Be careful of ANY scams in the comments. Sadly they're becoming more and more aggressive! Some even try to impersonate me. The real "me" has a grayed out name! I DO NOT run ANY competitions or give-aways and I will NEVER EVER ask you to contact me! If you see a comment like that please click the three dots on the right of the comment and report it as spam / scam / misinformation.
For the Nikon Z users, there's a 14-30 f/4S - it's a great lens and you've really got to need that tiny bit of extra sharpness to lug around the 14-24 f/2.8S. Huge advantage of the 14-30 is that the front element is flat 82mm which makes filters much simpler than the rounded 14-24.
Lovely images Mads. A few months ago I had the opportunity to buy the 16-35 GM new for only £100 more than the 16-35 G. I still went with the G, it’s so light and fantastic quality. If I need wider apertures then I’ll use the 24 f1.4 GM.
Two things will keep me with my 16-35mm GM, better sunstars and less distortion(before correction). I think the new lens is pretty nice though and it would be a great way to reduce bulk and weight. Plus having the aperture ring is nice.
I completely agree about that lens. I've also gone with the 16-35mm f4 PZ, but in my case to take the place of the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8. And I *love it* - so sharp edge to edge and even lighter than the already very light Tamron, but with more range. (The f2.8 GM 16-35mm lens is probably due an update soon, but it's hard to imagine the expense and weight will be worth it.) The one thing that bugs me a bit about the PZ is that the zoom ring has no hard physical limit and zoom is reset whenever I switch off the camera. And the reason it is (surprisingly) sharpest at f4 is surely that it is designed for reviews and MTF charts, where almost everyone tests the lens wide open where lens faults are typically more apparent. As a landscape photographer, I wish reviewers would compare lenses at the apertures I'm typically using.
@@pianoman1973 The 16-35mm PZ f4 is sharper than the Tamron, most notably into the corners. The Tamron is no slouch - it's a fine lens, imo, and very good value - but the PZ is a notch up. Do keep in mind, though, the camera you are shooting with. I'm shooting on 60MP a7R4 and a7R5, which is an unforgiving resolution. My guess is that you'd see some benefits pixel peeping at 45MP, but less than I see with 60MP, and I'm not sure you'd see any worthwhile benefit in sharpness at lower resolutions than 45MP.
@@effytraveler6155 I recently bought a Shimoda X70 so I could carry my gear comfortably. It is, hands down, the best backpack I have ever worn. No fatigue in the wrong places, carrying 20kg. Worth it, even with the lighter loads.
Hello Mads, I also have the lens since August and love it. People seem to be suspicious or dismissing because of "only f4" or because they think that the electronic zoom might hamper the experience or because "it is a video-centric lens, isn't it?". I think these are unjustified prejudices, and the lens is just the optimal choice for a landscape shooter. MUCH better than the Sony-Zeiss 16-35 f4, by the way.
Thanks Mads! I just switched from old 16-35 4 Zeiss to this new lens and I’m super happy with it! For wider and faster lens I also bought the recent amazing 14 1.8 GM.
This kind of reviews in the field are very pleasant Mads. I‘m very happy with my 12-24 f2.8 gm. It does an excellent job in all kind of situations (ultra wide, astro, sunstars, image quality). For me it is worth it in relation to the weight and the money. Christian
I live in Hawaii and I’ve felt really uninspired for photos and compositions due to it all being familiar to me. I need Mads to come here and bring the enthusiasm 😂
Your perception of that ruin vs Nigel's reminds me of how jaded I am about New York City architecture, while tourists come from all around the world to gawk at our skyscrapers. I definitely need to shoot around town more often, using the eyes of a tourist. Your sharpness comparison illustrates the difference between "acceptably sharp" and "tack sharp". With a big DOF and important elements in both the foreground and background, I prefer to focus stack so both areas are tack sharp. If I don't really need everything that sharp, but just the main subject, one exposure at F/8 to F/11 will do.
Thank you for the comparison 👍🏼 I own the 16-35 GM since 2017 and will keep it for some reasons: Milky Way Photography and the fact I photograph often without a tripod on longer hikes in the mountains during difficult light conditions. And F 2.8 is lowering the ISO, a simple fact.
Mow Cop is just down the road from me, I would love to meet up with Nigel but it's so so hard to meet you bigger guys. I have been up there many times its great on New Years eve watching all the fireworks all over the land.
I shoot Canon and just got their RF 14-35 F4L to replace my DSLR lens, the EF 16-35 F4L. I, too, have no need for F/2.8; thus, no need for the extra weight and expense. So far, so great. I would expect no less from the Sony equivalent. As a bonus, my "unholy trinity" of 14-35, 24-105, and 100-500 all take 77mm filters. One polarizer to rule them all!
It was great to see this lens compared to the f/2.8 GM, but how does it compare with the Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f/4? I would tend to think that the Sony/Zeiss lens would be more of a direct comparison.
Swapped my canon 16-35 and 24-70 f/2.8’s out for the f/4 versions about 3 years ago and Haven’t looked back since! Thought I’d miss the wider aperture for Astro stuff but it’s not really made any difference! The weight saving alone as worth it! Just need to replace my 70-200 f/2.8 now!
At 100%, PS & LR will be showing you the exact pixels in your image. To display at 300% they must add pixels (through interpolation) so the pixels do not have empty space around them. Both are very good at this so they look quite good at 300% but it does rob the image of some sharpness. If you then sharpen using the 300% view, you may find that the image is over-sharpened back at 100%. If you are comparing lenses, sharpness best judged at exactly 100%. This is why ACR and LR have the 100% quick view.
Thanks for the review of this lens, I have been waiting for it to be available in our area since spring. I currently have the original 16-35 F/4 but it has been taken over by my wife and rarely comes off her camera so I want a second wide angle zoom.
2.8 will make difference for astro. Actually, 16-35mm is the most popular astro lens. Anyway what I had observed on GM and G is a difference on chromatic aberration and edges distortion. But mostly no big difference
Already have the 16-35 GM. I’m struggling whether to sell and buy the f/4, but then I would have to buy yet another lens for Astro. Then there are rumors of the 20-70 f/4, so I’m struggling wether to have a 20-70 and 70-200 my bag or a 16-35 and 28-200.
It's a great lens for sure! I would sell the Tamron 28-200 and 100-400 GM and replace them both with the Tamron 50-400. You will then cover 16-400 with just two lenses.
I'm also very interested in the 50-400 + a wide angle to cover everything with just two lenses. A very nice combo when you're out in the landscape for a day or two. But my 28-200 is not for sale. That lens is far too versatile. I'm very much into hiking and the 28-200 is an excellent option when you want to save weight and space in your backpack (longer hikes, traveling etc).
Thanks for the video, I’ve been contemplating for some time whether to buy the G or the GM, this video gives me enough information to finally make a decision. I’ll go for the GM and use the rest if the money to buy other nice stuff! 🙏🏼
Very interesting video for us Sony camera enthusiast. I have a Sony Zeiss FE 4 15-35mm Lens. I will carryout a similar exercise to see if there is any noticeable difference.
I come from the Canon side of things, but I am a firm believer in f4 lenses for landscape photography. The weight savings alone makes it worthwhile for me and my six decade old back, the price savings are just an added bonus. I do have a 14mm f2.8 prime for astro work (I don't delve any deeper than Milky Way, and hopefully someday Aurora images), but the rest of my kit is f4. As you suggested, Mads, I never have any reason to use f2.8 in the landscape work I do. Frankly, I very rarely even use f4!
I'm kind of in a similar situation to Nigel. I live about 15 minutes from Niagara Falls, and in the last 10 years of being a photographer, I've probably gone there... 5 or 6 times? Not even once a year.
Very timely. I've been thinking about replacing my 16-35mm GM with the PZ 16-35mm G lens. I'm sure that Sony will replace the 16-35mm GM with a GM II in the future. But, until then, I might try the PZ 16-35mm G which looks like an excellent lens.
Great video Mads. I have the GM version currently but honestly think I’ll stick with it as I plan to do Astro now I know how to use my tracker properly. The 2.8 will help with that bit of extra light.
I agree with you that a smaller lighter lens can be more practical. I hike a lot in the mountains. I have a Nikon d780 which is a tank. Sure a 14-24mm f2.8 is a high quality lens but the weight and size of it is just not what you want when hiking. With landscape photography I almost never use f2.8, only when I'm doing milky way and stars stuff. So I found the perfect wide angle lens for me: a Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4. it's size is really small and weights almost nothing. The maximum aperture is from 17mm to around 20mm f2.8 which is great for my nightphotography. After 20mm it becomes f4 which for me is enough. The lens has weathersealing is well, which is great. The only downside is that it doesn't have image stabilisation, but since I mostly use this lens on a tripod, that's not a big issue. The lens is sharp enough for me, there are probably lenses that are sharper but you'll pay twice the price for this one. And with lightroom adding some sharpening I get results I'm happy about. To summarize I love my 17-35mm and I know I would have had a bigger and heavier wideangle, I wouldn't always bring it with me, which would have meant I wasn't able to make some of my favourite photos
This is great news for me as I dallied over the way more expensive 16-35 f2.8 up to now. I use the Tamron 17-28 f2.8, which I find is of excellent quality, but lacks the extra focal length. I also use the Tamron 28-200 (as you do) as my "bred and butter" lens for landscape photography. What do you think Mads: Is it a point to think about switching to the sony 16-35 f4 just becaus of the extra focal length between 28 and 35mm, where the 28-200mm lens shows signs of weakness in terms of optical quality? Excellent video as ever. Thanks!
Great video, but the 'ruin' was actually built like that as a Summer house for the local lord of the manor in 1754. It was never a proper castle sadly - just something built by someone who had the money to do it!
Unusual to see a gear related video from you. It's as good as any of your videos, but I prefer the "go out, find a composition and be happy about life" ones more 😁 I have the Sony 12-24 f4, and while researching for it I was thinking the same thing - do I spend much more money for 2 stops (+ the usual GM benefits)? I am happy I didn't, I hardly ever even use the f4 aperture.
I prefer the tamron 17-28 f2.8. 2.8 is important in low light and in multiple cconditions. F4 is not enough. The tamron is sharp and with internal zooming and lightweight as well with 6 years warranty.
I use the GM lens wide open only for astro or low light when I feel lazy to set up the tripod and shooting handheld. Besides that, I agree with the points 😁 balancing the practicalities and uses. great comparison!
Wow, Mads. I literally just ordered this lens after watching your video (and then checking out some other reviews). I have the 2.8 GM but to be honest I rarely use it. Partly because I am moving away from always doing "grand scenics". But also because of the size and weight. Though I only do photos, not video, this size, weight and quality of this lens will be a much better fit in my bag and therefore I will more likely have it there when I do need it for a particular composition. My main lenses are my 24-70 II and 70-200 II w/ the 1.4 or 2.0 extender. Those cover 90% of my compositions and fit in the Small Mirrorless insert for my Shimoda Explore 30 V2. Because I will be able to stand this new lens "on end' as I would a prime I expect I will be able to get it to fit as well. We'll see. The cost will be more than covered by selling my 16-35 F2.8 GM which is in great shape. Thanks again. On a separate note, I would be interested in your Photoshop work but to be honest Photoshop intimidates me. I do almost everything in LR except for focus stacking. I just need to be convinced that I am missing out if I don't add PS into the mix.
Same here. Do you regret the step to the PZ? It’s really lightweight and i can have it in my bag beside 24-70 and 70-200 Both GM II. Maybe 16-35 GMII is comming soon too.
Hi Mads great review and images! Looking at your comparison images between the 2 lenses I can tell that at 35mm there is a significant difference. If you check the left side of the image the GM is much sharper than the PZ (I assume that the focus is located on the same exactly position). Field curvature maybe at 35 mm?
Thanks for this review & for your usual great landscape tutorial . Do you think this lens is sharper or provides better rendering than the 24-105 f/4 G lens? (at similar focal lengths of course).
Great video. I just bought a Sigma 24-70 Art and because the is so good (Better then the 24-70 GM I) i like to stick to the ART lensen. But @sigmaglobalvision should hurry up, because at some point it takes to long.
If you don't need 2.8, this is a no-brainer. From an image quality perspective, the PZ beats the GM in some areas and matches it everywhere. I currently have a ZA and I love it.. but it's garbage at 35mm. Gonna sell it off for dirt cheap and pick up the PZ. It's just too good to ignore.
Hey, Mads, what about landscape astrophotography? Isn't the 2.8 feels more appropriate for both of the tasks? And yep, we're waiting for a new starry night landscapes from you!)
I wish I had know you were going to wales I would of popped down to meet you and say hello and also if you don’t want the 16-35 2.8 I will gladly have it 😊 Oh are you planning on coming to Northumberland while your in the UK ?
Q mostly for Nigel: Would that Mow Cop be the place I'd be likely to see from the train on the way down South? I think I remember seeing something like that through the train window last November, definitely something up on a hill, and meaning to check it out more closely sometime.
Interesting to see your comments in terms of the comparisons Mads. When you mentioned about sharpening your image of the castle, did you use the in built features of Photoshop or did you use a plug-in?.
im torn between this lens and the sigma 14-24 2.8 since im traveling to the USA and want to capture monument valley, yosemite etc. however i feel like the huge filter systems are going to keep me from using it. Do you use CPL's often? or think 2 mms extra and the 2.8 would be worth it
Hi Mads, thanks again for this comparison. If you would have to one lens of these. Which lens would you choose? 16-35 or 24-105 both f4. I also liked to photo with the rocks in the foreground more. Best regards
Some great images. Given the "PZ" designation on the lens, I gather it has power zoom instead of regular manual zoom? How well does that work for you in practice? Or can the lens also still work for you as regular zoom lens, without the motorized power zoom feature?
I have the old Sony 16-35 f/4 Zeiss OSS lens. Do you recommend upgrading to this new 16-35 f/4 PZ lens? For a 2 lens landscape setup, would you go with 1) 16-35 f/4 + Tamron 50-400mm OR 2) 20-70mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/4 Macro OSS II?
Very much enjoyed this recent video. I'm hoping you can share with me what 'L-bracket' you're using as I haven't found one I like for my A 7 IV. Thanks
thanks for the video, can i ask why you stopped using the 12-24? im about to buy a sony full frame for landscapes, looks like this is the first lense im buying for it.
Hmmm I’ve been tempted to sell my 16-35 GM for the PZ when I can find a used copy. However, I also use it for travel and some candid portraits at 35mm. Although I have recently added the 24-70 GM II so it’s adding extra temptation to get the PZ and where f4 is less important with an UWA. Does anyone have any thoughts about it?
f/2.8 is better for astrophotography and resolution (sharpness), while the f/4 has a much better price to performance proposal. The more you pay, the more you get but there is quite a big diminishing return on the f/2.8 lens. Apperture isn't the whole story since the most recent premium Sony lenses are beating everything released until 3-4 years ago. IMO the best option is to pay the most you could on up to date lenses without being irresponsible with your personal finances.
Hello Mads. I got your composition book. I have money to buy just one lens for landscapes. Between Sony 16-35mm f4 pz and Tamron 28-200mm, which would you suggest? In you Tamron video you mentioned you used >28mm for most of your shots. Thank you.
Looking hard at the 16 35 Gm at the moment, as moving to a 2 camera system A7rv and riv, currently main lens 24 105 f4, and while I have the 17 28 Tamron I don't like the results from this lens,so will be getting sold, but in the past when I first started with Sont A7ii my main lens was 16 35 f4, Landscapes are my main area for both these lens range, primes and 100 400 gm fro Portriats and wildlife and sport, what is the ne PZ f4 like for sunstars long exposures etc?, would love your comments
Thanks for doing this video. Really helpful information Mads! From your experience, how frequently do you use the 16-20 mm range? I'm asking because I'm debating whether I would go with sony 16-35 or Tamron 20-40 mm lens.
If you already have the Zeiss version I don't think it's worth it, the perceived increase in sharpness doesn't really play in until jeg print very big.
The 2.8 is just too heavy and big and for Astro I’m reaching for the 14mm 1.8 anyway. I’m happy there’s an F4 available now but I probably won’t buy it because I tend to really enjoy 14mm
Mads, that last location looks like a folly to me. Probably designed as a ruin, built by a rich mill owner in Victorian times. I'm not sure where it is but tbh it looks completely contrived.
@@MadsPeterIversen True, but I don't like having features I wouldn't use that can potentially break and cause issues. I don't know much about the internals, and maybe I'm worried about things that would never be a problem. In my head I see myself spending multiple days hiking in subzero temperatures, accidently touching that pz and hear some cracking noise coming from motors who didn't enjoy being out in the cold for days and nights. And that it would somehow mess up the manual zoom too. I don't know, maybe I just shouldn't think too much.
Hi. I have already compared my 16-35/4ZA with the new PZ just outside of a camera shop on a7riv on tripod. I was a bit surprised that the ZA was actually quite strong at the wide end except near corners where PZ was just slightly better (distortion correction reduces resolution on PZ a bit). At 35mm the ZA was weaker everywhere. Overall, I liked lower weight and improved image quality, power zoom operation was ok. I did not buy it right away but I plan to. That is because I have excellent 20/1.8G which is as wide as I need most of the time and it doubles as astro lens. I would be at odds whether to bring the 20 or PZ for a landscape trip. In mean time I was able to reduce weight of my bag with Tamron 50-400mm. I did a comparison review with focus on landscape use with old Sigma 100-400 and 100-400 GM on my page here jtra.cz/stuff/review/tamron-50-400/ I put my later images with it with notes here: www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1777027/0
Be careful of ANY scams in the comments. Sadly they're becoming more and more aggressive! Some even try to impersonate me. The real "me" has a grayed out name! I DO NOT run ANY competitions or give-aways and I will NEVER EVER ask you to contact me! If you see a comment like that please click the three dots on the right of the comment and report it as spam / scam / misinformation.
best landscape photographer reviewing one of the best lenses on market! I absolutely expected this from you!
For the Nikon Z users, there's a 14-30 f/4S - it's a great lens and you've really got to need that tiny bit of extra sharpness to lug around the 14-24 f/2.8S. Huge advantage of the 14-30 is that the front element is flat 82mm which makes filters much simpler than the rounded 14-24.
Lovely images Mads. A few months ago I had the opportunity to buy the 16-35 GM new for only £100 more than the 16-35 G. I still went with the G, it’s so light and fantastic quality. If I need wider apertures then I’ll use the 24 f1.4 GM.
Two things will keep me with my 16-35mm GM, better sunstars and less distortion(before correction). I think the new lens is pretty nice though and it would be a great way to reduce bulk and weight. Plus having the aperture ring is nice.
The foreground rocks and the fence seem to isolate the tree AND insure that it is the focus for the comp. You are brilliant!
I completely agree about that lens. I've also gone with the 16-35mm f4 PZ, but in my case to take the place of the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8. And I *love it* - so sharp edge to edge and even lighter than the already very light Tamron, but with more range. (The f2.8 GM 16-35mm lens is probably due an update soon, but it's hard to imagine the expense and weight will be worth it.) The one thing that bugs me a bit about the PZ is that the zoom ring has no hard physical limit and zoom is reset whenever I switch off the camera. And the reason it is (surprisingly) sharpest at f4 is surely that it is designed for reviews and MTF charts, where almost everyone tests the lens wide open where lens faults are typically more apparent. As a landscape photographer, I wish reviewers would compare lenses at the apertures I'm typically using.
How is the sharpness compared to the Tamron 17-28 ? I'm thinking of upgrading as well ..
@@pianoman1973 The 16-35mm PZ f4 is sharper than the Tamron, most notably into the corners. The Tamron is no slouch - it's a fine lens, imo, and very good value - but the PZ is a notch up. Do keep in mind, though, the camera you are shooting with. I'm shooting on 60MP a7R4 and a7R5, which is an unforgiving resolution. My guess is that you'd see some benefits pixel peeping at 45MP, but less than I see with 60MP, and I'm not sure you'd see any worthwhile benefit in sharpness at lower resolutions than 45MP.
Thanks a lot !
Nice one Mads, I'm currently using the Sigma 16-28 for sheer size & weight on the Sony, have found it amazing and the sharpness is 🥰📷👍
Thanks for the review Mads. This pushed me to go buy the lens, which 8 have just purchased now for my Dolomites and Iceland trip.
Sony embassador always
I have 2.8 through 15-200mm. This has made me think more about the weight on those long hikes. Thanks Mads.
Yeah, I am concerned about the weight of my future lens. It was difficult carrying my camera bag with my hiker backpack.
@@effytraveler6155 I recently bought a Shimoda X70 so I could carry my gear comfortably. It is, hands down, the best backpack I have ever worn. No fatigue in the wrong places, carrying 20kg. Worth it, even with the lighter loads.
Hello Mads, I also have the lens since August and love it.
People seem to be suspicious or dismissing because of "only f4" or because they think that the electronic zoom might hamper the experience or because "it is a video-centric lens, isn't it?". I think these are unjustified prejudices, and the lens is just the optimal choice for a landscape shooter. MUCH better than the Sony-Zeiss 16-35 f4, by the way.
Thanks Mads! I just switched from old 16-35 4 Zeiss to this new lens and I’m super happy with it! For wider and faster lens I also bought the recent amazing 14 1.8 GM.
This kind of reviews in the field are very pleasant Mads. I‘m very happy with my 12-24 f2.8 gm. It does an excellent job in all kind of situations (ultra wide, astro, sunstars, image quality). For me it is worth it in relation to the weight and the money. Christian
Interesting video, especially how you compare the sharpening across the f stops.
I live in Hawaii and I’ve felt really uninspired for photos and compositions due to it all being familiar to me. I need Mads to come here and bring the enthusiasm 😂
Your perception of that ruin vs Nigel's reminds me of how jaded I am about New York City architecture, while tourists come from all around the world to gawk at our skyscrapers. I definitely need to shoot around town more often, using the eyes of a tourist.
Your sharpness comparison illustrates the difference between "acceptably sharp" and "tack sharp". With a big DOF and important elements in both the foreground and background, I prefer to focus stack so both areas are tack sharp. If I don't really need everything that sharp, but just the main subject, one exposure at F/8 to F/11 will do.
I bought it a month ago, I am very happy! I had the Sony Zeiss f4 but this new lens is much more better.
Thank you for the comparison 👍🏼
I own the 16-35 GM since 2017 and will keep it for some reasons: Milky Way Photography and the fact I photograph often without a tripod on longer hikes in the mountains during difficult light conditions. And F 2.8 is lowering the ISO, a simple fact.
Mow Cop is just down the road from me, I would love to meet up with Nigel but it's so so hard to meet you bigger guys. I have been up there many times its great on New Years eve watching all the fireworks all over the land.
I shoot Canon and just got their RF 14-35 F4L to replace my DSLR lens, the EF 16-35 F4L. I, too, have no need for F/2.8; thus, no need for the extra weight and expense. So far, so great. I would expect no less from the Sony equivalent.
As a bonus, my "unholy trinity" of 14-35, 24-105, and 100-500 all take 77mm filters. One polarizer to rule them all!
It was great to see this lens compared to the f/2.8 GM, but how does it compare with the Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f/4? I would tend to think that the Sony/Zeiss lens would be more of a direct comparison.
Swapped my canon 16-35 and 24-70 f/2.8’s out for the f/4 versions about 3 years ago and Haven’t looked back since! Thought I’d miss the wider aperture for Astro stuff but it’s not really made any difference! The weight saving alone as worth it! Just need to replace my 70-200 f/2.8 now!
At 100%, PS & LR will be showing you the exact pixels in your image. To display at 300% they must add pixels (through interpolation) so the pixels do not have empty space around them. Both are very good at this so they look quite good at 300% but it does rob the image of some sharpness. If you then sharpen using the 300% view, you may find that the image is over-sharpened back at 100%. If you are comparing lenses, sharpness best judged at exactly 100%. This is why ACR and LR have the 100% quick view.
100% agree Mads… I use to own an F4 version but when I went mirrorless I chose the 2.8 version for Astro.
Thank you, Mads, for another inspiring video.
Thanks for the review of this lens, I have been waiting for it to be available in our area since spring. I currently have the original 16-35 F/4 but it has been taken over by my wife and rarely comes off her camera so I want a second wide angle zoom.
2.8 will make difference for astro. Actually, 16-35mm is the most popular astro lens. Anyway what I had observed on GM and G is a difference on chromatic aberration and edges distortion. But mostly no big difference
Already have the 16-35 GM. I’m struggling whether to sell and buy the f/4, but then I would have to buy yet another lens for Astro. Then there are rumors of the 20-70 f/4, so I’m struggling wether to have a 20-70 and 70-200 my bag or a 16-35 and 28-200.
It's a great lens for sure! I would sell the Tamron 28-200 and 100-400 GM and replace them both with the Tamron 50-400. You will then cover 16-400 with just two lenses.
I'm also very interested in the 50-400 + a wide angle to cover everything with just two lenses. A very nice combo when you're out in the landscape for a day or two. But my 28-200 is not for sale. That lens is far too versatile. I'm very much into hiking and the 28-200 is an excellent option when you want to save weight and space in your backpack (longer hikes, traveling etc).
Thanks for the video, I’ve been contemplating for some time whether to buy the G or the GM, this video gives me enough information to finally make a decision. I’ll go for the GM and use the rest if the money to buy other nice stuff! 🙏🏼
That's interesting, what made you decide in the GM over the G?
Very interesting video for us Sony camera enthusiast. I have a Sony Zeiss FE 4 15-35mm Lens. I will carryout a similar exercise to see if there is any noticeable difference.
I come from the Canon side of things, but I am a firm believer in f4 lenses for landscape photography. The weight savings alone makes it worthwhile for me and my six decade old back, the price savings are just an added bonus. I do have a 14mm f2.8 prime for astro work (I don't delve any deeper than Milky Way, and hopefully someday Aurora images), but the rest of my kit is f4. As you suggested, Mads, I never have any reason to use f2.8 in the landscape work I do. Frankly, I very rarely even use f4!
Damn. Now I want to buy a new lens. Only just finished paying off my 24-105..
I'd love to see a video (or hear your opinion) on how this compares to the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di II RXD lens.
Awesome Review Mads, I was thinking this lens to replace my older Sony 16-35 f4 Zeiss
I'm kind of in a similar situation to Nigel. I live about 15 minutes from Niagara Falls, and in the last 10 years of being a photographer, I've probably gone there... 5 or 6 times? Not even once a year.
Very timely. I've been thinking about replacing my 16-35mm GM with the PZ 16-35mm G lens. I'm sure that Sony will replace the 16-35mm GM with a GM II in the future. But, until then, I might try the PZ 16-35mm G which looks like an excellent lens.
Nice video Mads. I've just swapped out my old Zeiss 16-35mm f4 for the new Sigma 16-26mm f2.8 contemporary, which is is also fantastic.
Great video Mads. I have the GM version currently but honestly think I’ll stick with it as I plan to do Astro now I know how to use my tracker properly. The 2.8 will help with that bit of extra light.
I agree with you that a smaller lighter lens can be more practical. I hike a lot in the mountains. I have a Nikon d780 which is a tank. Sure a 14-24mm f2.8 is a high quality lens but the weight and size of it is just not what you want when hiking. With landscape photography I almost never use f2.8, only when I'm doing milky way and stars stuff. So I found the perfect wide angle lens for me: a Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4. it's size is really small and weights almost nothing. The maximum aperture is from 17mm to around 20mm f2.8 which is great for my nightphotography. After 20mm it becomes f4 which for me is enough. The lens has weathersealing is well, which is great. The only downside is that it doesn't have image stabilisation, but since I mostly use this lens on a tripod, that's not a big issue. The lens is sharp enough for me, there are probably lenses that are sharper but you'll pay twice the price for this one. And with lightroom adding some sharpening I get results I'm happy about.
To summarize I love my 17-35mm and I know I would have had a bigger and heavier wideangle, I wouldn't always bring it with me, which would have meant I wasn't able to make some of my favourite photos
This is great news for me as I dallied over the way more expensive 16-35 f2.8 up to now. I use the Tamron 17-28 f2.8, which I find is of excellent quality, but lacks the extra focal length. I also use the Tamron 28-200 (as you do) as my "bred and butter" lens for landscape photography. What do you think Mads: Is it a point to think about switching to the sony 16-35 f4 just becaus of the extra focal length between 28 and 35mm, where the 28-200mm lens shows signs of weakness in terms of optical quality? Excellent video as ever. Thanks!
Great video, but the 'ruin' was actually built like that as a Summer house for the local lord of the manor in 1754. It was never a proper castle sadly - just something built by someone who had the money to do it!
Keeping the 2.8 for the superior sunstars alone. I use these in wide angle image often. It isn't that large either
Unusual to see a gear related video from you. It's as good as any of your videos, but I prefer the "go out, find a composition and be happy about life" ones more 😁
I have the Sony 12-24 f4, and while researching for it I was thinking the same thing - do I spend much more money for 2 stops (+ the usual GM benefits)? I am happy I didn't, I hardly ever even use the f4 aperture.
I prefer the tamron 17-28 f2.8. 2.8 is important in low light and in multiple cconditions. F4 is not enough. The tamron is sharp and with internal zooming and lightweight as well with 6 years warranty.
7:44 so wonderful
I use the GM lens wide open only for astro or low light when I feel lazy to set up the tripod and shooting handheld. Besides that, I agree with the points 😁 balancing the practicalities and uses. great comparison!
Wow, Mads. I literally just ordered this lens after watching your video (and then checking out some other reviews). I have the 2.8 GM but to be honest I rarely use it. Partly because I am moving away from always doing "grand scenics". But also because of the size and weight. Though I only do photos, not video, this size, weight and quality of this lens will be a much better fit in my bag and therefore I will more likely have it there when I do need it for a particular composition. My main lenses are my 24-70 II and 70-200 II w/ the 1.4 or 2.0 extender. Those cover 90% of my compositions and fit in the Small Mirrorless insert for my Shimoda Explore 30 V2. Because I will be able to stand this new lens "on end' as I would a prime I expect I will be able to get it to fit as well. We'll see. The cost will be more than covered by selling my 16-35 F2.8 GM which is in great shape. Thanks again. On a separate note, I would be interested in your Photoshop work but to be honest Photoshop intimidates me. I do almost everything in LR except for focus stacking. I just need to be convinced that I am missing out if I don't add PS into the mix.
Same here. Do you regret the step to the PZ? It’s really lightweight and i can have it in my bag beside 24-70 and 70-200 Both GM II. Maybe 16-35 GMII is comming soon too.
Hi Mads great review and images!
Looking at your comparison images between the 2 lenses I can tell that at 35mm there is a significant difference. If you check the left side of the image the GM is much sharper than the PZ (I assume that the focus is located on the same exactly position). Field curvature maybe at 35 mm?
Great video Mads. I wonder how it compares to the Tamron 17-28? They should be about the same weight.
Thanks for this review & for your usual great landscape tutorial . Do you think this lens is sharper or provides better rendering than the 24-105 f/4 G lens? (at similar focal lengths of course).
Great video. I just bought a Sigma 24-70 Art and because the is so good (Better then the 24-70 GM I) i like to stick to the ART lensen. But @sigmaglobalvision should hurry up, because at some point it takes to long.
If you don't need 2.8, this is a no-brainer. From an image quality perspective, the PZ beats the GM in some areas and matches it everywhere. I currently have a ZA and I love it.. but it's garbage at 35mm. Gonna sell it off for dirt cheap and pick up the PZ. It's just too good to ignore.
Using mine in Faroes now. Mainly video so far.
Hey, Mads, what about landscape astrophotography? Isn't the 2.8 feels more appropriate for both of the tasks? And yep, we're waiting for a new starry night landscapes from you!)
I wish I had know you were going to wales I would of popped down to meet you and say hello and also if you don’t want the 16-35 2.8 I will gladly have it 😊
Oh are you planning on coming to Northumberland while your in the UK ?
Q mostly for Nigel: Would that Mow Cop be the place I'd be likely to see from the train on the way down South? I think I remember seeing something like that through the train window last November, definitely something up on a hill, and meaning to check it out more closely sometime.
Interesting to see your comments in terms of the comparisons Mads. When you mentioned about sharpening your image of the castle, did you use the in built features of Photoshop or did you use a plug-in?.
im torn between this lens and the sigma 14-24 2.8 since im traveling to the USA and want to capture monument valley, yosemite etc. however i feel like the huge filter systems are going to keep me from using it. Do you use CPL's often? or think 2 mms extra and the 2.8 would be worth it
Thank You Sir
렌즈 성능이 참 좋습니다. 멋진 작품 잘 보고 갑니다. ps 플레이트가 픽디자인 이네요.
Hi Mads, thanks again for this comparison. If you would have to one lens of these. Which lens would you choose? 16-35 or 24-105 both f4. I also liked to photo with the rocks in the foreground more. Best regards
Some great images.
Given the "PZ" designation on the lens, I gather it has power zoom instead of regular manual zoom?
How well does that work for you in practice?
Or can the lens also still work for you as regular zoom lens, without the motorized power zoom feature?
I have the old Sony 16-35 f/4 Zeiss OSS lens. Do you recommend upgrading to this new 16-35 f/4 PZ lens? For a 2 lens landscape setup, would you go with 1) 16-35 f/4 + Tamron 50-400mm OR 2) 20-70mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/4 Macro OSS II?
Very much enjoyed this recent video. I'm hoping you can share with me what 'L-bracket' you're using as I haven't found one I like for my A 7 IV. Thanks
Does it reset when switched off? If so that’s a deal breaker
thanks for the video, can i ask why you stopped using the 12-24? im about to buy a sony full frame for landscapes, looks like this is the first lense im buying for it.
For me a deal breaker would be if the cheaper f4 lens has weather sealing or not?
Hmmm I’ve been tempted to sell my 16-35 GM for the PZ when I can find a used copy. However, I also use it for travel and some candid portraits at 35mm. Although I have recently added the 24-70 GM II so it’s adding extra temptation to get the PZ and where f4 is less important with an UWA. Does anyone have any thoughts about it?
Beautiful. What tripod and head do you use?
I don't even own a Sony but it was still a great video.
f/2.8 is better for astrophotography and resolution (sharpness), while the f/4 has a much better price to performance proposal. The more you pay, the more you get but there is quite a big diminishing return on the f/2.8 lens. Apperture isn't the whole story since the most recent premium Sony lenses are beating everything released until 3-4 years ago.
IMO the best option is to pay the most you could on up to date lenses without being irresponsible with your personal finances.
Hello Mads. I got your composition book. I have money to buy just one lens for landscapes. Between Sony 16-35mm f4 pz and Tamron 28-200mm, which would you suggest? In you Tamron video you mentioned you used >28mm for most of your shots. Thank you.
Do you combine it with your other favorite 20-100 f4? Or you went to 35-150 ?
Looking hard at the 16 35 Gm at the moment, as moving to a 2 camera system A7rv and riv, currently main lens 24 105 f4, and while I have the 17 28 Tamron I don't like the results from this lens,so will be getting sold, but in the past when I first started with Sont A7ii my main lens was 16 35 f4, Landscapes are my main area for both these lens range, primes and 100 400 gm fro Portriats and wildlife and sport, what is the ne PZ f4 like for sunstars long exposures etc?, would love your comments
Can you type the name of that little ruin please? Thank you 😊
Thanks for doing this video. Really helpful information Mads! From your experience, how frequently do you use the 16-20 mm range?
I'm asking because I'm debating whether I would go with sony 16-35 or Tamron 20-40 mm lens.
To my mind, the few mm below 20 mm are key to wide angle photography, so go with the 16-35.
Did you find the 16-35 PZ as sharp as the 16-35 GM?
Hey Mads, I own a Zeiss 16-35mm f4. Should I keep it or sell it and buy this new lens from Sony? What’s your opinion?
If you already have the Zeiss version I don't think it's worth it, the perceived increase in sharpness doesn't really play in until jeg print very big.
I am selling my GM for this. The size and weight are too hard to ignore, especially for gimbal use.
Thanks again for a Very Nice video. I like sunstar for sun and light. I like the sunstar from the GM that have 11 Aperture blade v.s 9 in the PZ lens.
"Mow Cop" is a folly, built as a ruin. It is pronounced like 'cow' not like mowing the lawn 😀
The 2.8 is just too heavy and big and for Astro I’m reaching for the 14mm 1.8 anyway. I’m happy there’s an F4 available now but I probably won’t buy it because I tend to really enjoy 14mm
I want that lens for my imaginary Sony camera
Mads, that last location looks like a folly to me. Probably designed as a ruin, built by a rich mill owner in Victorian times. I'm not sure where it is but tbh it looks completely contrived.
Nice lens. But not a fan of the motorized zoom. Or the insane price here in Sweden.
Well, you don't have to use the motorized zoom ;)
@@MadsPeterIversen True, but I don't like having features I wouldn't use that can potentially break and cause issues. I don't know much about the internals, and maybe I'm worried about things that would never be a problem. In my head I see myself spending multiple days hiking in subzero temperatures, accidently touching that pz and hear some cracking noise coming from motors who didn't enjoy being out in the cold for days and nights. And that it would somehow mess up the manual zoom too. I don't know, maybe I just shouldn't think too much.
👍
Unfortunately, this lens sells for 1.450 - 1.500 € in Europe rather than for 1.198 $ as mentioned in the video
I guess everyone has a different definition of "Relatively Affordable"?
The f4 won’t be as good for Astro or Aurora photography……
Are you making your videos by a Nokia phone?😅 I don’t think you need a camera
Hi. I have already compared my 16-35/4ZA with the new PZ just outside of a camera shop on a7riv on tripod. I was a bit surprised that the ZA was actually quite strong at the wide end except near corners where PZ was just slightly better (distortion correction reduces resolution on PZ a bit). At 35mm the ZA was weaker everywhere. Overall, I liked lower weight and improved image quality, power zoom operation was ok. I did not buy it right away but I plan to. That is because I have excellent 20/1.8G which is as wide as I need most of the time and it doubles as astro lens. I would be at odds whether to bring the 20 or PZ for a landscape trip. In mean time I was able to reduce weight of my bag with Tamron 50-400mm. I did a comparison review with focus on landscape use with old Sigma 100-400 and 100-400 GM on my page here jtra.cz/stuff/review/tamron-50-400/ I put my later images with it with notes here: www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1777027/0