Sony shows that improved optics does not mean bigger lens, if this lens is both smaller and optically better that it's predecessor. It's basically APS-C sized FF lens with top notch performance and all the features you could ask for.
@@fandyus4125 I think all manufacturers are designing lenses with higher distortion nowadays because they know it will be always used with correction profiles, since this is not the lens for a film cameras. In JPEG/video it will be done automatically and the RAW converter will apply the profile as well. So in the end, it's the post-correction performance that matters and it's great here. I don't see any problems, except not-perfect corners after correction, but still much better than the previous version of 16-35 and the competition. IMHO that's a pretty negligible compromise in order to achieve this impressive size.
@@fandyus4125 Both Canon and Nikon f4 version show a similar amount of distortion and Nikon is on top noticeably soft in the corners at the wide end and it generally improve much more stopped down then the better Sony and Canon versions. The Sigma 85mm also has noticeable distortion… there many other examples of this across brands so the Sony isn’t true, Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron all have plenty of lenses with pronounced distortion it’s a trend across brands and one cannot say one is better or worse then any other.
@@kikipratama1 but does it matter in the end, if you end up with sharp and non distorted image? Can you tell the difference between end result of optical VS digital correction?
Interesting preposition by sony. Now that the sigma 16-24 is out wht do you think of the two. About to purchase either one of these very soon, your thoughts would be appreciated..
@@BoxxyFan Well, potentially for video on a gimbal this can work well on APS-C (would still get a FullFrame body like the A7RV and use APSC crop, so you also have the wide end covered). Else it makes zero sense to bring this vs pretty much any other option. A Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 is a stop faster, twice as long in the telephoto end, half the price and is only 170 grams heavier.
Thanks for the review! One question, does the lens reset every time you wake up the camera? What I mean by that is, does the lens go back the the "default" focal length when you wake up (or turn on the camera)? This is the case with the old 18-105 PZ lens and it's a huge nuisance!
@@TravelMangoMedia No, it doesn't. Gerald Undone test the pre-production version. The final release version fix that. I bought tihs lens and did test it on it. It will keep the focal lenght where it was.
I love mine!!!! It's fantastically sharp. I shoot an a7Riii too. The AF is fast and it's nice and compact. I've used it recently for shooting fireworks and the sun stars even at f7.1 are GREAT! Now why can't Sony make the iris lock so it can lock IN to a specific/any Fstop? Rather than ONLY in A or not. I'm a full time news/sports shooter and I do vlogging also and this lens ticks all MY boxes.
Can you say if this lens reset every time you wake up the camera? Someone already confirmed that it does when you turn on but I wan to know if it's the same for waking up the camera too. What I mean that is, when you've been shooting at a let's say at full zoom, then you take a break but you don't turn off the camera, but after a while the camera goes into "sleep" mode for battery conservation but when you press the shutter it wakes back up. Whe you do that does the lens stay at the full zoom focal length you left it at it does it resets back to wide "default" focal length?
@@TravelMangoMedia yes i'm confirming this. But, most of the time if I'm shooting in the moment the lens will of course stay right where I left it. So if I turn the camera off (I don't have it set to sleep that quickly since I'm a news/sports shooter I need my gear awake) and then I turn the camera back on, I'm in a totally different shooting situation anyway so the change in MM didn't matter at all. I hope I've explained this well enough.
@@SlotCarNewsOfficial thanks! The kind of shooting I do I would be an issue. And I have the older 18 to 105 one and that used to cause me to miss a lot of momants just from the the second or two it takes to reset whether from sleeping or turning it on. I hardly use it nowadays. To just be able to turn and you camera it it be ready instantaneously and be able to swiftly turn to your desired focal length is something we take for granted until dealing with a PZ lens lol
This lens combined with the Tamron 50-400 is pretty much the two lens landscape photography dream combi. I just would have wished it started at 14mm for some ultra wide shots. A lens that Nikon (14-30 F4) and (Canon 14-35 F4) offer, but no such thing exists for Sony E mount from Sony or any of the many third party lens manufacturers unfortunately.
Hey Chris, Big fan of your videos. You've really helped me pick my lenses. Question for you. I could get the new 16-35mm F4 PZ (New condition) or the 16-35mm F2.8 (Used- mint condition) for the same price basically. Given that I'm mainly a landscape and portrait photographer (Relatively new to the hobby) and I vlog every one and a while, which of the two lenses do you recommend considering usability and image quality? The weight in not necessarily and deal breaker for me. And if this matters, I am planning on getting the 20mm F1.8 regardless of either lens because it looks like a great prime.
I'm not trying to answer for Christopher, but if size, weight, and video aren't your priorities then I have to think the GM is where you want to be. Although my two copies were quite soft around 35mm - still a very good lens.
I am debating the same thing and still haven't been able to decide. Based on what I am seeing the the gen 1 24-70 gm I could wait and buy the 16-35 GM sub $1K.
@@ECDPhotography That would be an insane deal, although I doubt the 16-35mm GM will get as cheap as the 24-70mm GM since it's considered a much better lens.
Love your work! But why aren't you categorizing it as a Real Estate Photography/Videography also? 16-35mm is superb for REP. I own the Zeiss version of it. Also the tamrom 17-28 f2.8
Chris, brilliant as always. I'm thinking about getting this for my A7riii. Does the menu on the camera update to enable all the zoom settings? Can't find any recent firmware updates for the body. ALSO, I currently use Zeiss 16-35 F4 for handheld video. I need to work light so don't usually take a gimbal. Does the lack of OSS make a big difference? I recall your Zeiss review showed quite a big improvement in stabilization with the OSS on.
I have just carefully reviewed your video of the canon rf 14-35 and can conclude this: in terms of sharpness the sony is surprisingly sharper than the canon at all apertures and focal lengths. Plus the sony is over $500 cheaper. The sony lens also has less vignetting Canon leads Sony because its lens has an image stabilizer and is two millimeters wider than its competition. The fact of having a 14mm with the possibility of putting filters directly is quite an achievement on the part of Canon Which do you prefer?
It’s overall better then the old GM, especially at the long end where many copies of the GM version really ran into some noticeable softness especially in the corners, many of them you need to stop down noticeable at the long end for getting rid of that underwhelming performance, this one is just better beyond 24mm as this one is performing through the range, I never seen a GM version that managed to do so, but that was generally how it was back then, but today you can get almost equal performance through the range. The main draw back is distortion, vignetting and that one stop slower, but on the other hand it has far better flare and aberration control then the GM version. But really this is really small and lightweight so for travel, street and video I think it’s a nice package. Also there resellers who has been told a new GM should come out late 2022 or early 2023. I’m sure it will fix those issues and overall be better then this but also at an additional price. I ended up getting on some months ago as I was literally shocked how well rounded a lens this is. I thought like you there where no way, but Sony really pulled a surprise on this one.
@@AndreMonz Agree, you should try it out, I just love this as a casual lens, so small and light and it reminds me of the hay day days of m4/3. I love that I can now have lenses that are this small with so few compromises..
Could you comment on the distortion thing? Is distortion a low-priority thing for lens makers now since digital correction is easy, non-destructive, and won’t hurt any image quality?
Well I'm a bit surprised to see this lens didn't get "highly recommended" like it's Nikon and Canon F4 rivals did. Honestly it's optical perfomance is not any weaker if not better. I agree 14mm is really more exciting than 16mm, but when you add other features like powerzoom, parfocality (which you didn't mention about it) and how lighter and compact it is while having a nice feature like aperture ring. Then I think it totally deserved to be in that league. BTW I wished to see it's performance on apsc too as its size and weight suits those bodies.
I’m currently using Sony aR7iii with lens of Sony 24-70 GM and Sony FE 35mm F1.8. I’m mainly doing videography and still new in this field. Should I get this Sony 16-35mm f4 pz lens or Sony 55mm F1.8 zeiss lens. Hope to get more advice/guidance. Thank you.
Chris, great review. I have the Sigma 14-24 DG DN. How much sharpness and rendering does one give up switching to this Sony PZ 16-35? Hoping you will reply. 😅
@@eViperRabbit I'm very sorry to lose the creativity of those two millimeters (14mm). If you travel on rough terrain I understand the choice of Sony but if you travel on city terrain the Sigma is your choice. I think.
Top notch review as always! I have been in the market for a wide angle and affordable wide angle lens for my Olympus e-5 but I am not sure where I can get a lens that could fit it. Does anyone have any ideas?
Looks like a great lens. A bit pricey but pretty much equivalent to other top of the line lenses from other manufacturers charging the same or more. I wish Sony was staying creative and pushing boundaries, rather than just making the same focal length that everyone else makes. Was nice to see Nikon doing so with the 14-30mm; I'd much rather have that bit extra on the wide end rather than 11mm of overlap with my 24-105mm.
I fully agree on this, I too would like a little more wide angle, like Canon and Nikon are offering. Seems Sony is now the conservative market leader and the other brands are the disruptors...
...recomended = good lens but , there are other good options in the market ...No hesitation to recommend it = Yes , it's a well made and sharp lens. if you have the money , buy it .... ...Highly recommended = You must have it
Thx for this review. The sharpness of this lens is amazing, but the distortion, too. For my person, i see no reason to upgrade from the old version of 1635f4. The biggest contra-argument for me is the price of this lens. I don't need the powerzoom, for me the old version does a good job in landscape and architectur. For the case i need much better resolution and no distortion, i use my voigtländer prime lenses
distoration can be adjusted by body without notice, according to my usage and many review, its image quality is way better than old 1635 (with in-body distortion compensation enabled)
Needing good performance at 35mm is the main reason to upgrade for stills shooters. The ZA is known to be soft to very soft at 35. I have one and tested.. it is indeed super smudgy at 35.
It seems to have very poor contrast at close distances, your vignette and distortion tests show gray lines compared to much deeper black lines on the Sigma 16-28 review. Can you confirm this? What would you pick between these two
I have to admit I am a bit afraid of the trend of the strongly distorted, software-fixed lenses. To me this seems the same thing as mobile phone "AI correction", just approached from the other side of the lens size - you will one hundred percent surely need to calculate (in better case interpolate, in worse case just guess them using AI) some data that's not actually in the picture.
No, you don’t. Just as with the RF14-35, the uncorrected image has a larger field of view than the advertised wide angle, so no pixels need to be ‘invented’.
That’s the only way you can make lenses that small and light, you won’t get a UW zoom lens under 400g and prime seize if you don’t accept this. Even Nikon 14-30 or Canon 14-35 f4 lenses have some identical amount of distortion and vignetting also the case with both Tamron and Sigma in around the range as well has noticeable amount. If one doesn’t find it acceptable there is the OM 2.8 version that generally has far less of these issues but sharpness and contrast generally isn’t much gain if any. Also uncorrected these has a larger view. So no you don’t have to do what you say.
@@GroovBird so why not put a zoom stop before the really bad distortion. I have an R6 and A74 and need a wide angle zoom for one of them. The RF is more expensive but I dislike the power zoom on the Sony. Need to re watch the RF wide angle review.
@@tekguyphoto 16mm will always have noticeable distortion especially in a zoom the GM uncorrected also has noticeable distortion and making it small and light certainly isn’t helping. I do not get the issue people have with distortion on a UW lens. I understand it’s not something you wanna see in the short tele range or a 50mm range but on a UW you’re going to get distortion the only way to avoid it is making the lenses very large, bulky and expensive. The PZ is fine, I own one I was like many other really sceptical but people really overreact on this, PZ is far better today then some years ago.
Great review as always. IMO it's overpriced for what it is. I had the old 16-35 f4 and was often struggling with the high aperture. I think the old Tamron 17-28 and new sigma 16-28mm f2.8 are still the better options, unless you really need that PZ feature. Sony really should've opted for a f2.8 for that price. But then it'd have probably been a GM for even more money
@@marcoblondus3204 Neither of these can take front filters, while the Nikon 14-30 and Canon 14-35 can. Currently there is no E-mount lens wider than 16mm that can take front filters for some strange reason. I personally feel the E-mount is just too small and it just isn't possible, but I hope to be proven wrong on this
@@Eikenhorst The reason is another, unfortunately if you want to optically correct a very short focal length lens, such as 14 or 12mm, it is mandatory to make the front lens protruding.
@@Eikenhorst There is too much software correction, for vignetting and strong distortions, which does not always give good results. As you can see, at 16mm it is vignette and has strong distortion.
Distortion is disaster, but at least there are no black corners. Yes, I'm talking about Сanon. I understand that in this way manufacturers find a way to make lenses more compact, but it would be better to have some reasonable boundaries. Let's say 5% for barrel on wide angle.
@@pizzablender After correcting such distortion, there will be nothing good at the edges. In case of a 10% barrel correction, pixels at the edges can be stretched up to 40%. This not only kills the very idea of "honest" details, but also increases noise and artifacts.
@@dima1353 I have the lens, your just talking nonsense it’s a UW lens not a mid prime or short tele prime. You will always have noticeable distortion on photography UW lenses… even the best corrected Mirrorless UW the 14Gm has distortion every other lens at 14mm has noticeable even more so especially the zooms. To reduce this effect the lenses would need to be made big, heavy and expensive, there no photography UW lens that doesn’t have noticeable distortion going wider then 20mm. The only one I ever seen was some plus €4000 cine lenses and to get truly good results we talked at least €10-20.000!
@@dima1353 That's why these lenses have a wider FOV than what is stated, so that those "blurred" pixels on the edge of the image are literally cropped out. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'll shout this from the rooftops for as long as I live: _There is no excuse for having distortion so bad that you essentially NEED to fix it in post on a lens this expensive and this recent._ I don't care if the camera can do it. There's no excuse for leaving it up to the camera or post processing at this point. They can't even say it was for size or weight reasons, either. It's shorter than the 16-35 ZA, but it's _wider_ and it's still lighter because it's not made of metal. Even if the sizes were identical (not that either lens is particularly big), it would still be lighter because of the plastic.
@@hardywoodaway9912 Make me. But you know what, just for you, I'll do that middle bit. I'll go out and take some photos with my significantly cheaper lenses that have so much better distortion characteristics that not once have I had to correct them in post in the four years I've had them, because the distortion is invisible in normal shooting.
@@RealRaynedance Blah blah blah. You can buy multiple primes and carry them all around to get better distortion performance at a given focal length, or you can buy this one lens and rely on software fixes to get you 99% of the way there. There are very few (if any) UW zoom lenses (ZOOM, not PRIME) that have the performance you are asking for because it just isn't realistic without making a gigantic, heavy lens. Price - Performance - Form Factor. Pick Two.
@@beaugagne1 Price and performance. Every time. Sony's cameras are bordering on comically small and chasing size when it's not necessary because _the current 16-35 wasn't big_ and it results in this kind of sacrifice feels either lazy or completely apathetic. And yes, I'm aware the power zoom mechanism makes it bigger than if it didn't have it.
@@RealRaynedance Yeah but the 16-35 ZA is mushy garbage at 35. I've had two and seen it first hand, and reviewers commonly cite the issue too. For those of us who need performance at 35, this lens is very appealing.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
Just a quick info for everyone who is interested in this lens: This lens is generally sharper than the 16-35mm GM. Especially in the corners.
Sony shows that improved optics does not mean bigger lens, if this lens is both smaller and optically better that it's predecessor. It's basically APS-C sized FF lens with top notch performance and all the features you could ask for.
Not top notch, the distortion control is just not there. As is tradition for Sony lenses anyhow.
@@fandyus4125 I think all manufacturers are designing lenses with higher distortion nowadays because they know it will be always used with correction profiles, since this is not the lens for a film cameras. In JPEG/video it will be done automatically and the RAW converter will apply the profile as well.
So in the end, it's the post-correction performance that matters and it's great here. I don't see any problems, except not-perfect corners after correction, but still much better than the previous version of 16-35 and the competition. IMHO that's a pretty negligible compromise in order to achieve this impressive size.
@@fandyus4125 Both Canon and Nikon f4 version show a similar amount of distortion and Nikon is on top noticeably soft in the corners at the wide end and it generally improve much more stopped down then the better Sony and Canon versions. The Sigma 85mm also has noticeable distortion… there many other examples of this across brands so the Sony isn’t true, Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron all have plenty of lenses with pronounced distortion it’s a trend across brands and one cannot say one is better or worse then any other.
Because the lens doesn't correct distortion optically. Soon, we may not need a lens at all. Everything is digitally created.
@@kikipratama1 but does it matter in the end, if you end up with sharp and non distorted image? Can you tell the difference between end result of optical VS digital correction?
Interesting fact: g and gm lenses are almost same besides badge and lower aperture but g are in bags and gm are in beltbag
Sony 24mm f2.8, 40mm and 50mm f2.5s if you can! Love love love your reviews the most.
Is the lens parfocal? with the power zoom, I assume sony can program that in.
Interesting preposition by sony. Now that the sigma 16-24 is out wht do you think of the two.
About to purchase either one of these very soon, your thoughts would be appreciated..
Look's like perfect for APS-C. Most popular eq. focal length 24-50 in one tiny lens
99% of people will be better off with the 16-50 kit lens (24-75mm equiv) which is 12x cheaper and 4x smaller
@@BoxxyFan Well, potentially for video on a gimbal this can work well on APS-C (would still get a FullFrame body like the A7RV and use APSC crop, so you also have the wide end covered). Else it makes zero sense to bring this vs pretty much any other option. A Tamron 17-70 f/2.8 is a stop faster, twice as long in the telephoto end, half the price and is only 170 grams heavier.
Thanks for the review!
One question, does the lens reset every time you wake up the camera? What I mean by that is, does the lens go back the the "default" focal length when you wake up (or turn on the camera)? This is the case with the old 18-105 PZ lens and it's a huge nuisance!
Sadly, Gerald Undone said it does reset every time you turn it off.
@@RandumbTech ugh that's so disappointing!
@@TravelMangoMedia No, it doesn't. Gerald Undone test the pre-production version. The final release version fix that. I bought tihs lens and did test it on it. It will keep the focal lenght where it was.
@@ericsam1223 that's great news!!
I love mine!!!! It's fantastically sharp. I shoot an a7Riii too. The AF is fast and it's nice and compact. I've used it recently for shooting fireworks and the sun stars even at f7.1 are GREAT!
Now why can't Sony make the iris lock so it can lock IN to a specific/any Fstop? Rather than ONLY in A or not.
I'm a full time news/sports shooter and I do vlogging also and this lens ticks all MY boxes.
Can you say if this lens reset every time you wake up the camera? Someone already confirmed that it does when you turn on but I wan to know if it's the same for waking up the camera too. What I mean that is, when you've been shooting at a let's say at full zoom, then you take a break but you don't turn off the camera, but after a while the camera goes into "sleep" mode for battery conservation but when you press the shutter it wakes back up. Whe you do that does the lens stay at the full zoom focal length you left it at it does it resets back to wide "default" focal length?
@@TravelMangoMedia yes i'm confirming this.
But, most of the time if I'm shooting in the moment the lens will of course stay right where I left it. So if I turn the camera off (I don't have it set to sleep that quickly since I'm a news/sports shooter I need my gear awake) and then I turn the camera back on, I'm in a totally different shooting situation anyway so the change in MM didn't matter at all. I hope I've explained this well enough.
@@SlotCarNewsOfficial thanks! The kind of shooting I do I would be an issue. And I have the older 18 to 105 one and that used to cause me to miss a lot of momants just from the the second or two it takes to reset whether from sleeping or turning it on. I hardly use it nowadays. To just be able to turn and you camera it it be ready instantaneously and be able to swiftly turn to your desired focal length is something we take for granted until dealing with a PZ lens lol
Please test also sun flares and ghosting... especially for UW lens this is crucial because sun is very often within the frame.
This lens combined with the Tamron 50-400 is pretty much the two lens landscape photography dream combi. I just would have wished it started at 14mm for some ultra wide shots. A lens that Nikon (14-30 F4) and (Canon 14-35 F4) offer, but no such thing exists for Sony E mount from Sony or any of the many third party lens manufacturers unfortunately.
Hey Chris,
Big fan of your videos. You've really helped me pick my lenses. Question for you. I could get the new 16-35mm F4 PZ (New condition) or the 16-35mm F2.8 (Used- mint condition) for the same price basically. Given that I'm mainly a landscape and portrait photographer (Relatively new to the hobby) and I vlog every one and a while, which of the two lenses do you recommend considering usability and image quality? The weight in not necessarily and deal breaker for me. And if this matters, I am planning on getting the 20mm F1.8 regardless of either lens because it looks like a great prime.
I'm not trying to answer for Christopher, but if size, weight, and video aren't your priorities then I have to think the GM is where you want to be. Although my two copies were quite soft around 35mm - still a very good lens.
@@lakejindsay Thank you for the advise.
I am debating the same thing and still haven't been able to decide. Based on what I am seeing the the gen 1 24-70 gm I could wait and buy the 16-35 GM sub $1K.
@@ECDPhotography That would be an insane deal, although I doubt the 16-35mm GM will get as cheap as the 24-70mm GM since it's considered a much better lens.
@@mrmonday42 I picked one up for $1250! Mint condition with packaging and UV filter.
I would love to see a comparison between this and the awesome Canon 16-35 F4L!!!
the rivals are rf 1435 and z 1430
@@kevc.2958 neither will work on my camera though, I ended up buying the 16-35mm F4 PZ...
Does it reset when turn camera off.? If so deal breaker
Love your work! But why aren't you categorizing it as a Real Estate Photography/Videography also? 16-35mm is superb for REP. I own the Zeiss version of it. Also the tamrom 17-28 f2.8
epic lens! ridiculously sharp!
Chris, brilliant as always.
I'm thinking about getting this for my A7riii. Does the menu on the camera update to enable all the zoom settings? Can't find any recent firmware updates for the body. ALSO, I currently use Zeiss 16-35 F4 for handheld video. I need to work light so don't usually take a gimbal. Does the lack of OSS make a big difference? I recall your Zeiss review showed quite a big improvement in stabilization with the OSS on.
Great video, would have loved to see you vlog with this.
I have just carefully reviewed your video of the canon rf 14-35 and can conclude this:
in terms of sharpness the sony is surprisingly sharper than the canon at all apertures and focal lengths.
Plus the sony is over $500 cheaper.
The sony lens also has less vignetting
Canon leads Sony because its lens has an image stabilizer and is two millimeters wider than its competition.
The fact of having a 14mm with the possibility of putting filters directly is quite an achievement on the part of Canon
Which do you prefer?
Dony 😊
Tamron 17-28mm pls!!!
when will you reviewing RF 24mm 1.8??
Hey! Wanted to know how's the video quality when you shoot in 1080p.
It's good enough for 4k, let alone 1080p :-)
Almost at the level of the previously released 16-35 GM but with some drawbacks. At this size it had to come with some compromises.
It’s overall better then the old GM, especially at the long end where many copies of the GM version really ran into some noticeable softness especially in the corners, many of them you need to stop down noticeable at the long end for getting rid of that underwhelming performance, this one is just better beyond 24mm as this one is performing through the range, I never seen a GM version that managed to do so, but that was generally how it was back then, but today you can get almost equal performance through the range.
The main draw back is distortion, vignetting and that one stop slower, but on the other hand it has far better flare and aberration control then the GM version. But really this is really small and lightweight so for travel, street and video I think it’s a nice package.
Also there resellers who has been told a new GM should come out late 2022 or early 2023. I’m sure it will fix those issues and overall be better then this but also at an additional price.
I ended up getting on some months ago as I was literally shocked how well rounded a lens this is. I thought like you there where no way, but Sony really pulled a surprise on this one.
@@mikni4069 thank you so much for your feedback! The latest Sony releases have been incredibly good.
@@AndreMonz Agree, you should try it out, I just love this as a casual lens, so small and light and it reminds me of the hay day days of m4/3. I love that I can now have lenses that are this small with so few compromises..
how does this lens compare to 10-20pz in apsc mode for video
How it performs with apsc camera?
Could you comment on the distortion thing?
Is distortion a low-priority thing for lens makers now since digital correction is easy, non-destructive, and won’t hurt any image quality?
Great review as always! Will you be reviewing the Fujifilm 18-120mm powerzoom?
Sharp and compact it may be but f/4 max aperture is certainly unimpressive...
Fantastic channel, really useful reviews. Thanks!
Hey Chris! Could you do reviews on Panasonic L mount lenses?
Well I'm a bit surprised to see this lens didn't get "highly recommended" like it's Nikon and Canon F4 rivals did. Honestly it's optical perfomance is not any weaker if not better. I agree 14mm is really more exciting than 16mm, but when you add other features like powerzoom, parfocality (which you didn't mention about it) and how lighter and compact it is while having a nice feature like aperture ring. Then I think it totally deserved to be in that league. BTW I wished to see it's performance on apsc too as its size and weight suits those bodies.
Maybe you're right, maybe it does deserve a 'highly' :-)
He’s a canon fanboy/hates when Sony is better than them.
@@Yupthereitism That's one of the dumber things I've read on the internet today.
@@Yupthereitism Nonsense.
How it performance with apsc camera ?
I’m currently using Sony aR7iii with lens of Sony 24-70 GM and Sony FE 35mm F1.8. I’m mainly doing videography and still new in this field. Should I get this Sony 16-35mm f4 pz lens or Sony 55mm F1.8 zeiss lens.
Hope to get more advice/guidance. Thank you.
Go with prime. You already have a zoom lens
Chris, great review. I have the Sigma 14-24 DG DN. How much sharpness and rendering does one give up switching to this Sony PZ 16-35? Hoping you will reply. 😅
The Sigma I think it's a step forward... but not in terms of size.
@@CristoforoBonissone thanks. I eventually replace Sigma 14-24 with Sony 16-35 GM2.
@@eViperRabbit I'm very sorry to lose the creativity of those two millimeters (14mm). If you travel on rough terrain I understand the choice of Sony but if you travel on city terrain the Sigma is your choice. I think.
Top notch review as always! I have been in the market for a wide angle and affordable wide angle lens for my Olympus e-5 but I am not sure where I can get a lens that could fit it. Does anyone have any ideas?
Looks like a great lens. A bit pricey but pretty much equivalent to other top of the line lenses from other manufacturers charging the same or more. I wish Sony was staying creative and pushing boundaries, rather than just making the same focal length that everyone else makes. Was nice to see Nikon doing so with the 14-30mm; I'd much rather have that bit extra on the wide end rather than 11mm of overlap with my 24-105mm.
I fully agree on this, I too would like a little more wide angle, like Canon and Nikon are offering. Seems Sony is now the conservative market leader and the other brands are the disruptors...
What about Sony 12-24 f2.8 gm lens?
The wide end even corrected is actually at least 15mm, if not wider.
@@frankfeng2701 Do you have a link to the site showing that? I might consider the lens if it's wider than 16mm.
@@kapilesh14 Heavy, can't take filters. Would say the same for the f/4 version too.
...recomended = good lens but , there are other good options in the market
...No hesitation to recommend it = Yes , it's a well made and sharp lens. if you have the money , buy it ....
...Highly recommended = You must have it
Thx for this review. The sharpness of this lens is amazing, but the distortion, too.
For my person, i see no reason to upgrade from the old version of 1635f4. The biggest contra-argument for me is the price of this lens. I don't need the powerzoom, for me the old version does a good job in landscape and architectur. For the case i need much better resolution and no distortion, i use my voigtländer prime lenses
distoration can be adjusted by body without notice, according to my usage and many review, its image quality is way better than old 1635 (with in-body distortion compensation enabled)
Needing good performance at 35mm is the main reason to upgrade for stills shooters. The ZA is known to be soft to very soft at 35. I have one and tested.. it is indeed super smudgy at 35.
It seems to have very poor contrast at close distances, your vignette and distortion tests show gray lines compared to much deeper black lines on the Sigma 16-28 review. Can you confirm this? What would you pick between these two
I have to admit I am a bit afraid of the trend of the strongly distorted, software-fixed lenses. To me this seems the same thing as mobile phone "AI correction", just approached from the other side of the lens size - you will one hundred percent surely need to calculate (in better case interpolate, in worse case just guess them using AI) some data that's not actually in the picture.
No, you don’t. Just as with the RF14-35, the uncorrected image has a larger field of view than the advertised wide angle, so no pixels need to be ‘invented’.
That’s the only way you can make lenses that small and light, you won’t get a UW zoom lens under 400g and prime seize if you don’t accept this. Even Nikon 14-30 or Canon 14-35 f4 lenses have some identical amount of distortion and vignetting also the case with both Tamron and Sigma in around the range as well has noticeable amount. If one doesn’t find it acceptable there is the OM 2.8 version that generally has far less of these issues but sharpness and contrast generally isn’t much gain if any.
Also uncorrected these has a larger view. So no you don’t have to do what you say.
@@GroovBird so why not put a zoom stop before the really bad distortion. I have an R6 and A74 and need a wide angle zoom for one of them. The RF is more expensive but I dislike the power zoom on the Sony. Need to re watch the RF wide angle review.
@@tekguyphoto 16mm will always have noticeable distortion especially in a zoom the GM uncorrected also has noticeable distortion and making it small and light certainly isn’t helping.
I do not get the issue people have with distortion on a UW lens. I understand it’s not something you wanna see in the short tele range or a 50mm range but on a UW you’re going to get distortion the only way to avoid it is making the lenses very large, bulky and expensive.
The PZ is fine, I own one I was like many other really sceptical but people really overreact on this, PZ is far better today then some years ago.
Even the 14mm GM has some distortion
I came for the comments and what no comments. In that case I better watch the video.
Great review as always. IMO it's overpriced for what it is. I had the old 16-35 f4 and was often struggling with the high aperture. I think the old Tamron 17-28 and new sigma 16-28mm f2.8 are still the better options, unless you really need that PZ feature. Sony really should've opted for a f2.8 for that price. But then it'd have probably been a GM for even more money
Nah
Thank You
The distortion. Yikes
Can you do the gooooodmorning intro?
No memory for last zoom location and always resets on camera power down.
Are you not tired of all these lenses reviews?
Noo.. keep em up, please :)
You can tell he's been tired of them for years, that's why the reviews are so low effort and practically useless.
Sony lens are very good at a decent prices!
1700$ in my country. Way too expensive
Why a F4 lens is this expensive
Is it just me or does it seem like this lens has better IQ than the GM mk2 version?😅
16mm is enough until canon and nikon provide 14mm and set the new ultrawide zoom standard.
sony with 12-24 2.8 and canon rf 10-20 f4.
@@marcoblondus3204 Neither of these can take front filters, while the Nikon 14-30 and Canon 14-35 can. Currently there is no E-mount lens wider than 16mm that can take front filters for some strange reason. I personally feel the E-mount is just too small and it just isn't possible, but I hope to be proven wrong on this
@@Eikenhorst The reason is another, unfortunately if you want to optically correct a very short focal length lens, such as 14 or 12mm, it is mandatory to make the front lens protruding.
@@marcoblondus3204 Well, clearly not mandatory, since Nikon and Canon can do so. Just Sony isn't able to do the same.
@@Eikenhorst There is too much software correction, for vignetting and strong distortions, which does not always give good results.
As you can see, at 16mm it is vignette and has strong distortion.
❤️❤️❤️
Distortion is disaster, but at least there are no black corners. Yes, I'm talking about Сanon. I understand that in this way manufacturers find a way to make lenses more compact, but it would be better to have some reasonable boundaries. Let's say 5% for barrel on wide angle.
Why does it matter if the end result is good?
@@pizzablender After correcting such distortion, there will be nothing good at the edges. In case of a 10% barrel correction, pixels at the edges can be stretched up to 40%. This not only kills the very idea of "honest" details, but also increases noise and artifacts.
@@dima1353 I have the lens, your just talking nonsense it’s a UW lens not a mid prime or short tele prime. You will always have noticeable distortion on photography UW lenses… even the best corrected Mirrorless UW the 14Gm has distortion every other lens at 14mm has noticeable even more so especially the zooms. To reduce this effect the lenses would need to be made big, heavy and expensive, there no photography UW lens that doesn’t have noticeable distortion going wider then 20mm. The only one I ever seen was some plus €4000 cine lenses and to get truly good results we talked at least €10-20.000!
@@dima1353 The pixels may be moved a large distance, but the stretching is pretty minimal. As you say, 10%.
@@dima1353 That's why these lenses have a wider FOV than what is stated, so that those "blurred" pixels on the edge of the image are literally cropped out. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Hallo from Dili East Timor
Only canon lenses come highly recommended. What a shill
I'll shout this from the rooftops for as long as I live: _There is no excuse for having distortion so bad that you essentially NEED to fix it in post on a lens this expensive and this recent._ I don't care if the camera can do it. There's no excuse for leaving it up to the camera or post processing at this point. They can't even say it was for size or weight reasons, either. It's shorter than the 16-35 ZA, but it's _wider_ and it's still lighter because it's not made of metal. Even if the sizes were identical (not that either lens is particularly big), it would still be lighter because of the plastic.
what a rambling, take some photos and stop commenting.
@@hardywoodaway9912 Make me.
But you know what, just for you, I'll do that middle bit. I'll go out and take some photos with my significantly cheaper lenses that have so much better distortion characteristics that not once have I had to correct them in post in the four years I've had them, because the distortion is invisible in normal shooting.
@@RealRaynedance Blah blah blah. You can buy multiple primes and carry them all around to get better distortion performance at a given focal length, or you can buy this one lens and rely on software fixes to get you 99% of the way there. There are very few (if any) UW zoom lenses (ZOOM, not PRIME) that have the performance you are asking for because it just isn't realistic without making a gigantic, heavy lens. Price - Performance - Form Factor. Pick Two.
@@beaugagne1 Price and performance. Every time. Sony's cameras are bordering on comically small and chasing size when it's not necessary because _the current 16-35 wasn't big_ and it results in this kind of sacrifice feels either lazy or completely apathetic.
And yes, I'm aware the power zoom mechanism makes it bigger than if it didn't have it.
@@RealRaynedance Yeah but the 16-35 ZA is mushy garbage at 35. I've had two and seen it first hand, and reviewers commonly cite the issue too. For those of us who need performance at 35, this lens is very appealing.