p.2 #116-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
For landscape work, I often hiked with a (Canon) 16-35 F4 (I like the lens), Contax 50mm 1.7 (crazy sharp), and a Nikkor AIS 105 (I like the look). Great kit.
On a trip to Thailand, I took the 16-35, pancake 40, and the 105. For my photography, I often ran into the 35 end on the 16-35. I rarely used anything below 28, but that's me. I liked the 40 because it's so small and doesn't scream "pro photographer." For travel, the 16-35 was too big and I didn't use the wide end, but I like the lens.
I think the Sony 24-50 is a good contender. It has the exact range I'd like, and I could probably get by with one lens for travel. Lens changes are an issue compared to landscape.
That said, my travel kit is a 28mm 1.4 (I like the look), 40 2.5, and a 90 2.8. I just got back from a trip, and a backpack didn't work (for lens changes), so I'm gonna try a hip belt. A work in progress.
p.2 #216-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I have adopted E Mount Tamron 17-50 and it's excellent on Z8, to pair with my Viltrox 14mm and 16mm primes. Sony users should consider this lens if 35mm on long end feels too short, it's an internal zoom as well.
p.2 #316-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
Outstanding wrote:
I have adopted E Mount Tamron 17-50 and it's excellent on Z8, to pair with my Viltrox 14mm and 16mm primes. Sony users should consider this lens if 35mm on long end feels too short, it's an internal zoom as well.
If you think the Tammy 17-50/4v is great, you should try the Sony 20-70/4. For me the net gain of 20mm at the long end for the loss of 3mm at the wide end was an overall usefulness tradeoff well worth it for my needs in a “do-it-all” travel zoom. The Sony is an ounce or so heavier, but 15mm shorter and only 4mm wider than the Tammy. By most measures the Sony is also a bit better optically, though not hugely so. FWIW
p.2 #416-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I've owned many 16-35's over the years and sold all of them for lack of use. I'm more of a 28mm+ guy. Recently I bought the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 and have used it on a couple of travels. It's now my main lens and will remain so. But...I needed a wide angle zoom to compliment it for landscape/travel and today purchased the very small and very nice Tamron 16-30/2.8. Look at that lens since it's a great price new at $879 versus the Sony at almost $2,500. It's 95% the quality for 1/3 the price.
p.2 #516-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
The 20-70G is a great lens...
In terms of 16-35s; yes, I also fine 16 not wide enough and 35 not long enough. I would much rather have a 10-20 and an 18-85 - both f/4 - and that would do me well with the 50-300 or 100-400. I could even do a 10-22; 24-200; 200-600 and a prime.
Would have loved for the Tamron 17-50/4 to be sharp and quick, I would have picked it up immediately.
p.2 #616-35 shooters how often do you feel limited on the long end?
I have a good copy of the 16-35 GM II and I am quite happy with it. It took two attempts to find a well centered copy but was worth the effort. It is better in every way vs the 16-35 GM 1 that it replaced. While f2.8 is a bit slow for night work, the low coma distortion makes it very good wide open where the 16mm and 20mm G lenses need to be stopped down a bit for best corners at night. At 20mm the 20 G is slightly better. That said, the difference is small enough that I usually use the 16-35 GM II for the versatility over putting on the 20G, Loxia 25mm, and in many cases the CV 35 APO in daytime use. For sunstars, the Loxia and CV are vastly superior.
I would have no issue cropping a 16-35mm GM II @35mm for a 50MM EQ.