I would expect anyone who is primarily a landscaper or astro shooter to be using the 16-35 and/or the 12-24 or other wider lens just because 21 is sometimes not enough but I’m primarily a wildlife shooter and do occasional landscapes and astro. With all the other gear I take including 400 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, teleconverters, and three bodies, size and weight is a major consideration. The 16-35 is a pain to carry and I don’t particularly love the rendering of that lens, although it’s sharp, but sometimes you need that wider field of view. That said, I’m still planning to sell my along with all my square filters I used to use with it. On recent trips I’ve been taking both the Loxia 21 (alongwith some screw-in NDs and CPL) and the 24 GM but I’m trying to figure out whether I can part with the Loxia. Right now the answer is no as I’m in love with the rendering for landscapes and the sharpness for astro. I also love the 24 GM but I typically shoot it wide open for environmental portraits. I recently tried using it for some astro and it was nice but I got CA on some bright stars and there was still some saggital astigmatism. I haven’t tried it using it stopped down for landscapes yet.
Apr 26, 2019 at 12:58 AM
Previous versions of 2xbass's message #14832643 « 24 GM vs. Loxia 21 vs. 16-35 GM »
