To my mind it is the most versatile range but then I don’t do a huge amount of landscape so 24 is wide enough for my needs. The only slight downside is the size / weight but I don’t do people street photography so that’s not an issue for me. I can happily carry it around all day mounted on an riii with no problem. But I also carry a 100-400GM (which I also love), with no particular issues so maybe I’m unusual! HP1999 • Veteran Member • Posts: 4,316 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 10, 2018 When you mention weddings are you going as a guest or are you the photographer? Still the 24-70 is the better range. If you really need wider I would get a prime or a different wide zoom. For landscapes you really never shoot wide open and if you do it is for a specific reason. In that way I dont see a need for faster than F 4.0 lens for the ultra wide. If you are shooting events maybe different but using external flash may be needed and ultra wides get iffy with flash. If you need to use filters with a lens hood, again iffy with ultra wides Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 10, 2018 I have and love both. I think the 16-35 has the (very slight) edge on quality, but it's by such a small margin I wouldn't even factor that into your decision. 24-70 is a more typical all-in-one lens. If you tend to shoot between 35-50 like many do while on vacation walking around cities, then 24-70 will be sharper at that range. 24 is plenty wide for nice landscapes and sometimes it's nice to have the extra reach for farther landscape shots, as well. Always better to be able to frame properly than to crop in post. They are both heavy. The weight doesn't bother me (and I do shoot a lot of street photography) but, as someone else mentioned, it might factor into your decision. If you don't need the small form factor of the 28, why not sell that and buy the 24-70? OP MicStr • New Member • Posts: 6 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? shortkut77 wrote: Thank you! Yeah, my plan is to sell that 28 probably and go for 24-70. Since beginning I have a7iii, my idea was go just for prime lens, mostly the new sigma art series. But Im bit worry about that Af specially for video, and also to switch lens many times can be killer for sensor. Thats why I decide to look for some basic zoom lens lawny13 • Veteran Member • Posts: 3,148 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 10, 2018 1 MicStr wrote: Since you already have the 28 and 85, which covers you on those "I need the sharpest image" moments. Consider the 28-75 f2.8 tamron. Heck, if I were in your shoes, I would pick up the tamron ad the 16-35 f4, for the price of a GM. Images from the tamron Is not far behind the GM by any means (look up some image samples, comparisons and reviews), at least not work 3x to me when you factor in having primes too. As for the 16-35 f4... get it unless you need f2.8. markusw • Senior Member • Posts: 1,705 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 10, 2018 I would go for the 24-70 since it is a very versatile focal range. The 16-35 is really really wide, makes it hard to get good compositions. For landscapes, you can stitch if the 24 is not wide enough, just in case. Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 10, 2018 It depends on your priority in which FL range you shoot most? Other factors are weight (FE 16-35 GM is noticeably lighter), what you shoot (landscape, family, event, indoor sport) and cost (almost the same, I bought FE 16-35 GM $11950 via Greentoe). I own both although Canon 24-70L/2.8 II instead of GM version and I use both. Usually I carry one of them (used to be FE 16-35G or EF 16-35L/4.0 IS) but sometime I carried both, such as planned in my forthcoming Yellowstone trip (also FE 100-400 GM and FE 70-200 GM on two cameras as stay in car most times). FE 16-35 GM is great for UWA and WA 24-70 is great from WA and mid range. Both are very sharp with much needed f2.8 for low light. EF 24-70L/2.8 II also has excellent sunstars and don't need to stop down very much, while personally 22-ray sunstars from FE 16-35 GM is not my taste and need to stop down to F16 to get decent quality. Sony a1 Sony a7 IV Sony a7R V Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +17 more  Unstupid • Regular Member • Posts: 182 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 10, 2018 MicStr wrote: in most cases I want to use it for: photos and videos from trips, occasionally taking pictures of the landscape, videovloging maybe. Filming videos - weddings, occasionally different events. If this is the order of use then I'd say 16-35gm. It is better for landscape and better for vlogging if you are holding the camera while you vlog a la Casey Neistat. -- hide signature -- Sometimes I sit and think... and sometimes I just sit... Sony a7 III Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS Sony 2x Teleconverter (2016) +3 more TheOwl360 • Regular Member • Posts: 460 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 11, 2018 Based upon what you have and what you say you will use it for, I’d go with the 16-35GM. I own the 16-35GM and absolutely love it. The images it resolves are absolutely superb. 24mm can be tight, at times—especially indoors. With the 16-35GM, your wide angle focal lengths will be covered—i.e., you probably won’t have to buy a wide angle lens ever again. dpeete • Contributing Member • Posts: 746 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 11, 2018 1 The 16-35 is fun as long as you aren’t shooting people, or only have them in the middle third... otherwise faces look weird in the outer thirds. As such, I use my 24-70 more. Canon EOS M Canon EOS M6 Sony a7R III Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +17 more IamJF • Contributing Member • Posts: 701 Re: 16-35GM! In reply to MicStr • Aug 11, 2018 I would take the 16-35GM for sure! Perfect match with your 85mm, especially in Iceland. If you need a versatile "get the shot" zoom take the 24105 or even 24240. You will wish for faster glass in the 35-85mm range, 2.8 will not cut it. With the 1635GM you are set for wide angle in highest quality. Add the 55mm and be happy. Sony a7 III Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 28mm F2 +4 more Jeff108 • Regular Member • Posts: 157 Re: 16-35GM! In reply to IamJF • Aug 11, 2018 1 Another vote for the 16-35, and since you mention Iceland, I would think having that focal length would be a indispensable. I have it and love it. Risix • Regular Member • Posts: 107 Re: 16-35GM! In reply to Jeff108 • Aug 11, 2018 Clear winner 16-35gm Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 12-24mm F4 Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III kev777zero • Senior Member • Posts: 1,721 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 12, 2018 +1 for 16-35GM. I tried both the 24-70GM and 16-35GM before and while they look the same the 24-70GM is noticeably heavier and longer. 24-70GM is a more useful focal length for most folks though (including myself), but the 16-35GM gives me the opportunity to try UWA while having a general walk around focal length of 35mm and relatively large aperture. One other thing to consider are the current available native lenses for Sony FE. I have the Tamron 28-75 which pairs well with the 16-35GM. Likewise if I have the 24-70GM and wanted a UWA zoom within the same budget then I would have to get the 16-35 Zeiss, although Tamron may drop an affordable large aperture UWA zoom in the future. There's also the 24-105 G zoom for standard range which may be more helpful than the 24-70GM in certain situations. There are no good substitutes for 16-35GM currently. Sony a7 III Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 Di III VXD Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 dibs2010 • Contributing Member • Posts: 751 16-35GM In reply to MicStr • Aug 12, 2018 1 I love this lens...carried it to New Zealand and Iceland and didnt leave my camera...Sony RX100iv covered me for very rare instances when i needed the range. Iceland New Zealand Sony ZV-1 Sony a1 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 85mm F1.8 Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 +4 more captura • Forum Pro • Posts: 27,478 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 12, 2018 There were some serious lens variance issues with some of the 24-70 lenses. Additionally, that lens does not do as well in reviews as the 16-35. Sony Alpha NEX-7 Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Sony a7 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +3 more jiulin • Regular Member • Posts: 205 Re: 16-35GM or 24-70GM? In reply to MicStr • Aug 12, 2018 16-24 gives a unique look. 35-60mm are too mundane. However, the 16-35GM is quite a bit more expensive I think. Perhaps the 16-35 f4 is a better choice (easier to use low shutter speeds at wider FLs) Keyboard shortcuts: FForum MMy threads You may also likeLatest sample galleriesLatest in-depth reviewsThe Aura Carver 10.1" HD Digital Frame is a great way to put your portfolio on display and a great way to surface forgotten memories. The colors are vibrant, and the build quality is solid, but the Carver isn't without a few quirks. With a bigger battery and better video capabilities, the Fujifilm X-S20 could be the vlogging machine content creators have been waiting for. Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain. The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs. The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form. Latest buying guidesIf you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites. What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best. 'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked. What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. |
