focal lengths do. In fact that’s what’s kind of pushed me away from the Sony 12-24 or sigma 14-24 towards the 16-35. In theory the 16-35 and my 24-70 have a ton of overlap (which used to bother me), but that 24-35 range allows for a lot more versatility with the 16-35 in my mind. The 12-24/14-24 would really come out for a shot or two and then go back in my bag which seems like a bit of a waste even if they are fantastic whereas the 16-35 could be (and is) a one lens solution for some people.
Jun 20, 2026 at 03:53 PM
p.1 #1716-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
Viramati wrote:
like the OP I have the A1ii and A7r5 and have an excellent copy of the GM16-35 mk1 (tried 3 copies of the mk2 and they all had quite serious issues). I combine this with the tamron 50-300 and tend to keep the 16-35 on the A1 and 50-300 on the A7r5 as this gives a bit more cropping capability. This is my main landscape setup
You know I’ve strongly considered the 16-35 GM II and the tamron 50-400 as a two lens landscape set up. Currently I’m doing the viltrox 14mm, Sony 24-70 GM II, and Sony 70-200 GM II with and without teleconverters and while it’s definitely a very good set up, it’s still 3 lenses on one or two bodies (depending on how many I bring out). I do have to admit however that I get a little lazy while hiking and will just shoot 95% of things with my 24-70 even if I see a great shot for the 14mm or 70-200 cause often I don’t want to stop, take my bag off, switch cameras/lenses. Do you have a good/convenient way to switch between the two bodies while hiking?
Jun 20, 2026 at 04:11 PM
p.1 #1816-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
old-gregg wrote:
I am not a zoom person, but back in my Canon EOS days I **loved** the 17-40mm f/4L. It gave me my two favorite focal lengths (20+40) in a most lightweight package possible for the time. I didn't even mind soft far corners.
The popularity of 16-35mm or even 16-30mm zooms baffles me: my photos wider than 20mm are painful to look at due to mismanaged distortions. I rarely find interesting images wider than 20mm on the Internet either, even the sky is often stretched. Yuck. Of cousre there are skillfull photographers out there who mastered the ultra wide angle, but...Show more →
I would love a 20-50mm with great optics. I really wish Sony or someone else would make that. Sony got close with their 24-50 2.8, but didn’t go down to 20 unfortunately. I also agree that many shots at 16mm don’t look great, but it occasionally works very well
Jun 20, 2026 at 04:13 PM
p.1 #1916-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
EB-1 wrote:
I feel the opposite, that a 16-35 is not wide enough on the short end. Maybe that was fine 25 years ago.
Is the 20-70 not an option for you?
EBH
I have been considering the 20-70 since it came out as it really does seem like a great option. If I didn’t have a ton of sentimental attachment to my 24-70 GM II which has taken most of my best photos (also many many boring ones to be fair) I may go for it. I’ve also considered going with the 20-70 f4 for landscapes and a 28-70 f2 for portraits and other “pro” stuff. I’d also love a 24-120 F4 like Nikon has
Jun 20, 2026 at 04:15 PM
p.1 #2016-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I have both the Sony 20-70/4 and the 16-35/2.8II and they both have their uses and limitations, like ALL lenses.
For me, the 20/70/4 is better as a general purpose and travel lens (and is razor sharp wide open) and the 16-35 is definitely more useful for architecture and I tend to use it the most. But I agree, I always find the 16-35 too wide at the long end.
It really depends on what you shoot. I still have a EF 24-70/2.8L (Canon) and in the past always used it for pro work. But, these days I don't miss this range at all and replacing the Canon with the Sony is not even a consideration. It just depends on you and what you want to shoot.
For me, the 20/70/4 is better as a general purpose and travel lens (and is razor sharp wide open) and the 16-35 is definitely more useful for architecture and I tend to use it the most. But I agree, I always find the 16-35 too wide at the long end.
It really depends on what you shoot. I still have a EF 24-70/2.8L (Canon) and in the past always used it for pro work. But, these days I don't miss this range at all and replacing the Canon with the Sony is not even a consideration. It just depends on you and what you want to shoot.
Jun 20, 2026 at 06:40 PM