Duuuuuude. I’m currently in the Fujifilm system but if I were to switch this is exactly what I would buy. Would be an amazing setup. Currently, I have an X-S10 with the Tamron 18-300mm and the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 as my main setup.
@@casskolkjen6358nice setup. Sony really missed the boat not putting the a7RV screen on that camera. Wanted it but I don’t think I ever want another camera with out the new a9/A7RV screen
Depends on the user case. That lens is great for those that are happy with this focal length. For weddings, especially dancing floor....amazing. astro, yes. As long as you don't need wider than 20....go ahead.
@@our_roadtrip 16mm is wayyyy wider than 20mm, but the 20mm F1.8 is still going to much better for most people than this lens, not to mention it's like half the price used.
I guess, it’s a matter of perspective. I am already super happy with a 35mm prime. Give me an additional 85mm, and I’d consider it a luxury. Add a ~20mm ultra wide, and that’s a complete set for me. I don’t see any application for the additional 4mm seriously. It doesn’t make sense to me. The picture will not be fundamentally different, and I genuinely believe I can express myself with either of these focal lengths. The difference is marginal in the grander scheme of things. And I’m having a hard time imagining a situation where the 4mm difference really makes or breaks a picture.
He’s in my part of the woods. Alberta winters have a very low humidity as opposed to a location like Vancouver. You retain a lot of your body temperature with a low humidity.
@@benmorgan7584 Oh interesting. So you're essentially better isolated by the air as it is a worse at conducting heat than moisture thus feels less cold
@@thepatte5833 The coldest I have ever been was soaking wet in 1C, in wet snow, in the Vancouver region (I don't know what it is in Freedom units, but just above freezing). You can't stay dry, and it can be utterly miserable. I'd take sunny and -10 all day.
Great quick review...really was shocked by the beautiful sunstars....much better than the 16-35 PZ lens, and agree with you, based on the pics you took...it definitely is a level above in sharpness above the PZ lens. Thank you for doing this review!
Thank you for your quick overview on this lens. I have considered buying the 24-50/2.8 G so will take a look at this as well. Really interested in how it compares to the Sigma 16-28/2.8 DG DN which I bought used back when I bought my first compact C body from Sony, a real comparison would be nice. Take care.
Why do reviewers (not just Chris) always diss the Sony G lenses? Sure, they’re not the fast-aperture, overweight, over-priced, professional G-Master lenses, but they’re not Sony’s bargain brand and they do all seem to be coming with aperture rings, custom buttons and others features. I have a few G’s and have been very pleased so far.
I feel it's because they're used to the very top of new lenses that they see them as lower (I wouldn't say bargain), which based on Sony's own lineup, yes they're lower in class. Sony's bargain brand are their early eras when they first get into the E-mount, fun times lol
con nowadays (since 2010s at least) people believe that a good photograph needs tons of bokeh, so unless the lens goes down to f1.4 or faster, they're not interested...
Who hates on G lenses? It’s pretty universal that the newish G lenses are just as good optically as the GMs, just usually a stop lower (or for this one less range) and cheaper.
It‘s super that we get this lens now. It’s some kind of empty spot at Sony. When I talk to our customers there is always the point, that I can’t recommend a super wide, as the 16-35 f2.8 is just to expensive and a lot customers struggle with the f4 PZ concept. So now I don’t have to let them go for a Sigma 16-28, now we have our own, „affordable“ super wide with f2.8.
I don't get it... Sony has a 16-35 2.8 don't they? I mean nice that it's lighter and smaller... but if you already own the trio there really is no reason and i still prefer a 16-35 because i don't have to swap lenses as often... 16-25mm seems odd... especially not including 28mm and 35mm which are quite useful
Many will be happy with that range and prefer the compact size, so having this option will save them money from buying a 16-35. The more options, the easier for photographers to tailor their lens purchases to their needs.
@@PlunderRoad there's also 2 versions of the Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM... the PZ is more geared towards video... i don't know what photographer would want to deal with PZ
If you don't own the trio, this makes way more sense since 16-35mm overlaps quite a bit with the 24-70mm. So in reality, with this lens you're not paying for that extra 26-35mm in price and weight.
@@PlunderRoad I bought that 16-35 f4 PZ and did not like it. I like the tactile feeling of just turning the lens to zoom in and out. And for the same price, and being a 2.8, this one is much better.
@chris ok, ok, I've subscribed. It was you going on and on about it at the end of this excellent review that I found out I'm watching all your guys good work without the subscription. So my error and fixed! Keep up the good work.
I just bought a 16-35 2.8 GM I secondhand for far less than this costs new - I'm surprised this wasn't thrown in the comparison mix. Sure this one makes some sense if your second lens is a 24mm+ zoom, but I use a 70-200, so 35mm on the zoom end is a much better proposition. I wish Sony would focus on wide fast primes - maybe a 20mm 1.4 or 24mm 1.2 would be nice.
Thanks for that review. I recently traded my Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art for the new 24-50. The new 16-25 seems to be the perfect addition for that in a compact and light travel kit for my A7iv. I’m oldstyle sometimes and did hit the subscribe button for you guys. Cheers from Cologne, Germany
Thanks guys. Another great video and I won’t buy anything unless you guys endorse it! Question for Jordan how do you think this lens will do with the A7 S3 with digital stabilisation for video?
It seems most reviews are just to keep camera companies happy, no harsh criticism. If they do critisize they will not get future hardware in their hands.
It was mentioned briefly at the end, but I've been very happy with my Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 lens. I've found it to be plenty sharp, and the size and weight seem very comparable to this new 1st party lens. Reasonable people can quibble about 16-25 vs 17-28. The Tamron lacks the buttons and dials of the G lens, but it also comes in hundreds of dollars cheaper!
i have always owned a 16-35 no matter on what mount i have shot... never ever would i care if i'm at 16 or 17mm... but 28mm is kind of important... i absolutely don't get the 16-25... sure it's supposed to be a light alternative for when you have a 24-70 (or 24-105) for the wide end... but i'd always prefer the Tamron because then i don't have to switch lenses as often
@@funnybeingme it's not... but it adds an extra step and is post work... when i could just use a different lens and do it in camera... i will ALWAYS prefer doing whatever i can in camera rather then in post.. no knock against anyone doing this or anything else in post... but it's not for me
Very different approaches. The SiGMA is noticeably wider, but the SONY's aim is to be compact and light. Also, the SiGMA can't accept filters with the bulbous front glass element.
I have the Sigma 14-24. I'd rather have the Sony 16-24. The size and weight difference is huge. It's literally double the weight. Not worth the 2mm on the wide side. Still a great lens though. But for my use case (traveling) this lens is a better fit.
@@duvalpenny100 But why spend extra? Tamron has 17-50/f4 and 17-28/f2.8, Sigma has 16-28/f2.8. They are all good compact lenses. Does Sony actually offer anything worth the extra $$$ while limiting to 25mm on the wide end? And if that small range is no issue... why not just buy a prime - smaller, faster, sharper?
@@sulev111 fair points. I have the 20G which I think is a great alternative to this lens (and the others you mentioned) but I know some people have to have zooming. For those people this would be an attractive alternative. As for what Sony provides over the other brands? Not too much tbh. They retain their value better and they have slightly better AF (but nobody really needs exceptional AF at these wide angles), they also aren't capped with the rate of shooting. The 2 biggest pros for the Sony here would be the build quality and weather sealing. I'd trust the Sony G line over the Sigma Contemporary line and Tamron lenses. (Sigma Art lenses are incredible though)
While the 16-25mm would seemingly pair well with the 24-50mm lens, the short focal range means that I would find myself swapping lenses far too often. The 20-70mm would be a much better lens to have. Yes, it's F4, but that works for me. And Chris likes F8!
hmm pretty cool addition to the lens lineup nonetheless but very much overlaps or same functionality as the 16-35 gm.. Perhaps people now can choose to get this lens to go with their 24-70 instead of 16-35.. since this lens is F2.8 as well. Or maybe people can pick this up if they cant afford the 16-35 GM ii..
It's not just about not being able to afford the 16-35 GM ii. If you're not a pro, and want first party ultrawide 2.8 zoom, then this makes a lot of sense as the 16-35 overlaps quite a bit with the standard 24-70 zoom. It saves you money and weight.
For similar price, I wonder about the Sigma 14-24mm vs this Sony. Obviously the Sigma gives you larger range but is much larger, heavier. Wonder how the optics match up.
I know someone already brought it up, but I think they're bringing in the I'm not spending GM money but hey it's lighter so let's get the G lens. Plus they're building out the Compact Full Frame lens ecosystem for something like the A7CII / A7CR.
The confusion of the creation of this lens is weird to me. A lot of folks love the 24mm focal length, this gives you that focal length with the ability to go to 16mm when you need to. The size of this lens is amazing for being an f/2.8 zoom lens. This or the 20G would be fantastic for a wide travel lens.
I actually like this lens. If you have a 24-70 and 70-200, a 16-25 makes more sense since it doesn't have that big overlap of the 16-35. I never understood that part to be honest. My main backpacking lenses are the Sony 20mm f1.8 and Tamron 28-200mm. A little hard to justify to have this lens as the Sony 20 f1.8 is great at taking night shots. We'll see. Although I wish Tamron would update the 28-200 and include VC.
my secret wish (as a backpacking companion lens for a 28-200) is actually, that Sony would update its (mediocre) 12-24mm F4.0, or, that Tamron/Sigma would develop a successor for that. Even 4-5.6 would be fine, esp. if this comes with the benefit of further reduced size and weight (and access to front filters as a bonus)🙂
Agreed with this video. Don't convince yourself you'll find "just as good" with the Tamron or Sigma, they're both decent, but fall way short, especially the Tamron which has visible distortion and lacks sharpness and contrast. The GM II is sharp throughout, and is pretty much perfect even at 35mm. If you want the best, and you're pairing with something like an A7R V, then just get the Sony and be done with it. You'll only wish you had done so further down the line.
meh. It doesn't go to 35mm so I'm not interested. 35mm FTW! My new favourite pasttime is luring crows and ravens up close with fly fishing gear and shooting them on a 35mm lens. 😅😂
My opinion and for my photography I was better off with the Viltrox 16mm f1.8 and the samyang 24mm f1.8. I do alot of astro but even just in general f1.8 is better and these together are cheaper
Replying the title: A good lens thou, but NO! Thank you! 😛 There are many outstanding lenses to be considered. Sony FE 20mm G, Samyang FE 18mm, Sigma FE 17mm and Tamron FE 20-40mm.
The shock that a £1200"only a gmaster" Is good. Sheesh. It wasn’t that long ago a lens in this segment would have been £650-800. Sony is setting a pricing bar with the g lenses that pros are going to pay leica prices soon.
I think Sony making e mounts open to 3rd party allows them to due weird stuff with their RND department and I’m for it. Hoping Nikon and canon can reach this point soon
PC Mag rated it as "Good". Not a good review by their standards. I find their reviews to be very good. They show other, similar range lenses that sell around the same price.
Are you aware that the auto-capture calls you Chris Tickles”😆. Also I enjoy your entertaining reviews even if I have no intention of giving up my 16-35 f/4 lens, which is lighter & more versatile, & don’t need the extra stop.
οι original full frame f/2.8 ζουμ φακοι ηταν η ακριβη επιλογη των επαγγελματιων. Τωρα και ηοι ερασιτεχνες εχοουν μια φθηνη λυση χωρις να καταφυγουν σε τριτους κατασκευαστες φακων με συνηθως προβληματικη αυτοματη εστιαση.
@benldr it's not so much the focus for me as it is the light. I can get cleaner exposure in low light with brighter than f4. I agree that I don't need it for shallow depth of field but rather star shots or interior real estate shots.
@@TheTrailMixTV that makes sense. I think I will find myself using a wide angle a lot out doors for landscapes but also with traveling with my family and kids around the extra reach could come in handy. On the other hand, the kids move a lot and quickly so maybe the faster f2.8 is better but I would probably want the 24-70mm GMII I have in that case. Just sometimes you can't change lenses that quickly. I definitely don't want a 16-35GM II and the 24-70GM II both for travel because they are too heavy together and too expensive. I think one of these smaller wide angle lenses would be the better choice it's just tough to decide between the two.
Does Chris and Jordan get paid according to words spoken per minute? Man, I had trouble keeping up with Chris. Great feature on UA-cam - that you reduce the playback speed…
Sony just keeps pumping out so many lenses. I left Sony for canon RF, and I regret it. Canon barely comes out with lenses these days, and, of course, compounding that is not allowing the third parties, there is truly very little selection.
About time you hosers got out of bed. And too bad, given that the video is two months old, that there was still snow on the ground in Cowville. Keep up the good work eh.
0:42 - Song is 'Hannah Gill - You & I' for anyone wondering
thanks - fun song.
Thank you! you just read my mind.
Thanks a lot😅😅
That voice sounds very familiar. Any suggestions where I know her from or who has a very similar voice?
Thank you!
This, the Tamron 28-200, and an A7cii would make the ultimate travel set up
Duuuuuude. I’m currently in the Fujifilm system but if I were to switch this is exactly what I would buy. Would be an amazing setup.
Currently, I have an X-S10 with the Tamron 18-300mm and the Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 as my main setup.
I have the A7CR, with the Tamron 17-28 and 28-200, and it's really amazing to have such versatility in such a small package.
@@casskolkjen6358nice setup. Sony really missed the boat not putting the a7RV screen on that camera. Wanted it but I don’t think I ever want another camera with out the new a9/A7RV screen
At this point Sony are bringing out a lens for every millimeter in existance...
4mm lens when?
Everything except a 28mm GM or f/2 refresh
I hope they do!
20-21mm zoom next
I don't think so. Sony still doesn't offer a 14mm zoom that takes front filters, unlike Nikon and Canon.
Great review, looks like an interesting lens! Thank you SOOOOOO much for bringing Jordan back for the video segment! ☺👍👍👍👍👍
Actually... the Sony FE 20mm 1.8 G looks a lot more tempting to me.
Depends on the user case. That lens is great for those that are happy with this focal length. For weddings, especially dancing floor....amazing. astro, yes. As long as you don't need wider than 20....go ahead.
Yeah… but 16mm is not that much wider than 20mm. A step back and the resulting image is probably just as good.
@@our_roadtrip 16mm is wayyyy wider than 20mm, but the 20mm F1.8 is still going to much better for most people than this lens, not to mention it's like half the price used.
@@our_roadtrip16mm is noticably wider than 20mm. With that being said, both this lens or the 20G would be awesome choices for travel lenses.
I guess, it’s a matter of perspective. I am already super happy with a 35mm prime. Give me an additional 85mm, and I’d consider it a luxury. Add a ~20mm ultra wide, and that’s a complete set for me.
I don’t see any application for the additional 4mm seriously. It doesn’t make sense to me. The picture will not be fundamentally different, and I genuinely believe I can express myself with either of these focal lengths. The difference is marginal in the grander scheme of things.
And I’m having a hard time imagining a situation where the 4mm difference really makes or breaks a picture.
Subscribing is so 2008. I'm geolocating Chris and Jordan's whereabouts as we speak, and will follow them on all their errands.
Do it! I dare you! Come say Hi too.
Lens choices for E mount are getting harder and harder 😅
6:02 flannel shirt, think jacket worn open, in the snow. Canadians are just built different.
He’s in my part of the woods. Alberta winters have a very low humidity as opposed to a location like Vancouver. You retain a lot of your body temperature with a low humidity.
@@benmorgan7584 Oh interesting. So you're essentially better isolated by the air as it is a worse at conducting heat than moisture thus feels less cold
@@thepatte5833 The coldest I have ever been was soaking wet in 1C, in wet snow, in the Vancouver region (I don't know what it is in Freedom units, but just above freezing). You can't stay dry, and it can be utterly miserable. I'd take sunny and -10 all day.
I hope Sony make a new 24-105 F4 . compact and sharp . great focal length
and maybe with cinematic character?
@@Fessoid Absoloutly
I have that lens but if Sony where to make a smaller version, I would definitely consider upgrading.
Ah! Erdinger, the famous beer of Barcelona, Germany! 3:25
Atleast it's an Erdinger Dunkel... in a Weißbier glass... what are they doing over there?!?!? Giving Germany, Spain, Bavaria and Barcelona a bad name
Was waiting for zoom wide angle f/2.8
Might not have to get 16 - 35 GM afterall.
Again I nice video! Thank you guys.
I am really interest to see the comparison between this new lens and the 12-24gm
I like the music selection
Great quick review...really was shocked by the beautiful sunstars....much better than the 16-35 PZ lens, and agree with you, based on the pics you took...it definitely is a level above in sharpness above the PZ lens. Thank you for doing this review!
Thank you for your quick overview on this lens. I have considered buying the 24-50/2.8 G so will take a look at this as well. Really interested in how it compares to the Sigma 16-28/2.8 DG DN which I bought used back when I bought my first compact C body from Sony, a real comparison would be nice. Take care.
Obvious pairing to go with this is the tamron 28-75, both compact&affordable f/2.8 and they even share filters
looks you’re a wide angle shooter. best sample photos in a long time! love it
Glad they made this lens. For video it's awesome paired like you did with the A7C/ii.
Why do reviewers (not just Chris) always diss the Sony G lenses? Sure, they’re not the fast-aperture, overweight, over-priced, professional G-Master lenses, but they’re not Sony’s bargain brand and they do all seem to be coming with aperture rings, custom buttons and others features. I have a few G’s and have been very pleased so far.
I feel it's because they're used to the very top of new lenses that they see them as lower (I wouldn't say bargain), which based on Sony's own lineup, yes they're lower in class. Sony's bargain brand are their early eras when they first get into the E-mount, fun times lol
con nowadays (since 2010s at least) people believe that a good photograph needs tons of bokeh, so unless the lens goes down to f1.4 or faster, they're not interested...
Who hates on G lenses? It’s pretty universal that the newish G lenses are just as good optically as the GMs, just usually a stop lower (or for this one less range) and cheaper.
Thank you for being back on camera Jordan, I thought you went on a side quest to Mordor.
Keep up the good work, you guys are the best!
Subscribed as soon as you jumped ship gents! And always happy when you do Sony lenses
Do we now have the first 2 of a new, compact f2.8 zoom trinity: 16-25, 24-50. . . What’s next? 50 -85?
50-70 😂
A 55-135 is my bet. Would make a great trinity! Might even get me away from primes more often.
Definitely looks like the solid lens! I wonder how it will fare for Astro?
No perceptible coma, so quite well.
Nice review guys, as always, you're both the best!
It‘s super that we get this lens now. It’s some kind of empty spot at Sony. When I talk to our customers there is always the point, that I can’t recommend a super wide, as the 16-35 f2.8 is just to expensive and a lot customers struggle with the f4 PZ concept. So now I don’t have to let them go for a Sigma 16-28, now we have our own, „affordable“ super wide with f2.8.
I don't get it... Sony has a 16-35 2.8 don't they? I mean nice that it's lighter and smaller... but if you already own the trio there really is no reason and i still prefer a 16-35 because i don't have to swap lenses as often... 16-25mm seems odd... especially not including 28mm and 35mm which are quite useful
Many will be happy with that range and prefer the compact size, so having this option will save them money from buying a 16-35. The more options, the easier for photographers to tailor their lens purchases to their needs.
Sigma has E mount 16-28 35mm and Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ too. 🤔
@@PlunderRoad there's also 2 versions of the Sony 16-35 f2.8 GM... the PZ is more geared towards video... i don't know what photographer would want to deal with PZ
If you don't own the trio, this makes way more sense since 16-35mm overlaps quite a bit with the 24-70mm. So in reality, with this lens you're not paying for that extra 26-35mm in price and weight.
@@PlunderRoad I bought that 16-35 f4 PZ and did not like it. I like the tactile feeling of just turning the lens to zoom in and out. And for the same price, and being a 2.8, this one is much better.
How many Sony lenses damn ?
I love it. I'm taking an E-mount lens shower ATM.
They get bored every 2 months and make something
Nearly 80. WOW Sony killing it
They just enjoy embarassing Canon.
@@AshBashSneakers to fake the need of novelty
@chris ok, ok, I've subscribed. It was you going on and on about it at the end of this excellent review that I found out I'm watching all your guys good work without the subscription. So my error and fixed! Keep up the good work.
It worked!
I just bought a 16-35 2.8 GM I secondhand for far less than this costs new - I'm surprised this wasn't thrown in the comparison mix. Sure this one makes some sense if your second lens is a 24mm+ zoom, but I use a 70-200, so 35mm on the zoom end is a much better proposition. I wish Sony would focus on wide fast primes - maybe a 20mm 1.4 or 24mm 1.2 would be nice.
Thanks for that review. I recently traded my Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art for the new 24-50. The new 16-25 seems to be the perfect addition for that in a compact and light travel kit for my A7iv. I’m oldstyle sometimes and did hit the subscribe button for you guys. Cheers from Cologne, Germany
Whats that camera strap again?
Thanks guys. Another great video and I won’t buy anything unless you guys endorse it! Question for Jordan how do you think this lens will do with the A7 S3 with digital stabilisation for video?
I hope yall make a video next week when the new firmware for Lumix drops!!!
It seems most reviews are just to keep camera companies happy, no harsh criticism. If they do critisize they will not get future hardware in their hands.
It was mentioned briefly at the end, but I've been very happy with my Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 lens. I've found it to be plenty sharp, and the size and weight seem very comparable to this new 1st party lens. Reasonable people can quibble about 16-25 vs 17-28. The Tamron lacks the buttons and dials of the G lens, but it also comes in hundreds of dollars cheaper!
i have always owned a 16-35 no matter on what mount i have shot... never ever would i care if i'm at 16 or 17mm... but 28mm is kind of important... i absolutely don't get the 16-25... sure it's supposed to be a light alternative for when you have a 24-70 (or 24-105) for the wide end... but i'd always prefer the Tamron because then i don't have to switch lenses as often
@@LoFiAxolotl To be honest, to crop in post from 25mm to 28mm isn't that much.
@@funnybeingme it's not... but it adds an extra step and is post work... when i could just use a different lens and do it in camera... i will ALWAYS prefer doing whatever i can in camera rather then in post.. no knock against anyone doing this or anything else in post... but it's not for me
Surely the Sigma 14-24 is a slightly better comparison?
Very different approaches. The SiGMA is noticeably wider, but the SONY's aim is to be compact and light. Also, the SiGMA can't accept filters with the bulbous front glass element.
@@adamadamis + the weight and Sigma is old, so Af will be slower and who knoows... maybe IQ is the same.
I have the Sigma 14-24. I'd rather have the Sony 16-24.
The size and weight difference is huge. It's literally double the weight. Not worth the 2mm on the wide side. Still a great lens though. But for my use case (traveling) this lens is a better fit.
@@duvalpenny100 But why spend extra? Tamron has 17-50/f4 and 17-28/f2.8, Sigma has 16-28/f2.8. They are all good compact lenses. Does Sony actually offer anything worth the extra $$$ while limiting to 25mm on the wide end? And if that small range is no issue... why not just buy a prime - smaller, faster, sharper?
@@sulev111 fair points. I have the 20G which I think is a great alternative to this lens (and the others you mentioned) but I know some people have to have zooming. For those people this would be an attractive alternative.
As for what Sony provides over the other brands? Not too much tbh. They retain their value better and they have slightly better AF (but nobody really needs exceptional AF at these wide angles), they also aren't capped with the rate of shooting.
The 2 biggest pros for the Sony here would be the build quality and weather sealing. I'd trust the Sony G line over the Sigma Contemporary line and Tamron lenses. (Sigma Art lenses are incredible though)
Is it sharp enough for A7Cr? With that 60 MP sensor you could easily punch in for 35 and 50mm crops.
Drinking beer at work…….sign me up
While the 16-25mm would seemingly pair well with the 24-50mm lens, the short focal range means that I would find myself swapping lenses far too often. The 20-70mm would be a much better lens to have. Yes, it's F4, but that works for me. And Chris likes F8!
hmm pretty cool addition to the lens lineup nonetheless but very much overlaps or same functionality as the 16-35 gm..
Perhaps people now can choose to get this lens to go with their 24-70 instead of 16-35.. since this lens is F2.8 as well. Or maybe people can pick this up if they cant afford the 16-35 GM ii..
It's not just about not being able to afford the 16-35 GM ii. If you're not a pro, and want first party ultrawide 2.8 zoom, then this makes a lot of sense as the 16-35 overlaps quite a bit with the standard 24-70 zoom. It saves you money and weight.
Nikon 14-30 F4!!!
I'm curious how the lens compares to cropping in to APS-C on a 16mm prime lens. I like the size but 1.5x zoom isn't much.
now that the price is similar to the G-MASTER 1 which one would you choose?
Tough sell with the Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 being $300 less and also excellent
but Sigma is so much heavier? Would you feel the Sigma will weigh you down for $300 less?
Where is the strap from?? I couldn't quite catch it!
Thanks for the reminder at the end, subscribed!
2:48 what lens did you used to get this lovely shoot ?
The absolutely lovely Panasonic S 100mm f/2.8! Stay tuned for Jordan’s full review.
For similar price, I wonder about the Sigma 14-24mm vs this Sony. Obviously the Sigma gives you larger range but is much larger, heavier. Wonder how the optics match up.
Where do you get those Kimono-straps?
I know someone already brought it up, but I think they're bringing in the I'm not spending GM money but hey it's lighter so let's get the G lens. Plus they're building out the Compact Full Frame lens ecosystem for something like the A7CII / A7CR.
The confusion of the creation of this lens is weird to me.
A lot of folks love the 24mm focal length, this gives you that focal length with the ability to go to 16mm when you need to. The size of this lens is amazing for being an f/2.8 zoom lens.
This or the 20G would be fantastic for a wide travel lens.
Looks great! I love my sigma 16-28 f2.8 though - it's a great focal range and compact!
How to compare with Tamron 17-28 f2.8
@Chris Your on fire! Great photographs!
I actually like this lens. If you have a 24-70 and 70-200, a 16-25 makes more sense since it doesn't have that big overlap of the 16-35. I never understood that part to be honest.
My main backpacking lenses are the Sony 20mm f1.8 and Tamron 28-200mm. A little hard to justify to have this lens as the Sony 20 f1.8 is great at taking night shots. We'll see. Although I wish Tamron would update the 28-200 and include VC.
my secret wish (as a backpacking companion lens for a 28-200) is actually, that Sony would update its (mediocre) 12-24mm F4.0, or, that Tamron/Sigma would develop a successor for that. Even 4-5.6 would be fine, esp. if this comes with the benefit of further reduced size and weight (and access to front filters as a bonus)🙂
Forgot the Tamron 17-50/f4
This is one of my worst modern lens.
@@shang-hsienyang1284Or it just you.
@@sergtrav go ahead, buy it
The amount of E mount lenses coming out is insane. It makes me jealous as a Nikon shooter. Is there any news on new Z mount lenses?
Don't Tamron, Sigma and Samyang/Rokinon + other 3rd parties make Z-mount lenses?
Something like a 50-135 and i’m switching to sony
Sony keeps making more options for UWA. I love it. Great job Sony. Hey Nikon - could we get some more options in this space too?
Agreed with this video. Don't convince yourself you'll find "just as good" with the Tamron or Sigma, they're both decent, but fall way short, especially the Tamron which has visible distortion and lacks sharpness and contrast. The GM II is sharp throughout, and is pretty much perfect even at 35mm. If you want the best, and you're pairing with something like an A7R V, then just get the Sony and be done with it. You'll only wish you had done so further down the line.
meh. It doesn't go to 35mm so I'm not interested. 35mm FTW!
My new favourite pasttime is luring crows and ravens up close with fly fishing gear and shooting them on a 35mm lens.
😅😂
IBIS?
My opinion and for my photography I was better off with the Viltrox 16mm f1.8 and the samyang 24mm f1.8. I do alot of astro but even just in general f1.8 is better and these together are cheaper
I've got the 20mm f/1.8... what to do now?
Yeah me too..
Inside interiors? Good one.
did anyone catch where he got recycled camera stra from
www.obijimmy.jp/
Replying the title: A good lens thou, but NO! Thank you! 😛 There are many outstanding lenses to be considered. Sony FE 20mm G, Samyang FE 18mm, Sigma FE 17mm and Tamron FE 20-40mm.
The shock that a £1200"only a gmaster" Is good. Sheesh. It wasn’t that long ago a lens in this segment would have been £650-800. Sony is setting a pricing bar with the g lenses that pros are going to pay leica prices soon.
I think Sony making e mounts open to 3rd party allows them to due weird stuff with their RND department and I’m for it. Hoping Nikon and canon can reach this point soon
PC Mag rated it as "Good". Not a good review by their standards. I find their reviews to be very good. They show other, similar range lenses that sell around the same price.
seems like sony are bringing out the tamron's for nikon
When the 85mm GM II I’ve been waiting ages
Rather have the 16-35/4 G if I had to choose.
I’m not even in the system, but the Sigma 16-28mm seems more sensible with their 28-70
Who chose the music jeees
Are you aware that the auto-capture calls you Chris Tickles”😆. Also I enjoy your entertaining reviews even if I have no intention of giving up my 16-35 f/4 lens, which is lighter & more versatile, & don’t need the extra stop.
οι original full frame f/2.8 ζουμ φακοι ηταν η ακριβη επιλογη των επαγγελματιων. Τωρα και ηοι ερασιτεχνες εχοουν μια φθηνη λυση χωρις να καταφυγουν σε τριτους κατασκευαστες φακων με συνηθως προβληματικη αυτοματη εστιαση.
No comment on the CA's?
what's the point!?!?!? tamron already has 17-28mm and sony 16-35mm. 16-25mm is so random!
I like my 12-24 2.8 💪
Nice video lens.
Dont need it, the 16-35mm F/2.8 GM is so much better and also pretty compact. The extra 10mm reach is a must for me as a landscaper
Was in the market for a lens for real estate. This might be the one.
They n eed a zoom that starts at 14mm that can take filters. Everyone but Sony has one now.
Of all the sony lenses, this is one of them.
Why did I have to go and buy the 16-35mm F4 G :(
I'm debating between these two. The 16-35 has advantages... You find the f4 that limiting? Wide angle you usually want most things in focus?
@benldr it's not so much the focus for me as it is the light. I can get cleaner exposure in low light with brighter than f4. I agree that I don't need it for shallow depth of field but rather star shots or interior real estate shots.
@@TheTrailMixTV that makes sense. I think I will find myself using a wide angle a lot out doors for landscapes but also with traveling with my family and kids around the extra reach could come in handy. On the other hand, the kids move a lot and quickly so maybe the faster f2.8 is better but I would probably want the 24-70mm GMII I have in that case. Just sometimes you can't change lenses that quickly. I definitely don't want a 16-35GM II and the 24-70GM II both for travel because they are too heavy together and too expensive. I think one of these smaller wide angle lenses would be the better choice it's just tough to decide between the two.
i am missing nothing with my Tamron 17-28 f2,8, except aperture ring
I subscribed. Feel like a rebel now.
Thankyou ❤❤
Sony develops its own low-budget lenses, Nikon rebrands Tamrons. When two do the same, it's not the same :)
Ive been watching so much chess content I thought you were Nakamura from the thumbnail!
Feel like the viltrox 16 1,8 is the better deal
The lack of power zoom makes it less likely to be a videographers first choice
Great review! The lens is half the prize, but the focal range is only half as useful as the 16-35mm GM II. Sorry, but this lens is not for me.
The 16-25 2.8G makes more sense than the 24-50 2.8G
Does Chris and Jordan get paid according to words spoken per minute? Man, I had trouble keeping up with Chris. Great feature on UA-cam - that you reduce the playback speed…
Sony just keeps pumping out so many lenses. I left Sony for canon RF, and I regret it. Canon barely comes out with lenses these days, and, of course, compounding that is not allowing the third parties, there is truly very little selection.
What Len’s do you need?
I rather have 14-35L f4 over this..... Yes Sony has excellent primes RF currently lacks, but their current line up is still decent
3-rd party lenses comes with multiple restrictions in software operating system in cameras. For example fps are lowered by Sony in 3-rd party lenses.
Subscribed after that fantastic counter culture argument
About time you hosers got out of bed. And too bad, given that the video is two months old, that there was still snow on the ground in Cowville. Keep up the good work eh.
It’s same contemporary from sigma.