Replacing my 16-35 f/4 Sony Zeiss with....?

[ulankford]

So, I was thinking of dumping my Sony 16-35 f/4 and upgrading it to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM.

But I have been thinking a little bit.

I already have the 35 f/2.8 which is a great little lens. Really sharp and compact.

The Wide zoom GM is expensive for what it is, so I could instead get the 24 f/1.4 GM and a Laowa 15 f/2 for around the same price, give or take.

That would give me a prime 15 f/2, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/2.8 which should cover any base for Astro, Landscape, or environmental portraits in low light.

Or should I stick with my plan and go for the 16-35 GM upgrade instead?

 

[Jeff2013]

It depends what and how you shoot. For carefully staged photography, I shoot the type of primes you mentioned. For run-and-gun photography, such as vacations with my wife (who hates being delayed by my photography), I use my GM 16-35mm (with a 12mm in my bag).

Fortunately, the GM 16-35mm is excellent, so I do not give-up too much (if anything) in terms of IQ.

-
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography

 

[ElGhuraify]

If you have the money and need versatility, go for the GM. I own it and it is an outstanding lens, you won't regret it at all.

The 24 GM is a tempting option but it all depends on you.

 

[PWPhotography]

I replaced 16-35/4.0 ZA to EF 16-35L/4.0 IS then 16-35 GM. Very happy. I also have prime lenses around FL range - CV 12/5.6, CV 21/1.4 and CV 40/1.2 Nokton.

 

[peter826]

The Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 seems to get really good reviews, and is considerably cheaper than the 16-35 GM. You already have 35mm covered, would 14mm benefit you more than 16mm?

 

[RichardLarssen]

So, I was thinking of dumping my Sony 16-35 f/4 and upgrading it to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM.

But I have been thinking a little bit.

I already have the 35 f/2.8 which is a great little lens. Really sharp and compact.

The Wide zoom GM is expensive for what it is, so I could instead get the 24 f/1.4 GM and a Laowa 15 f/2 for around the same price, give or take.

That would give me a prime 15 f/2, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/2.8 which should cover any base for Astro, Landscape, or environmental portraits in low light.

Or should I stick with my plan and go for the 16-35 GM upgrade instead?

I had both the 16-35 GM and Zeiss. Sold the GM and bought the 20mm F/1.8 G. No regrets.
They work very well together. I dumped the Zeiss 16-35 once before. Bought it back again one year later. That lovely sunstar was truly missed. Do look into the 20mm G, its fantastic.

 

[DBHC]

So, I was thinking of dumping my Sony 16-35 f/4 and upgrading it to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM.

But I have been thinking a little bit.

I already have the 35 f/2.8 which is a great little lens. Really sharp and compact.

The Wide zoom GM is expensive for what it is, so I could instead get the 24 f/1.4 GM and a Laowa 15 f/2 for around the same price, give or take.

That would give me a prime 15 f/2, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/2.8 which should cover any base for Astro, Landscape, or environmental portraits in low light.

Or should I stick with my plan and go for the 16-35 GM upgrade instead?

May I throw another lens into play. The Loxia 21, or maybe the Voigtländer 21 f/1.4 both marvelous lenses and a great focal length. If you use LR then try and do a search of your photos based on focal length. That helped me a lot and will maybe help you too in your decision.

David

 

[voronspb]

The main difference is that 16-35 can be easily used as a walk-around lens, while an UWA prime usually shall be backed by a kind of "normal" lens. So it comes up to your ability to carry multiple lenses and safely juggle them during the shooting.

 

[mreynolds767]

I shoot wide angle so often that the zoom is my preference. There is a huge difference in my eye between 15 and 24 mm ; I could see many scenarios where 15 is too wide and 24 is too narrow. Personally I have opted for the 12-24 over the 16-35

I also have kept the Loxia 21 around just cause I like it so much, tiny, gives me enough speed for Astro and love the sunstars it produces.

 

[poipoipoi_2016]

So, I was thinking of dumping my Sony 16-35 f/4 and upgrading it to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM.

But I have been thinking a little bit.

I already have the 35 f/2.8 which is a great little lens. Really sharp and compact.

The Wide zoom GM is expensive for what it is, so I could instead get the 24 f/1.4 GM and a Laowa 15 f/2 for around the same price, give or take.

That would give me a prime 15 f/2, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/2.8 which should cover any base for Astro, Landscape, or environmental portraits in low light.

Or should I stick with my plan and go for the 16-35 GM upgrade instead?

The 16-35/2.8 is, I think, the most versatile urban/night/indoors/wide lens around, even if it's not the best in the corners.

Alternatively, the 14-24 also works, I just wouldn't go walking around after dark with *only* the 14-24.

 

[Dan_168]

So, I was thinking of dumping my Sony 16-35 f/4 and upgrading it to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM.

But I have been thinking a little bit.

I already have the 35 f/2.8 which is a great little lens. Really sharp and compact.

The Wide zoom GM is expensive for what it is, so I could instead get the 24 f/1.4 GM and a Laowa 15 f/2 for around the same price, give or take.

Laowa 15 F2+ Sony 24 GM instead of 16-35 2.8 ( from any manufacture and brand) is exactly what I did and what I will suggest. maybe with the exception of the Sigma 14-24 F2.8, with this Laowa and Sony prime combo I have the much lager aperture lens and each lens is so much smaller and lighter, I shoot a lot of astro when travel, well, I go to mountain and national part a lot more than cities when I travel, so a 24 1.4 works a lot better than a bulky 2.8 prime FOR ME. bottom like i think you will be happy to replace this 16-35 F4 with any lens in that focal range, I have that lens for really short time but mostly just sitting in the closet, I kind of regret I didn't send that back sooner. LOL.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

So, I was thinking of dumping my Sony 16-35 f/4 and upgrading it to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM.

But I have been thinking a little bit.

I already have the 35 f/2.8 which is a great little lens. Really sharp and compact.

The Wide zoom GM is expensive for what it is, so I could instead get the 24 f/1.4 GM and a Laowa 15 f/2 for around the same price, give or take.

That would give me a prime 15 f/2, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/2.8 which should cover any base for Astro, Landscape, or environmental portraits in low light.

Or should I stick with my plan and go for the 16-35 GM upgrade instead?

Depends on your uses. I shoot events (low light), so the extra light gathering of primes works for me. I have a 35/1.8, 25/2 and 18/2.8.

 

[PWPhotography]

So, I was thinking of dumping my Sony 16-35 f/4 and upgrading it to the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM.

But I have been thinking a little bit.

I already have the 35 f/2.8 which is a great little lens. Really sharp and compact.

The Wide zoom GM is expensive for what it is, so I could instead get the 24 f/1.4 GM and a Laowa 15 f/2 for around the same price, give or take.

Laowa 15 F2+ Sony 24 GM instead of 16-35 2.8 ( from any manufacture and brand) is exactly what I did and what I will suggest.

Guess largely in your application of astro photos that may not apply to others. Otherwise 16-35 GM has much better FL versatility in general landscape, event etc. I shoot 35mm side lots from the zoom that is also very sharp.

maybe with the exception of the Sigma 14-24 F2.8,

According to few reviews I have seen they are in similar sharpness between 16-35 GM and Sigma 14-24. At wide open GM is slightly sharper in center while Sigma is slightly sharper at edges. After stop down they are neck to neck.

Personally the decisive factors to me in choosing 16-35 GM are 1) much better and useful FL range so much less in swapping lenses; 2) can use regular filters and 100mm holder system that is a huge factor; 3) lighter that Sigma as I carry other lenses; 4) Sony brand, the resale value is much higher in future.

with this Laowa and Sony prime combo I have the much lager aperture lens and each lens is so much smaller and lighter, I shoot a lot of astro when travel, well, I go to mountain and national part a lot more than cities when I travel, so a 24 1.4 works a lot better than a bulky 2.8 prime FOR ME. bottom like i think you will be happy to replace this 16-35 F4 with any lens in that focal range, I have that lens for really short time but mostly just sitting in the closet, I kind of regret I didn't send that back sooner. LOL.

We all have so many choices. I chose Voigtlander FE 21/1.4 Nokton over Sony 24 GM as 1) much prefer 21 over 24mm in landscape/cityscape; 2) Voigtlander sunstar is way better than Sony that is a decisive factor; 3) CV may also better in micro-contrast.

By any definition 16-35 GM is not bulky 680g especially you don't mind 1Dx and Dx bodies and DSLR lenses that sounds funny ;-)

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[Dan_168]

By any definition 16-35 GM is not bulky 680g especially you don't mind 1Dx and Dx bodies and DSLR lenses that sounds funny ;-)

Nothing funny, small or big is a relative term. it also change based on situation, I covered local event like the last few big BLM big protest here with two 1D series bodies one with 24-70 2.8 one with 70-200 2.8 mounted all day without issue, however, I bought my Sony specifically for backpacking and long hike, so I nomrally pair with the Loxia and Voigtlander Prime, so any 16-35 F2.8 type of zoom is "big" in comparison, and for my D850+ VG, even the Sigma 14 1.8 type of lens is not big, like this one from two night ago, I was hiking on Mojave Desert in the middle of the night for about 4-5 miles, since there is not much elevation gain but just some desert heat, so even a D850+ VG +Sigma 14 1.8, Sigma 20 F1.4, Sigma 50 1.4 combo was not that "big" and difficult.

However, for longer high with elevation gain, like this one from last week, 11-12 miles with 4500 feet elevation change, ( Mist Trail+ Panoramic up then 4 Mile trail down) it's the Sony 7RIV + Laowa 15 F2 / Sony 24 GM / Loxia that works better, even a 16-35 F2.8 is big and heavy and slow for me for trips like that. this shot was made from 6 or 7 vertical shot from the Sony 24 GM shot at F1.4 wide open. I will be doing another 15+ miles up there starting from the 10,000 feet elevation, so I will only carry the 7RIV and Laowa 15 F2 and a Voigtlander 40 1.2 this weekend. it all depends on the situation and application, so big or small, definition changes.

 

[PWPhotography]

By any definition 16-35 GM is not bulky 680g especially you don't mind 1Dx and Dx bodies and DSLR lenses that sounds funny ;-)

Nothing funny, small or big is a relative term. it also change based on situation, I covered local event like the last few big BLM big protest here with two 1D series bodies one with 24-70 2.8 one with 70-200 2.8 mounted all day without issue, however, I bought my Sony specifically for backpacking and long hike, so I nomrally pair with the Loxia and Voigtlander Prime, so any 16-35 F2.8 type of zoom is "big" in comparison, and for my D850+ VG, even the Sigma 14 1.8 type of lens is not big, like this one from two night ago, I was hiking on Mojave Desert in the middle of the night for about 4-5 miles, since there is not much elevation gain but just some desert heat, so even a D850+ VG +Sigma 14 1.8, Sigma 20 F1.4, Sigma 50 1.4 combo was not that "big" and difficult.

However, for longer high with elevation gain, like this one from last week, 11-12 miles with 4500 feet elevation change, ( Mist Trail+ Panoramic up then 4 Mile trail down) it's the Sony 7RIV + Laowa 15 F2 / Sony 24 GM / Loxia that works better, even a 16-35 F2.8 is big and heavy and slow for me for trips like that. this shot was made from 6 or 7 vertical shot from the Sony 24 GM shot at F1.4 wide open. I will be doing another 15+ miles up there starting from the 10,000 feet elevation, so I will only carry the 7RIV and Laowa 15 F2 and a Voigtlander 40 1.2 this weekend. it all depends on the situation and application, so big or small, definition changes.

As I said you mainly concentrate in your astro photo area that agreed Loawa 15 and 24 GM are great, better than 16-35 GM. But 16-35 GM is much versatile in regular landscape/cityscape in a very useful FL range rather only two fixed FL stops - 15 and 24mm. I carried the lens on A7r IV or III and walked in miles without any issues. Laowa 15/2.0 (500g) + 24 GM (445g) = 945 g that is much heavier than 16-35 GM @680 g while still only can shoot 15mm and 24mm FL. Guess you might have a different standard of weight/size ;-)

Personally I don't have much chance to shoot astro photos from where I live, maybe after retirement that has many years to go. Otherwise I'd also pickup Loawa 15/2.0 for the purpose. 16-35 GM also can take astro at 16mm/F2.8 with low coma. 24mm is not wide enough for that purpose. I chose CV 21/1.4 Nokton over 24 GM in my purpose of landsacape/cityscape, similar sharpness but quite wider, way better sunstar/lightstar and likely also better micro-contrast. and chose CV 12 that is significantly wider than 15/16mm for architecture and UWA landscape/cityscape.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[Lan]

I think your question is best answered with another question - why do you want to replace your 16-35 f4 Zeiss?

If you need something wider, consider the 12-24.

If you need something faster, consider the 16-35 GM.

If you want something prime shaped, get a prime Perhaps a Loxia if you like MF?

I have the 12-24 and wish I'd bought the 16-35 GM instead. Why? Because I find I tend to use my 24-105 more now that I have the 12-24. The narrow range of the 12-24 means that it's a specialist lens, rather than a generalist (the 16-35 is IMO a generalist lens). As a result it doesn't get used as often as I'd anticipated. Don't get me wrong, I love my 12-24, but I do sometimes wonder whether I've made the right choice...