Is it time that Sony make a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens?

iluvphoto said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

iluvphoto said:

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens is no longer class-leading. Both Canon and Nikon have a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens. Does anyone wish Sony would match Canon and Nikon?

Click to expand...

There is no "The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens"; there are two such lenses. The older Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is not class-leading (although I have it and IMO it's fine for many purposes). But IMO, anyone claiming that the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is not at least about as good as other brands' counterparts is going to have to provide some fairly clear evidence supporting that claim to be taken seriously.

The suggestion that Sony should make a 14-30/35mm lens when, in addition to four different E-mount 16-35mm lenses, it offers two different 12-24mm lenses, strikes me as very difficult to justify. Seriously: 12-24, 14-30, and 16-35mm zooms?! There'd be far too much overlap.

The only new Sony ultrawide zoom I can see as reasonably likely coming or really needed in the near future is an updated 12-24mm f/4 G II. The original 12-24mm f/4 G is an aging design that probably could be improved to a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

How about discontinuing the existing ones to make room for a new one?

Click to expand...

RaysJ said:

iluvphoto said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

RaysJ said:

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens is no longer class-leading. Both Canon and Nikon have a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens. Does anyone wish Sony would match Canon and Nikon?

Click to expand...

There is no "The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens"; there are two such lenses. The older Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is not class-leading (although I have it and IMO it's fine for many purposes). But IMO, anyone claiming that the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is not at least about as good as other brands' counterparts is going to have to provide some fairly clear evidence supporting that claim to be taken seriously.

The suggestion that Sony should make a 14-30/35mm lens when, in addition to four different E-mount 16-35mm lenses, it offers two different 12-24mm lenses, strikes me as very difficult to justify. Seriously: 12-24, 14-30, and 16-35mm zooms?! There'd be far too much overlap.

The only new Sony ultrawide zoom I can see as reasonably likely coming or really needed in the near future is an updated 12-24mm f/4 G II. The original 12-24mm f/4 G is an aging design that probably could be improved to a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

How about discontinuing the existing ones to make room for a new one?

Click to expand...

Why? Many people want a 16-35 lens. The pz version is fairly new. I would rather have the 16-35 range. Will the 14-30 take front filters?

l feel a 14-30 would be a more niche lens. 16-35 is a popular lens for landscapes.

Looking at the Canon there are some issues at 14mm and 35mm.

Also is quite a bit more expensive.

Click to expand...

RaysJ said:

iluvphoto said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

RaysJ said:

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens is no longer class-leading. Both Canon and Nikon have a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens. Does anyone wish Sony would match Canon and Nikon?

Click to expand...

There is no "The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens"; there are two such lenses. The older Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is not class-leading (although I have it and IMO it's fine for many purposes). But IMO, anyone claiming that the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is not at least about as good as other brands' counterparts is going to have to provide some fairly clear evidence supporting that claim to be taken seriously.

The suggestion that Sony should make a 14-30/35mm lens when, in addition to four different E-mount 16-35mm lenses, it offers two different 12-24mm lenses, strikes me as very difficult to justify. Seriously: 12-24, 14-30, and 16-35mm zooms?! There'd be far too much overlap.

The only new Sony ultrawide zoom I can see as reasonably likely coming or really needed in the near future is an updated 12-24mm f/4 G II. The original 12-24mm f/4 G is an aging design that probably could be improved to a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

How about discontinuing the existing ones to make room for a new one?

Click to expand...

Why? Many people want a 16-35 lens. The pz version is fairly new. I would rather have the 16-35 range. Will the 14-30 take front filters?

Click to expand...

RaysJ said:

l feel a 14-30 would be a more niche lens. 16-35 is a popular lens for landscapes.

Click to expand...

RaysJ said:

Looking at the Canon there are some issues at 14mm and 35mm.

Also is quite a bit more expensive.

Click to expand...

Impulses said:

RaysJ said:

iluvphoto said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Impulses said:

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens is no longer class-leading. Both Canon and Nikon have a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens. Does anyone wish Sony would match Canon and Nikon?

Click to expand...

There is no "The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens"; there are two such lenses. The older Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is not class-leading (although I have it and IMO it's fine for many purposes). But IMO, anyone claiming that the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is not at least about as good as other brands' counterparts is going to have to provide some fairly clear evidence supporting that claim to be taken seriously.

The suggestion that Sony should make a 14-30/35mm lens when, in addition to four different E-mount 16-35mm lenses, it offers two different 12-24mm lenses, strikes me as very difficult to justify. Seriously: 12-24, 14-30, and 16-35mm zooms?! There'd be far too much overlap.

The only new Sony ultrawide zoom I can see as reasonably likely coming or really needed in the near future is an updated 12-24mm f/4 G II. The original 12-24mm f/4 G is an aging design that probably could be improved to a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

How about discontinuing the existing ones to make room for a new one?

Click to expand...

Why? Many people want a 16-35 lens. The pz version is fairly new. I would rather have the 16-35 range. Will the 14-30 take front filters?

Click to expand...

Why not? Nikon's Z 14-30/4 does... (82mm)

Impulses said:

l feel a 14-30 would be a more niche lens. 16-35 is a popular lens for landscapes.

Click to expand...

Wider is always more niche indeed, personally I feel like UWAs are sometimes mis characterized a bit... I get more use out of mine for interiors and dense cities than for vast landscapes, but that could be a matter of semantics.

Impulses said:

Looking at the Canon there are some issues at 14mm and 35mm.

Also is quite a bit more expensive.

Click to expand...

I'm more jelly of the Nikon referenced before. Like I argued elsewhere in the thread though, I don't think we'll see a 14-xx from Sony tho, they clearly decided to have 16-xx & 12-24 lenses, not sure anything in between would make sense. Hopefully Sigma or Tamron can fill that hole, beyond the existing 14-24/2.8 DN.

Click to expand...

ZodiacPhoto said:

Impulses said:

RaysJ said:

iluvphoto said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

ZodiacPhoto said:

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens is no longer class-leading. Both Canon and Nikon have a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens. Does anyone wish Sony would match Canon and Nikon?

Click to expand...

There is no "The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens"; there are two such lenses. The older Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is not class-leading (although I have it and IMO it's fine for many purposes). But IMO, anyone claiming that the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is not at least about as good as other brands' counterparts is going to have to provide some fairly clear evidence supporting that claim to be taken seriously.

The suggestion that Sony should make a 14-30/35mm lens when, in addition to four different E-mount 16-35mm lenses, it offers two different 12-24mm lenses, strikes me as very difficult to justify. Seriously: 12-24, 14-30, and 16-35mm zooms?! There'd be far too much overlap.

The only new Sony ultrawide zoom I can see as reasonably likely coming or really needed in the near future is an updated 12-24mm f/4 G II. The original 12-24mm f/4 G is an aging design that probably could be improved to a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

How about discontinuing the existing ones to make room for a new one?

Click to expand...

Why? Many people want a 16-35 lens. The pz version is fairly new. I would rather have the 16-35 range. Will the 14-30 take front filters?

Click to expand...

Why not? Nikon's Z 14-30/4 does... (82mm)

ZodiacPhoto said:

l feel a 14-30 would be a more niche lens. 16-35 is a popular lens for landscapes.

Click to expand...

Wider is always more niche indeed, personally I feel like UWAs are sometimes mis characterized a bit... I get more use out of mine for interiors and dense cities than for vast landscapes, but that could be a matter of semantics.

ZodiacPhoto said:

Looking at the Canon there are some issues at 14mm and 35mm.

Also is quite a bit more expensive.

Click to expand...

I'm more jelly of the Nikon referenced before. Like I argued elsewhere in the thread though, I don't think we'll see a 14-xx from Sony tho, they clearly decided to have 16-xx & 12-24 lenses, not sure anything in between would make sense. Hopefully Sigma or Tamron can fill that hole, beyond the existing 14-24/2.8 DN.

Click to expand...

I just ordered a Samyang/Rokinon 14-24mm f/2.8. It accepts 77mm front filters. Reviews are generally positive.

Click to expand...

iluvphoto said:

RaysJ said:

iluvphoto said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

iluvphoto said:

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens is no longer class-leading. Both Canon and Nikon have a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens. Does anyone wish Sony would match Canon and Nikon?

Click to expand...

There is no "The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens"; there are two such lenses. The older Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is not class-leading (although I have it and IMO it's fine for many purposes). But IMO, anyone claiming that the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is not at least about as good as other brands' counterparts is going to have to provide some fairly clear evidence supporting that claim to be taken seriously.

The suggestion that Sony should make a 14-30/35mm lens when, in addition to four different E-mount 16-35mm lenses, it offers two different 12-24mm lenses, strikes me as very difficult to justify. Seriously: 12-24, 14-30, and 16-35mm zooms?! There'd be far too much overlap.

The only new Sony ultrawide zoom I can see as reasonably likely coming or really needed in the near future is an updated 12-24mm f/4 G II. The original 12-24mm f/4 G is an aging design that probably could be improved to a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

How about discontinuing the existing ones to make room for a new one?

Click to expand...

Why? Many people want a 16-35 lens. The pz version is fairly new. I would rather have the 16-35 range. Will the 14-30 take front filters?

l feel a 14-30 would be a more niche lens. 16-35 is a popular lens for landscapes.

Looking at the Canon there are some issues at 14mm and 35mm.

Also is quite a bit more expensive.

Click to expand...

Nikon's 14-30mm can take a threaded filter.

Click to expand...

• "a lot of problems with distortion on RAW files,
• huge vignetting on full frame,"

Impulses said:

The flare handling I've seen turned me off some, but I'm still curious to see more reviews, it's remarkably light for what it is... I would've rather had less speed and a bit more range, but yeah it's nice to see at least one other 14-xx on E. Curious to see what you see with it! Are they shipping already?

Click to expand...

RaysJ said:

iluvphoto said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

RaysJ said:

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens is no longer class-leading. Both Canon and Nikon have a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens. Does anyone wish Sony would match Canon and Nikon?

Click to expand...

There is no "The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens"; there are two such lenses. The older Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is not class-leading (although I have it and IMO it's fine for many purposes). But IMO, anyone claiming that the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is not at least about as good as other brands' counterparts is going to have to provide some fairly clear evidence supporting that claim to be taken seriously.

The suggestion that Sony should make a 14-30/35mm lens when, in addition to four different E-mount 16-35mm lenses, it offers two different 12-24mm lenses, strikes me as very difficult to justify. Seriously: 12-24, 14-30, and 16-35mm zooms?! There'd be far too much overlap.

The only new Sony ultrawide zoom I can see as reasonably likely coming or really needed in the near future is an updated 12-24mm f/4 G II. The original 12-24mm f/4 G is an aging design that probably could be improved to a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

How about discontinuing the existing ones to make room for a new one?

Click to expand...

Why? Many people want a 16-35 lens. The pz version is fairly new. I would rather have the 16-35 range. Will the 14-30 take front filters?

l feel a 14-30 would be a more niche lens. 16-35 is a popular lens for landscapes.

Looking at the Canon there are some issues at 14mm and 35mm.

Also is quite a bit more expensive.

Click to expand...

Impulses said:

RaysJ said:

iluvphoto said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Impulses said:

The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens is no longer class-leading. Both Canon and Nikon have a 14-30/35mm f/4 lens. Does anyone wish Sony would match Canon and Nikon?

Click to expand...

There is no "The Sony 16-35mm f/4 lens"; there are two such lenses. The older Sony / Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 is not class-leading (although I have it and IMO it's fine for many purposes). But IMO, anyone claiming that the newer Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is not at least about as good as other brands' counterparts is going to have to provide some fairly clear evidence supporting that claim to be taken seriously.

The suggestion that Sony should make a 14-30/35mm lens when, in addition to four different E-mount 16-35mm lenses, it offers two different 12-24mm lenses, strikes me as very difficult to justify. Seriously: 12-24, 14-30, and 16-35mm zooms?! There'd be far too much overlap.

The only new Sony ultrawide zoom I can see as reasonably likely coming or really needed in the near future is an updated 12-24mm f/4 G II. The original 12-24mm f/4 G is an aging design that probably could be improved to a worthwhile degree.

Click to expand...

How about discontinuing the existing ones to make room for a new one?

Click to expand...

Why? Many people want a 16-35 lens. The pz version is fairly new. I would rather have the 16-35 range. Will the 14-30 take front filters?

Click to expand...

Why not? Nikon's Z 14-30/4 does... (82mm)

Impulses said:

l feel a 14-30 would be a more niche lens. 16-35 is a popular lens for landscapes.

Click to expand...

Wider is always more niche indeed, personally I feel like UWAs are sometimes mis characterized a bit... I get more use out of mine for interiors and dense cities than for vast landscapes, but that could be a matter of semantics.

Impulses said:

Looking at the Canon there are some issues at 14mm and 35mm.

Also is quite a bit more expensive.

Click to expand...

I'm more jelly of the Nikon referenced before. Like I argued elsewhere in the thread though, I don't think we'll see a 14-xx from Sony tho, they clearly decided to have 16-xx & 12-24 lenses, not sure anything in between would make sense. Hopefully Sigma or Tamron can fill that hole, beyond the existing 14-24/2.8 DN.

Click to expand...

Impulses said:

https://dustinabbott.net/2025/06/schneider-kreuznach-x-lk-samyang-14-24mm-f2-8-fe-review/

The way he described it, specially as it pertains to stepping down slightly, flare handling looks somewhat better than what I'd seen before (in random sample images, this is the first review I read where I can know where the reviewer is coming from and how they usually judge stuff). I'd still want something that goes a bit longer TBH, but if I was looking for a smaller 14-24 I'd be very interested in the SY/Schneider.

Edit: In a pinch (and on higher res bodies), you could look at a 14-24/2.8 this lightweight as a 14-36 f2.8-4... That's how I used to treat my 17-28 (like a 17-42). If I really wanna shoot and isolate subjects near normal or 35mm I'd probably bring a prime for it anyway, but cropping got me enough leeway I was fine not switching lenses until I needed a short tele (and totally fine switching between it and 50-xx Tamron teles). YMMV and all that...

Click to expand...

ZodiacPhoto said:

Impulses said:

https://dustinabbott.net/2025/06/schneider-kreuznach-x-lk-samyang-14-24mm-f2-8-fe-review/

The way he described it, specially as it pertains to stepping down slightly, flare handling looks somewhat better than what I'd seen before (in random sample images, this is the first review I read where I can know where the reviewer is coming from and how they usually judge stuff). I'd still want something that goes a bit longer TBH, but if I was looking for a smaller 14-24 I'd be very interested in the SY/Schneider.

Edit: In a pinch (and on higher res bodies), you could look at a 14-24/2.8 this lightweight as a 14-36 f2.8-4... That's how I used to treat my 17-28 (like a 17-42). If I really wanna shoot and isolate subjects near normal or 35mm I'd probably bring a prime for it anyway, but cropping got me enough leeway I was fine not switching lenses until I needed a short tele (and totally fine switching between it and 50-xx Tamron teles). YMMV and all that...

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this link, I find Dustin's reviews trustworthy.

Interestingly, in USA this lens is sold as a Rokinon, and loses Schneider-Kreuznach marking...

Click to expand...