16-35mm GM2 vs 16-25mm G+ 35mm GM

I have 35mmGM and want to get a wide angle zoom to my lenses.



I am considering either adding 16-25mm G or get 16-35mm GM2.



Getting the G lens allows me more flexibility in exchange of inconvenience of switching lens when I need 35mm.

Which will be a better choice and why? The main use will be travel and landscape photography.

sushen said:

I have 35mmGM and want to get a wide angle zoom to my lenses.

I am considering either adding 16-25mm G or get 16-35mm GM2.

Getting the G lens allows me more flexibility in exchange of inconvenience of switching lens when I need 35mm.

Which will be a better choice and why? The main use will be travel and landscape photography.

Click to expand...

If you have a high resolution sensor I would go with the 1625G. For two reasons:

1. In apsc mode you can get to 37.5mm with the 1625G.
2. It has the same lens filter/feel as the 35GM (67mm).

If you have standard 24MP sensor, then get the 1635GM2 to make sure you can get the FF look at 35mm, and for (slightly better rendering than the G).

I’m having the same question. The GMII disappointed me: sharper at 16mm than the PZ, weirdly unsharp at the edges at 20 and 24, good at 35. But it needed to be closed down to f5.6 to compete with the PZ. Which trumps the idea of getting an f2.8.

I don’t want to go back to the PZ, but this16-25, if at least as good, would be a win.

sushen said:

I have 35mmGM and want to get a wide angle zoom to my lenses.

I am considering either adding 16-25mm G or get 16-35mm GM2.

Getting the G lens allows me more flexibility in exchange of inconvenience of switching lens when I need 35mm.

Which will be a better choice and why? The main use will be travel and landscape photography.

Click to expand...

In both cases with such wide angles, you still need another lens in order to be useful for travel and landscape. For example 24-70mm or even 28-200. So the 16-25 plus whatever other lens for more reach will make more sense to me.

georgehakim said:

sushen said:

I have 35mmGM and want to get a wide angle zoom to my lenses.

I am considering either adding 16-25mm G or get 16-35mm GM2.

Getting the G lens allows me more flexibility in exchange of inconvenience of switching lens when I need 35mm.

Which will be a better choice and why? The main use will be travel and landscape photography.

Click to expand...

In both cases with such wide angles, you still need another lens in order to be useful for travel and landscape. For example 24-70mm or even 28-200. So the 16-25 plus whatever other lens for more reach will make more sense to me.

Click to expand...

I'd also consider the Sig 16-28 over the Sony 16-25, in the UK its significantly cheaper and the overall difference will be very small, to say the least, except the aperture ring. The benefit of the Sig is the 28mm, you know exactly where you are with it, 25mm is a bit of a nowhere focal length. I think Sony made a mistake with this lens, they should have tried 14-24, and offered something different over existing 16-35's and given people an actual reason to buy it!

The 16-28 and a 35/40 or 50 seems far my more useful than the 16-25/24-50 combo Sony has put out. Again the 24-50 should really have been a 20-50 imo, possibly 2.8-4 and the same with the 16-25, ie 14-24 2.8-4. Make them well corrected with coma at 2.8 speed and the lens becomes really dual purpose, shame!

alphaZ said:

georgehakim said:

sushen said:

I have 35mmGM and want to get a wide angle zoom to my lenses.

I am considering either adding 16-25mm G or get 16-35mm GM2.

Getting the G lens allows me more flexibility in exchange of inconvenience of switching lens when I need 35mm.

Which will be a better choice and why? The main use will be travel and landscape photography.

Click to expand...

In both cases with such wide angles, you still need another lens in order to be useful for travel and landscape. For example 24-70mm or even 28-200. So the 16-25 plus whatever other lens for more reach will make more sense to me.

Click to expand...

I'd also consider the Sig 16-28 over the Sony 16-25, in the UK its significantly cheaper and the overall difference will be very small, to say the least, except the aperture ring. The benefit of the Sig is the 28mm, you know exactly where you are with it, 25mm is a bit of a nowhere focal length. I think Sony made a mistake with this lens, they should have tried 14-24, and offered something different over existing 16-35's and given people an actual reason to buy it

Click to expand...

I think you are on to something a 14-24 would have been ideal. but I can see that affecting sales of the 16-35 GM. Rather that 14-24 should have been the option for the 16-35pz. The 14-24G would have complimented the 20-70 G perfectly even at f4.

alphaZ said:

The 16-28 and a 35/40 or 50 seems far my more useful than the 16-25/24-50 combo Sony has put out. Again the 24-50 should really have been a 20-50 imo, possibly 2.8-4 and the same with the 16-25, ie 14-24 2.8-4. Make them well corrected with coma at 2.8 speed and the lens becomes really dual purpose, shame!

Click to expand...

I posted elsewhere that these two lenses need to be bought as a pair and they should be seen as f2.8 25mm and 50mm primes that can widen to 16mm and 24 mm respectively. Using that fromy of reference makes then easier to use, and easier to place them in one's kit. In actual use they have me questioning the need for any other lenses in that range that isn't at least f1.4 they are that good. Especially on the higher MP cameras. with just those two lenses in my walk around kit I would never feel like I needed another lens.

After trying two copies of the 16-35 GMII, one badly decentered, the other one not that good either (but still better), I decided to try this 16-25.

It's on par with the best GM II I had (I'd say a bit worse at 16mm, better at 20 and 24mm), at a fraction of the cost. The 35f1.4 GM will, I don't doubt it, be far better than the 16-35 GM II at 35mm, which was soft except in the center at f2.8, not that impressive at f5.6 though good enough I'd say.

I'm happy with my choice. I feel the 16-25 is funnier to handle (smaller, balances well). Of course, my 20f1.8 is far better at f4, but this was also the case compared to the 16-35f2.8 GMII. At least, I don't blame the 16-25 for being near 3 times pricier

Overall, it's a good buy, one that doesn't leave me dissatisfied.

I still believe the 16-35f2.8 GMII, if you have a good copy, is the best of both, but it's so marginal (like, the smalles of improvements) that I won't care, especially as I got the 35f1.4 GM for the same overall price, which will give me more fun and more options. And none other than me pixel peeps as much as I do in my pictures, to be honest, so none will see the tiny differences in corner sharpness.

--
Pierre P.
Blog: http://pierrepphoto.wordpress.com
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/pierre.paqueton

16mm





20mm





25mm





At 16mm, the GMII is clearly better. At 20 and 25mm, it's about the same. My 20mm is way better than both of them.

I prefer to get the 16-25f2.8 and the 35f1.4 GM, and get the 20f1.8 when I need ultimate sharpness.

Note that the 16-35f4 PZ is on par with the 16-25f2.8, so if you don't want f2.8 and or spend $2700, the PZ is clearly a superb choice.

--
Pierre P.
Blog: http://pierrepphoto.wordpress.com
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/pierre.paqueton

PPierre said:

16mm





20mm





25mm





At 16mm, the GMII is clearly better. At 20 and 25mm, it's about the same. My 20mm is way better than both of them.

I prefer to get the 16-25f2.8 and the 35f1.4 GM, and get the 20f1.8 when I need ultimate sharpness.

Note that the 16-35f4 PZ is on par with the 16-25f2.8, so if you don't want f2.8 and or spend $2700, the PZ is clearly a superb choice.

Click to expand...

Question, were these shot on different days? In all of these shots the 1625G looks better than the 1635GM. I am in agreement that the 20G is better glass. Thank you for sharing these comparisons.

Yes, on different months even. I no longer have the GMII, but I’d say it’s sharper at 16mm in the corners. Otherwise, it’s more or less a tie, and I think copy to copy variations will make the difference.

PPierre said:

Yes, on different months even. I no longer have the GMII, but I’d say it’s sharper at 16mm in the corners. Otherwise, it’s more or less a tie, and I think copy to copy variations will make the difference.

Click to expand...

Understood. I almost never look to the corners for variations, so that's where I missed the difference.

Which would you keep if you could only keep one, and why? The 20G or the 1625G?

Tough choice, I’ll see how I use them. I love the 20, so heart says the 20, but realistically, I’m sure the 16-25 will get more use. Let’s see how I pair them with 35, 50 and 70-200

PPierre said:

Tough choice, I’ll see how I use them. I love the 20, so heart says the 20, but realistically, I’m sure the 16-25 will get more use. Let’s see how I pair them with 35, 50 and 70-200

Click to expand...

Took me years to learn how to be effective with the 20G, and now that I am I miss it when not using it (except when using the 50GM). BUT I really do love the look of 16mm more so than 20mm, and in the center all of the lenses are good.

Also the 20G is great for expansive landscapes when shooting in pixel shift mode, there are almost too many options.