Jump to content

- - - - -

Help me decide 16-35 f2.8, 16-35 f4, 12-24 f4

sony 16-35 f2.8 16-35 f4 12-24 f4 Lens

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Ttp



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 15 August 2017 - 03:49 AM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Hello folks, I am new around here, maybe you can help me decide, I just switch from Nikon to Sony, I am a landscape photographer, and i dont know which lens to buy. Since these 3 lenses are very good.

I dont know if buy 16-35 f2.8 GM vs 16-35 f4 Zeiss vs 12-24 f4 GM

Please let me know why you choose the lens. Any good or bad experience????

Thank you for your help! :) 

#2 Jeffreykmd


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 49 posts

Posted 19 August 2017 - 05:22 PM

I have the 16-35 f4 great landscape lens. The 12 to 24 is nice but cannot use filters on it. I do not feel the 2.8 is worth the extra cost and it is also larger.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
  • christer likes this

#3 Username


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 05:48 PM



There are equally persuasive arguments for each of the three. 


I'm the patient type. I just wait ... and buy whichever one pops 

up as a refurb, open box, or similar bargain !   


My method also avoids "woulda shoulda coulda" regret. I buy 

whichever one pops up. I can't second guess my choice cuz I 

delegated my choice to "fate". Even if the deals pop up 1-2-3,  

three days in row, for a different lens each day ... I bought the

one that "volunteered" first, and that is that :-) 


Or toss a coin ... well, THREE coins ! And it's really a good as 

all the advice you can get online when all the advice is equally 

good for all three lenses. 


Worst case scenario: You win a lottery and buy all three. Now 

you never know which lens to bring with you :-( ... Just do it.  


I happen to know, 100%, which one is for me. No wondering 

about it. But what I know is of no use to other users so it's not

worth mentioning. What I've recommended above is far more

useful to other users. 

#4 Jaf-Photo


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts

Posted 20 August 2017 - 09:50 PM

I would give the 16-35/4 a miss because it's lower quality than the other two. The 12-24 is cheaper than the GM and the initial reviews look promising. For landscape you'll make better use of the extra millimeters at the wide end.




  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 11:50 AM

I owned the 16-35 F4 in absence of any other good zoom at the time, and sold it because there was an overlap with my 24-70 GM. I then got recently the 12-24.


I had a good experience with the Zeiss 16-35 and if you have a limited budget, it would be probably the best choice for landscape. In addition, this zoom is quite small and light.

I did not try the 16-35 GM but I guess it is better in terms of sharpness and hopefully at 35 where the Zeiss is not very good.


I have tested the 12-24 since a month in different situations and it performs well. However it is a real wide angle zoom with the distortion you may expect and the corners at all apertures are quite soft. I would say it is a nice to have but somewhat a specialized zoom, not the one I would have bought first. 


So, if you have enough money to spend,if you are not afraid with the weight and size, and according to the existing reviews, the 16-35 GM could be the good choice 


A last comment : you come from the Nikon world (I came from the Canon one some years ago) and are probably used to a bulkier bodies. It is clear that, with the actual technology,  most of the very good lenses will allways be rather heavy, so do not hesitate to add a grip to your camera : it will be much better balanced (among other advantages)

This is what I did and I am very happy with that.

#6 Username


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts

Posted 31 August 2017 - 02:33 AM

............  most of the very good lenses will allways be rather heavy,

so do not hesitate to add a grip to your camera : it will be much

better balanced (among other advantages) This is what I did and I

am very happy with that.


I still have a Canon outfit, altho I mainly use Sonys. Before 

adding a grip and heavy lenses to a Sony, as replacement 

for the Canon outfit, I'd just keep the Canon and convert it 

to a heavy bulky "mirrorless" outfit by adding a really good

hood-loupe to the rear LCD panel. Costs thousands to go 

from Canons to Sonys, but only about a hundred to add a 

hood-loupe. End result, either way, is a big bulky live view 

outfit ... but the Canon also doubles as an SLR if you ever 

have need of one :-)  


OTOH, the Sony will also double as a semi-compact if you 

just remove the grip and attach a compact lens. Either way 

it's your "Gas Money" so let's keep the economy rolling ! 



FWIW I have a 19-35 f/4 for the Canons and I've never for 

a moment wished to speed it up to f/2.8 and crank it out to 

16 [nor 12 ! ! !] mm. It's bulky enuf as it is. I've never been 

tempted to adapt it to the Sonys. Tho my favorite shooting 

condition is darkness, I find lens speed useful for midrange 

FLs but pointless for ultrawides [same for longish FLs]. My 

silliest lenses are a 20 f/1.8 and 105 f/1.8 ... I always wind 

up grabbing the 20 f/4 or the 105 f/2.5 altho acoarst YMMV. 

And I don't mean to dump on your interest in 16 ultrawide. 

I have an old 17 f/3.5 that serves occasional need and I'm

not likely to ever part with it. It's just that when you discuss 

combining a zoom function, ultra wide angle, and a zoom 

function, with or without the grip, the idea of switching to a 

more compact camera body doesn't make huge sense :-( 

#7 MilitaryAttractions



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 11 September 2017 - 06:31 AM

I have the 16-35 2.8 and 12-24 4.0. IMO the 12-24 is almost too wide and is strictly for architecture and interior photos. Humans looks so distorted whenever I take pictures at the wide end with the 12-24. For your purposes it may suite you better though. I'm a hybrid shooter and love the 16-35 2.8 for video. Also love that I can switch to APSC mode and essentially have a 16-52.5 lens. Even more with CIZ.

#8 IamJF


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 61 posts

Posted 11 September 2017 - 08:30 AM

I have the 1635F4 Seiss and the Zeiss coatings do their magic - great contrast, better then older primes. Perfect for landscape. 

But when I would buy new I would opt for the 1635GM - cause for video you could need the extra light (I also have 35/2.8 and 28/2), really sharp in the corners and not much bigger. But if budget is tight the F4 Z is a very fine lens. 

And I'm fine with 16mm. Shooting very wide is something you/I :-) have to learn and after 10 exciting shots gets somehow less exciting. The 1635 is a great allround lens and together with the 55/1.8 makes a great hiking/indoor package. Sometimes I add the 90mm Macro for total nature photo cracyness :-) 

#9 Ramin



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • LocationAustria

Posted 11 September 2017 - 11:25 AM

I recomemend you the 1635 f4 if you need it just for the landscape (cheaper, lighter & smaller). But if you need the 16-35 mm for the city, street-photography, walkaround, architecture and people, consider the 16/35 f2.8 for better bokeh (11 Blades instead of 7 & 2.8 Aperture), more light in the night and sharper in 35mm for people.


I switched to Sony because I wanted the best Quality in the smallest body so I still use my Zeiss Batis 25 f2 (on A7RII) for the Landscape (at f8 best for the nature, sharp, Light & small), but sometimes I need more wide and that is why I consider to by a 1635 zoom lens, And since I love the street-photography (also in the night) I will buy the 1635 f2.8 in the near future.

#10 crysmeth



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 08 October 2017 - 02:22 PM

May I interest you to the laowa 15mm f2. Very sharp and the built is excellent. I had mine delivered last month and I love it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

#11 JCC


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 13 October 2017 - 12:51 AM

Of your choices I think the 12-24mm


If you shoot landscapes and real estate you likely will not use the the F2.8 setting




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sony 16-35 f2.8, 16-35 f4, 12-24 f4, Lens

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


New Members Welcome!

Not yet registered? Really?

Registration is free and takes only a few minutes.

After the free registration you can discuss with members from all over the world, put questions and present your images.

We are looking forward to you!

Admin Andreas und Sony Alpha Forum Team

Register now! X