Reading mode: Light Dark

choosing brighter lenses for landscapes

Go to last post
C

caplanner

Senior Member
Messages
1,364
Solutions
1
Reaction score
629
Location
CA, US
This isn't the classic help me choose the best wide angle lens question.

To cover the focal length wider than 35 I'm deciding between:

Option1

Sony 16-35 GM

Option2

Sony 16-35 F4

Loxia 21 2.8

I understand aperture, rendering discussions aside and let's assume I get a good copy of all of them.

From those that do serious landscape work, does the smaller diameter/size of the loxia have any negative impact on usability of the lens in low light situations that should influence my decision for the GM over the combination in option 2?

Any other considerations - I only want to make this purchase once (at least that's my hope),
 
I own and use both the 16-35 GM and the 21mm Loxia lenses. Both are spectacular performers. The 21mm Loxia is a nearly perfect lens with beautiful high contrast imagery corner to corner. Wide open it has more vignetting than the GM lens, so if I am concerned about evenness of illumination I stop down. No need to stop down for sharpness. The 16-35GM is also amazingly sharp and has better vignetting performance. I do not own the 16-35mm F/4.0 lens but based on Dxomark tests, it is not as good a performer as the GM lens. By the rules of the choice posed in your post I would go with the 16-35 GM lens. By my actions I vote for the GM lens plus the 21mm Loxia because the rendering reminds me of my old Hasselblad Superwide images, and also because the Loxia lenses are compact and really fun to use!
 
If size/weight doesn’t matter, just get the GM option. If size/weight does matter and you don’t mind swapping lenses, get the laowa 15 + loxia 21. The biggest issue with the smaller sized lenses is more vignetting on the corners but easily corrected. I’m currently using this combo myself after an extensive search for a compact ultra wide option for an upcoming trip.

I had the Sony 16-35mm f4 before I got the loxia 21 and didn’t like the size and weight of it. Image quality was good for its time but there are far better options now for around the same price.

I also recently tried a Sony 12-24 and enjoyed it very much with the only reason I returned it due to size so ended up with the laowa to complement my loxia 21.
caplanner said:
This isn't the classic help me choose the best wide angle lens question.

To cover the focal length wider than 35 I'm deciding between:

Option1

Sony 16-35 GM

Option2

Sony 16-35 F4

Loxia 21 2.8

I understand aperture, rendering discussions aside and let's assume I get a good copy of all of them.

From those that do serious landscape work, does the smaller diameter/size of the loxia have any negative impact on usability of the lens in low light situations that should influence my decision for the GM over the combination in option 2?

Any other considerations - I only want to make this purchase once (at least that's my hope),
Click to expand...
 
caplanner said:
This isn't the classic help me choose the best wide angle lens question.

To cover the focal length wider than 35 I'm deciding between:

Option1

Sony 16-35 GM

Option2

Sony 16-35 F4

Loxia 21 2.8

I understand aperture, rendering discussions aside and let's assume I get a good copy of all of them.

From those that do serious landscape work, does the smaller diameter/size of the loxia have any negative impact on usability of the lens in low light situations that should influence my decision for the GM over the combination in option 2?

Any other considerations - I only want to make this purchase once (at least that's my hope),
Click to expand...
If you're doing serious landscape work, the majority of your images are taken on a tripod where the smaller diameter/size of the Loxia has no impact on usability in low light. ;)

Even if you're not on a tripod, the size of the lens has no impact on usability to me.

Having said that, and assuming you're wanting to do serious landscape work, the 16-35 GM is the route to go IMO. The only downside to it would be its weight on hikes.
 
If you want to purchase only once ... get the GM.
 
Assuming that you are asking about ergonomics rather than light transmission - the main issue with the Loxia is that the mount alignment dot is dark blue. Even in good light it's hard to see. Various owners say you get used to finding it by touch, but that hasn't happened yet for me.

Other than that it's a wonderful lens.

Andrew
 
ahaslett said:
Assuming that you are asking about ergonomics rather than light transmission - the main issue with the Loxia is that the mount alignment dot is dark blue. Even in good light it's hard to see. Various owners say you get used to finding it by touch, but that hasn't happened yet for me.
Click to expand...
I have a lens with an alignment mark only on the mating surface; hard to see at times.

A tiny square of contrasting colored tape next to it but on the outside of the lens barrel was a great improvement; cover with a small strip of transparent tape so the colored tape isn't rubbed off, and done.
 
Last edited:
caplanner said:
This isn't the classic help me choose the best wide angle lens question.

To cover the focal length wider than 35 I'm deciding between:

Option1

Sony 16-35 GM

Option2

Sony 16-35 F4

Loxia 21 2.8

I understand aperture, rendering discussions aside and let's assume I get a good copy of all of them.

From those that do serious landscape work, does the smaller diameter/size of the loxia have any negative impact on usability of the lens in low light situations that should influence my decision for the GM over the combination in option 2?

Any other considerations - I only want to make this purchase once (at least that's my hope),
Click to expand...
I would seriously consider laowa 15mm F2 if i were you
 
Austinian said:
ahaslett said:
Assuming that you are asking about ergonomics rather than light transmission - the main issue with the Loxia is that the mount alignment dot is dark blue. Even in good light it's hard to see. Various owners say you get used to finding it by touch, but that hasn't happened yet for me.
Click to expand...
I have a lens with an alignment mark only on the mating surface; hard to see at times.

A tiny square of contrasting colored tape next to it but on the outside of the lens barrel was a great improvement; cover with a small strip of transparent tape so the colored tape isn't rubbed off, and done.
Click to expand...
That's a good tip. My Samyang 135/2 is like that.

Andrew
 
Hi caplanner!

I had the same question in my mind for such a long time and, sadly, I had to do the purchase twice.

I won't buy the prime here, simply because I really think that today's zoom lenses are good enough when compared to most of the primes out there. Also, your option is the 16-35 which is probably one of the best Sony lens today (in both versions).

I own the f4 and I am super happy with it. I bought the Tokina FIRIN 20mm before and there was nothing wrong with it but simply, I'm feeling much more comfortable with a zoom lens when in the field. Sometimes is not possible to zoom with our feet! Also you'll get an ultra wide focal range (16-20mm) that the ZEISS prime simply don't have.

If you're not on budget get the 16-35 f/2.8 but is bigger and heavier than the f4, also I don't think the extra stop of light will make a lot of difference but of course, it's personal taste.

Hope it helps
 
ahaslett said:
Assuming that you are asking about ergonomics rather than light transmission - the main issue with the Loxia is that the mount alignment dot is dark blue. Even in good light it's hard to see. Various owners say you get used to finding it by touch, but that hasn't happened yet for me.

Other than that it's a wonderful lens.

Andrew
Click to expand...
 
ahaslett said:
Austinian said:
ahaslett said:
Assuming that you are asking about ergonomics rather than light transmission - the main issue with the Loxia is that the mount alignment dot is dark blue. Even in good light it's hard to see. Various owners say you get used to finding it by touch, but that hasn't happened yet for me.
Click to expand...
I have a lens with an alignment mark only on the mating surface; hard to see at times.

A tiny square of contrasting colored tape next to it but on the outside of the lens barrel was a great improvement; cover with a small strip of transparent tape so the colored tape isn't rubbed off, and done.
Click to expand...
That's a good tip. My Samyang 135/2 is like that.

Andrew
Click to expand...
Heh, that's the one I have too! Red tape is what I used on the narrow metal ring.

I'm also adapting a cheapo tripod collar; this is the longest and heaviest lens I own and feels highly unbalanced when using the camera's QR plate.
 
Austinian said:
ahaslett said:
Austinian said:
ahaslett said:
Assuming that you are asking about ergonomics rather than light transmission - the main issue with the Loxia is that the mount alignment dot is dark blue. Even in good light it's hard to see. Various owners say you get used to finding it by touch, but that hasn't happened yet for me.
Click to expand...
I have a lens with an alignment mark only on the mating surface; hard to see at times.

A tiny square of contrasting colored tape next to it but on the outside of the lens barrel was a great improvement; cover with a small strip of transparent tape so the colored tape isn't rubbed off, and done.
Click to expand...
That's a good tip. My Samyang 135/2 is like that.

Andrew
Click to expand...
Heh, that's the one I have too! Red tape is what I used on the narrow metal ring.

I'm also adapting a cheapo tripod collar; this is the longest and heaviest lens I own and feels highly unbalanced when using the camera's QR plate.
Click to expand...
Which collar are you adapting?

I got the EF mount version and use the foot on my Metabones adapter, but a collar would be handy.

Andrew
 
ahaslett said:
Austinian said:
ahaslett said:
Austinian said:
ahaslett said:
Assuming that you are asking about ergonomics rather than light transmission - the main issue with the Loxia is that the mount alignment dot is dark blue. Even in good light it's hard to see. Various owners say you get used to finding it by touch, but that hasn't happened yet for me.
Click to expand...
I have a lens with an alignment mark only on the mating surface; hard to see at times.

A tiny square of contrasting colored tape next to it but on the outside of the lens barrel was a great improvement; cover with a small strip of transparent tape so the colored tape isn't rubbed off, and done.
Click to expand...
That's a good tip. My Samyang 135/2 is like that.

Andrew
Click to expand...
Heh, that's the one I have too! Red tape is what I used on the narrow metal ring.

I'm also adapting a cheapo tripod collar; this is the longest and heaviest lens I own and feels highly unbalanced when using the camera's QR plate.
Click to expand...
Which collar are you adapting?
Click to expand...
This one:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DAAFH0K/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I've seen several of them under different names at various sellers. Cost about $16.

A few layers of Scotch 2242 .03" rubber electrical tape is used to decrease the ID of the collar to fit the Samyang OD.
ahaslett said:
I got the EF mount version and use the foot on my Metabones adapter, but a collar would be handy.
Click to expand...
I still have a few minor issues to solve, but I enjoy this sort of improvisation. :-)

Edit: 2 layers of the 2242 and 1 layer of thinner ordinary electrical tape (2242 is too tacky) on each half of the collar seems to be a good fit.

Added a cheap (do we sense a theme here? ;-) ) A/S-compatible baseplate to the collar, and it's done. We'll see how it holds up over time, but so far, so good.
 
Last edited:
I had the same type of dilemma, but I'm the type of guy who brings more than is needed to the field so if I bought the batis 18 (instead of the loxia) and the 16-35 f4 i would bring them both anyway and would lug more weight than I would with the f2.8.

So I finally went the GM route to start sometime this summer in the astro field.

I'll attach you 2 photos I took recently (I'm just a hobbyst with an expensive hobby). Both were taken with an A7



Sant Pere Casserres
Sant Pere Casserres

Montserrat mountain near Barcelona
Montserrat mountain near Barcelona
 
I can't speak for the loxia, but the GM in my experience was noticeably sharper at 2.8 than the zony is at 4, especially in the corners. The GM also happens to have very decent bokeh at 35/2.8, though slightly decreased sharpness compared to its wide end, if that matters to you.
 
idimarco said:
Hi caplanner!

I had the same question in my mind for such a long time and, sadly, I had to do the purchase twice.

I won't buy the prime here, simply because I really think that today's zoom lenses are good enough when compared to most of the primes out there. Also, your option is the 16-35 which is probably one of the best Sony lens today (in both versions).

I own the f4 and I am super happy with it. I bought the Tokina FIRIN 20mm before and there was nothing wrong with it but simply, I'm feeling much more comfortable with a zoom lens when in the field. Sometimes is not possible to zoom with our feet! Also you'll get an ultra wide focal range (16-20mm) that the ZEISS prime simply don't have.

If you're not on budget get the 16-35 f/2.8 but is bigger and heavier than the f4, also I don't think the extra stop of light will make a lot of difference but of course, it's personal taste.

Hope it helps
Click to expand...
Thanks Ivan, it does help. I could get the 1635 f4 AND the Loxia (or Batis 18) for the price of the GM. Like I said, though, I only want to purchase once so I do have this nagging thought that I should get the GM.
 
fieldray said:
I own and use both the 16-35 GM and the 21mm Loxia lenses. Both are spectacular performers. The 21mm Loxia is a nearly perfect lens with beautiful high contrast imagery corner to corner. Wide open it has more vignetting than the GM lens, so if I am concerned about evenness of illumination I stop down. No need to stop down for sharpness. The 16-35GM is also amazingly sharp and has better vignetting performance.
Click to expand...
fieldray said:
I do not own the 16-35mm F/4.0 lens but based on Dxomark tests, it is not as good a performer as the GM lens. By the rules of the choice posed in your post I would go with the 16-35 GM lens.
Click to expand...
fieldray said:
By my actions I vote for the GM lens plus the 21mm Loxia
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't where I wind up - just not as quickly....

Thanks for the feedback.
 
tonyz1 said:
If size/weight doesn’t matter, just get the GM option. If size/weight does matter and you don’t mind swapping lenses, get the laowa 15 + loxia 21.
Click to expand...
Size/weight doesn't matter (that much). I'm usually carrying more glass than necessary - 35 1.4, 70-200 F4 and either the Batis 135 2.8 or Sony 100 STF.
The biggest issue with the smaller sized lenses is more vignetting on the corners but easily corrected. I’m currently using this combo myself after an extensive search for a compact ultra wide option for an upcoming trip. I had the Sony 16-35mm f4 before I got the loxia 21 and didn’t like the size and weight of it. Image quality was good for its time but there are far better options now for around the same price. This is why I asked the question - I want the most versatility but overall image quality is most important. I'm willing to carry what's necessary to get it. [QUOTE="tonyz1 said:
I also recently tried a Sony 12-24 and enjoyed it very much with the only reason I returned it due to size so ended up with the laowa to complement my loxia 21.
Click to expand...
thank you for the info.

tonyz1 said:
caplanner, post: 61270818, member: 1837692"]
This isn't the classic help me choose the best wide angle lens question.

To cover the focal length wider than 35 I'm deciding between:

Option1

Sony 16-35 GM

Option2

Sony 16-35 F4

Loxia 21 2.8

I understand aperture, rendering discussions aside and let's assume I get a good copy of all of them.

From those that do serious landscape work, does the smaller diameter/size of the loxia have any negative impact on usability of the lens in low light situations that should influence my decision for the GM over the combination in option 2?

Any other considerations - I only want to make this purchase once (at least that's my hope),
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top