I actually like a lot of Sony f4 lenses. They are usually pretty light and produce decent results. I will usually pick one up if it’s a wide focal range (24-105mm)
Fast glass is so film days, my 16-35 f/4 ZEISS when doing Astro very rarely above 6400 and mostly at 3200 in the darkest places. And on my original A7s captures are like daytime but with stars. First lenses had OSS now cameras have IBIS and no need for OSS so is fast glass needed. Also sensors have less noise at higher ISO. We no longer need sticks because of IBIS and fast glass was needed in the film days to get a faster shutter speed because of camera shake when hand holding and pressing the shutter with mirror lifting up and all.Yes everyone wants bokeh with clear little round balls!! Or DOF separation BUT that is just about focus point small or eye focus will do that. Also using a 1.8 is best at 2 or 2.8 do reduce coma problems anyway ask any astro shooter.
For me - not anymore Used to have 15 Nikons and most often gathered dust with once a year use - most common for me was mid range and 17-35 Now I like to have minimal tools and master them plus a good flash system Only have 3 Sonys and delighted - these two plus 100-400 G master
thanks for such a fantastic review. You talk about all the technical stuff without showing the boring charts and closeups, and you also showed a lot of pictures and footage at 16mm while showing the caption to confirm that it is indeed at 16mm. I really wanted to see what the 16mm looks like not only on super closeups, but also on wideshots and vlogging, because most reviews mix 16 and 35 really fast, and focus mostly on 35, and it's hard to tell what's going on.
it was lense I used to use for property photography, and for last couple years a haven't use at all. I wanted to sell and maybe get something else. But you just remind me how solid it is. Lets keep this
This 1635f4 and the 24105f4 are the best for dayly use, you don't need other lenses on your full framed Sony cam. The results speaks her own language and the built quality is excellent.
New sub - your videos have been super helpful and entertaining in my switch from Lumix S5 to Sony IV. Brand new to the Sony universe. Great tutorials and reviews!
Very nice presentation- brings out the quality of the lens.Much more than charts. I was considering this lens (used) or the tamron. I got the tamron used at a great price which decided the matter - however this lens is still a great lens at a lower price -given also the range of UW prime lenses as well as the sgma and tamron zooms
merci beaucoup dear Pav, as usual, when i need to know someting i come to you and i found always what i looking for explain the most simply, thanks a lot !! =)
Stunding photos you always blow my mind with your shots! This lens show off at a store at a good price i actually like it's F4 because i have two tamron F2.8 zoom lenses and image quality is amazing compared with old ultra wide lenses that where very soft this one is much much better. Your reviews are the best they really are there is no boring stuff and you show your skills there are other reviewrs that make a good job and give very useful information that's always good but some have to step up there game.... It's always the same stuff... Well here it's a thumb up for you 👍
Thank you for this review. After months of researching and contemplating I bought the Sony 16-35mm F4 after renting it for a day. The GM was too heavy for me, so is the Sigma 12-24. I was considering the Tamron 17-28, but I was just not feeling it. I’ve never been a Tamron fan and I wanted to give it a chance, but the two times I had it in my hands, it just didn’t spark joy :) So I went for the Sony 16-35, the price difference was only €40 more than the Tamron, so that wasn’t an issue.
I couldn’t agree more.. the great build quality, smooth zoom ring and fun focal range make it an exceptional value if you can get it new for under $800 (import model). It just feels nice to handle.
I'm waiting for delivery of a Minolta 17-35mm f3.5 G lens from Japan. Its condition is described as excellent, and I got it at a good price (at least in comparison to other examples offered on eBay), $400 with free shipping. When first offered for sale in 1997 it was selling for about $2000, maybe a bit more. It's rated 4.73/5 on Dyxum. Sadly, however, there's little in the way of comparison with newer lenses of this focal range, no doubt because of its rarity and the fact that it's an a-mount lens in an increasingly e-mount world. Nevertheless, I think there probably are some people who would be interested in this lens which is the precursor to Sony's newer offerings, and so I bring it up.
With the new 16-35 PZ coming on the scene, and two good options with Tamron and Sigma, this lens should be $699. Then it might present a choice, but at over $1000 I honestly can't believe it still sells all that well. Certainly OSS helps its cause.
Regarding the Tamron 17-28mm would you miss the 35mm end for the wide Standard look and the added flexibility, against tamron's 28mm which does have more of the wide angle distortion? I've read the 35mm end isn't very sharp (some claiming it's quite soft) making the Tamron even more attractive. What're your thoughts there?
This lens is definitely slightly soft at 35mm - I wouldn't miss those few extra mm with Tamron. It's not something you really notice unless you compare lenses side by side at the same time. I think Tamron is more attractive package overall
Pav, i bought the Tamron 35 150 2.8 after seeing your review. I have to say I am not dissapointed. It is not as heavy as people made it out to be compared to my Sigma 24 70 2.8. I am thinking of getting rid of Sigma 24 70 2.8 and getting this Sony.
Sigma 24-70 is a better lens overall than this and more versatile but as you already have and are happy with the Tamron 35-150, this could nicely expand your range. Just be aware that it is only f4
really useful video, I use a Tamron 17 28 for wedding videos on gimbal and often the 28mm is too limiting, (even using it in crop mode) I'm thinking of selling the Tamron to take this 16 35, what do you recommend? my biggest problem might be that it's f4
Thanks for watching! I've swapped my Tamron 17-28 for Sigma 16-28, better lens in my opinion and I also do crop in when filming with it. This is great but as you say, f4 might be sometimes limiting, especially in low light situations
I just bought this for £450 second hand as the Sony lenses work much better with my ZVE1 stabilisation than non Sony. I would have liked the PZ new version but at £1299 or £875 grey import I couldn’t justify the price difference for the use I’ll get. I like the colours and look of this lens. A well known Disney Vlogger just uses this lens on a ZVE1 and his Vlogs look fantastic.
Thank you for this great review 📸 🎉👌🏼 I‘ve just bought the Sony Alpha 7 III with the Kit lens. Which lenses would you recommend as the first 1-2 lenses to buy? I am thinking about getting the Tamron 28-75 paired with the Tamron 17-28 or the Sony Zeiss 16-35 F4. Keep up the good work! I really like your photos! 👍🏼🔥
I bought a Sony Zeiss F4 16-35 and honnestly the lens is disapointing, huge lack of sharpness except at the center of the frame, whatever the focal range and it apperture. A lot of chromatic aberration which can't be 100% corrected on lightroom as it's too important in corners. I sent it back to amazon right after I tested it. In a second hand, I tried the Tamron 17-28, it's a great lense, really sharp, but it's not a proper F2.8 but most likely a F3.2 / F3.5, it range of 17-28 is a bit too restrictive for me. It's a great lens but I wasn't truly convinced. I hope Sigma will soon release a 16-35 F2.8 alternative for Sony FF bodies (or even a F4), because there isn't so much choice in this category of Ultra Wide zoom lenses... If the range of the Tamron is not an issue for you, the Tamron will be great. The Zeiss isn't worth it in my opinion, except for people who shoot mainly videos (stabilization), otherwise in 2021 it's overpriced for it overall quality. I purchased the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 but honnestly, the 24mm is a great loss, even if it's heavier, I'll rather go for the Sigma Art 24-70 F2.8 which is a beast. If you plan to stick with the Tamron, you should consider the Sony G 20mm F1.8, this lense is a beast as well, it built and overall quality is close to a GM one, I think the only reason it's not a GM is due to its f1.8 aperture.
@@Rob.One. Thank you for this informative and helpful reply! Currently i am on vacation in Austria with the kit lens and i actually love taking wide angle pictures so i had to switch to the iPhone 12 Pro Max and shoot in RAW to get things like the architecture in Vienna or the mountains into frame. I set my budget for the first / next lens at around 1000€. I am really motivated and ambitious but still at the beginning and not a professional photographer. As i said my passion at this point is landscape and street photography. I will really consider your mentioned choices!
@@doriandavids Tamron announces second-generation New 28-75mm F/2.8 Di III VXD G2 offers significantly improved optical and autofocus performance and new function customization..
Hey Pav, my question is i already own a Sony 35mm f1.8 prime lens, I'm in the market for a wider angle lens should i just go for something along the lines of 14,15 or 16mm lens or go for the sony 16-35mm lens?
only you can answer that question. In my opinion 16-35 zoom gives you a little bit more versatility than wide angle primes but wide angle primes have wider apertures (not that shooting wide apertures at wide focal lengths not always makes sense)
so you value more having 1 more F-stop than having OSS? For me, I'd rather have the OSS, because not only is it useful for video with camera movement, but for stills it also allows slower shutter speeds unless you're already at the limit of practicallity for the subject, so that can give you up to 4 stops more of light. The only thing you miss is Bokeh, which for me doesn't need to be at the level of F2.8, I'd rather hav ethe DoF of F4 and see everything a bit more clearly
I don't think you can compare prime to the zoom directly. Different tools for different jobs. Also 20mm on this lens will look different than 20mm of the prime in my opinion
@@sumitshanker2829 only you can decide which one is right for you and for what you are planning to shoot with it. This zoom gives you more versatility - it's got wider range but 20mm prime give you wider aperture
How do you feel about f4 lenses?
F4 OSS lenses and fast primes!
@@mauibuilder1239 yep! I'm in 👍🏻
I actually like a lot of Sony f4 lenses. They are usually pretty light and produce decent results. I will usually pick one up if it’s a wide focal range (24-105mm)
Fast glass is so film days, my 16-35 f/4 ZEISS when doing Astro very rarely above 6400 and mostly at 3200 in the darkest places. And on my original A7s captures are like daytime but with stars. First lenses had OSS now cameras have IBIS and no need for OSS so is fast glass needed. Also sensors have less noise at higher ISO. We no longer need sticks because of IBIS and fast glass was needed in the film days to get a faster shutter speed because of camera shake when hand holding and pressing the shutter with mirror lifting up and all.Yes everyone wants bokeh with clear little round balls!! Or DOF separation BUT that is just about focus point small or eye focus will do that. Also using a 1.8 is best at 2 or 2.8 do reduce coma problems anyway ask any astro shooter.
For me - not anymore
Used to have 15 Nikons and most often gathered dust with once a year use - most common for me was mid range and 17-35
Now
I like to have minimal tools and master them plus a good flash system
Only have 3 Sonys and delighted - these two plus 100-400 G master
thanks for such a fantastic review. You talk about all the technical stuff without showing the boring charts and closeups, and you also showed a lot of pictures and footage at 16mm while showing the caption to confirm that it is indeed at 16mm. I really wanted to see what the 16mm looks like not only on super closeups, but also on wideshots and vlogging, because most reviews mix 16 and 35 really fast, and focus mostly on 35, and it's hard to tell what's going on.
Glad you enjoyed it!
it was lense I used to use for property photography, and for last couple years a haven't use at all. I wanted to sell and maybe get something else. But you just remind me how solid it is. Lets keep this
This 1635f4 and the 24105f4 are the best for dayly use, you don't need other lenses on your full framed Sony cam. The results speaks her own language and the built quality is excellent.
couldn't agree more!
+ 100-400 G master and that will get 99.9% of super sharp pics
New sub - your videos have been super helpful and entertaining in my switch from Lumix S5 to Sony IV. Brand new to the Sony universe. Great tutorials and reviews!
Awesome, thank you! I love S5!! and a7IV!! ;)
Excellent photo examples. Thanks for review.
Glad you liked it! Thank you for watching
Very nice presentation- brings out the quality of the lens.Much more than charts. I was considering this lens (used) or the tamron. I got the tamron used at a great price which decided the matter - however this lens is still a great lens at a lower price -given also the range of UW prime lenses as well as the sgma and tamron zooms
thank you! It is a great lens
Good choice - I didn't mention that you can get used Tamron for a VERY good price.
Great video! Was also a bonus to see photos of my home town, Blackburn🙂
Glad you enjoyed it! I live in Blackburn!!
merci beaucoup dear Pav, as usual, when i need to know someting i come to you and i found always what i looking for explain the most simply, thanks a lot !! =)
You are very welcome! Thank you for watching
@@PavSZ you're pretty welcome too, just sorry for my poor inglish, isn't my maternal language.. =)
Stunding photos you always blow my mind with your shots! This lens show off at a store at a good price i actually like it's F4 because i have two tamron F2.8 zoom lenses and image quality is amazing compared with old ultra wide lenses that where very soft this one is much much better. Your reviews are the best they really are there is no boring stuff and you show your skills there are other reviewrs that make a good job and give very useful information that's always good but some have to step up there game.... It's always the same stuff... Well here it's a thumb up for you 👍
I’ve debated getting this lens ever since I got my Sony camera. Excellent review.
It's a great lens! thanks David!
Thank you for this review. After months of researching and contemplating I bought the Sony 16-35mm F4 after renting it for a day. The GM was too heavy for me, so is the Sigma 12-24. I was considering the Tamron 17-28, but I was just not feeling it. I’ve never been a Tamron fan and I wanted to give it a chance, but the two times I had it in my hands, it just didn’t spark joy :)
So I went for the Sony 16-35, the price difference was only €40 more than the Tamron, so that wasn’t an issue.
Good choice! It is an amazing lens
I couldn’t agree more.. the great build quality, smooth zoom ring and fun focal range make it an exceptional value if you can get it new for under $800 (import model). It just feels nice to handle.
I'm waiting for delivery of a Minolta 17-35mm f3.5 G lens from Japan. Its condition is described as excellent, and I got it at a good price (at least in comparison to other examples offered on eBay), $400 with free shipping. When first offered for sale in 1997 it was selling for about $2000, maybe a bit more. It's rated 4.73/5 on Dyxum. Sadly, however, there's little in the way of comparison with newer lenses of this focal range, no doubt because of its rarity and the fact that it's an a-mount lens in an increasingly e-mount world. Nevertheless, I think there probably are some people who would be interested in this lens which is the precursor to Sony's newer offerings, and so I bring it up.
With the new 16-35 PZ coming on the scene, and two good options with Tamron and Sigma, this lens should be $699. Then it might present a choice, but at over $1000 I honestly can't believe it still sells all that well. Certainly OSS helps its cause.
true!
Just but it used for 500 bucks. end of story.
Great video, thank you
Glad you liked it! Thank you for watching!
Regarding the Tamron 17-28mm would you miss the 35mm end for the wide Standard look and the added flexibility, against tamron's 28mm which does have more of the wide angle distortion?
I've read the 35mm end isn't very sharp (some claiming it's quite soft) making the Tamron even more attractive. What're your thoughts there?
This lens is definitely slightly soft at 35mm - I wouldn't miss those few extra mm with Tamron. It's not something you really notice unless you compare lenses side by side at the same time.
I think Tamron is more attractive package overall
Pav, i bought the Tamron 35 150 2.8 after seeing your review. I have to say I am not dissapointed. It is not as heavy as people made it out to be compared to my Sigma 24 70 2.8. I am thinking of getting rid of Sigma 24 70 2.8 and getting this Sony.
Sigma 24-70 is a better lens overall than this and more versatile but as you already have and are happy with the Tamron 35-150, this could nicely expand your range. Just be aware that it is only f4
really useful video, I use a Tamron 17 28 for wedding videos on gimbal and often the 28mm is too limiting, (even using it in crop mode) I'm thinking of selling the Tamron to take this 16 35, what do you recommend? my biggest problem might be that it's f4
Thanks for watching!
I've swapped my Tamron 17-28 for Sigma 16-28, better lens in my opinion and I also do crop in when filming with it. This is great but as you say, f4 might be sometimes limiting, especially in low light situations
I just bought this for £450 second hand as the Sony lenses work much better with my ZVE1 stabilisation than non Sony. I would have liked the PZ new version but at £1299 or £875 grey import I couldn’t justify the price difference for the use I’ll get. I like the colours and look of this lens. A well known Disney Vlogger just uses this lens on a ZVE1 and his Vlogs look fantastic.
It is a very good lens for photography and video. Good find for £450
Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it Thank you
Thank you for this great review 📸 🎉👌🏼 I‘ve just bought the Sony Alpha 7 III with the Kit lens. Which lenses would you recommend as the first 1-2 lenses to buy? I am thinking about getting the Tamron 28-75 paired with the Tamron 17-28 or the Sony Zeiss 16-35 F4.
Keep up the good work! I really like your photos! 👍🏼🔥
I have the tamron 28-75 which I highly recommend. But the first lens I got was Sony 28mm f2.0 used and I still love it. Very light, compact and cheap.
I bought a Sony Zeiss F4 16-35 and honnestly the lens is disapointing, huge lack of sharpness except at the center of the frame, whatever the focal range and it apperture. A lot of chromatic aberration which can't be 100% corrected on lightroom as it's too important in corners. I sent it back to amazon right after I tested it.
In a second hand, I tried the Tamron 17-28, it's a great lense, really sharp, but it's not a proper F2.8 but most likely a F3.2 / F3.5, it range of 17-28 is a bit too restrictive for me. It's a great lens but I wasn't truly convinced.
I hope Sigma will soon release a 16-35 F2.8 alternative for Sony FF bodies (or even a F4), because there isn't so much choice in this category of Ultra Wide zoom lenses...
If the range of the Tamron is not an issue for you, the Tamron will be great.
The Zeiss isn't worth it in my opinion, except for people who shoot mainly videos (stabilization), otherwise in 2021 it's overpriced for it overall quality.
I purchased the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 but honnestly, the 24mm is a great loss, even if it's heavier, I'll rather go for the Sigma Art 24-70 F2.8 which is a beast.
If you plan to stick with the Tamron, you should consider the Sony G 20mm F1.8, this lense is a beast as well, it built and overall quality is close to a GM one, I think the only reason it's not a GM is due to its f1.8 aperture.
@@Rob.One. Thank you for this informative and helpful reply! Currently i am on vacation in Austria with the kit lens and i actually love taking wide angle pictures so i had to switch to the iPhone 12 Pro Max and shoot in RAW to get things like the architecture in Vienna or the mountains into frame.
I set my budget for the first / next lens at around 1000€. I am really motivated and ambitious but still at the beginning and not a professional photographer.
As i said my passion at this point is landscape and street photography.
I will really consider your mentioned choices!
@@doriandavids Tamron announces second-generation New 28-75mm F/2.8 Di III VXD G2 offers significantly improved optical and autofocus performance and new function customization..
Does the Optical Stabilization improve the stabilization on something like the A7SIII?
yes
Hey Pav, my question is i already own a Sony 35mm f1.8 prime lens, I'm in the market for a wider angle lens should i just go for something along the lines of 14,15 or 16mm lens or go for the sony 16-35mm lens?
only you can answer that question.
In my opinion 16-35 zoom gives you a little bit more versatility than wide angle primes but wide angle primes have wider apertures (not that shooting wide apertures at wide focal lengths not always makes sense)
@@PavSZ i ended up picking up the 16-35mm!
How do you think this fares now the Sony G f4 16-35mm just came out?
different lens with the same focal length. The new one is more optimise for video work and it has motorised zoom
I would like to see evaluation of fujifilm xs10
I might review that - I am looking for a new Fuji subject
@@PavSZ Thank you for replying!
I'm looking forward to uploading !!
so you value more having 1 more F-stop than having OSS? For me, I'd rather have the OSS, because not only is it useful for video with camera movement, but for stills it also allows slower shutter speeds unless you're already at the limit of practicallity for the subject, so that can give you up to 4 stops more of light. The only thing you miss is Bokeh, which for me doesn't need to be at the level of F2.8, I'd rather hav ethe DoF of F4 and see everything a bit more clearly
It all depends on the camera you are using the lens on. Camera build in stabilisation can be as affective as the one build into lens
Does this lens work with catalyst browse stabilization ?
maybe - I don't have any experience using that software
How do you compare this one with sony 20mm G lens for landscape photography?
I don't think you can compare prime to the zoom directly. Different tools for different jobs.
Also 20mm on this lens will look different than 20mm of the prime in my opinion
I understand. Actually , i wanted to buy a good lens for landscape photography. Hence which one would you recommend between these two ?
@@sumitshanker2829 only you can decide which one is right for you and for what you are planning to shoot with it.
This zoom gives you more versatility - it's got wider range but 20mm prime give you wider aperture
@@sumitshanker2829 I'd buy both
Thanks. I think i have the answer now. 1635 is a better choice to go with for landscape photography.
What about low light conditions?
it's not bad - wide angle is much more forgiving or you can turn your ISO up or use the tripod.
fixed lens is alway better for lowlight, and most lowlight shoot for zoom lens is for long exposure anyway
I like it my , I don’t wish GM 16-35
good choice!
I bought it for 699€ new and they give me the filter for free ¿is it a good deal?
sounds good!
The problem is there is no good alternatives with Image stabilization.
there isn't
What’s body?
it is what it is
What’s camera body you try with?
@@user-rk9hr7cb5y a7III
98.5cm long when extended is nearly a metre! lol
mm oops
So the biggest complain is the price. I just got this lens for under 300usd 🤣.
Nice!