Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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
35 replies to this topic

#21 Chrissie

Chrissie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 November 2017 - 08:59 PM

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

Now that's interesting:

 

Please consider the following carefully:

 

 

In the analogue era, it was possible to produce film and lenses with a correct and neutral rendition of reality.

 

against this:

 

 

That's where Sony has gone wrong in recent years. Their lenses and files are too neutral.

 

I'm really wondering: is it actually possible to do too much neutrality? Is the very notion of neutrality open to comparatives at all?  ;-)

 

Hint: I believe, the notion of neutrality doesn't carry a superlative, nor a comparative. It's either  neutral  or  not.


"One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions"  -  various sources


#22 Jaf-Photo

Jaf-Photo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 839 posts

Posted 14 November 2017 - 11:31 PM

Sure. Neutrality is the relative absence of deviation. There is a threshold below which the brain and the eye does not perceive deviation, even if it is not zero. Above that threshold we see the image as increasingly unnatural. But below that threshold, we only see the image as natural.

#23 martynhicks

martynhicks

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:20 PM

I got the 16-35mm GM and it's excellent. I definitely wouldn't go for the 12-24mm, way too wide for me.

 

Stick with the GM's and you won't go wrong



#24 jstevensphoto

jstevensphoto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • LocationDallas/Ft. Worth, Texas

Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:47 PM

I got the 16-35mm GM and it's excellent. I definitely wouldn't go for the 12-24mm, way too wide for me.

 

Stick with the GM's and you won't go wrong

 

I think you will love it. There is some pretty strong distortion at 16, as you would expect. I use a Fisheye-Hemi correction program from Imadia Software and it eliminates most of it. 


  • martynhicks likes this

#25 martynhicks

martynhicks

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 12 December 2017 - 09:51 PM

Thanks jstevensphoto, I'll take a look at Fisheye-Hemi 

 

I used to shoot really wide all the time but these days I try not to shoot any wider than around 21mm and if I do shoot wider than that I'll use the 24mm TS and stitch 3 images together which I think gives a better look. It doesn't seem to push your subject away like a super wide lens can do.



#26 Barry C

Barry C

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 18 December 2017 - 07:27 PM

I recently bought and returned to B&H- they're real good about that- two Sony 16-35 2.8 GMs. After reading the rave reviews, I had very high expectations. I suspect that both lenses had tilt issues. However, I also suspect that the nature of the lens when used wide open at 2.8 at 16mm, is somewhat soft, not just in the corners but along the entire left and right 15% or so all the down. Additionally, there is pronounced distortion along that 10-15% area. I was planning on using this lens primarily for time lapse- mostly astro- and this is a deal breaker. I also did a head to head comparison with my Zeiss Batis 18mm 2.8, and it wasn't even close at 2.8. I realize that the 16-35 probably wouldn't be able to match a prime, but, again, it wasn't even close. At this point, my own opinion is that the 16-35 GM is highly overrated. A minority opinion, I'm sure.

#27 Mark K

Mark K

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 25 December 2017 - 06:29 AM

Hi folks

I am facing a very similar dilemma here. I have a 16-34f4, and I can use adapted Zeiss 16-35f2.8 ZA, or Nikon 18-35f3.5-4.5, or Canon 17-40f4. Allthese lenses are good to my own eyes but Sony 12-24 opens another world to me...superwide. I can get a price very close to 16-35f4 except I have to invest all newer filter systems for landscape.

Please help me as well.



#28 Chrissie

Chrissie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 December 2017 - 08:00 AM

At this point, my own opinion is that the 16-35 GM is highly overrated. A minority opinion, I'm sure.

 

 

I have the 16-35 GM and am very pleased with it. However, I lack any comparison.

Have you seen this?


"One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions"  -  various sources


#29 jstevensphoto

jstevensphoto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • LocationDallas/Ft. Worth, Texas

Posted 25 December 2017 - 11:21 AM

Hi folks

I am facing a very similar dilemma here. I have a 16-34f4, and I can use adapted Zeiss 16-35f2.8 ZA, or Nikon 18-35f3.5-4.5, or Canon 17-40f4. Allthese lenses are good to my own eyes but Sony 12-24 opens another world to me...superwide. I can get a price very close to 16-35f4 except I have to invest all newer filter systems for landscape.

Please help me as well.

 

I bought a little Rokinon aka Samyang 12mm f2.8 e mount lens from B and H. It's manual focus and manual aperture, but it satisfies my  occasional desire for CRAZY WIDE.  It's a fish-eye, but I also got a little Fisheye-Hemi program which turns the image into just a crazy wide angle shot. So for under $400, I can do those ultra wide shots and use my 16-35 and 12-24 for the bulk of my photo. Might take a look at it. It is actually a very sharp little lens. 



#30 Barry C

Barry C

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 25 December 2017 - 04:57 PM

I have the 16-35 GM and am very pleased with it. However, I lack any comparison.
Have you seen this?

Oh yea, I saw and read it before I bought the lens and it was one of the data points which influenced my decision to buy it. When I tried the two copies of the lens I got, I was shocked. What I saw at f2.8 on the left and right was not what their graphs had indicated: Quite noticable softness and distortion. Compared to the 18mm Zeiss, it was almost a joke. I had really wanted to love that lens, but alas!

I guess I should point out that I tested it with a A7R2 and looked at the images at 1:1 on my monitor. Perhaps, if I'd done this with my A7S2, the problem wouldn't have be so apparent. It is also possible that I got two bad copies with tilt and or decentering issues. Last year, I had to send back three 28mm f.2 before getting a great one on the fourth try. The other three had tilt issues as they were either too soft on the left or right.

#31 Crossonrose

Crossonrose

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 26 December 2017 - 08:56 PM

It's been three years already. A year for each of the three pastors of one Church of Christ in New Braunfels Texas P.C.A

#32 paulhanley

paulhanley

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • LocationIreland

Posted 28 December 2017 - 12:04 PM

I have the 16-35 mm f4 and recently bought the 12-24mm f4. I am perfectly satisfied with the 16-35 mm f4. It is sharp and not too heavy. With the sensor in the A7RII I don't need a very expensive extra stop. I mostly use it at f8 and I can use 72mm filters. It does the job for me. The 12-24 mm f4 is also light and very sharp. Great for tight interiors which is what I got it for. Unfortunately I cannot replace the 16-35 mm f4 with it because I can't use filters with it. So I now carry two wide angle zooms which I use for completely different types of shots. ( BTW both are miles better than the Canon 17-40 mm f4 L and Sigma 12-24mm DX that I had for my Canon 5D2 before I switched to Sony).



#33 picman

picman

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 09:45 AM

 I am perfectly satisfied with the 16-35 mm f4. It is sharp and not too heavy. With the sensor in the A7RII I don't need a very expensive extra stop. I mostly use it at f8 and I can use 72mm filters. It does the job for me.

 

I couldn't agree more. The comparisons with other zooms in the same range mean little to me since the point of discussion always seems to be sharpness. In the first place the Zeiss 16-35 f4 is very sharp, in the second place Zeiss lenses have that extra nice colour rendition, pop and contrast (known and generally acknowledged already from their Contax days) which puts them apart from the maybe tiny bit sharper but more sterile lenses (don't be offended, it is always IMHO). If you want extra sharpness on top of that then you should go for fixed focal, e.g. Batis lenses. I have several and they absolutely shine in all aspects. Also, requirements for sharpness have to be seen in the light of what you are going to with your pictures. I develop my pictures on a 30 inch Apple cinema display, and print maximum A3 size. With the lenses I have I can even crop an 85mm picture to approximately 200-300mm size and still get tack sharp results. Of course, if you want to blow up your picture to wall size then your criteria may be different.



#34 tinplater

tinplater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 04 January 2018 - 01:59 PM

How do you apply science (and I am a physician) to measure the quality of say, the Mona Lisa?Art relies very much upon opinion and personal taste, even if it comes from a "stranger".



#35 JimmyD

JimmyD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 188 posts

Posted 13 January 2018 - 06:19 AM

As Jaf-Photo said, it is easy to get too obsessed with gear. The photographer is at least 98% of the final image. Having said that, IMHO, for landscape if you are buying just one of those three lenses the 16-35 GM 2.8 is the clear winner. I have shot with all three. The 12-24 is a a really nice lens but for me, for landscapes, I will use the 24-36mm range much more that the 12-15mm range. And there is no question the GM is sharper and built better than the 16-35 f/4. And you have 2.8 if you need it (really pretty surprising bokeh at 35mm at 2.8 if you want to sneak in a wide portrait.

#36 Chrissie

Chrissie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:10 AM

How do you apply science (and I am a physician) to measure the quality of say, the Mona Lisa?Art relies very much upon opinion and personal taste, even if it comes from a "stranger".

 

 

Well I can give you my opinion, and I'm an engineer.:)

 

I think, quality as such can (and should, imo) be broken down into the aspects "technical quality" and "artistic quality". The technical quality can be measured in terms of sharpness, distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration. So the technical properties of two lenses can very well be compared.

 

The artistic quality comprises things like choice of sujet, point of view, focal distance, lighting, timing and probably many more. These are indeed harder to quantify and to compare. To an extent, this may be a matter of personal liking. Although I'm sure, experienced photographers would mostly agree on a ranking in terms of artistic value of a given set of pictures.

 

As this thread is about how lenses compare, this should (again: imo) leave out all artistic and personal aspects.

 

All artistic aspects being equal, including the photographer himself, I'm sure a technically superior lense would render the better picture. (with "better" having the meaning of "closer to reality").


"One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions"  -  various sources




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

 
x

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