16-35 f2.8 vs 16-35 f4 vs 12-24 f4

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by Ttp, Aug 14, 2017.

  1. Ttp

    Ttp New to TalkEmount

    4
    Aug 14, 2017
    Hello folks, I am new around here, maybe you can help me decide, I just switch from Nikon to Sony, I am a landscape photographer, and i dont know which lens to buy.

    I dont know if buy 16-35 f2.8 GM vs 16-35 f4 Zeiss vs 12-24 f4 GM


    Please let me know why you choose the lens. Any good or bad experience????


    Thank you for your help!
     
  2. Mus Aziz

    Mus Aziz TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 3, 2015
    Mus
    Welcome to Talkemount Ttp

    I used the 16-35/4 for about a year and noticed that most (around 80%) of my landscape pics were taken around the 20mm FL. It's a good lens although there have been reports of not so good copies. Wanting to have better IQ (not that my copy of the 16-35/4 was not good), I sold it and got myself the Sigma 20mm Art lens, which I'm perfectly happy with except for the physical size and needing to use large filters (NDs, Grads, etc) 150mm sizes, which are expensive.

    The new 12-24 is a G lens, not a G Master. I'm keen to try/buy when funds permit :(
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    I don't own either so I won't share my thoughts since you ask for "experiences" :)

    But since you are a landscape photographer, take into consideration that the new 12-24 G needs bigger that the traditional 100mm filter system (150mm). No screw in filters either. Do you already own filters? Which camera do you shoot with?
    IMO, the 16-35 f4 is the best compromise for landscape photography unless you do stuff that require wider apertures (is f/2.8 even enough for astro photography?), or need the absolute sharpness or if money is not an issue ;)
     
  4. TedG954

    TedG954 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Nov 29, 2014
    South Florida and NE Ohio
    Ted Gersdorf
    I have the 16-35/4 and I like it very much. I believe I got an "excellent copy". f4 is plenty open for outside landscapes. The f2.8 allows more versatility, but at a significant cost. Like Mus, I like the 20mm range and I obtained a Tokina 20/2, which is absolutely great for me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    I'm considering the Sony-Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS as a likely next FE lens purchase, aimed at architectural work. I keep looking for other, more affordable wide-angle full-frame options, but keep coming back to the 16-35/4. For me the 16-35/2.8GM is just too pricey (heck, the 16-35/4 is more than I'd LIKE to spend, but...). And the 12-24/4G might be too wide - not sure I'll use 12-14 that often - while the added bonus of a good lens in the 24-35mm range in addition to 16-21, is nice to contemplate. Did any of that make sense?
     
  6. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Makes sense to me. I'd say you won't miss f/2.8 when doing architecture because you're likely to stop down to f/8 or so for depth of field. From reviews I get the impression that the performance differences between the two 16-35mm options at f/8 aren't very significant. The choice of focal length range is really a personal thing; for me 16mm is almost always to wide, I tend to preset the FE 4/16-35 at 20mm and start shooting and I really like to be able to zoom out to 30mm or so. On the other hand there are some people here who know how to use the more extreme wide-angle lenses.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Ttp

    Ttp New to TalkEmount

    4
    Aug 14, 2017
    Thank you all for answering, I have asked to a friend that owns the Sony 16-35 f4 and the Sony 16-35 f2.8. He told me that the f4 is slightly better than the G Master, because Ziess optics are superior. Thats what he told me, I hope he can write soon a review about the 16-35 f2.8 and maybe a comparison.
     
  8. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount Top Veteran

    961
    Sep 10, 2015
    Bob
    I think it makes great sense for what you want to do with it. You can save quite a bit if you go used, even in great condition.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  9. GabrielPhoto

    GabrielPhoto TalkEmount Top Veteran

    976
    Jul 3, 2013
    Sorry...I wouldnt put too much value on that comment about Zeiss optics been superior to GM...really none at all.
    In any case, on Monday I am receiving the Sony loaners 16-35mm 2.8GM and 16-35mm F4 and I will be doing a comparison/review for my youtube channel with those two lenses plus my 12-24mm F4 G and the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8. It will be a LOT of work but should be fun in the end :D
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Ttp

    Ttp New to TalkEmount

    4
    Aug 14, 2017
    Sounds good, I will be waiting for you first impression, please let me know.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Ttp

    Ttp New to TalkEmount

    4
    Aug 14, 2017
    I was wondering which adapter brand is the best for nikon lenses???
     
  12. GabrielPhoto

    GabrielPhoto TalkEmount Top Veteran

    976
    Jul 3, 2013