24-70 or 16-35 mm ?

[Clemham]

Hi guys, 

I'm new on this forum and I have a crucial question for you. I watched and read many things about the 24-70 and 16-35m lenses from Sony and I can't decide which one to chose. I have a A7II and I want to upgrade my gear. For the moment I only have a 85mm and the basic 28-70.

I can't really see the difference in terms of possibilities with both of them, I want a lens which is versatile, I mean that I can do street photography or portrait and also some nice landscapes or architecture shots without the problem of changing lens every time I see something interesting. I heard that the 24-70 is more likely to be what I am looking for but the 16-35mm have also nice arguments such as his wildness which is something I also would like to have in my future lens.  

So if anyone has or had the chance to test both of them for a while and can give me his feedback, advices or any other recommandation, it would be much appreciate ! 

Kind regards 

[Bokehbobo]

I have a 16-35mm GM and use it almost exclusively for landscape work. While it is a well built, sharp, smooth zooming lens I find it generally inappropriate for street photography given it's size and weight. At half the cost of the 16-35, and by far the most versatile lens I have is my 24-105mm G lens. I use it in a wide variety of situations, including street and landscape/cityscape work. It is quite sharp and a bit smaller in size and weight, though its maximum aperture is f4 as opposed to f2.8 for the 16-35. I have no experience with the 24-70mm but have read good things about it and leave its evaluations to others.

[Donald Mackie]

The 16-35 2.8 GM is truly a fantastic lens. I don't think it has a weakness except perhaps some vignetting wide open especially with filters. Still a wonderful lens that always produces great shots. Tack sharp, great color, fast and focusing is seamless. However as soon as you introduce "street photography" to the equation I know (at least for me) it's a lens you'd have work hard(er) for shots. 35mm is a fascinating albeit a persoanlly difficult focal length which I’ll admit when I get it right 35mm makes for great, great shots but i gotta slow down and I gotta think, which is not always great for street. Still...what a lens.

I don't own the 24-70 but I have rented it several times. As with the 16-35 GM it's truly a fantastic lens and all the accolades I mentioned above apply. 24 is not wide enough for me with landscapes or architecture it would however be stellar for a street lens, as long as you don't need to snipe. It's also a great everyday lens. There’s some argument that the Tamron 28-70 is a worthy competitor at substantially less cost but I’ve not had a chance to try.

As someone here has already mentioned as long as a constant f/4 is doable the 24-105 G is by far my favorite, favorite all around, cover all, lens. I'm constantly impressed with this lens. I’d argue that it’s comparable to the 24-70 in sharpness but just not able to open up as well. 

That and comparing the cost of the 24-70 GM you're considering you're awfully close to the price of entry on the 24-105 and maybe a dedicated UWA for landscape and architecture. Say the 20 mm Sigma ART f/1.4. Yes you'd have to occasionally switch lens's but you have a killer UWA and the practicality of the tack sharp 24-105.

[tinplater]

The 24-70 2.8 is, in my opinion, the very best general purpose zoom available.  My objection to the 24-105 is the power zoom which I find irritating and compared to the 2.8 aperture of the 24-70, it is slow and much less useful for low light, interior shots, etc.  The optical performance of the 24-70 is amazing..it is like having a batch of primes in one unit.  If too expensive, the Tamron equivalent is probably very close.

[Bokehbobo]

3 hours ago, tinplater said:

The 24-70 2.8 is, in my opinion, the very best general purpose zoom available.  My objection to the 24-105 is the power zoom which I find irritating and compared to the 2.8 aperture of the 24-70, it is slow and much less useful for low light, interior shots, etc.  The optical performance of the 24-70 is amazing..it is like having a batch of primes in one unit.  If too expensive, the Tamron equivalent is probably very close.

Good points by all but have one minor question in reference to the 24-105. Not sure what is meant by "..the power zoom"?