None🤪 I got a Nikon body😂 in Nikon, I probably would have had the 16-35 f-4😉 It’s some kind of mix between the zeiss and Sony gm in this video. Like the high quality of the gm but with the apurture of the zeiss.
Had the Zeiss and the Tamron, kept the Tamron and traded the Zeiss and got the Sigma. Keeping the Tamron for travel and using the Sigma for real estate photography.
This makes me want to upgrade my 16-35 to the 2.8 G-Master, I tossed the f4 on my A7R and was really missing the extra stop for interior photography! Great comparison D!
Yeah I totally hear you. It seems to always be right on that line too where f4 is so close but f2.8 is perfect to not have to push your iso too far. And 16-35 really is a sweet range. I do like that Tamron a lot (especially for the price) but that little bit of extra range on the GM is sweet.
I have been super happy with my Tamron 17-28mm. I love the 2.8 it matches perfectly with my Tamron 28-75mm. The price is right the quality is just surprisingly good. Like you said I really like how small it is and its the perfect gimbal lens since the zoom is internal. I used it on a gimbal for client work this past weekend and wow it was so nice to make those changes without re-balancing. Can't say enough good things about it. Thanks!
I literally watched about 10 videos yesterday on these lenses and was wishing I could have found a video comparing them all. Perfect timing. Great info! I’m a professional photographer and filmmaker, and I’ll probably go with the tamron to see how it does. I would rather spend the saved money on other production costs if possible. Thanks for the great video! 🤙🏻
Dude awesome video!! Been using the Tamron 17-28 and just love it. Definitely don't need anything besides that and my 24-70. Stoked you're on the Artlist train as well. I love that I can use the tunes for commercial work with no issues. Huge lifesaver.
Just bought the Tamron... Waiting for it to be delivered. Already have the 28-75 so it seemed logical. Both together STILL cost less than the 16-35GM. So 17-75 seems better bang for buck to me!! Will be geting the 70-180 if thats as good too!!
Thanks for another great video . . . you made some very honest and valid points pro and con for each lens and I appreciate that. I'm gonna take the 'buy once cry once' approach and pull the trigger on the 16-35 Gmaster . . . here's why for 'Me' and thanks to You. #1 The Tamron with the zoom/focus rings being opposite of my other lenses will drive me nuts. #2. You mentioned slight 'Focus Hunting' . . . this will be my primary 'low light' lens, where all lenses struggle the most, I want the best I can get in those tough conditions, that's the reason I'm buying this focal range / aperture. #3. Focal Range . . . 16mm-35mm is the greatest range of 3/4 of these of these lenses, making it overall much more versatile for me. This will round-out my kit which will be Sony 16-35GM . . . Sony 24-105G . . . and Sony 100-400 GM. Perhaps down the road I'll pick up a dedicated portrait lens . . . but I don't shoot portraits now, so it's not needed. Thanks again for painting a broad general picture, some people want technical specs which is fine. . . . but all 4 of these lenses are great, you just need to pick the one that works best for your particular needs. Cheers!
My only complaint with the Sony 16-35 F4 is that when you use it for static talking-to-the-camera style shots with autofocus, the background keeps "vibrating" as if the camera is constantly focus hunting. You don't get that smooth bokeh as a result, it's distracting
Yeah, I think that has to do with focus breathing maybe. Those little micro adjustments when it tracks your small movements seem to affect the background (specifically small light sources) worse.
I felt the same way about the 16-35 GM. Sold it to go w/ the Tamron 17-28 and get $1000 back. I may get another 16-35 GM eventually, but I may want to get something with a bit more character. The Sony lenses all seem really clinical, with very little flare. But, they're pretty dang sharp, and the in camera correction is spot on for video.
Yeah I still haven’t actually let go of the f4 tbh. There’s something about it that makes me hold on. Even though it’s f4, I really like that little bit of extra reach and the quality is just nice.
Nice selection of lenses! I shoot a lot of astro so the Sigma 14-24 was the best overall choice. If I wasn't doing astro quite so seriously I'd have gone for the 16-35 GM; it's such a useful focal range that I think it'd soon justify the higher price tag vs the Tamron. All look great though!
As I’m really struggling between these two - why do you like the Sigma better for astro?? Is it just the wider angle? I’d think the GM would be sharper and with better focus 🤔
@@Pisanche I'd had a 16-35 previously and 16mm always felt a bit restrictive for coastal milky way landscapes. Aside from that, the 16-35 GM isn't necessarily sharper; the Sigma 14-24 is staggeringly good. AF will likely be a bit better on the GM, but for astro that's irrelevant anyway. Both great lenses, but even if they were the same price, I'd still pick the Sigma.
@@Pisanche Although having said all that, the new 12-24 GM looks like it's superb, both generally and for astro... I've not tried one personally though.
I am actually a fan of Tamrons zoom/focus ring configuration. Although not conventional, having the focus ring closer to the body helps with stability during handheld rack focusing during video.
Thank you for this man. Your videos are genuinely a joy to watch. If I have the money at the time, I'm going with the GM. If I don't have enough, I'm going Tamron!
The choice depends on what other zooms you have. 17-28 is a good complement to 28-75 or 24-70. Whereas 16-35 complements 70-200 or 50/85 prime. 14-24 is a specialty lens. GM or Zeiss costs less if bought used.
Just when I thought I was going to have to start looking up reviews on all these bam, I find another great video! Can't wait for the peak design bag to come in great reviews brotha!
I'm a fairly new shooter with an a6400, the Sigma trio, and an 18-105 f4 (all purchased based on your recommendations) I'm loving this combo. I primarily shoot pics and very little video. I'll be shooting portraits, gymnastics in poorly lit gyms, and real estate interiors. I'm about to pull the trigger on an A7iii and plan to get the Sony 85 1.8 and the Sigma 14-24mm 2.8. I want to up my real estate photography and try some landscape and astro. Anyhow, love your channel, very inspirational and informative.
Nice video. I shoot interiors professionally and disagree that you would want the 14mm for that purpose. Even a well corrected lens will have mountains of perspective distortion (near objects get stretched) at that focal length. Even small bathrooms are better shot tighter and stitched. I tend to stick (on full frame) with 18mm and above, and love when I can shoot a whole property at 24mm. Having said all that, I currently use mainly the 16-35GM, Batis 18mm, Canon 24mm tilt shift and/or the 24mm GM. I'm building a kit out for another photographer I just hired and don't really want to pay for another 16-35 GM (though I agree that it is the all around best)...the Tamron looks like a great deal, all things considered.
from an APS-C guy, I'd say you should recomment the Sony 16-55 2.8 over that Ziess one. Price is close enough but you get better stats for the specific APS-C camera. Good video sir
Not sure if anyone said this yet but OSS does not affect video, something worth mentioning when talking about wide-angle lenses since a lot of people watch these comparison videos for video shooting. Sony has a SteadyShot system which affects video, it is called SSS.
As someone who has both OSS and non OSS lenses and has done tests on both Sony cameras with and without sensor stabilization I can confirm that OSS very much DOES affect video. Having OSS(optical steadyshot) on your lens will add stabilization for both stills and movies. I’ve never heard of SSS before now either but I’ll have to go look it up.
@@dunnadidit yeah you're right I was confusing something. Do you know if the Alpha IBIS systems turn off the floating lens element in OSS lenses or do they tranisition to 3-axis when combined? You mentioned you tested sensor and non-sensor stabilization bodies.
I'm just getting into photography. I have a Sony mirrorless camera. And I just bought a Sigma 24-70mm lens. I'd like a wider lens also. The Tamron is 17-28mm. How much wider is 17 than the Sigma 24? Is it noticeably wider? I feel like 24 is already relatively wide. I want a wider lens for landscape photography. I don't want to buy two lenses if 24 is already wide enough. Thanks.
I have a canon 17-55 f2.8 that I'm trying to replace when I get a FF camera. I'm wanting something with the same focal length, reading that "should" be a 28-86mm f3.5 but there really isnt one, so I'm going with a 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 tamron...I fear that its not going to be wide enough.
I was debating between all these lenses and ended up with a Sony 20mm f1.8 G. It's a great landscape lens that's light and almost as wide as the Tamron. Optics are fantastic and likely sharper than any of these lenses. If I want narrower framing, I crop later. It's also the same price as the cheapest lens here, the Tamron. The differences between all these focal lengths isn't huge and walking a bit can go a long way.
I got the Tamron on release and don't regret it. 17mm is plenty wide for me and 28mm is usually just enough on the tele end. For the price difference you can pick up the 28-75mm and still have some money to put towards the Sony 85mm 1.8 (all of which have a 67mm filter thread).
Id like the Sigma, but the front lens is curved. You cant put filters on it. Not even a UV/Clear filter to protect the glass. So, I cant get it :/ Wish they could make one that would allow for filters
Made the decision and traded in my a6500 and all my lenses.. got an a7iii and the signa 14-24.. amazing lens.. love it.. and there are rear filters are coming for it from what i hear
Keep the gm, the tamrons are annoying to use. The reversed focus and zoom ring is weird, and the zoom ring is VERY heavy. If you do any video work at all, the tamrons are near worthless.
Tommy Nguyen - I disagree! The Tamron work really well for video the work I’ve been doing. The reversed rings has actually come in handy a few times where I was in awkward positions and needed to access the focus ring with a single finger while still having a hand on the camera. The GM is sick for sure, but there is great value in the Tamrons and calling them near useless seems like a significant exaggeration of any slight flaws you might find in them.
@@dunnadidit I've personally found it impossible to adjust the focal length on any gimbal i have without losing balance and jolting the entire camera around, but ymmv
Concerning the weird auto deformation in the edges of the image with the Sigma lens. It's normal! This is a setting that must be changed in the Sony camera settings. Look under "lens compensation" and turn off. check links for more info. www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00018031
Any reason you went with 16-35 rather than 10-18 for the a6400? I know this is an fe lens comparison but I’m thinking of going more a6400 rather than a7iii
Mostly because I was pretty sure I was going to eventually go FF. But also, at the time, I wasn’t a huge fan of ultra wide like that... since then, I have changed my stance haha.
I tried the Sony-Zeiss f4 on an A7RIV and found the corners exceedingly mushy. I really liked the colors on the lens and I did not need the f2.8 so I really wanted to like it. It was so bad I tried three copies of the lens, thinking it must be a bad copy. They were all the same, very sharp center, very soft corners. I wanted the 16-35 range, so my only option, at the time, was the 16-35 f2.8 GM. I robbed the piggy bank and bout it. It is not perfect, but very good, and way better in the corners than the Sony-Zeiss f4. If I were buying today, I would strongly consider the PZ 16-35 f4 G for landscape. I assume Sony will be doing an update to the 16-35 in the near future.
For me personally I know that the Tamron is the way to go especially since I already have a Sony 35mm prime but that G master is so sexy. Maybe I can convince my landlord to let me slide on rent this month 🤔
Awesome video! Thanks for the great comparison. I‘ll get my Tamron 17-28 tomorrow! As I hike a lot with my camera and I love lightweight for filming - so I think this works best for me, although I AM a professional photographer 😊
It's like you know me, or at least my shopping history lately. :-D Thank you so much for the in-depth videos. They help me, but certainly not my wallet.
For a while I agonized over whether to get one of the 16-35's. I had bought the 100-400GM a few months earlier, and my wife was giving me the eyeroll whenever I talked about getting another lens. But the talking heads on youtube all told me I needed a 16-35 for my holy trinity, so I was leaning toward the f/4 to save some money. Then I torpedoed all of that by listening to the little voice in the back of my head that said YOLO and got the 24mm GM instead. Haven't regretted that decision. Plenty wide for me, razor sharp, and just a great lens. Maybe I'll eventually grab the 16-35 f/4 just to have the option, then again that Sigma 14-24 looks pretty tempting to fill the gap...
For APSC you are better off with the Sony 10-18 F4 with OSS. Much better match with focal range considering the crop factor. That basically leaves the 16-35 F4 useless.
If you’re looking for that ultra wide equivalent for these ranges on FF then yes. It’s really the only option for zooms. But I wouldn’t say that the 16-35 range on apsc is useless. Focal range is pretty subjective and situational.
Situational yes and I assume we were strictly talking about this wide angle range. For this comparison it is not the right focal length to use on a crop sensor. The 10-18 is not an ultra wide on APSC. Its equivalent to about 15-27 field of view. Of course it's not useless for other situations. We may be comparing the 24-70 f4 on a full frame more appropriately with this one an APSC. but to compare it with this batch and the purpose of these wide angle lenses on a full frame, it would not be useful on an APSC.
Mali Mish - I wasn’t talking about the focal range at all for aps-c, I just made mention that I couldn’t suggest it for FF with the other options but that it might be a good option for aps-c since it has oss(not specifically an ultra-wide option, just an option). That was literally why I bought it and it was quite useful. I think we agree for the most part and maybe we’re getting hung up on semantics or something?? I was just responding to the fact that you called it useless. As for the 10-18, my understanding is that the typical definition of ultra-wide would be anything wider than 24mm(FF equivalent.) So 15-27 definitely fits the bill. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying though.
Depends on the gimbal. Most of the newer gimbals are getting so strong that it probably wouldn’t matter much. And even with the internal zoom lenses, there are still things shifting around so it would still affect it a little bit. I never rebalance though. Just balance with it at the halfway point.
Thanks! Just wondering why the Sony 10-18mm F4 (SEL1018) doesn't feature as part of wide angle lens comparison videos? I was looking into vlog lenses, would the 10-18 f4 be better than the Tamron 17-28? It also has OSS! Or is getting both overkill? Then again I am using it on a A6600... thoughts please?
Hi! Which is the best combo for A6500 do you think? Sigma 16mm and 30mm f1.4 (already owned) or Tamron 17-28 f2.8..... there is always the possibility of buying an A7 series in the future but the apsc is going to stay with me...
I bought the Tamron(for my aps-c camera (a6300) and it's the most expensive lens I've bought in my life so far. I was afraid it wouldn't fit well with my setup, but it looks amazingly good, still wide enough, accurate AF, the performance in low light is not bad. One of my best investments.
I actually originally planned to include some apsc stuff in this video but ended up deciding to go with just FF (I’m glad I did cause it ended up long lol) but I do want to do some more stuff like this for aps-c as well.
I ended up with a used zeiss simply because it was 900, the tamron is my second choice because of the 2.8 however with heavy use the tamron develops slop in the adjustment and by simply holding the lens upside down it will extend, also noticed it to be quite noisy whereas I have no noise being picked up on mic with the zeiss.
Another great video and logical breakdown of these lenses. Budget, I just got the Tam 28-75 2,8 Gen 1. I am torn between Sony 16-35 2,8, and the Tam 17-28 2,8, But $$$, weight and overall size it's going be the Tam 17-28 2,8. Cheers.
Hello, I own no camera till date but I am in planning to buy sony a7iii and bmpcc 6k cameras. For a7iii, I planned sigma 24-70mm dg dn f/2.8 sony e-mount and sigma 85mm 1.4 dg art sony e-mount and for bmpcc 6k, I planned sigma 18-35mm dc art. My question is for sony a7iii, should I go for sigma (sony) e-mount lenses or sigma (canon)ef mount lenses with mc11 adaptor for future purposes and for bmpcc 6k camera as well. Kindly solve my problem. Note - I do not own any canon dslr. Thanks
That’s a tough one. For zoom lenses, the only thing in a similar range would be the 10-18 f4 but I don’t have any experience with it. If you’re ok with primes, I highly recommend the sigma 16mm f1.4
I have both the 10-18 F4 I bought on ebay used for $600 and the sigma 16mm contemporary. Can't go wrong with either one but I keep both like Alexandra husarek said the 16mm is great for low light and is sharp.
@@ReassuringSmile by now hopefully youve figured out already but the point is your prime will always give you a better aperture and generally sharper, better image quality that your zooms cant.
Yup... what they said. If you buy super expensive and fancy zoom lenses. You might get close, but primes generally will yield better results for less money and have options for wider apertures as well.
A major thing missing from most tests, how the Sony Ibis performs with each lens. This is a biggie for run and gun video shooters, but is hardly mentioned. I believe the Sonys perform quite a bit better.
How about APS-C + 10-18mm vs FF + Sigma 14-24mm at both widest range. I'm currently own a6400 + 10-18mm. Thinking about upgrading to FF wide setup. Will it worth it? Appreciate your thought
Syafiq Mazli - unfortunately I don’t have either of those lenses to test. It’s all going to be up to what you plan to do with it. The a6400 + 10-18 should serve you well if you don’t need anything too fancy.
can i use the zeiss 16-35 FE e-mount on a aps-c e mount sony or the immagine will be croped (i see a forum who said nothing happens, but I want to be sure)
I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm f4 used from eBay because of the OSS... it sells for around $800 pre-owned, so I would definitely buy a used version. I'm shooting with the A7SIII for video so I'm not too worried about needing f2.8. That said, I haven't taken the plunge yet... my second thought would be the Tamron because it is a little lighter and am wondering if the 3-4 oz would make a big difference on a gimbal?
The weight does definitely make a difference but I do find myself really appreciating the difference in that little bit of extra focal length with a 16-35.
I’m on the a7siii also and I’m running the zeiss, the tamron is definitely cheaper but with time if you’re racking a lot the adjustment in the tamron becomes loose and by simply holding upside down the lens will extended on its own weight
I have the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4. When I bought it, my choices were either it or the 2.8 GM. For wide angle, I shoot mainly landscapes so I did not, at the time think that the extra that the 2.8GM cost was worth it. In light of the 2 other lenses in this video (or 3 if you also consider the newly released 12-24 f/2.8 GM) would you recommend keeping the 16-35 f/4, or upgrading to one of the other lenses. (Are the other lenses SO MUCH BETTER than the Zeiss that I would be better off upgrading from my existing lens?)
I carry two cameras for stills (A7iii and A6600). I shoot with the 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron which lives on my a7iii and either the Sony 70-350mm or Sony 10-18mm on the A6600. The small form factors of these two lenses on the A6600 make it relatively easy to carry the second camera/lens.
Definitely a good lens. About 7 months later I finally bought the Gmaster for myself though. The 16-17mm difference isn’t much but the 28-35 is for sure.
I’m rocking the 16-35f4 picked it up for $1000 CAD a few months back. The extra reach on both ends sold me on it over the Tammy. I also ended up grabbing the sigma 24 1.4 so when it gets dark or I just need a different look I switch to that. $1800 CAD for both and I’m still ahead of the GM hahaha
Dunna Did It I really like it, I don’t like to push my content in others’ videos but the opening sequence in my recent video was shot entirely on it if you want an idea of what to expect. It’s heavy for sure so that’s something but I find myself reaching for it all the time now. 1.4 is life idk haha. You should get sigma to send it out for review, I’d like to see your thoughts on it!
Hi from Kyiv Ukraine. I own 4 Sony FE bodies and 16 lenses 8 Sony 3 Tamron and 5 Samyang. The Tamron I feel is a package lens. What I mean by this is the trilogy package. I now own all 3. I feel they designed their lenses not only for price weight and size but as a collection or kit to get you through a long focal range. Many people on RUclips give the Tamron 17 to 28 a minus because it only has a short focal length. For me this is not the case. If I go out to do non professional work and shoot for myself I can get all 3 Tamron lenses in a Mirrorless Mover 30i bag plus carry the body with 1 extra lens in my hand. Tamron gives me 17 to 180 reach in a light weight, affordable small package. Obviously you need to invest in the three lenses and by the way I paid the same price for all 3 as it would have cost to buy the Sony 70 to 200 F2.8 but once you have all 3 you have great focal length capability. I think the idea was for consumers to buy the 28 to 75 and then the 17 to 28 initially and therefore you are not really loosing the reach and I feel this is why they kepted the filter size the same across the 3 lenses.
Tamron? I own it, but would advice to look at the Sony's as even today, such a long time after its release, there is no lens profile to fix the barrel distortion in Lightroom. Pretty useless for professional interior and architecture photography. For video it's fine. It's just the RAWs that need correction, which isn't available.
Which lens would you get and why?
Dunna Did It where were you a week ago? I just picked up the 16-35 f/4...
None🤪 I got a Nikon body😂 in Nikon, I probably would have had the 16-35 f-4😉 It’s some kind of mix between the zeiss and Sony gm in this video. Like the high quality of the gm but with the apurture of the zeiss.
I would buy the tamron because i dont have more money than that
already picked up the tamron
Had the Zeiss and the Tamron, kept the Tamron and traded the Zeiss and got the Sigma. Keeping the Tamron for travel and using the Sigma for real estate photography.
Ahhhh December, a perfect video to watch with no money. 😂
Lol don’t worry, you aren’t alone.
Yes I'm with you brother. I can feel you. I'm broke. Help me anyone
Damn
@@roniaditya8352 hahahaha sorry to hear that
Whatever sony lens you're looking for, Dunna has a video and a comparison about it. Thanks so much man
This makes me want to upgrade my 16-35 to the 2.8 G-Master, I tossed the f4 on my A7R and was really missing the extra stop for interior photography! Great comparison D!
Yeah I totally hear you. It seems to always be right on that line too where f4 is so close but f2.8 is perfect to not have to push your iso too far. And 16-35 really is a sweet range. I do like that Tamron a lot (especially for the price) but that little bit of extra range on the GM is sweet.
Dunna Did It yeah the Tamron seemed to preform really well, the weight of that is pretty appealing!
I have been super happy with my Tamron 17-28mm. I love the 2.8 it matches perfectly with my Tamron 28-75mm. The price is right the quality is just surprisingly good. Like you said I really like how small it is and its the perfect gimbal lens since the zoom is internal. I used it on a gimbal for client work this past weekend and wow it was so nice to make those changes without re-balancing. Can't say enough good things about it. Thanks!
That’s awesome Paul! I’ve been loving it too! Just so nice and small. And the value can’t be beat!
Do you ever miss the OSS?
I literally watched about 10 videos yesterday on these lenses and was wishing I could have found a video comparing them all. Perfect timing. Great info! I’m a professional photographer and filmmaker, and I’ll probably go with the tamron to see how it does. I would rather spend the saved money on other production costs if possible. Thanks for the great video! 🤙🏻
I'm glad to hear my timing was good Justin! Thanks for watching and I'm happy it was valuable for you!
It's great. If the focal range works for you then you won't regret getting the Tamron
Dude awesome video!! Been using the Tamron 17-28 and just love it. Definitely don't need anything besides that and my 24-70. Stoked you're on the Artlist train as well. I love that I can use the tunes for commercial work with no issues. Huge lifesaver.
Yeah that range pretty much has you covered!!
Dunna: "Go for Sigma if you really need to go as wide as possible!"
Sony 12-24mm: "Hold my beer"
Lol 😂
I want that Sigma 14-24
Get it! You’re sigma obsessed lol
I ordered it today, RUclips must know and recommended this video lol
Hahaha! (they're watching us)
This is there best comparison video I've seen... Thanks for your feedback, you've definitely helped me make a decision on which lens to get! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
That’s great to hear!!
Yes, comparison I wanted to see all this time long! Thanks brother
Thanks for watching!
Great comprehensive video bro 👍🏻
Thanks a ton!
if money wasn't a restriction, that sony 16-35 gmaster is too SICK of a lens
Totally!
Big ups for the Artlist sponsorship man! Personally like the Sigma quality the most through these ones!
Thanks dude! Yeah it’s pretty solid! Love that ART series!
@@dunnadidit Honestly man!
Just bought the Tamron... Waiting for it to be delivered. Already have the 28-75 so it seemed logical. Both together STILL cost less than the 16-35GM. So 17-75 seems better bang for buck to me!! Will be geting the 70-180 if thats as good too!!
Thanks for another great video . . . you made some very honest and valid points pro and con for each lens and I appreciate that. I'm gonna take the 'buy once cry once' approach and pull the trigger on the 16-35 Gmaster . . . here's why for 'Me' and thanks to You. #1 The Tamron with the zoom/focus rings being opposite of my other lenses will drive me nuts. #2. You mentioned slight 'Focus Hunting' . . . this will be my primary 'low light' lens, where all lenses struggle the most, I want the best I can get in those tough conditions, that's the reason I'm buying this focal range / aperture. #3. Focal Range . . . 16mm-35mm is the greatest range of 3/4 of these of these lenses, making it overall much more versatile for me. This will round-out my kit which will be Sony 16-35GM . . . Sony 24-105G . . . and Sony 100-400 GM. Perhaps down the road I'll pick up a dedicated portrait lens . . . but I don't shoot portraits now, so it's not needed. Thanks again for painting a broad general picture, some people want technical specs which is fine. . . . but all 4 of these lenses are great, you just need to pick the one that works best for your particular needs. Cheers!
My only complaint with the Sony 16-35 F4 is that when you use it for static talking-to-the-camera style shots with autofocus, the background keeps "vibrating" as if the camera is constantly focus hunting. You don't get that smooth bokeh as a result, it's distracting
Yeah, I think that has to do with focus breathing maybe. Those little micro adjustments when it tracks your small movements seem to affect the background (specifically small light sources) worse.
@@dunnadidit exactly
@@dunnadidit exactly
this happens when your AF drive speed is on "fast". This needs to be adjusted accordingly.
@@louiedc8703 hey I didn't know that. Thanks!
Great video man! And i got that same yeti mug ;) Keep up the awesome work dude!
Thanks dude! I absolutely love that mug!
@@dunnadidit Same! Great minds think alike haha
I felt the same way about the 16-35 GM. Sold it to go w/ the Tamron 17-28 and get $1000 back. I may get another 16-35 GM eventually, but I may want to get something with a bit more character. The Sony lenses all seem really clinical, with very little flare. But, they're pretty dang sharp, and the in camera correction is spot on for video.
Yeah I still haven’t actually let go of the f4 tbh. There’s something about it that makes me hold on. Even though it’s f4, I really like that little bit of extra reach and the quality is just nice.
Nice selection of lenses! I shoot a lot of astro so the Sigma 14-24 was the best overall choice. If I wasn't doing astro quite so seriously I'd have gone for the 16-35 GM; it's such a useful focal range that I think it'd soon justify the higher price tag vs the Tamron. All look great though!
Yeah I bet that 14-24 is a killer lens for Astro!
As I’m really struggling between these two - why do you like the Sigma better for astro?? Is it just the wider angle? I’d think the GM would be sharper and with better focus 🤔
@@Pisanche I'd had a 16-35 previously and 16mm always felt a bit restrictive for coastal milky way landscapes. Aside from that, the 16-35 GM isn't necessarily sharper; the Sigma 14-24 is staggeringly good. AF will likely be a bit better on the GM, but for astro that's irrelevant anyway. Both great lenses, but even if they were the same price, I'd still pick the Sigma.
@@Pisanche Although having said all that, the new 12-24 GM looks like it's superb, both generally and for astro... I've not tried one personally though.
Just found your YT channel yesterday and loving all your content. As a Sony E user, i'm loving your suggestions and tips.
Thanks so much!
I am actually a fan of Tamrons zoom/focus ring configuration. Although not conventional, having the focus ring closer to the body helps with stability during handheld rack focusing during video.
Well there you go!
Thank you for this man. Your videos are genuinely a joy to watch.
If I have the money at the time, I'm going with the GM. If I don't have enough, I'm going Tamron!
For talking head videos and podcasts, do you think 28mm can pass? Or is 35mm (like you've said you use) that important for less face distortion?
My pleasure!!
The choice depends on what other zooms you have. 17-28 is a good complement to 28-75 or 24-70. Whereas 16-35 complements 70-200 or 50/85 prime. 14-24 is a specialty lens. GM or Zeiss costs less if bought used.
Great points!
16 35 F4, 55 mm zeiss, 85 mm probably for me. But tamron 17 28 is cheaper and has also great review.
Everything costs less if bought used. Except for Jennifer Lawrence's knickers (a friend told me).
Just when I thought I was going to have to start looking up reviews on all these bam, I find another great video! Can't wait for the peak design bag to come in great reviews brotha!
I'm a fairly new shooter with an a6400, the Sigma trio, and an 18-105 f4 (all purchased based on your recommendations) I'm loving this combo. I primarily shoot pics and very little video. I'll be shooting portraits, gymnastics in poorly lit gyms, and real estate interiors. I'm about to pull the trigger on an A7iii and plan to get the Sony 85 1.8 and the Sigma 14-24mm 2.8. I want to up my real estate photography and try some landscape and astro. Anyhow, love your channel, very inspirational and informative.
That’s awesome Doug!! Thanks so much for watching!!
Hello Dunna! there is another video. What i can say is I love watching your videos.
Thanks so much! I appreciate it!
Nice video. I shoot interiors professionally and disagree that you would want the 14mm for that purpose. Even a well corrected lens will have mountains of perspective distortion (near objects get stretched) at that focal length. Even small bathrooms are better shot tighter and stitched. I tend to stick (on full frame) with 18mm and above, and love when I can shoot a whole property at 24mm. Having said all that, I currently use mainly the 16-35GM, Batis 18mm, Canon 24mm tilt shift and/or the 24mm GM. I'm building a kit out for another photographer I just hired and don't really want to pay for another 16-35 GM (though I agree that it is the all around best)...the Tamron looks like a great deal, all things considered.
Great points! Thanks for sharing!
from an APS-C guy, I'd say you should recomment the Sony 16-55 2.8 over that Ziess one. Price is close enough but you get better stats for the specific APS-C camera. Good video sir
100%!! The 16-55 is now my go-to recommendation for apsc users! Especially for a6500/6600 users with ibis.
This review was super helpful!!
Gonna end up choosing the Tampon, super excited to get it!! :D
Glad it helped... oh autocorrect haha
Dunna Did It wow how embarrassing, I’m gonna keep it just for shits and giggles haha
Sounds painful
Dunna Did it again🔥
Thanks!
Not sure if anyone said this yet but OSS does not affect video, something worth mentioning when talking about wide-angle lenses since a lot of people watch these comparison videos for video shooting. Sony has a SteadyShot system which affects video, it is called SSS.
As someone who has both OSS and non OSS lenses and has done tests on both Sony cameras with and without sensor stabilization I can confirm that OSS very much DOES affect video. Having OSS(optical steadyshot) on your lens will add stabilization for both stills and movies. I’ve never heard of SSS before now either but I’ll have to go look it up.
@@dunnadidit yeah you're right I was confusing something. Do you know if the Alpha IBIS systems turn off the floating lens element in OSS lenses or do they tranisition to 3-axis when combined? You mentioned you tested sensor and non-sensor stabilization bodies.
I'm just getting into photography. I have a Sony mirrorless camera. And I just bought a Sigma 24-70mm lens. I'd like a wider lens also. The Tamron is 17-28mm. How much wider is 17 than the Sigma 24? Is it noticeably wider? I feel like 24 is already relatively wide. I want a wider lens for landscape photography. I don't want to buy two lenses if 24 is already wide enough. Thanks.
I have a canon 17-55 f2.8 that I'm trying to replace when I get a FF camera. I'm wanting something with the same focal length, reading that "should" be a 28-86mm f3.5 but there really isnt one, so I'm going with a 28-200mm f2.8-5.6 tamron...I fear that its not going to be wide enough.
Do you know which FF camera you’re getting?
@@dunnadidit a7s3 =)
I highly recommend the sigma 24-70 then! I recently did a video about why it’s my go to “all-around er”
@@dunnadidit is it silent when focusing/aperture adjusting? will i be able to film in dim fire light?
I was debating between all these lenses and ended up with a Sony 20mm f1.8 G. It's a great landscape lens that's light and almost as wide as the Tamron. Optics are fantastic and likely sharper than any of these lenses. If I want narrower framing, I crop later. It's also the same price as the cheapest lens here, the Tamron. The differences between all these focal lengths isn't huge and walking a bit can go a long way.
I got the Tamron on release and don't regret it. 17mm is plenty wide for me and 28mm is usually just enough on the tele end. For the price difference you can pick up the 28-75mm and still have some money to put towards the Sony 85mm 1.8 (all of which have a 67mm filter thread).
Amen.
10:00 I heard in a video that the distortion comp feature in sony cameras can do that.. try it with that feature off... maybe it will stop
Yeah that seems to be what’s causing it. I know sigma has been trying to fix that in certain lenses with firmware
Id like the Sigma, but the front lens is curved. You cant put filters on it. Not even a UV/Clear filter to protect the glass.
So, I cant get it :/ Wish they could make one that would allow for filters
Yeah it’s tough with the bulbous front element
they do make rear filters...
Made the decision and traded in my a6500 and all my lenses.. got an a7iii and the signa 14-24.. amazing lens.. love it.. and there are rear filters are coming for it from what i hear
That’s awesome!
@@dunnadidit thats what the credit card company said too.. now looking for a 35 or 50... maybe u could do that soon... 😆
Adrian Thomas - just got the 55 f1.8 so I’ll probably do something with that soon.
@@dunnadidit awesome!!! Cant wait😊
WOOO!
Hmmm... If so, i might sell my 24-70 gm to get both tamron 17-28 and 28-75. Is this a good decision tho?
You’ll have more versatility for sure!
Keep the gm, the tamrons are annoying to use. The reversed focus and zoom ring is weird, and the zoom ring is VERY heavy. If you do any video work at all, the tamrons are near worthless.
Tommy Nguyen - I disagree! The Tamron work really well for video the work I’ve been doing. The reversed rings has actually come in handy a few times where I was in awkward positions and needed to access the focus ring with a single finger while still having a hand on the camera. The GM is sick for sure, but there is great value in the Tamrons and calling them near useless seems like a significant exaggeration of any slight flaws you might find in them.
@@dunnadidit I've personally found it impossible to adjust the focal length on any gimbal i have without losing balance and jolting the entire camera around, but ymmv
@@tommynguyen8620 i have seen quiet a good amount of youtubers doing well with the tamrons and gimble combo
thanks man, i am ordering the tamron today, i feel it has a good place in my quiver
Nice!
Thank you! this is what I needed. I think Ill go with the Tamron
Well done review for a comparison of several lenses at one time. Good editing with no wasted time...
Thanks so much!!
You crushed this video!! Great job
Thanks so much!
Just got the Sony G master! Best thing about the GM2 coming out is you can get V1 used. Luckily got one for $925 used and she’s a beauty!
Concerning the weird auto deformation in the edges of the image with the Sigma lens. It's normal!
This is a setting that must be changed in the Sony camera settings. Look under "lens compensation" and turn off. check links for more info.
www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00018031
It's something that I know Sigma is working on firmware updates to fix this. They've released one for the 24-70 already I believe.
@@dunnadidit about lens for videography 8i zoom and prime
DUNNA DID IT! ☝️
🤷🏻♂️ I guess so! 🤷🏻♂️
Any reason you went with 16-35 rather than 10-18 for the a6400? I know this is an fe lens comparison but I’m thinking of going more a6400 rather than a7iii
Mostly because I was pretty sure I was going to eventually go FF. But also, at the time, I wasn’t a huge fan of ultra wide like that... since then, I have changed my stance haha.
The 10-18 was glued to my camera when I used APS-C. Awesome little lens!
I tried the Sony-Zeiss f4 on an A7RIV and found the corners exceedingly mushy. I really liked the colors on the lens and I did not need the f2.8 so I really wanted to like it. It was so bad I tried three copies of the lens, thinking it must be a bad copy. They were all the same, very sharp center, very soft corners. I wanted the 16-35 range, so my only option, at the time, was the 16-35 f2.8 GM. I robbed the piggy bank and bout it. It is not perfect, but very good, and way better in the corners than the Sony-Zeiss f4. If I were buying today, I would strongly consider the PZ 16-35 f4 G for landscape. I assume Sony will be doing an update to the 16-35 in the near future.
I just ordered the tammy which I'm gonna go pick up today so watching this helps confirming I made a good choice :P
Solid video. In the market for one of these and this helped alot. Thanks!
That’s great to hear Taylor! Cheers!
For me personally I know that the Tamron is the way to go especially since I already have a Sony 35mm prime but that G master is so sexy. Maybe I can convince my landlord to let me slide on rent this month 🤔
Haha wouldn’t that be nice!
Awesome video! Thanks for the great comparison. I‘ll get my Tamron 17-28 tomorrow! As I hike a lot with my camera and I love lightweight for filming - so I think this works best for me, although I AM a professional photographer 😊
Thanks! Yeah I totally think that's going to be the right choice for a lot of people, even pro photographers! Its just really a great value lens!
Hey Dunna, awesome vid! Almost rattled by indecision but will survive...thanks!
Haha well I hope that this helped a little bit
It's like you know me, or at least my shopping history lately. :-D Thank you so much for the in-depth videos. They help me, but certainly not my wallet.
Haha! I promise I'm not tracking your history ;) Thanks for watching and sorry about your wallet!
For a while I agonized over whether to get one of the 16-35's. I had bought the 100-400GM a few months earlier, and my wife was giving me the eyeroll whenever I talked about getting another lens. But the talking heads on youtube all told me I needed a 16-35 for my holy trinity, so I was leaning toward the f/4 to save some money. Then I torpedoed all of that by listening to the little voice in the back of my head that said YOLO and got the 24mm GM instead. Haven't regretted that decision. Plenty wide for me, razor sharp, and just a great lens. Maybe I'll eventually grab the 16-35 f/4 just to have the option, then again that Sigma 14-24 looks pretty tempting to fill the gap...
The 24mm is a killer! I kinda wish I made that choice instead of the 16-35 f4
For APSC you are better off with the Sony 10-18 F4 with OSS. Much better match with focal range considering the crop factor. That basically leaves the 16-35 F4 useless.
If you’re looking for that ultra wide equivalent for these ranges on FF then yes. It’s really the only option for zooms. But I wouldn’t say that the 16-35 range on apsc is useless. Focal range is pretty subjective and situational.
Situational yes and I assume we were strictly talking about this wide angle range. For this comparison it is not the right focal length to use on a crop sensor. The 10-18 is not an ultra wide on APSC. Its equivalent to about 15-27 field of view. Of course it's not useless for other situations. We may be comparing the 24-70 f4 on a full frame more appropriately with this one an APSC. but to compare it with this batch and the purpose of these wide angle lenses on a full frame, it would not be useful on an APSC.
Mali Mish - I wasn’t talking about the focal range at all for aps-c, I just made mention that I couldn’t suggest it for FF with the other options but that it might be a good option for aps-c since it has oss(not specifically an ultra-wide option, just an option). That was literally why I bought it and it was quite useful. I think we agree for the most part and maybe we’re getting hung up on semantics or something?? I was just responding to the fact that you called it useless. As for the 10-18, my understanding is that the typical definition of ultra-wide would be anything wider than 24mm(FF equivalent.) So 15-27 definitely fits the bill. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying though.
tamron and zeiss are same priced in my country:) what do you suggest ?
How does OSS and IBS play together?
Well!
Well dang now I want to buy another lens. Great video.
How do the extending zoom lenses perform on a gimbal? Do you need to re-calibrate or does the gimbal make up for the weight change?
Depends on the gimbal. Most of the newer gimbals are getting so strong that it probably wouldn’t matter much. And even with the internal zoom lenses, there are still things shifting around so it would still affect it a little bit. I never rebalance though. Just balance with it at the halfway point.
Great video - nice job
Thanks!
Thanks! Just wondering why the Sony 10-18mm F4 (SEL1018) doesn't feature as part of wide angle lens comparison videos? I was looking into vlog lenses, would the 10-18 f4 be better than the Tamron 17-28? It also has OSS! Or is getting both overkill? Then again I am using it on a A6600... thoughts please?
Hey! For this video I was just going for full frame lenses. People love the 10-18 as an apsc option though!
@@dunnadidit Thanks Dunna!
Hi! Which is the best combo for A6500 do you think? Sigma 16mm and 30mm f1.4 (already owned) or Tamron 17-28 f2.8..... there is always the possibility of buying an A7 series in the future but the apsc is going to stay with me...
That’s tough. Probably the sigmas. But the new Sony 16-55 f2.8 is amazing.
I got A7i no ibis but I am getting a camera after 2021 so which Len better for me?
My first lens choice would be the sigma 24-70, then if you want an ultra wide angle, the Tamron is great to start but I do love the GM
On which lens this video is shoot?
I bought the Tamron(for my aps-c camera (a6300) and it's the most expensive lens I've bought in my life so far.
I was afraid it wouldn't fit well with my setup, but it looks amazingly good, still wide enough, accurate AF, the performance in low light is not bad. One of my best investments.
can we have the same comparison for sony apsc lenses ??????? plzzz
I actually originally planned to include some apsc stuff in this video but ended up deciding to go with just FF (I’m glad I did cause it ended up long lol) but I do want to do some more stuff like this for aps-c as well.
Can you recommend me any ,I have been even searched for Canon mount lenses but haven't heard any good reviews so extremely confused??
Honestly, for ultrawide zooms, like what I was talking about in this video, your only real option seems to be the sony 10-18 f4
I ended up with a used zeiss simply because it was 900, the tamron is my second choice because of the 2.8 however with heavy use the tamron develops slop in the adjustment and by simply holding the lens upside down it will extend, also noticed it to be quite noisy whereas I have no noise being picked up on mic with the zeiss.
really helpfully video!!! best review video ever
Thanks a ton!
Shooting on an A7S (so you can Kramer up the ISO) it’s also without stabilisation.. which would you recommend?
Another great video and logical breakdown of these lenses.
Budget, I just got the Tam 28-75 2,8 Gen 1. I am torn between Sony 16-35 2,8, and the Tam 17-28 2,8,
But $$$, weight and overall size it's going be the Tam 17-28 2,8. Cheers.
Pretty disappointed you didn't review that 5th "drinkable" lens 😐 Haha great comparison video tho bro!
Lol! I reviewed it until it was empty haha! Cheers brother!
@@dunnadidit 😂 touché
Hello, I own no camera till date but I am in planning to buy sony a7iii and bmpcc 6k cameras. For a7iii, I planned sigma 24-70mm dg dn f/2.8 sony e-mount and sigma 85mm 1.4 dg art sony e-mount and for bmpcc 6k, I planned sigma 18-35mm dc art. My question is for sony a7iii, should I go for sigma (sony) e-mount lenses or sigma (canon)ef mount lenses with mc11 adaptor for future purposes and for bmpcc 6k camera as well. Kindly solve my problem. Note - I do not own any canon dslr. Thanks
I have an a6400, do you have any cheap wide-angle lens recommendations for a crop sensor?
That’s a tough one. For zoom lenses, the only thing in a similar range would be the 10-18 f4 but I don’t have any experience with it. If you’re ok with primes, I highly recommend the sigma 16mm f1.4
Samyang 12 f2 NCS manual focus only
Karlo's Corner
On my A6400 I use the Sony 1018 f4 and the Sigma 16mm 1.4 for Lowlight situations. This lenses makes a very good job on APSC.
I have both the 10-18 F4 I bought on ebay used for $600 and the sigma 16mm contemporary. Can't go wrong with either one but I keep both like Alexandra husarek said the 16mm is great for low light and is sharp.
If I already have a standard lens of 18-55mm... can't I set the focal length to 18mm or 24mm or 35mm instead of buying separate prime lens?
Yes
@@dunnadidit then what's the point of buying a separate prime lens?
@@ReassuringSmile by now hopefully youve figured out already but the point is your prime will always give you a better aperture and generally sharper, better image quality that your zooms cant.
Yup... what they said. If you buy super expensive and fancy zoom lenses. You might get close, but primes generally will yield better results for less money and have options for wider apertures as well.
@@whatsup9879 Yes I how have prime 12mm, 35mm, and 50mm
I’ve got both the Ziess 16-35 f4 and the Tamron 17-28 f2.8... I don’t know whether to keep both or sell either of them... I love them both hahaha.
Haha I hear you, out of the 4, those are the two I own and I’m still not 100% sure I want to get rid of either of them.
First world problems right! Hahahaa
thekback - 100%
A major thing missing from most tests, how the Sony Ibis performs with each lens. This is a biggie for run and gun video shooters, but is hardly mentioned. I believe the Sonys perform quite a bit better.
Here in Malaysia 16-35 f4 new costs around 800 usd and tamron new costs 900. Which one you recommend. I need it mostly for video ☺️
Thats a tough one. I'd probably say the sony.
@@dunnadidit Thanks 🙂
Would have love to have seen the Sony 10-18mm F4 for APSC lens. It covers most if not all of the FF sensor at most focal distances.
Interesting! I did actually think about that but I couldn’t get my hands on one in time. Hopefully I can test that out soon!
How about APS-C + 10-18mm vs FF + Sigma 14-24mm at both widest range.
I'm currently own a6400 + 10-18mm. Thinking about upgrading to FF wide setup. Will it worth it? Appreciate your thought
Syafiq Mazli - unfortunately I don’t have either of those lenses to test. It’s all going to be up to what you plan to do with it. The a6400 + 10-18 should serve you well if you don’t need anything too fancy.
If you ignore the extreme mustache distortion yes. The price/size is nice though.
can i use the zeiss 16-35 FE e-mount on a aps-c e mount sony or the immagine will be croped (i see a forum who said nothing happens, but I want to be sure)
You can! It will crop in and look more like a 24-52.5mm
@@dunnadidit still remain a little wide-angle?
@@giuliofracurti 24mm is moderately wide angle. Comparabe to a mobile phone camera field of view.
Just a question, would you say the Tamron is good enough glass to put it on an a7r4? also, how does the distortion handle on the Tamron?
Shame you couldn't include the Sony 12-24 f4 G, I own it but am considering upgrading to the sigma 14-24mm f2.8. Great vid none the less!
Yeah, I wish I could have included a couple more!
is the Sigma too distorted to vlog?
I think it would be good! I’m pretty sure there’s a built in profile that corrects a lot of the distortion.
I'm leaning towards the 16-35mm f4 used from eBay because of the OSS... it sells for around $800 pre-owned, so I would definitely buy a used version. I'm shooting with the A7SIII for video so I'm not too worried about needing f2.8. That said, I haven't taken the plunge yet... my second thought would be the Tamron because it is a little lighter and am wondering if the 3-4 oz would make a big difference on a gimbal?
The weight does definitely make a difference but I do find myself really appreciating the difference in that little bit of extra focal length with a 16-35.
I’m on the a7siii also and I’m running the zeiss, the tamron is definitely cheaper but with time if you’re racking a lot the adjustment in the tamron becomes loose and by simply holding upside down the lens will extended on its own weight
I have the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4. When I bought it, my choices were either it or the 2.8 GM. For wide angle, I shoot mainly landscapes so I did not, at the time think that the extra that the 2.8GM cost was worth it. In light of the 2 other lenses in this video (or 3 if you also consider the newly released 12-24 f/2.8 GM) would you recommend keeping the 16-35 f/4, or upgrading to one of the other lenses. (Are the other lenses SO MUCH BETTER than the Zeiss that I would be better off upgrading from my existing lens?)
I really like the colors in this video what profile do you use, if you don't mind what light. Thanksss
I was using an aputure 120dii with the light dome ii (links for my gear are in the description) and I believe I shot this one in HLG2.
@@dunnadidit thank bro
Do you overexposed?
Maybe a little bit.
12-24 g lens ?
which one has the least focus breathing? I want to do focus stacking. thanks
How is this video 9 months old, we were so young back then.
Lol you saying I’m old now?
Dunna Did It Hey man, this year aged me. I’m 32 going on 42 now
Bloodshade - I hear you for sure 😂
I carry two cameras for stills (A7iii and A6600). I shoot with the 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron which lives on my a7iii and either the Sony 70-350mm or Sony 10-18mm on the A6600. The small form factors of these two lenses on the A6600 make it relatively easy to carry the second camera/lens.
Id go for the tamron. 16 -17mm barely any difference
Definitely a good lens. About 7 months later I finally bought the Gmaster for myself though. The 16-17mm difference isn’t much but the 28-35 is for sure.
@@dunnadidit true
My first zoom lens on the Sony system is the Tamron 28-200 which I'm very happy with so the Tamron 17-28 will fit the bill nicely!
I’m rocking the 16-35f4 picked it up for $1000 CAD a few months back. The extra reach on both ends sold me on it over the Tammy. I also ended up grabbing the sigma 24 1.4 so when it gets dark or I just need a different look I switch to that. $1800 CAD for both and I’m still ahead of the GM hahaha
Thats awesome! How do you like the sigma? I've been eyeing it up pretty hard lately.
Dunna Did It I really like it, I don’t like to push my content in others’ videos but the opening sequence in my recent video was shot entirely on it if you want an idea of what to expect.
It’s heavy for sure so that’s something but I find myself reaching for it all the time now. 1.4 is life idk haha. You should get sigma to send it out for review, I’d like to see your thoughts on it!
Joey Alford - yeah I really should. I should just get them to send me the whole art lineup for Sony lol
Hi from Kyiv Ukraine. I own 4 Sony FE bodies and 16 lenses 8 Sony 3 Tamron and 5 Samyang. The Tamron I feel is a package lens. What I mean by this is the trilogy package. I now own all 3. I feel they designed their lenses not only for price weight and size but as a collection or kit to get you through a long focal range. Many people on RUclips give the Tamron 17 to 28 a minus because it only has a short focal length. For me this is not the case. If I go out to do non professional work and shoot for myself I can get all 3 Tamron lenses in a Mirrorless Mover 30i bag plus carry the body with 1 extra lens in my hand. Tamron gives me 17 to 180 reach in a light weight, affordable small package. Obviously you need to invest in the three lenses and by the way I paid the same price for all 3 as it would have cost to buy the Sony 70 to 200 F2.8 but once you have all 3 you have great focal length capability. I think the idea was for consumers to buy the 28 to 75 and then the 17 to 28 initially and therefore you are not really loosing the reach and I feel this is why they kepted the filter size the same across the 3 lenses.
Hi Dunna, is the new Sony 16-55mm native to Apsc?
Yes it is! Killer lens!
Black lens in front of a black shirt- buy the Sigma 14-24
Is the warping thing in Sigma also happening at the 24mm end?
I got the 16-35 f4 used for $700 and I enjoy the lens, I thought about the Tamron 17-28 but didnt like how it doesn’t reach farther than 28.
I hear you, that’s a great deal on the zeiss!
I got the 16-35/4 also.. I even find 35 limiting..
Would you recommend for real estate videography?
Can you do editing to lightroom on the phone?
Yup! There is a mobile version of Lightroom!
Tamron? I own it, but would advice to look at the Sony's as even today, such a long time after its release, there is no lens profile to fix the barrel distortion in Lightroom. Pretty useless for professional interior and architecture photography. For video it's fine. It's just the RAWs that need correction, which isn't available.
Yeah it's annoying that it doesn't have a profile yet. But it's not too bad to manually adjust the distortion for now.