I used to have the f/2.8 which I really liked, but hated the weight (I carry my A7RIII + lens on a peak design capture clip). I sold it last year in anticipation of the GMII version.
I briefly tried the 20-70 f/4.0 as a "single lens" solution, I liked it (light, quite sharp, ...) but was not 100% satisfied with it (distortion that makes mushy corners after correction, field curvature, 20mm is a bit to narrow for me, lens hood that detach itself...) that was too much for such a pricey lens, so I returned it.
I bought the Tamron 50-400 as my long lens, I will probably only carry it when hiking with my wife (as I can carry more weight to be slower so she can keep up the pace with me ) When I'll be alone, I'm not sure, but my only other lens will probably be a 85mm or something qui light (70-300 ? 70-350 APS-C ?)
In may I will start my hiking season, so it's time to think about a new lens, it seems that I'm ready for a new 16-35.
The PZ seems a better choice at first, because of the weight/size/price and the fact that during the day f/2.8 is not a requirement but...
- is a PZ lens using more battery?
- I'm not sure about the corner sharpness of the PZ, as - like the 20-70) it heavily relies ont the software correction of the distortion.
- the PZ is the sharpest at f/4.0, which is far from ideal (f/11.0 is often useful for landscape, especially when you don't use a tripod and don't want to focus stack (When will Lightroom natively support focus stacking at last!?!)
- f/2.8 comes in handy at night for a few star shots, and for uses other than hiking (indoor for example)
- At the same time the f/2.8 seems far from perfect for landscape use (field curvature?) and is an expensive lens.
So I'm a bit lost, what do you think?
Mar 07, 2024 at 02:55 PM
Previous versions of moby59's message #16492173 « 16-35 f/4.0 PZ vs 16-35 f/2.8 GM II »
) When I'll be alone, I'm not sure, but my only other lens will probably be a 85mm or something qui light (70-300 ? 70-350 APS-C ?)