On my side, I prefer the first version of the format, I was feeling a bit confused during the initial summary. But I can get used to it at the end, do what is better for you, it is still the best video for this new lens😉 (I never buy before your videos, because for the other reviewers, I don’t agree with their appreciation of « Excellent / Outstanding / Very good » for the lenses that I own. Nothing beats showing photos + chart in a similar manner, thank you!
Great review! I used to be much more into some of this ultra high end gear but I've come to realize that for most uses I get 98% of the performance for much less. The overall quality of lenses is just so much higher than it used to be and some of the things like Tamrons latest and the Sigma Art series and some of the lower end Sony G series are just so good now even compared to the top professional grade gear from a few yeas ago.
There are a couple of sites out there that have comparisons up. He does talk about the comparison a little bit, but it would be nice if he concluded on the other options in this range. Sigma and Tamron also have very enticing offers.
+1 for the 12-24. It makes much more sense at the wider end of the "holy trinity" as the 24-70 already covers the 24-35 range so the 16-35 sits a bit weird there. I'd rather have the extra 4mm on the wide end.
70-200 GM II was prime level at almost any setting. This lens is great. It is exceptional in its class (wide angle zooms are very hard to design). Small size, Good overall performance. Can't help but feel moat people who want high level performance would be better served by a set of primes or maybe 12-28 2.8 ( but it's a giant and different class and no 35mm). I guess for the perfect 16-35mm we have to wait another 10 years maybe
Historically 70-200mm lenses have been MUCH stronger than wide angle zooms, so I'm not sure that is a fair comparison. Comparing to other wide angle zooms is fairer, and the 16-35 GM II comes up pretty strong in that comparison.
@@DustinAbbottTWI 100% agree with you. My point being If I shot 135mm GM vs 70-200 GM II I could still tell the difference (because 135mm GM is insane in center) but would not care for 99.9% of cases where as on a 16-35 instrument, as good as it is "for a zoom", I could usually tell the difference compared to a prime and it will stay like this until perfect aberatium glass is discovered and a manufacturer learns how to shape it in the next 10 years;) Until then this lens will get the job done!
Once more, an excellent review, Dustin! Was thinking about getting this lens and selling my 16-28, 28-200 and the 28-75, so the 16-35 and the 70-180 could be a more compact and suitable package for the outdoors. Won‘t need the bit of range from 36 to 69mm. If I need a 50mm for portraits I’d rather grab a prime. Wish you all the best for 2024!
Great Video Dustin. The 16-35 GMii is undoubtedly a fantastic lens, but quite expensive. A comparison with the new 14-25/2.8 G lens, which is nearly half the price and lighter and smaller would be very interesting.
Hi Dustin! Love watching your reviews! Just bought that lens but was quite -underwhelmed- disappointed with the sharpness. I compared it to my 2 year old Sigma 16-28 and made the same test shots mounted on a tripod and I have to say that the Sigma seems to be the overall sharper lens, especially around 28-35mm. After watching your (and also other) review I have the feeling I might have gotten some buggy copy because it should be simply the best, right? Might send it back and order a new one.
@@DustinAbbottTWI got it ! No worries.. but they seems very similiar at least on paper, and there is no other comparison for these 3 lenses available on YT right now. And i have to say there is no other reviewer on the net like Mr Abbott !! 😉
Comprehensive and practically useful review as always. Glass in all price ranges is getting so ridiculously good that I kind of feel there is continuously less and less between them.
I am missing a comparison with the GM I version. Many of the potential buyers are probably GM I owners wondering if an upgrade to the GM II is worth it or not.
I had the first one for a about a year. Was perfect focusing and perfectly sharp. I remember when they announced it I thought ‘why?’😂 I’m a portrait guy so I sold it to help get me the 24-70ii, which is plenty enough wide for me. Im keeping the 24-70ii, 50 1.2, 70-200ii and a7rv Currently transitioning to gfx100, painfully slow so I’m keeping the Sony as long as I can lol. Not planning on buying anymore sony gear but who knows, it really is a fantastic system Sorry for all that😂 first 16-35 is amazing though it hangs well with the 24-200ii, it say save yourself the money
Another great review Dustin. The size and weight brings it closer to the 14 mm gm. What are your thoughts on the 16-35 2.8 gm ii compared to the 14mm gm , does the new 16-35 Len’s supersede it now and become a better purchase. Keep up the great work.
That's ultimately a question only you can answer, as people have different priorities. 14mm is obviously still considerably wider, and F1.8 is much faster than F2.8, but the zoom has more features, better up close performance, and obviously the versatility of the zoom.
Good ol’ sony copy variation here. 28-35 is significantly stronger than 16-24 on my copy. Midframe was quite bad on my copy at 16mm. Glad 35 is much better on my copy though since I’ve fallen out of love with the ultra-wide angle look in the last few months after shooting it exclusively for years
Happy New Year Dustin Great review as always.. but i have a question how the 35mm 1.4 GM prime at 2.8 compare with this lens? reason i ask is because i was going to buy the 35mm GM but if this 16-35 is as good as the 35mm 1.4 at 2.8 i would buy the 16-35 to have the extra versatility.. Thanks in advance
Hi Dustin, another great video. I like the basketball action shots. Nice real world examples. I am surprised the wide-open corner performance is not better. I have a Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and it performs with similar results perhaps a bit better!! Kudos to Sony for making the GM version 2 lenses lighter in weight.
I don't think it performs better in the kind of torture test I do here. My tests exaggerate things a bit to allow for more nuanced analysis, and real world results tend to look better.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think the 16-35 is a killer glass for video work, but it makes it difficult to deploy the 50 1.2 prime alongside it for hiking on dual Alpha bodies. I got a 135GM to pair with my existing 20G & 50 1.2 instead of acquiring the GMII zoom. I sometimes miss the ability to go to 16mm but I just remember how soft and distorted the corners are on the GM zoom compared to Primes. I loved the 16-35GM, I hiked the entire Long Trail in Vermont from North Adam’s,MA-🇨🇦 with only that glass on the A1, and I enjoyed it, but I look back at the corners on all the images and see how the lines are not straight and still look off after Lightroom... I would of gotten the 16-35GMII if it debuted before the hiking season last year, but instead they dropped a stupid 50 1.4 when I already had the 1.2
The one thing I never understood is the allure of big aperture ultra wide angle lenses. Infinity is less than a couple of feet away making background blurring a rare occurrence. This is true of a 28 or 25 and is particularly true of a 20 or 16. So why 16/35/2.8 instead of 16-35/4? Why lug all the bulk and weight when 95% of the shots are scenery and interiors at infinity?
better AF performance, better low light performance that enables astro photography and hand holding in the dark. Its might be 1 stop but so is the difference between iso3200 and 6400
The appeal is for people who shoot in lower light, for instance astro, but for many uses I agree. For daylight landscapes or low-light landscapes (other than astro) off a tripod, it is a lot of extra weight and expense.
We all can hope. If the iii version of 24-70 and 16-35 are internal zoom and same size as it is now. I would buy them. For now I’m just using prime and the only zoom i have is 70-200. So glad the 70-200 doesnt extends when zoomed. Haha.
I know quality have a price and photographers are in smaller numbers every day, but Sony is out of my reach, and i think out of reach for many more. So... Good job, Sony, keep it up!
There has always been a smaller group that can afford GM lenses, but at the same time it is that group that is less likely to shrink. Photographers like myself are never going to be satisfied with what phone cameras will produce, but owners of entry level cameras might.
Hmmm, I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, but right now the Canon is on sale at B&H for $2099 ($200 less than the Sony), but the normal price is actually $100 higher than Sony. I'm not sure how that qualifies as much more expensive. The Nikon Z 14-24mm costs $2500, $200 more than the Sony.
This video is sponsored by Fantom Wallet. Visit store.fantomwallet.com and use code DUSTIN15 to get 15% off
I like the new format with the detailed image quality review at the end. Keeps the review simple.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm always experimenting and trying to find the best packaging for the content.
On my side, I prefer the first version of the format, I was feeling a bit confused during the initial summary. But I can get used to it at the end, do what is better for you, it is still the best video for this new lens😉 (I never buy before your videos, because for the other reviewers, I don’t agree with their appreciation of « Excellent / Outstanding / Very good » for the lenses that I own. Nothing beats showing photos + chart in a similar manner, thank you!
Happy New Year Dustin, i wish you the best ....regards from Romania
Great video as always Dustin! I’d love to see you review the Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ and do a comparison to this lens.
That one slipped through the cracks for me. I'll see if I can land one in 2024 for review.
Great review! I used to be much more into some of this ultra high end gear but I've come to realize that for most uses I get 98% of the performance for much less. The overall quality of lenses is just so much higher than it used to be and some of the things like Tamrons latest and the Sigma Art series and some of the lower end Sony G series are just so good now even compared to the top professional grade gear from a few yeas ago.
Your point is valid. There are so many good lenses that it has become difficult for a lens to stand out as exceptional.
Well you have done it again! I am adding this lens to my wishlist,
I seem to cost you a lot of money!
Shame you didn't have the Gen 1 version for comparison Dustin. Also would like to see it vs 12-24 GM if possible.
There are a couple of sites out there that have comparisons up. He does talk about the comparison a little bit, but it would be nice if he concluded on the other options in this range. Sigma and Tamron also have very enticing offers.
+1 for the 12-24. It makes much more sense at the wider end of the "holy trinity" as the 24-70 already covers the 24-35 range so the 16-35 sits a bit weird there. I'd rather have the extra 4mm on the wide end.
@@TsvetanVRInteresting, I was thinking this could be a perfect lens to combo with the Tamron 35-150mm
Agreed. The gen 1 was already a spectacular lens.
Mark Galer did a comparison between the GM I and GM II
70-200 GM II was prime level at almost any setting. This lens is great. It is exceptional in its class (wide angle zooms are very hard to design). Small size, Good overall performance. Can't help but feel moat people who want high level performance would be better served by a set of primes or maybe 12-28 2.8 ( but it's a giant and different class and no 35mm). I guess for the perfect 16-35mm we have to wait another 10 years maybe
Historically 70-200mm lenses have been MUCH stronger than wide angle zooms, so I'm not sure that is a fair comparison. Comparing to other wide angle zooms is fairer, and the 16-35 GM II comes up pretty strong in that comparison.
@@DustinAbbottTWI 100% agree with you. My point being If I shot 135mm GM vs 70-200 GM II I could still tell the difference (because 135mm GM is insane in center) but would not care for 99.9% of cases where as on a 16-35 instrument, as good as it is "for a zoom", I could usually tell the difference compared to a prime and it will stay like this until perfect aberatium glass is discovered and a manufacturer learns how to shape it in the next 10 years;) Until then this lens will get the job done!
Once more, an excellent review, Dustin! Was thinking about getting this lens and selling my 16-28, 28-200 and the 28-75, so the 16-35 and the 70-180 could be a more compact and suitable package for the outdoors. Won‘t need the bit of range from 36 to 69mm. If I need a 50mm for portraits I’d rather grab a prime. Wish you all the best for 2024!
There are a lot of valid options for putting together a nice kit in 2024!
Great Video Dustin. The 16-35 GMii is undoubtedly a fantastic lens, but quite expensive. A comparison with the new 14-25/2.8 G lens, which is nearly half the price and lighter and smaller would be very interesting.
I do look forward to reviewing the newer lens.
Hi Dustin! Love watching your reviews! Just bought that lens but was quite -underwhelmed- disappointed with the sharpness. I compared it to my 2 year old Sigma 16-28 and made the same test shots mounted on a tripod and I have to say that the Sigma seems to be the overall sharper lens, especially around 28-35mm. After watching your (and also other) review I have the feeling I might have gotten some buggy copy because it should be simply the best, right? Might send it back and order a new one.
Yes, that doesn't sound right. There's no way the Sigma should be sharper.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for your reply! That's what I thought. Already sent it back, expecting a new copy next week. Have a nice one!
I love my 24-70 f2.8 GM ii 😊.
It's a sweet lens.
Excellent review as usual Thanks !
My pleasure!
Hi Dustin ! Great rev as always !!
Please if possible compare this and the newer 24-50 2.8 G with the cheaper tamron 20-40mm 2.8
I might be able to draw some inferences to this review, but I won't have all three of those lenses at the same time.
@@DustinAbbottTWI got it ! No worries.. but they seems very similiar at least on paper, and there is no other comparison for these 3 lenses available on YT right now.
And i have to say there is no other reviewer on the net like Mr Abbott !! 😉
Comprehensive and practically useful review as always.
Glass in all price ranges is getting so ridiculously good that I kind of feel there is continuously less and less between them.
That's a fair point. It has become difficult for lenses to really distinguish themselves from the pack.
I am missing a comparison with the GM I version. Many of the potential buyers are probably GM I owners wondering if an upgrade to the GM II is worth it or not.
I had the first one for a about a year. Was perfect focusing and perfectly sharp. I remember when they announced it I thought ‘why?’😂
I’m a portrait guy so I sold it to help get me the 24-70ii, which is plenty enough wide for me. Im keeping the 24-70ii, 50 1.2, 70-200ii and a7rv
Currently transitioning to gfx100, painfully slow so I’m keeping the Sony as long as I can lol. Not planning on buying anymore sony gear but who knows, it really is a fantastic system
Sorry for all that😂 first 16-35 is amazing though it hangs well with the 24-200ii, it say save yourself the money
Check out Mark Galer's review of this lens. He have some comparison in sharpness against the GM I
As I never reviewed the Ist gen lens, I don't really have that perspective. I came over to Sony well after the first generation of GM lenses.
Another great review Dustin. The size and weight brings it closer to the 14 mm gm. What are your thoughts on the 16-35 2.8 gm ii compared to the 14mm gm , does the new 16-35 Len’s supersede it now and become a better purchase. Keep up the great work.
That's ultimately a question only you can answer, as people have different priorities. 14mm is obviously still considerably wider, and F1.8 is much faster than F2.8, but the zoom has more features, better up close performance, and obviously the versatility of the zoom.
Thanks Dustin. Yes a tough one to call. Still scratching my head 🙂🙂
Great video Dustin. What wide angle zoom do you use or are you using wide primes ?
I'm using primes, myself.
Good ol’ sony copy variation here. 28-35 is significantly stronger than 16-24 on my copy. Midframe was quite bad on my copy at 16mm. Glad 35 is much better on my copy though since I’ve fallen out of love with the ultra-wide angle look in the last few months after shooting it exclusively for years
I'm glad your lens is strong where it matters to you.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks, Dustin! Great review. Always love the structure and detail of them. Cheers!
Happy New Year Dustin Great review as always.. but i have a question how the 35mm 1.4 GM prime at 2.8 compare with this lens? reason i ask is because i was going to buy the 35mm GM but if this 16-35 is as good as the 35mm 1.4 at 2.8 i would buy the 16-35 to have the extra versatility.. Thanks in advance
Both lenses are going to be incredibly sharp. The 35GM is slightly more special at 35mm, obviously, but the zoom has 16-35mm, too!
@@DustinAbbottTWI hey thanks for the response. I also have the 24-70 GM ii so I might be better off getting the 12-24 and the 35 prime
Clearly an excellent lens. Would be tempting were I invested in the Sony ff system and could actually afford to pay the price of admission.
That's definitely the challenge with GM lenses.
Awesome review!
Thank you.
Thank you
Hi Dustin, another great video. I like the basketball action shots. Nice real world examples. I am surprised the wide-open corner performance is not better. I have a Tamron 17-28 f2.8 and it performs with similar results perhaps a bit better!! Kudos to Sony for making the GM version 2 lenses lighter in weight.
I don't think it performs better in the kind of torture test I do here. My tests exaggerate things a bit to allow for more nuanced analysis, and real world results tend to look better.
Hey Dustin! Which lens has higher resolution and detail - Sony 12-24 GM vs Sony 16-35 GM II?
I haven't done a head to head between them, but the truth of the matter is that either lens is pretty epically sharp.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Dustin, thanks for your response!
I'm just planning to buy one of them and would like to know which of the two is sharper.
Dustin, I tossed the 16-35GM away for the 20G because it was much sharper and resolved better on A1. Would the 20G be sharper than the 16-35GMII?
Probably not sharper, but probably not softer, either.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I think the 16-35 is a killer glass for video work, but it makes it difficult to deploy the 50 1.2 prime alongside it for hiking on dual Alpha bodies. I got a 135GM to pair with my existing 20G & 50 1.2 instead of acquiring the GMII zoom. I sometimes miss the ability to go to 16mm but I just remember how soft and distorted the corners are on the GM zoom compared to Primes. I loved the 16-35GM, I hiked the entire Long Trail in Vermont from North Adam’s,MA-🇨🇦 with only that glass on the A1, and I enjoyed it, but I look back at the corners on all the images and see how the lines are not straight and still look off after Lightroom... I would of gotten the 16-35GMII if it debuted before the hiking season last year, but instead they dropped a stupid 50 1.4 when I already had the 1.2
It’s the Sony 16-35 f4 pz for me!
love the build quality, features and weight and size of this lens, Canon and Nikon have nothing like that
Nice
The one thing I never understood is the allure of big aperture ultra wide angle lenses.
Infinity is less than a couple of feet away making background blurring a rare occurrence.
This is true of a 28 or 25 and is particularly true of a 20 or 16. So why 16/35/2.8 instead of 16-35/4?
Why lug all the bulk and weight when 95% of the shots are scenery and interiors at infinity?
because 2.8 is way more usable in low light scenes (lower ISO better image quality, more DR)
better AF performance, better low light performance that enables astro photography and hand holding in the dark. Its might be 1 stop but so is the difference between iso3200 and 6400
The appeal is for people who shoot in lower light, for instance astro, but for many uses I agree. For daylight landscapes or low-light landscapes (other than astro) off a tripod, it is a lot of extra weight and expense.
but then who's making an UWA lens that has the same sharpness, that's lighter and less expensive?
@@iliasxa360 SONY has a 16-35/4 G
Seeing how less the lens extends I wonder why Sony didn’t make it an internally zooming lens.
That's a fair point.
Indeed, I was thinking the same, for 1cm more, I am fine with internal
extrally zooming lenses feel very amateuristic/cheap to me and I'm really worried about dust resistance
We all can hope. If the iii version of 24-70 and 16-35 are internal zoom and same size as it is now. I would buy them. For now I’m just using prime and the only zoom i have is 70-200. So glad the 70-200 doesnt extends when zoomed. Haha.
I know quality have a price and photographers are in smaller numbers every day, but Sony is out of my reach, and i think out of reach for many more. So... Good job, Sony, keep it up!
There has always been a smaller group that can afford GM lenses, but at the same time it is that group that is less likely to shrink. Photographers like myself are never going to be satisfied with what phone cameras will produce, but owners of entry level cameras might.
@@DustinAbbottTWI😂😂😂 i really love your statement. It is bold. I have my arguments, but let's leave it as is.
Amazing lens, but the price is too high. I hope Sigma will make something similar for half the price.
The Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 is a pretty sweet lens.
much more expensive than rf1535 and z1424, totally out of reach damn
Hmmm, I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, but right now the Canon is on sale at B&H for $2099 ($200 less than the Sony), but the normal price is actually $100 higher than Sony. I'm not sure how that qualifies as much more expensive. The Nikon Z 14-24mm costs $2500, $200 more than the Sony.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I am from Hong Kong just checked the price has dropped a bit it's us$2100 now，$350 more expensive than the nikon and canon, cheers.