p.12 #2RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
billsnature wrote:
You may want to skip the 14 and 24 and just buy either the 16G or the 20G. Both are not only small and light, but they have outstanding IQ.
The 16 interests me, however I've read many mixed reviews complaining about corner softness and vignetting wide open.
I currently have a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and it is truly a spectacular lens! It is my primary wide angle lens for my Sony system. Whatever lens I replace it with would have to be smaller or sharper.
p.12 #3RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote: billsnature wroteYou may want to skip the 14 and 24 and just buy either the 16G or the 20G. Both are not only small and light, but they have outstanding IQ.The 16 interests me, however I've read many mixed reviews complaining about corner softness and vignetting wide open.
I currently have a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and it is truly a spectacular lens! It is my primary wide angle lens for my Sony system. Whatever lens I replace it with would have to be smaller or sharper.
I finally found something I like more than the Tamron 17-28 . . . the Tamron 16-30 😉.
p.12 #4RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
jeffbuzz wrote: snegron7 wrotebillsnature wroteYou may want to skip the 14 and 24 and just buy either the 16G or the 20G. Both are not only small and light, but they have outstanding IQ.The 16 interests me, however I've read many mixed reviews complaining about corner softness and vignetting wide open.
I currently have a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and it is truly a spectacular lens! It is my primary wide angle lens for my Sony system. Whatever lens I replace it with would have to be smaller or sharper.I finally found something I like more than the Tamron 17-28 . . . the Tamron 16-30 😉.
Tempting, but tests show it's almost as sharp as the 17-28mm! 😀
p.12 #5RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote: billsnature wroteYou may want to skip the 14 and 24 and just buy either the 16G or the 20G. Both are not only small and light, but they have outstanding IQ.The 16 interests me, however I've read many mixed reviews complaining about corner softness and vignetting wide open.
Couple comments. First re your previous reply to my question. The Sony-Zeiss 55/1.8 is a really nice lens, a bit more expensive used and a bit larger than the 50/1.8, but enough longer focal and better optics to make it a really nice “wide portrait” and street lens. Fun enough I don’t bother with an 85. The 35 gm is a gem. So is the 24, but it’s big enough with the 35, you should look closer at the 24-70/2.8 GMII — this version is notably lighter and more compact than the v1, and simply outstanding optically. Finally, don’t totally rule out the 20-70/4 if that range intrigues you. It’s very good optically corner to corner at normal travel apertures of f5.6-f9, and fully usable wide open across the entire range — and 20 becomes a lot wider than you think when it’s actually available beyond 24 and saves the day. It remains my main, lightweight travel partner even though I also have the 24-70/2.8 GMII… And yes, the Sony 24-105/4 is long in the tooth and needs a refresh, but there were supposedly the occasional really good copy if you wanted to hunt.
Next re the 16/1.8 G. Yes it distorts more and has more significant fall-off, but both are easily corrected with its profile. It’s actually very good optically even to the corners wide open unless you’re shooting astro and view corner stars at 100%; and even then it’s not bad at all even wide open. The 14 is perhaps a hair better, but difficult to see unless you compare at 100% — and then it’s notably larger. Here I actually travel with the newer Tamron 12-20/2.8. It’s exceptional optically wide open across the range and only a bit bigger than the 14. FWIW.
p.12 #6RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote: jeffbuzz wrotesnegron7 wrotebillsnature wroteYou may want to skip the 14 and 24 and just buy either the 16G or the 20G. Both are not only small and light, but they have outstanding IQ.The 16 interests me, however I've read many mixed reviews complaining about corner softness and vignetting wide open.
I currently have a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and it is truly a spectacular lens! It is my primary wide angle lens for my Sony system. Whatever lens I replace it with would have to be smaller or sharper.I finally found something I like more than the Tamron 17-28 . . . the Tamron 16-30 😉.Tempting, but tests show it's almost as sharp as the 17-28mm! 😀
But it goes to 16! It's one more. That must be better? Spinal Tap testing protocol.
p.12 #7RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
jeffbuzz wrote: snegron7 wrotejeffbuzz wrotesnegron7 wrotebillsnature wroteYou may want to skip the 14 and 24 and just buy either the 16G or the 20G. Both are not only small and light, but they have outstanding IQ.The 16 interests me, however I've read many mixed reviews complaining about corner softness and vignetting wide open.
I currently have a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and it is truly a spectacular lens! It is my primary wide angle lens for my Sony system. Whatever lens I replace it with would have to be smaller or sharper.I finally found something I like more than the Tamron 17-28 . . . the Tamron 16-30 😉.Tempting, but tests show it's almost as sharp as the 17-28mm! 😀But it goes to 16! It's one more. That must be better? Spinal Tap testing protocol.
If we’re going Spinal Tap, then it needs to be pointed out that the Tamron 12-20 goes to 12!
p.12 #8RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
Jack Flesher wrote: snegron7 wrotebillsnature wroteYou may want to skip the 14 and 24 and just buy either the 16G or the 20G. Both are not only small and light, but they have outstanding IQ.The 16 interests me, however I've read many mixed reviews complaining about corner softness and vignetting wide open.Couple comments. First re your previous reply to my question. The Sony-Zeiss 55/1.8 is a really nice lens, a bit more expensive used and a bit larger than the 50/1.8, but enough longer focal and better optics to make it a really nice “wide portrait” and street lens. Fun enough I don’t bother with an 85. The 35 gm is a gem. So is the 24, but it’s big enough with the 35, you should look closer at the 24-70/2.8 GMII — this version is notably lighter and more compact than the v1, and simply outstanding optically. Finally, don’t totally rule out the 20-70/4 if that range intrigues you. It’s very good optically corner to corner at normal travel apertures of f5.6-f9, and fully usable wide open across the entire range — and 20 becomes a lot wider than you think when it’s actually available beyond 24 and saves the day. It remains my main, lightweight travel partner even though I also have the 24-70/2.8 GMII… And yes, the Sony 24-105/4 is long in the tooth and needs a refresh, but there were supposedly the occasional really good copy if you wanted to hunt.
Next re the 16/1.8 G. Yes it distorts more and has more significant fall-off, but both are easily corrected with its profile. It’s actually very good optically even to the corners wide open unless you’re shooting astro and view corner stars at 100%; and even then it’s not bad at all even wide open. The 14 is perhaps a hair better, but difficult to see unless you compare at 100% — and then it’s notably larger. Here I actually travel with the newer Tamron 12-20/2.8. It’s exceptional optically wide open across the range and only a bit bigger than the 14. FWIW. ...Show more →
Thanks! I'm definitely leaning more towards the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II, probably more than the wider primes at this time. The 24-70mm f2.8 GM II would probably replace the three lenses I just purchased, but it would definitely be heavier around my neck thany of my current primes.
Only two reasons I won't go with the 20-70mm f4 are because 20mm is limiting (my Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 was my primary lens a few years ago, and it was frustrating. Plus, f4 is a bit slow for me for indoor shots.
p.12 #9RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses)
snegron7 wrote:
I currently have a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8, and it is truly a spectacular lens! It is my primary wide angle lens for my Sony system. Whatever lens I replace it with would have to be smaller or sharper.
I found the 17-28 to be too contrasty. No fun to work with the files. And it had a tendency towards magenta. The Sony 16-35 f4 PZ is much better.
