Join me on Patreon for the best Alpha Support and Guidance. A single $10 Membership fee includes access to my 600-page camera-specific eBooks + Over twenty 1-hour member-only seminars + cameras settings files + access to the Raw files from the lens and camera reviews (there is no contract or commitment beyond the first month). www.patreon.com/markgaler
Thanks, again for your excellent review. I love my 20-70 G + 70-200 G + 1.4 TC combination. It’s in my bag most of the time. In a pinch, I can squeeze the 14mm GM in or swap out the 70-200 G for a 100-400 GM. If the 16-35 G were available, I would have bought it over the 16-35 GM. Another combination to consider for those needing a longer reach, and willing to carry more weight in a bigger bag is the 16-35 G + 24-105 G + 100-400 GM. That said, the 24-105 could stand to go on a diet.
This fits what ive been waiting for. I have the 24-70 GMII which isnt exactly small so i didnt eant to take a 16-35GM II on top of that lens in my kit so I was looking at a 16-35 f4 PZ but this is even better because i could use the extra light more than 35mm and I do stills more so the non PZ is also better. And yes, the weight and price is worth it 100% over the 16-35GM to me.
Thank you sooo much for this amazing review. I dont have a wide lens and planning to get 16-25 f2.8 G for landscape but sooo many bad review from others on distortion. Thank you for explaining here.
Distortion is only an issue if it cannot be easily corrected in camera or by applying the lens profile for the Raw capture. We always have the option to pay the extra for GM lenses that have less native distortion. If correcting distortion does not lead to a reduction in sharpness, I personally don’t see the problem - especially if the cost and size of lens is reduced.
The distortion really isn't noticeable after corrections. Obviously if you do not correct your images yes, but even after corrections you do not lose that much sharpness because of how sharp the lens is in the first place. All I'm saying is don't let that put you off this lens, if you're looking for wider this or a 20mm 1.8 is the lens you're looking for. What other lens do you have?
Thank you, Mark, for yet another outstanding review. My two-lens, travel set-up will be this new 16-25 f/2.8 and a Tamron 28-200mm or Tamron 28-75 lens (all with very small form factors for their range). With an a7rV and an a7rc, I can easily go from 16 to 37mm via APS-C mode on the long end with the new 16-25 lens from Sony.
Appreciate the review! The rather lacking magnification killed it for me, tbh. 20-70 f4 and 16-35 gm ii are my 2 go-to lenses. I only see adding primes when budget allows later on.
Sony is providing different options for different photographers - these are for the photographers who may be on a budget but also wanting their zooms to be as small as possible to complement their A7C cameras.
@ for sure. It’s always great to have many options. I was at first a bit overwhelmed with the selection but thanks to your super in-depth (at least for me) video - I was able to find the 2 best suiting my needs for the time being.
I usually travel with two A7C bodies, one with Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and the other with Tamron 28-200 f2.8-f5.6 and a 35 f1.4 GM in the bag. 17-28 is a surprisingly practical range so I think this 16-25 is a good choice assuming it’s small and light. Just came back from Melbourne, she’s a beautiful city, I would visit again next year.
Another great video. This lens is my plan but went with the FE 24-50/2.8 G first since it was a bigger size and weight savings of my GM II 24-70 and GM II 16-35. These are all planned for my A7CR travel kit. Your videos are always so comprehensive and are best in class. Only feature I’d like to see Sony adopt is complete internal zoom like the Sigma 16-28/2.8 I bought for my A7C and still have until I get this lens. Take care.
@@AlphaCreativeSkillsHave now got this lens so my travel kit is complete with the 16-25/2.8 G, 24-50/2.8 G, 70-200/4 Macro G OSS II, and a prime that can be any of the other 67mm filter lenses. Typically I’m carrying the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 or their 40/2.0 CF which are 67mm filter lenses as well. If I decide to leave one of the short range f/2.8 G zooms at home I can take the 20 G, 24 GM, 35 GM, or 50/1.4 GM so I think I’m complete. I pack both and A7CR and A7CII when I can. Thank you for all of your direction. Take care.
24-35 & 24-50 in MD & A mounts is a Minolta heritage; lenses I've been using since the 80's. Both Minolta & Konica already employed floating elements in their 17's many yrs ago. Bought the Tamron 16-28 f/2.8 E-mt ( over the newer Sigma ) in Sept 2023 just months before Sony/Minolta introduced (so many) wide angle zooms (but only few months after the 20-70 G). Love the Tamron's internal zoom/focus (just like the Leitz-Minolta zooms in 80's); great lens , I only miss an aperture ring.
Superb overview once again. I particularly value your hands-on perspective on how this lens may fit in with other Sony and non-Sony lenses. My only minor point of critique would be the omission of the Tamron 20-40mm F2.8 in the lens comparisons. Keep up the good work
Excellent! Thank you, Mark! This looks like a very attractive option for many photographers. In your chart I noticed on small detail, since I have owned the 16-35mm f4 ZA OSS, the filter thread is 72mm (you have 77mm). I actually prefer lenses with the 67mm filter thread. I don't know if the OSS really makes a lot of difference on a wide angle zoom, but it's there, nevertheless. Despite the 72mm and it's age, I actually like the rendering of the older lens, though I'm sure performance on the newer lens is better and it is smaller and lighter. This new G lens is something to consider down the road, though I find the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 also attractive, though it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the G lenses and of course, is also a different focal length. The Tamron 17-50mm f4 might also be an option for some, especially is combined with the Tamron 50-400mm lens for 2 lens travel kit. In any case, the enormous lens selection available for Sony E mount make it part of the reason I would never personally consider anything else!
We are now 'spoilt for choice' when it comes to E-Mount lens options. The difficulty now is finding the lenses that suit our own personal needs amongst all of the options.
That's good advice up to a point. The adoption of backlit illuminated sensors and faster phase detect AF (A7RII and A7III) were big jumps in performance that great glass cannot deliver.
Nice overview Mark. The A7Cx with 16-25, 24-50 and Sigma 90 would be an ideal travel kit for me. CORRECTION at 26:31, you show an image of the 16-35PZ, not the 16-25G
Hey Mark, amazing review! I’m looking to get a lens for my A7Cii, I travel for work and I do vlogging, landscape, city shots. Would you consider the new 16-25 still better than the 16-35 GM ii for an only one lens and pairing with the A7Cii?
Better is a not a word I would use as each offers different advantages for different photographers with different priorities. I can advise further on my Patreon.com/markgaler Alpha support channel
I did not mention a bunch or primes because this was primarily a review of zooms. I did include a slide outlining the compact primes that are currently available, but the Viltrox 16mm, weighting in at over half a kilo, is neither compact or lightweight.
I have not seen independent MTF charts comparing these two lenses but I would say it is very very close. I have made ultra high-definition examples available (link in the Info section below the video) and also Raw files to my Patrons on Patreon.com/markgaler.
I think I will pick one of these up and sell my 16-35GM MKI. It's my least used lens and like you, it is nearly always used at 16-22mm. I also own 24-70GM MKII and the 35MM GM so I do not need three lenses that offer 35mm and this will save weight and be smaller in my bag. My 16-35GM is not that sharp at 32-35mm f2.8 so I do not see I will be loosing anything.
The strengths of the original 16-35 GM was its optical performance between 16 and 24mm. This new lens will match that performance in a smaller and lighter package.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills E 11mm F1.8 can be used even in Full frame mode, at about 14mm the corners are sharp and not anymore black. In Full frame mode you have to crop in post processing only a little bit.
I'm tossing and turning between this new lens, the 20mm 1.8, or the 24mm 1.4! I need a talking head lens for a 9x9 room and love the shallow DoF with the 1.4... but I love the flexibility of the 16-25 - still can't make up my mind!
I'm exploring street photography with my A6700 using a variety of lenses and beginning to dream about the possibility of a small, light, autofocus 16-35 f2 APS-C lens. It's essentially equivalent to the FE 24-50 f2.8, but in the APS-C format it should be a whole lot smaller, lighter and cheaper. An apperture of f2.8 may be easier to build, but I have 20 and 27mm pancake primes at f2.8. A 24-50 on my A7III would be too big for what I'm after.
Most of the manufacturers are currently prioritising large wide-aperture zooms and primes and do not prioritise small lightweight APS-C lenses. I would love to see this state-of-affairs change.
great review. I already have a7rv and 16-35 PZ F/4 and 20mm F/1.8 and 24-70 F/2.8GM2. Do you find 16-25 better sharpness,... than PZ ? do you often work on 2.8-4 with 16-25 range ? for urban, street photo, landscapes, we are often F/4..F11 isn't it ?
I let my photos do the talking in regard to sharpness - I upload ultra high definition images so viewers can see the quality on large 4K screens and click to zoom in. I make available the Raw files from the lens and camera reviews so users can check the unedited versions. A photographers should never rely on a reviewer to tell them a lens is sharper than another lens. It is, or it is not, sharp enough, simply by looking at photographs produced by the lens. I have many styles of street photography - I use the F8 and be there rule, the Sunny 16 rules and the shoot everything wide open rule (my own rule). I outline all my settings in my eBooks that I make available on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel.
I also have the 16-35 PZ F/4 - I sold my 20mm f/1.8 because I found I wasn’t using it much indoors or in low light. I’m extremely pleased with my PZ f/4 lens sharpness & tonal rendering and have no intention of buying another lens just because it has 1 more stop of light & more blades. However, I watch Mr. Galer’s videos anyway because he’s a master of explaining technique!
My 16-35 GM1 broke and its repair cost is too high. I mainly shoot dance up close at around 16-20mm during rehearsals. Should I get 1. 16-35mm GM II 2. 16-25mm G 3. 12-24mm GM if my only concern is continuous autofocus capabilities when paired with the a1 and a9III?
I offer personal guidance regarding equipment choice on my Patreon.com/markgaler - the final decision is determined by many factors and preferences that you did not list in your question, e.g., budget, preferred weight, size, form factor and the other lenses and cameras you currently own.
Did the 25mm long end bother you? For me I wish it ended on 24mm as I would probably try to micro-adjust it since I prefer shooting zooms in the familiar prime ranges. I own a 35 GM and 85 ART. Looking to sidegrade to an A7CII and buy a smaller zoom for travel. I owned a 24-70 GM2 but sold it due to the size. My most shot ranges were 35, 70, 24, 50 in that order. Never took a liking to ultra wide that much due to distortion. If you could pick what would you choose between the 16-25, 24-50, 16-35GM2 and 20-70 to complement my kit? I’m patiently waiting for a Sony 85 f1.8 G to replace my Sigma and would carry this prime as well.
The 25mm focal length was no issue for me - so close to 24 I didn't notice to be honest. Out of the lenses you list I own the 24-50 and supplement it with primes (including the 85mm F1.8). I have lots of discussions about lens choice in my eBooks and Lens Choice 2 seminar on Patreon.com/markgaler - I choose different lenses depending on the nature of the work and the type of travel.
25? I very briefly owned a Tokina 25-50 ( briefer than 3 weeks; got snatched w/ a new body in front of a landmark church in crazy 80's nyc). 25 being the short end of a zoom should bother someone more by being the long end of a 16-25 does. Nothing is "familiar", I used to shoot portraits w/ 16 fisheye & (corded) hand-held bounce flash in my younger days 30 yrs ago. Would do again someday w/ radio-remote tricker these days.
Thanks for your excellent reviews. I have a question -not specifically related to this lens, but maybe you can help: I saw in your review of the A7RII (I own a A7RIIIA) that it is no longer necessary to keep the custom button half-pressed to get eye-AF. How can you do that? Is it associated to face detection ON, or other setting? Thanks in advance, I would really use this feature.
Eye AF will engage as soon as you start focusing - the default option. I have a couple of videos on the subject on my TH-cam channel - because the behaviour changes, depending on whether you assign the function to a custom key or just let the AF pick it up automatically.
It's close and the 24-50 F2.8 G has you covered for 28mm. I included 28mm and 35mm examples in this video review by simply cropping in camera (APS-C mode) or cropping in post.
As many others have said, another great review. To me if this started at 14mm and still took standard front filters it would be more useful. That said, this is still a lens I’m seriously considering.
For me with more full frame size Sony bodies, the size seems just right to me and the range is very good considering I have other lenses that do not overlap much at all.
Did I totally miss it or was there no comparison with the 16-35GM at all? The real choice is between those two. 'Cause eventually you'll want to shoot something at 35mm. So, is it wise to include it in your wide zoom ; or is it better to have a 16-25 and a prime? Or a standard zoom? That's a question.
He suggested that this lens may be useful to those who have a standard zoom, 24-70mm, because it covers the 24-35 range. He says that in his experience, he uses the 16-24mm range of the 16-35mm zoom, ~95% of the time. Adding its small dimensions, this lens suits my needs.
I have reviewed the FE 16-35 F2.8 GM and GM II and uploaded ultra high-definition examples all these lenses and provided Raw files to my Patrons (so viewers can make up their own minds as to Image Quality). The decision to choose a 16-35 over a 16-25 is one purely based on size, weight, budget and whether the 25 to 35 overlap is important for photographers who already own a 24-70 or 24-50 lens. I provided numerous comparison tables and side by side size examples in this review with the 16-35 lens. There is no one best choice - never has and never will be. There is just a personal choice and I am not in a position to tell a stranger what decision to make without an extended conversation that outlines their specific needs.
Is there any difference in autofocus capabilities between the dual linear motors in the 16-25 G as opposed to the XD linear motors of the PZ 16-35 F4? Can't decide on which of these 2 lenses I'm going to get now. So spoilt for options!
This lenses uses the same motors we saw in the FE 24-50 F2.8 G and these were fast enough to shoot a triathlon sports event I covered. Sony rates these two lenses as being able to keep up with an A9III so I think the motors are just fine not being listed as XD.
My dear friend, your videos are much more than just introducing a product and contain very educational points for me. I sincerely thank you for this.” 0:02
I wouldn't normally compare a compact zoom lens with Autofocus with a manual focus prime lens because thy tend to appeal to different types of photographers.
@@AlphaCreativeSkillsyes I understand. It's because I've had the Voigtlander for years and I'm wondering if it's a good idea to replace it with this Sony. gain flexibility, light, lose size/weight. At the expense of what difference in image quality...? That's what I'm wondering...🙂
I am not sure if i like this move… we see a lot of short zoom lenses… 16-25, 17-28, 20-40 etc. My problem is that when i like to have longer zooms i love 16-35mm. I am saving up to buy the sony gm, now i use a Tamron 17-28, which i love but i just don’t want to change lenses that much. Sometimes i take it of and get my 28-75mm and then thinking.. ogh now it was better with the 17-28 because i need 24 for instance…. Yes sometimes uou can not walk back… but moest of the times i have the 17-28 and want 30 or 35… so i like to have less but good lenses then more and have to change a lot. Yes they are smaller but what isf you meed 4 smaller then 2 heavyer, sorry but 4x400-500grams is 1,6- 2kg however the 16-35 and 24-70 together are lighter and smaller then those 4 combined…
These lenses make a lot of sense to me. The overlap that is found between 16-35 and 24-70 does not mean you need more lenses because of the shorter focal range of the Sony's compact G zooms. They also save the user money and unnecessary weight in their camera bag.
What happened with Sony firmware update why is Sony not delivering on their promise they took of the upgrade from their website and did not fixed the bugs when are we to get the final fix firmware update 3.00 on the A1 never ???
I am not a Sony employee and it is likely nobody outside of Japan knows when the A1 update will be re-released. This is a lens review forum and Sony probably don't read the comments on these forums. I suggest you contact Sony directly and let them know you expect more from their software engineers.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Join me on Patreon for the best Alpha Support and Guidance. A single $10 Membership fee includes access to my 600-page camera-specific eBooks + Over twenty 1-hour member-only seminars + cameras settings files + access to the Raw files from the lens and camera reviews (there is no contract or commitment beyond the first month). www.patreon.com/markgaler
Thanks, again for your excellent review. I love my 20-70 G + 70-200 G + 1.4 TC combination. It’s in my bag most of the time. In a pinch, I can squeeze the 14mm GM in or swap out the 70-200 G for a 100-400 GM. If the 16-35 G were available, I would have bought it over the 16-35 GM. Another combination to consider for those needing a longer reach, and willing to carry more weight in a bigger bag is the 16-35 G + 24-105 G + 100-400 GM. That said, the 24-105 could stand to go on a diet.
Thanks for sharing!
This fits what ive been waiting for. I have the 24-70 GMII which isnt exactly small so i didnt eant to take a 16-35GM II on top of that lens in my kit so I was looking at a 16-35 f4 PZ but this is even better because i could use the extra light more than 35mm and I do stills more so the non PZ is also better. And yes, the weight and price is worth it 100% over the 16-35GM to me.
I suspected this new lens would find a small and welcoming space in many photographers camera bags. :-)
Informative and thorough review, thank you Mark!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very comprehensive and very well presented. Enjoyed the video very much.
Glad it was helpful!
😊@@AlphaCreativeSkills
Thank you sooo much for this amazing review. I dont have a wide lens and planning to get 16-25 f2.8 G for landscape but sooo many bad review from others on distortion. Thank you for explaining here.
Distortion is only an issue if it cannot be easily corrected in camera or by applying the lens profile for the Raw capture. We always have the option to pay the extra for GM lenses that have less native distortion. If correcting distortion does not lead to a reduction in sharpness, I personally don’t see the problem - especially if the cost and size of lens is reduced.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Thank you so so much for the reply and sharing the additional thought you have.
The distortion really isn't noticeable after corrections. Obviously if you do not correct your images yes, but even after corrections you do not lose that much sharpness because of how sharp the lens is in the first place. All I'm saying is don't let that put you off this lens, if you're looking for wider this or a 20mm 1.8 is the lens you're looking for. What other lens do you have?
@@bobstevens5202 thanks for the information. I only have 24-70 f2.8. Tats it, which is not for landscape photog.
@@Nic-xf6or this lens would be a good companion then. 24-70 is so big for landscape/hiking.
Thank you, Mark, for yet another outstanding review. My two-lens, travel set-up will be this new 16-25 f/2.8 and a Tamron 28-200mm or Tamron 28-75 lens (all with very small form factors for their range). With an a7rV and an a7rc, I can easily go from 16 to 37mm via APS-C mode on the long end with the new 16-25 lens from Sony.
Have fun!
Appreciate the review! The rather lacking magnification killed it for me, tbh. 20-70 f4 and 16-35 gm ii are my 2 go-to lenses. I only see adding primes when budget allows later on.
Sony is providing different options for different photographers - these are for the photographers who may be on a budget but also wanting their zooms to be as small as possible to complement their A7C cameras.
@ for sure. It’s always great to have many options. I was at first a bit overwhelmed with the selection but thanks to your super in-depth (at least for me) video - I was able to find the 2 best suiting my needs for the time being.
I usually travel with two A7C bodies, one with Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and the other with Tamron 28-200 f2.8-f5.6 and a 35 f1.4 GM in the bag. 17-28 is a surprisingly practical range so I think this 16-25 is a good choice assuming it’s small and light. Just came back from Melbourne, she’s a beautiful city, I would visit again next year.
Thanks for your input - glad you liked Melbourne 🙂
Another great video. This lens is my plan but went with the FE 24-50/2.8 G first since it was a bigger size and weight savings of my GM II 24-70 and GM II 16-35. These are all planned for my A7CR travel kit. Your videos are always so comprehensive and are best in class. Only feature I’d like to see Sony adopt is complete internal zoom like the Sigma 16-28/2.8 I bought for my A7C and still have until I get this lens. Take care.
Good choice!
@@AlphaCreativeSkillsHave now got this lens so my travel kit is complete with the 16-25/2.8 G, 24-50/2.8 G, 70-200/4 Macro G OSS II, and a prime that can be any of the other 67mm filter lenses. Typically I’m carrying the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 or their 40/2.0 CF which are 67mm filter lenses as well. If I decide to leave one of the short range f/2.8 G zooms at home I can take the 20 G, 24 GM, 35 GM, or 50/1.4 GM so I think I’m complete. I pack both and A7CR and A7CII when I can. Thank you for all of your direction. Take care.
24-35 & 24-50 in MD & A mounts is a Minolta heritage; lenses I've been using since the 80's.
Both Minolta & Konica already employed floating elements in their 17's many yrs ago.
Bought the Tamron 16-28 f/2.8 E-mt ( over the newer Sigma ) in Sept 2023 just months before Sony/Minolta introduced (so many) wide angle zooms (but only few months after the 20-70 G). Love the Tamron's internal zoom/focus (just like the Leitz-Minolta zooms in 80's); great lens , I only miss an aperture ring.
Thanks for your input
Superb overview once again. I particularly value your hands-on perspective on how this lens may fit in with other Sony and non-Sony lenses. My only minor point of critique would be the omission of the Tamron 20-40mm F2.8 in the lens comparisons. Keep up the good work
I included the Tamron 20-40 in my Sony FE 24-50 F2.8 G lens review but felt the 17-28 Tamron was a closer fit to the Sony 16-25 lens for this review.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills That's a good point. Agreed
Excellent! Thank you, Mark! This looks like a very attractive option for many photographers. In your chart I noticed on small detail, since I have owned the 16-35mm f4 ZA OSS, the filter thread is 72mm (you have 77mm). I actually prefer lenses with the 67mm filter thread. I don't know if the OSS really makes a lot of difference on a wide angle zoom, but it's there, nevertheless. Despite the 72mm and it's age, I actually like the rendering of the older lens, though I'm sure performance on the newer lens is better and it is smaller and lighter. This new G lens is something to consider down the road, though I find the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 also attractive, though it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the G lenses and of course, is also a different focal length. The Tamron 17-50mm f4 might also be an option for some, especially is combined with the Tamron 50-400mm lens for 2 lens travel kit. In any case, the enormous lens selection available for Sony E mount make it part of the reason I would never personally consider anything else!
We are now 'spoilt for choice' when it comes to E-Mount lens options. The difficulty now is finding the lenses that suit our own personal needs amongst all of the options.
The people wanting Tamron 17-28, may choose Sony 16-25 now. Easy to crop 25 to 28, but 16 is wider than 17.
Thanks for your input
In a city, I found myself more often using the longer end of a 17-28.
I'm not a Pro shooter and i only have the Classic A7 but i 've learned it's the glass i should put my money into beyond a doubt.
That's good advice up to a point. The adoption of backlit illuminated sensors and faster phase detect AF (A7RII and A7III) were big jumps in performance that great glass cannot deliver.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills as soon as i can afford i'll upgrade.
Nice overview Mark. The A7Cx with 16-25, 24-50 and Sigma 90 would be an ideal travel kit for me. CORRECTION at 26:31, you show an image of the 16-35PZ, not the 16-25G
Thanks for the positive feedback.
Hey Mark, amazing review! I’m looking to get a lens for my A7Cii, I travel for work and I do vlogging, landscape, city shots. Would you consider the new 16-25 still better than the 16-35 GM ii for an only one lens and pairing with the A7Cii?
Better is a not a word I would use as each offers different advantages for different photographers with different priorities. I can advise further on my Patreon.com/markgaler Alpha support channel
Great video, great review. Thanks 👍
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for this thorough review!
Glad it was helpful!
Many thanks for the excellent review and detailed information.
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for the review. In the primes comparison you forgot to mention the Viltrox 16mm f1.8 which is a good lens only at $540...
I did not mention a bunch or primes because this was primarily a review of zooms. I did include a slide outlining the compact primes that are currently available, but the Viltrox 16mm, weighting in at over half a kilo, is neither compact or lightweight.
Hi 👋 how is the sharpness compare to 16-35mm GM ? thanks 🙏🙏
I have not seen independent MTF charts comparing these two lenses but I would say it is very very close. I have made ultra high-definition examples available (link in the Info section below the video) and also Raw files to my Patrons on Patreon.com/markgaler.
I think I will pick one of these up and sell my 16-35GM MKI. It's my least used lens and like you, it is nearly always used at 16-22mm. I also own 24-70GM MKII and the 35MM GM so I do not need three lenses that offer 35mm and this will save weight and be smaller in my bag. My 16-35GM is not that sharp at 32-35mm f2.8 so I do not see I will be loosing anything.
The strengths of the original 16-35 GM was its optical performance between 16 and 24mm. This new lens will match that performance in a smaller and lighter package.
For wide angle shots I am using Sony 12-24/4 G, Tamron 20-40/2.8 and if I want it very small Sony 11/1.8 all on A7CR.
The E 11mm F1.8 is a useful compact wide-angle prime for those who enjoy high-resolution sensors (resolution to spare when shooting in APS-C mode).
@@AlphaCreativeSkills E 11mm F1.8 can be used even in Full frame mode, at about 14mm the corners are sharp and not anymore black. In Full frame mode you have to crop in post processing only a little bit.
I'm tossing and turning between this new lens, the 20mm 1.8, or the 24mm 1.4! I need a talking head lens for a 9x9 room and love the shallow DoF with the 1.4... but I love the flexibility of the 16-25 - still can't make up my mind!
A difficult decision- I offer one-on-one guidance on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel
Love your vintage G/S❤
40 years young this year
I'm exploring street photography with my A6700 using a variety of lenses and beginning to dream about the possibility of a small, light, autofocus 16-35 f2 APS-C lens. It's essentially equivalent to the FE 24-50 f2.8, but in the APS-C format it should be a whole lot smaller, lighter and cheaper. An apperture of f2.8 may be easier to build, but I have 20 and 27mm pancake primes at f2.8. A 24-50 on my A7III would be too big for what I'm after.
Most of the manufacturers are currently prioritising large wide-aperture zooms and primes and do not prioritise small lightweight APS-C lenses. I would love to see this state-of-affairs change.
Thanks Mark! Great review as always!
Thanks for the positive feedback
great review. I already have a7rv and 16-35 PZ F/4 and 20mm F/1.8 and 24-70 F/2.8GM2. Do you find 16-25 better sharpness,... than PZ ? do you often work on 2.8-4 with 16-25 range ? for urban, street photo, landscapes, we are often F/4..F11 isn't it ?
I let my photos do the talking in regard to sharpness - I upload ultra high definition images so viewers can see the quality on large 4K screens and click to zoom in. I make available the Raw files from the lens and camera reviews so users can check the unedited versions. A photographers should never rely on a reviewer to tell them a lens is sharper than another lens. It is, or it is not, sharp enough, simply by looking at photographs produced by the lens.
I have many styles of street photography - I use the F8 and be there rule, the Sunny 16 rules and the shoot everything wide open rule (my own rule). I outline all my settings in my eBooks that I make available on my Patreon.com/markgaler support channel.
I also have the 16-35 PZ F/4 - I sold my 20mm f/1.8 because I found I wasn’t using it much indoors or in low light. I’m extremely pleased with my PZ f/4 lens sharpness & tonal rendering and have no intention of buying another lens just because it has 1 more stop of light & more blades. However, I watch Mr. Galer’s videos anyway because he’s a master of explaining technique!
My 16-35 GM1 broke and its repair cost is too high. I mainly shoot dance up close at around 16-20mm during rehearsals.
Should I get
1. 16-35mm GM II
2. 16-25mm G
3. 12-24mm GM
if my only concern is continuous autofocus capabilities when paired with the a1 and a9III?
I offer personal guidance regarding equipment choice on my Patreon.com/markgaler - the final decision is determined by many factors and preferences that you did not list in your question, e.g., budget, preferred weight, size, form factor and the other lenses and cameras you currently own.
Did the 25mm long end bother you? For me I wish it ended on 24mm as I would probably try to micro-adjust it since I prefer shooting zooms in the familiar prime ranges.
I own a 35 GM and 85 ART. Looking to sidegrade to an A7CII and buy a smaller zoom for travel.
I owned a 24-70 GM2 but sold it due to the size. My most shot ranges were 35, 70, 24, 50 in that order. Never took a liking to ultra wide that much due to distortion. If you could pick what would you choose between the 16-25, 24-50, 16-35GM2 and 20-70 to complement my kit? I’m patiently waiting for a Sony 85 f1.8 G to replace my Sigma and would carry this prime as well.
The 25mm focal length was no issue for me - so close to 24 I didn't notice to be honest. Out of the lenses you list I own the 24-50 and supplement it with primes (including the 85mm F1.8). I have lots of discussions about lens choice in my eBooks and Lens Choice 2 seminar on Patreon.com/markgaler - I choose different lenses depending on the nature of the work and the type of travel.
25? I very briefly owned a Tokina 25-50 ( briefer than 3 weeks; got snatched w/ a new body in front of a landmark church in crazy 80's nyc). 25 being the short end of a zoom should bother someone more by being the long end of a 16-25 does.
Nothing is "familiar", I used to shoot portraits w/ 16 fisheye & (corded) hand-held bounce flash in my younger days 30 yrs ago. Would do again someday w/ radio-remote tricker these days.
Thanks for your excellent reviews. I have a question -not specifically related to this lens, but maybe you can help:
I saw in your review of the A7RII (I own a A7RIIIA) that it is no longer necessary to keep the custom button half-pressed to get eye-AF. How can you do that? Is it associated to face detection ON, or other setting? Thanks in advance, I would really use this feature.
Eye AF will engage as soon as you start focusing - the default option. I have a couple of videos on the subject on my TH-cam channel - because the behaviour changes, depending on whether you assign the function to a custom key or just let the AF pick it up automatically.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Thanks a lot for your quick reply, Mark! I will check it later.
Exelent review
Glad you enjoyed it
No joke I literally fell asleep watching this review and my phone smacked face😂
That tells me that you are probably not in the market for purchasing this lens rather than the video was too long.
This looks interesting, i wish it was 16-28 though, as I really like 28mm
It's close and the 24-50 F2.8 G has you covered for 28mm. I included 28mm and 35mm examples in this video review by simply cropping in camera (APS-C mode) or cropping in post.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills Very true, still a lot of benefits to this lens. Glad they're leaning into more light and compact options!
I would prefer to see Sony develop smaller and lighter lenses rather than larger and heavier F1.2 lenses or wider aperture zooms.
As many others have said, another great review. To me if this started at 14mm and still took standard front filters it would be more useful. That said, this is still a lens I’m seriously considering.
Thanks for the positive feedback 👍
For me with more full frame size Sony bodies, the size seems just right to me and the range is very good considering I have other lenses that do not overlap much at all.
For someone who doesn't already own the 16-35 F2.8 GM II, this would be a good choice.
Did I totally miss it or was there no comparison with the 16-35GM at all?
The real choice is between those two. 'Cause eventually you'll want to shoot something at 35mm. So, is it wise to include it in your wide zoom ; or is it better to have a 16-25 and a prime? Or a standard zoom? That's a question.
He suggested that this lens may be useful to those who have a standard zoom, 24-70mm, because it covers the 24-35 range. He says that in his experience, he uses the 16-24mm range of the 16-35mm zoom, ~95% of the time. Adding its small dimensions, this lens suits my needs.
I have reviewed the FE 16-35 F2.8 GM and GM II and uploaded ultra high-definition examples all these lenses and provided Raw files to my Patrons (so viewers can make up their own minds as to Image Quality). The decision to choose a 16-35 over a 16-25 is one purely based on size, weight, budget and whether the 25 to 35 overlap is important for photographers who already own a 24-70 or 24-50 lens. I provided numerous comparison tables and side by side size examples in this review with the 16-35 lens. There is no one best choice - never has and never will be. There is just a personal choice and I am not in a position to tell a stranger what decision to make without an extended conversation that outlines their specific needs.
Is there any difference in autofocus capabilities between the dual linear motors in the 16-25 G as opposed to the XD linear motors of the PZ 16-35 F4? Can't decide on which of these 2 lenses I'm going to get now. So spoilt for options!
This lenses uses the same motors we saw in the FE 24-50 F2.8 G and these were fast enough to shoot a triathlon sports event I covered. Sony rates these two lenses as being able to keep up with an A9III so I think the motors are just fine not being listed as XD.
Between these two lenses, which one is the sharpest @AlphaCreativeSkills
I am curious if next time, for example, there will be a 50-100mm.f.2.8 lens in the same size as the first two in the series?
That would be a welcome addition
40-100 f/2.8 G is better. The 40 f/2 is my favorite on a m- mt. body.
My dear friend, your videos are much more than just introducing a product and contain very educational points for me. I sincerely thank you for this.” 0:02
Happy to hear that!
Has anyone been able to compare it with the 21mm Voigtlander Color Skoppar 3.5? Thanks in advance
I wouldn't normally compare a compact zoom lens with Autofocus with a manual focus prime lens because thy tend to appeal to different types of photographers.
@@AlphaCreativeSkillsyes I understand. It's because I've had the Voigtlander for years and I'm wondering if it's a good idea to replace it with this Sony. gain flexibility, light, lose size/weight. At the expense of what difference in image quality...? That's what I'm wondering...🙂
your reviews are the most professional by the way 😉
How is the weather sealing on this lens?
All G lenses have excellent weather sealing
Thank you 😊
🤠
First to View :-)
I wish Nikon had a Z lens in this size
You can adapt Sony lenses to Nikon cameras
I used Nikon cameras for about 40 years, but cannot see any advantage of Nikon mirrorless bodies over Sonys? Mirrorless Nikon is not first choice.
@@AlphaCreativeSkills what? seriously ?
I am not sure if i like this move… we see a lot of short zoom lenses… 16-25, 17-28, 20-40 etc. My problem is that when i like to have longer zooms i love 16-35mm. I am saving up to buy the sony gm, now i use a Tamron 17-28, which i love but i just don’t want to change lenses that much. Sometimes i take it of and get my 28-75mm and then thinking.. ogh now it was better with the 17-28 because i need 24 for instance…. Yes sometimes uou can not walk back… but moest of the times i have the 17-28 and want 30 or 35… so i like to have less but good lenses then more and have to change a lot. Yes they are smaller but what isf you meed 4 smaller then 2 heavyer, sorry but 4x400-500grams is 1,6- 2kg however the 16-35 and 24-70 together are lighter and smaller then those 4 combined…
These lenses make a lot of sense to me. The overlap that is found between 16-35 and 24-70 does not mean you need more lenses because of the shorter focal range of the Sony's compact G zooms. They also save the user money and unnecessary weight in their camera bag.
What happened with Sony firmware update why is Sony not delivering on their promise they took of the upgrade from their website and did not fixed the bugs when are we to get the final fix firmware update 3.00 on the A1 never ???
I am not a Sony employee and it is likely nobody outside of Japan knows when the A1 update will be re-released. This is a lens review forum and Sony probably don't read the comments on these forums. I suggest you contact Sony directly and let them know you expect more from their software engineers.