Sharpness of the PZ 16-35 F4 vs prime lenses

[StanVer]

Hello,
I'm wondering about adding a prime lens in addition to my FE PZ 16-35 mm F4. Beyond the question of the larger aperture (which will be the number one reason for this addition), I wonder if, in terms of sharpness (for daytime landscape photos), there's a real difference between the GM 14mm f/1.8 and the PZ at 16mm, the GM 24mm f/1.4 GM and the PZ at 24mm and the GM 35mm f/1.4 and the PZ at 35mm? In my opinion, the PZ is really sharp, with perhaps a (small) weakness in the corners between 16 and 20 mm (a bit softer but still good)... But at 35mm, for example, it's really sharp from corner to corner.
Thanks a lot!

 

[Sparky_oto]

I have the 16-35/4, 14/1.8 and 24/1.4. The 16-35 is sharp enough for most uses in these FLs, but don’t expect them to be the same at 200% crop.

 

[Impulses]

I doubt there'll be much to it once you've stopped them all down to f5.6-8, for the intended purposes... 14 and 16mm are significantly different FLs tho, and there's other characteristics that may be more relevant in one lens or another besides ultimate sharpness (eg the 35GM suppresses flare super well imo). It's hard to argue with a zoom's versatility for landscapes tho, what's it matter if a prime is marginally sharper if you end up cropping slightly (or carrying 3-4 of them) to match the zoom's coverage?

I like primes, I own way more FF primes than zooms, but if I'm mainly shooting landscapes and/or the unexpected then I'd reach for my zooms (two Tamrons).

 

[StanVer]

Thank you for your answers. It confirms what I think, in terms of sharpness, it's hard to do better than the PZ 16-35, unless you do pixel-peeping at 200%... I might go for the FE GM 14 f/1.8 to have a wider focal length and shoot at night / twilight. It might also be a little sharper in the corners than the PZ at 16mm (the only slight weakness of this lens for me, which disappears above 20mm).

 

[SrMi]

Thank you for your answers. It confirms what I think, in terms of sharpness, it's hard to do better than the PZ 16-35, unless you do pixel-peeping at 200%... I might go for the FE GM 14 f/1.8 to have a wider focal length and shoot at night / twilight. It might also be a little sharper in the corners than the PZ at 16mm (the only slight weakness of this lens for me, which disappears above 20mm).

In my book, the PZ 16-35 is optically a very competent and very important Sony lens. If you do not need apertures wider than f/4, the difference to smaller primes ( f/2, 2.5. 2.8) is mainly in ergonomics: controls, size, and weight. Those differences are the only reasons why I would sometimes prefer a prime to the PZ.

 

[TBLF]

I'm not a heavy ultra wide shooter, but I do need one occasionally. Like you, I waffled a bit on the PZ vs/ primes, then finally decided on the Viltrox 16mm F1.8. I've only had it a few days but my initial impression was that it was the right decision.

The test shots of my copy look well centered, its sharp from wide open, the AF actually works very well and the colors are great.

My only beef, a small one, is that this is not a pocketable lens, it's a little big and heavy... but I guess that goes with level of this level of optics at this price. It's a heck of a bang for the buck.

 

[Interceptor121]

Unless the prime is really bad...

The point is what matters most to you

If this is ultimate optical quality take primes, however if you don't know what to expect or can't change lenses on the field take zooms

When you look at zoom check if the f/number is appropriate to your shooting situation

In essence do not ask yourself the question you just did. primes are better than zoom full stop

 

[Adam-T]

Unless the prime is really bad...

and a lot of them are, by design even - EG:- there are plenty of pancakes on the market which are bested even by less than top end zooms .. Most high end zooms will match or beat a lot of basic primes like the typical small DSLR era 24/28/35mm F2.8s and the Sony FE50 F1.8 isn`t exactly marvellous at F2.8 either especially across the frame (other 50 F1.8s likewise), the E-30mm Macro is pretty bad compared to consumer zooms even.

Zooms are often better than primes because there are a lot of mediocre primes out there even ones made in the past 15 years or so

 

[Interceptor121]

Unless the prime is really bad...

and a lot of them are, by design even - EG:- there are plenty of pancakes on the market which are bested even by less than top end zooms .. Most high end zooms will match or beat a lot of basic primes like the typical small DSLR era 24/28/35mm F2.8s and the Sony FE50 F1.8 isn`t exactly marvellous at F2.8 either especially across the frame (other 50 F1.8s likewise), the E-30mm Macro is pretty bad compared to consumer zooms even.

Zooms are often better than primes because there are a lot of mediocre primes out there even ones made in the past 15 years or so

Exception of the lens you mention a lot of Sony basic primes are not beaten by the best zoom

Example 35/1.8 85/1.8 are super sharp even 28/2 does not get beaten

pancake depends I have the G series and all are better than my 24-70

But that is not why you buy a zoom. You buy a zoom for flexibility so you can go somewhere with one or two attached to a few bodies and not swap

 

[StanVer]

In fact, I have no intention of replacing my PZ with a prime... A zoom and a prime perform different functions. I was just wondering whether the primes would give me more sharpness compared with my PZ, since I find my PZ very sharp. I don't agree with you when you say that primes are better than zooms. I have a GM 50 fe 1.4 and in terms of sharpness, it's hard for instance to see a difference at F. 5.6 with the PZ at 35 mm (on the other hand, of course the GM 50 lets me take photos I'd never get with the PZ because of the aperture...).

 

[Interceptor121]

In fact, I have no intention of replacing my PZ with a prime... A zoom and a prime perform different functions. I was just wondering whether the primes would give me more sharpness compared with my PZ, since I find my PZ very sharp. I don't agree with you when you say that primes are better than zooms. I have a GM 50 fe 1.4 and in terms of sharpness, it's hard for instance to see a difference at F. 5.6 with the PZ at 35 mm (on the other hand, of course the GM 50 lets me take photos I'd never get with the PZ because of the aperture...

you are comparing a 50mm with what 35mm at the same frame horizontal size when you say its not sharp? I dont have the 50/1.4 but I doubt very much that your power zoom can match or sony have done a terrible mistake

 

[Impulses]

Thank you for your answers. It confirms what I think, in terms of sharpness, it's hard to do better than the PZ 16-35, unless you do pixel-peeping at 200%... I might go for the FE GM 14 f/1.8 to have a wider focal length and shoot at night / twilight. It might also be a little sharper in the corners than the PZ at 16mm (the only slight weakness of this lens for me, which disappears above 20mm).

In my book, the PZ 16-35 is optically a very competent and very important Sony lens. If you do not need apertures wider than f/4, the difference to smaller primes ( f/2, 2.5. 2.8) is mainly in ergonomics: controls, size, and weight. Those differences are the only reasons why I would sometimes prefer a prime to the PZ.

It's not even much larger (if any?) or heavier than something like the 20/1.8 G tbh, really tiny for a zoom, I own the 20G and a slightly larger/heavier UWA zoom but I agree. The 16-35/4 G is a big win for Sony. The Sigma 20/2 might actually be larger and/or heavier... I know for a fact the excellent Viltrox 16/1.8 is larger and heavier. As you alluded to, one would have to look at f2.8 primes for an UWA much smaller (Samyang 18/2.8 or Viltrox 20/2.8), and any one of those paired with a 35mm would already be back >350g without even covering the full range of the zoom.

I bought my 20G cause I really like shooting it alongside a 35mm (previously the f1.8, now the GM) in instances where the speed matters, heck I may even get that Viltrox 16/1.8 someday for astro. However, I invariably end up using my UWA zoom more often because of it's versatility.

 

[Impulses]

I'm not a heavy ultra wide shooter, but I do need one occasionally. Like you, I waffled a bit on the PZ vs/ primes, then finally decided on the Viltrox 16mm F1.8. I've only had it a few days but my initial impression was that it was the right decision.

The test shots of my copy look well centered, its sharp from wide open, the AF actually works very well and the colors are great.

My only beef, a small one, is that this is not a pocketable lens, it's a little big and heavy... but I guess that goes with level of this level of optics at this price. It's a heck of a bang for the buck.

That's the next lens on my wishlist, for the day I have more time for astro and/or would rather just shoot 16+35 instead of 20+35 (or 16+20+75 etc.)... But it's 200g heavier than the 16-35/4 G and half an inch longer, unless the OP has an express need for the extra speed then it's a questionable choice. It uses larger 77mm filters too and not everyone sees shots at <20mm very easily so in practice it can be more frustrating than an UWA zoom that always lets you zoom back in to 20-28/35/50mm when UWA isn't working.

 

[StanVer]

No, I say that both are incredibly sharp... and that Sony has done a remarkable job.

 

[Impulses]

In fact, I have no intention of replacing my PZ with a prime... A zoom and a prime perform different functions. I was just wondering whether the primes would give me more sharpness compared with my PZ, since I find my PZ very sharp. I don't agree with you when you say that primes are better than zooms. I have a GM 50 fe 1.4 and in terms of sharpness, it's hard for instance to see a difference at F. 5.6 with the PZ at 35 mm (on the other hand, of course the GM 50 lets me take photos I'd never get with the PZ because of the aperture...

you are comparing a 50mm with what 35mm at the same frame horizontal size when you say its not sharp? I dont have the 50/1.4 but I doubt very much that your power zoom can match or sony have done a terrible mistake

At f5.6-8? I would expect the primes to do better at f4 and obviously at larger apertures, but stopped down? I dunno... Some examples (they haven't reviewed the 16-35 G):

https://www.lenstip.com/572.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_14-24_mm_f_2.8_DG_DN_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/654.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_16-35_mm_f_2.8_GM_II_Image_resolution.html

In the center Sigma manages 60-70lpmm throughout it's 14-24 range at f5.6-8 (dropping at f8). The GM II does pretty much the same thing. In the corners the Sigma is at around 47-50lpmm, the GM II is actually better depending on FL at 52-60lpmm (rounding a little to account for the 3 tested FLs). Here's some of the best primes:

https://www.lenstip.com/629.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20_mm_f_1.8_G_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/598.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_35_mm_f_1.4_GM_Image_resolution.html

Once again, stopped down to f5.6-8, the 20/1.8 G manages 67-73lpmm in the center and 56-58 in the edges. The 35/1.4 GM is around 65-75lpmm in the center and 55-58lpmm on the edges. Those seems like negligible differences to me vs the zooms in the center and at best a minor one on the edges depending on FL and how stopped down one is shooting, at or over f8 it'd be even smaller... I'm not sure I can look at a photo and genuinely tell it's 2-5lpmm sharper.

Like I said in my previous comment, I love my primes and I'd never let em go (including those two above in fact), and I think they've got certain advantages on a zoom beyond ultimate sharpness... However I don't know that I'd pick any of them over a zoom for stopped down daytime landscape shooting based on sharpness alone unless I knew exactly what I was shooting, how I'm gonna shoot it, and I intend to drag out the tripod and maybe use focus stacking or pixel shifting etc.

Low light and other use cases would be a different matter entirely, but the OP asked about a specific use case, I thought. The only reason I included f5.6 is because I know some of us will sacrifice some DoF for sharpness around the point of interest on higher res bodies, but for shooting at f8 and beyond these differences (if any) seem rather moot. I'd expect the 16-35 G to be comparable to the GM II at f8. From the 1st post:

I wonder if, in terms of sharpness (for daytime landscape photos), there's a real difference

 

[Interceptor121]

No, I say that both are incredibly sharp... and that Sony has done a remarkable job.

If you plan to go out and shoot f/4 - f/5.6 with focus point far away the use case for f/1.4 prime gets a bit complicated

I get f1.4-f/1.8 primes to shoot in low light not because they are sharper than my zoom at f/4 although they are

they may be a bit sharper but most good zoom are adequate in most of the zoom range depending on what your requirements are

 

[SrMi]

Thank you for your answers. It confirms what I think, in terms of sharpness, it's hard to do better than the PZ 16-35, unless you do pixel-peeping at 200%... I might go for the FE GM 14 f/1.8 to have a wider focal length and shoot at night / twilight. It might also be a little sharper in the corners than the PZ at 16mm (the only slight weakness of this lens for me, which disappears above 20mm).

In my book, the PZ 16-35 is optically a very competent and very important Sony lens. If you do not need apertures wider than f/4, the difference to smaller primes ( f/2, 2.5. 2.8) is mainly in ergonomics: controls, size, and weight. Those differences are the only reasons why I would sometimes prefer a prime to the PZ.

It's not even much larger (if any?) or heavier than something like the 20/1.8 G tbh, really tiny for a zoom, I own the 20G and a slightly larger/heavier UWA zoom but I agree.

The 20/1.8 does not belong to my list of small primes (Sigma 17/4, Sony 24/2.8, 35/2.8). If you need more than f/4 than the PZ lens is not an option.

The 16-35/4 G is a big win for Sony. The Sigma 20/2 might actually be larger and/or heavier...

Sigma 20/2 is smaller and a bit heavier.

I know for a fact the excellent Viltrox 16/1.8 is larger and heavier. As you alluded to, one would have to look at f2.8 primes for an UWA much smaller (Samyang 18/2.8 or Viltrox 20/2.8), and any one of those paired with a 35mm would already be back >350g without even covering the full range of the zoom.

I bought my 20G cause I really like shooting it alongside a 35mm (previously the f1.8, now the GM) in instances where the speed matters, heck I may even get that Viltrox 16/1.8 someday for astro. However, I invariably end up using my UWA zoom more often because of it's versatility.

 

[Impulses]

Thank you for your answers. It confirms what I think, in terms of sharpness, it's hard to do better than the PZ 16-35, unless you do pixel-peeping at 200%... I might go for the FE GM 14 f/1.8 to have a wider focal length and shoot at night / twilight. It might also be a little sharper in the corners than the PZ at 16mm (the only slight weakness of this lens for me, which disappears above 20mm).

In my book, the PZ 16-35 is optically a very competent and very important Sony lens. If you do not need apertures wider than f/4, the difference to smaller primes ( f/2, 2.5. 2.8) is mainly in ergonomics: controls, size, and weight. Those differences are the only reasons why I would sometimes prefer a prime to the PZ.

It's not even much larger (if any?) or heavier than something like the 20/1.8 G tbh, really tiny for a zoom, I own the 20G and a slightly larger/heavier UWA zoom but I agree.

The 20/1.8 does not belong to my list of small primes (Sigma 17/4, Sony 24/2.8, 35/2.8). If you need more than f/4 than the PZ lens is not an option.

The 16-35/4 G is a big win for Sony. The Sigma 20/2 might actually be larger and/or heavier...

Sigma 20/2 is smaller and a bit heavier.

The Sigma 20/2 is larger than the 20/1.8 G IIRC, I didn't say the latter was small or belonged in any list, I just mentioned it because you alluded to f2 primes and it is quite literally one of the smallest 20mm out there (if not the smallest/lightest modern one) with that kinda speed. The Nikon Z one is a monster next to it. I was agreeing with you in saying that the PZ is as small as a fast prime at that FL so it's not like you're giving up size or weight with the zoom, just speed and gaining so much versatility.

Even the 17/4, 24/2.8, and 40/2.5 together will end up weighing more than the 16-35 G, even subbing in some lighter Samyangs doesn't really make 3 primes lighter than a zoom like this. Every mm counts for so much more at the wide end, if speed isn't a requirement then a zoom is not only better (more precise framing to allow you to include or exclude things) but more enjoyable imo, getting stuck with a too-wide prime mounted when you wanna shoot longer or can't make an UWA shot work can bite.

I know for a fact the excellent Viltrox 16/1.8 is larger and heavier. As you alluded to, one would have to look at f2.8 primes for an UWA much smaller (Samyang 18/2.8 or Viltrox 20/2.8), and any one of those paired with a 35mm would already be back >350g without even covering the full range of the zoom.

I bought my 20G cause I really like shooting it alongside a 35mm (previously the f1.8, now the GM) in instances where the speed matters, heck I may even get that Viltrox 16/1.8 someday for astro. However, I invariably end up using my UWA zoom more often because of it's versatility.

 

[SrMi]

Thank you for your answers. It confirms what I think, in terms of sharpness, it's hard to do better than the PZ 16-35, unless you do pixel-peeping at 200%... I might go for the FE GM 14 f/1.8 to have a wider focal length and shoot at night / twilight. It might also be a little sharper in the corners than the PZ at 16mm (the only slight weakness of this lens for me, which disappears above 20mm).

In my book, the PZ 16-35 is optically a very competent and very important Sony lens. If you do not need apertures wider than f/4, the difference to smaller primes ( f/2, 2.5. 2.8) is mainly in ergonomics: controls, size, and weight. Those differences are the only reasons why I would sometimes prefer a prime to the PZ.

It's not even much larger (if any?) or heavier than something like the 20/1.8 G tbh, really tiny for a zoom, I own the 20G and a slightly larger/heavier UWA zoom but I agree.

The 20/1.8 does not belong to my list of small primes (Sigma 17/4, Sony 24/2.8, 35/2.8). If you need more than f/4 than the PZ lens is not an option.

The 16-35/4 G is a big win for Sony. The Sigma 20/2 might actually be larger and/or heavier...

Sigma 20/2 is smaller and a bit heavier.

The Sigma 20/2 is larger than the 20/1.8 G IIRC,

Per B&H data:

Sigma 20/2: 70 x 74.4 mm

Sony 20/1.8: 73.5 x 84.7 mm

I didn't say the latter was small or belonged in any list, I just mentioned it because you alluded to f2 primes and it is quite literally one of the smallest 20mm out there (if not the smallest/lightest modern one) with that kinda speed. The Nikon Z one is a monster next to it. I was agreeing with you in saying that the PZ is as small as a fast prime at that FL so it's not like you're giving up size or weight with the zoom, just speed and gaining so much versatility.

Even the 17/4, 24/2.8, and 40/2.5 together will end up weighing more than the 16-35 G,

Yes, and that matters when packing and carrying all the lenses. However, when shooting, the weight of one lens alone matters, assuming I do not always carry all the lenses with me. The handling with a smaller and lighter lens is more comfortable.

even subbing in some lighter Samyangs doesn't really make 3 primes lighter than a zoom like this. Every mm counts for so much more at the wide end, if speed isn't a requirement then a zoom is not only better (more precise framing to allow you to include or exclude things) but more enjoyable imo, getting stuck with a too-wide prime mounted when you wanna shoot longer or can't make an UWA shot work can bite.

I know for a fact the excellent Viltrox 16/1.8 is larger and heavier. As you alluded to, one would have to look at f2.8 primes for an UWA much smaller (Samyang 18/2.8 or Viltrox 20/2.8), and any one of those paired with a 35mm would already be back >350g without even covering the full range of the zoom.

I bought my 20G cause I really like shooting it alongside a 35mm (previously the f1.8, now the GM) in instances where the speed matters, heck I may even get that Viltrox 16/1.8 someday for astro. However, I invariably end up using my UWA zoom more often because of it's versatility.

 

[Lan]

Unless the prime is really bad...

and a lot of them are, by design even - EG:- there are plenty of pancakes on the market which are bested even by less than top end zooms .. Most high end zooms will match or beat a lot of basic primes like the typical small DSLR era 24/28/35mm F2.8s and the Sony FE50 F1.8 isn`t exactly marvellous at F2.8 either especially across the frame (other 50 F1.8s likewise), the E-30mm Macro is pretty bad compared to consumer zooms even.

Zooms are often better than primes because there are a lot of mediocre primes out there even ones made in the past 15 years or so

Agreed; it's also worth bearing in mind that modern optical design and manufacturing has advanced significantly. It used to be the case that primes were better than zooms in general, but now I'm not so sure - a top flight modern zoom is a remarkable thing.

I bought a Zeiss Loxia 21mm, and at the same aperture, my Sony 24-105 f4 was sharper in the corners, even when you stopped both down to f11. Of course the Loxia produced lovely sunstars, but in the corners it wasn't as sharp as my 24-105 at any aperture. I ended up returning the Loxia. Of course it's possible that I had a bad sample, but Zeiss has excellent QC, and a number of people were of the view that my copy was pretty typical.

Although I agree that it's poor at wide apertures I was actually pleasantly surprised at how well the FE50 1.8 performed stopped down. Of course that doesn't forgive the woeful AF, although at least it's a cheap

Another poor prime is the Samyang 24mm f2.8, it never really gets sharp across the frame. It was easily bested by my 24-105 when shot at the same apertures. Cheap and compact, but I really couldn't get past the image quality.