Sony 16-25 (affiliate): geni.us/Sny1625 or geni.us/Sony1625Ado Sigma 16-28 (affiliate): geni.us/Sigma1628Holiday or geni.us/Sig1628Ado Tamron 17-28 (affiliate): geni.us/Tamron1728Holiday or geni.us/tam1728ad CANADIANS: geni.us/CameraCanad Video Shot with (affiliates): Camera: geni.us/fx30SaleMark or geni.us/fx30adora Lens: geni.us/sny15 or geni.us/sony15adMark
I own the Tamron and I am totally satisfied. Only thing I ever wished was more zoom range. Then I got the Sony 16-35 gm, but it was too heavy and clunky. So I sold it and kept the Tamron which I am very happy with.
Still happy with my Tamron 17-28 and considering it's 5 years old, it performs well compared to its new contenders. Today I would probably go with the Sigma as it's little bit better for the same money.
I can't even afford any lenses but been watching your videos ever since you started making videos on sony zve10. I have different youtube accounts for category of content but I'm your subscriber in all of the a/c's. Love your presence!
Great review. I got the Tamron when it was $100 off here in the U.S. I have found it to be a very sharp lens. I wish it had an AF/MF switch, the one switch that should be mandatory on all lenses. I also think the build quality of the Tamron is very good. BTW, when looking at the backend of the Tamron, you will see that the rear elements also move when zooming. One thing in common with the Sony is the 67mm filter. Also, the zooming ring is same as Sony, the Sigma goes in reverse direction. Not a biggie.
Thank you. Just the video I wanted to see. I bought the Sony 24-50/2.8 G and planned to pair it with the Sony 16-25/2.8 G you reviewed here but hadn’t pulled the trigger yet since I did own several other wide angle zooms. This was for my travel kit with the A7CR and A7CII. Previously when I had an A7C version one I bought the Sigma 16-28/2.8 DG DN and 28-70/2.8 DG DN used but in mint condition. Fast forward to now and I see your comparison and it gave me pause with how much you seem to like the Sigma. I don’t do video right now so things like focus breathing don’t impact me. So for now I’m holding off on the Sony and will continue with the Sigma at the wide end and the Sony G in the midrange. Would really like to see you do a comparison of the Sony 24-50/2.8 G and the Sigma 28-70/2.8 DG DN. That would be great. Appreciate all your hard work you have done. Do also own the Sony 16-35/2.8 GM II and 545 grams I think it’s really not that heavy which is why didn’t jump at the Sony 16-25/2.8 G. Thank you again and take care.
I just bought the Sigma 16-28 a couple of weeks ago and love it for photography, especially at the wide end. The shallow depth of field and and great looking bokeh when shooting wide open really make this lens a great purchase for me.
I would do the same i no longer own the tammy great lens but slightly lacking in punch and shrpness dept. I also own still the Sig 14-24 f2.8 which is superb lens but is big and heavy so am thinking of Sig 16-28 as a walk around and keep the 14-24 for planned architecture shots etc.
Thanks for always being so thorough with these reviews 🙏🏻 I learned something new here about dynamic active stabilization and third party lenses that I'd never heard before. That totally makes sense if some of the additional stabilization is coming from cropping in on the sensor 💡
Great video Mark. I just picked up the Tamron 17-28 and love it. I had the Zeiss 16-35 F4 previously and I think the Tamron is better in terms of having a lower aperture and lighter body.
Hi Mark! I have a big doubt about the quality of the lens. I'm considering buying the 16-25mm for my Sony APSC 6700, but I wanted to confirm if for social networks there would be a big difference in quality between that lens or the Sigma 18-55 2.8? Or even the Sony APSC 16-55 2.8? Please help me with this question.
Thanks for the wonderful and thorough comparison. I was contemplating which of these 3 to pair with my Sony A7C2. Since I'm an amateur photographer, I settled for the Tamron due to the combination of size/weight, and price since I found a used one for half of the retail cost.
Wow, that's a very, very good comparison. I was starting to think about buying the Sony, but the Sigma looks really impressive (even if all 3 lenses are very good). What I don't like of the Sony is the external zoom, but everything else is really great. What I would be curious to discover is the difference in the night shots, stars, Milky Way etc. I'm quite often in northern Europe and shoot northern lights and night shots in general. If Sigma is comparable with the Sony I could go with it
Always some compromise. Like 24 vs 28. 24mm to some people is essential. To me ultrawide end at 28mm vs 35mm is also quite big difference. With 35mm I can literally use 35mm to get some portrait shot without switch lens. But with 28mm I have to switch lens. I do not know. If max budget is $1000. I would probabaly go with sony 16-35 f4 pz over these choices.
Hi mark, nice review. I have a few questions: is there any superzooms for APSC except the tamron 18-300? what do you thik about the tamron 18-300? is it worth or shall we wait for a year or two? if possible can you please make a review on the tamron 18-300? :)
Just got the 18-300 myself and it’s impressive for what it offers. Actually able to shoot in full frame with only a 20% crop so I’ve used it on my A7Rv in 4k60 in full frame mode essentially. The stabilization and range are what’s impressive. I have used mostly for video so can’t speak direct to sharpness per se. But in 4k, I’m loving the image. Other testers have compared it very favorably to the Sony 70-350 APSC lens. Tamron now has their 50-300 full frame which is just as small but I would say might be better optically. But for the overall range, it has been fun to use and just never worry about if I can get the shot.
I am about to get the 16-25 Sony to replace my 16-35 gm MKI. As I also own the 35GM and the 24-70GM MKII so my 16-35 is only ever used at 16-22mm so the size and weight saving is what I am looking for.
I came to the same conclusion. I love my 35GM too much. I know every time I use the 16-35 at 35mm I'd want to use the 35GM instead. I'll deal with swapping out lenses lol.
I would rather have the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 Di III VXD Lens for Sony E. Wide enough and longer reach plus cheaper. I would go with the Sony too but then I start thinking the 16-35mm then it never stops. Cheers!
I think the absolute best would be the sigma 10-18 on, let's say, an a7Rv. Way less weight. It doesn't cover the whole ff sensor, bit it's close enough (I think Mark said 12mm field of view?) so you could have a 12-28 in a very compact format
It's interesting to see the variance in Tamron and Sigma copies, the Tamron was oddly bad here sharpness wise compared to other tests I've seen, which usually pull ahead of the Sigma.
I’ve been sent loaners from tamron and sigma for other kens reviews. Tamron loaned me the 17-70 and sigma loaned me the 18-50 for review. No paid sponsorships, no free products. But both excellent companies to deal with for the loans. I wish I had a discount code for Camera Canada!! I’ll see if I can work something out with them - currently I pay full prices as well 🤣
for several months, I've been watching and hoping for a miracle that I can purchase one of those lenses with my Sony S7CII which I am also wishing to have.😊🤞❤🙏
Only newer Sony lenses will be able to shoot more than 15 frames per second. All other lenses are limited to 15 or less. So if you have an a9 or a1 series that shoots more than 15 - you will be capped at 15 with the 3rd party lenses and won’t get the full burst mode
@@MarkBennettCameraCrisis I just don't understand what the optics of a lens has to do with shutter ability of a camera body. That makes no sense to me. Did Sony just nerf the abilities when using third party lenses?
Tamron 17-50 is pretty soft at 17mm f/4 and at 50mm f/4. Which is too bad. It's okay from 20-40mm, but what's the point when there's a 20-40mm f/2.8 already?
just the video I'm looking for. But what do you think is wider at 16mm? Some people say Sony is a bit wider but i can see on your video that Sigma is wider than Sony. This can help me decide coz i work in Real estate a small difference in focal range is important. I have the Laowa 12mm but i need a wide zoom lens for secondary cam. Thanks so much
Mark, what's interesting is that the Sigma 30mm f1.4 prime shows very little focus breathing. I wonder if this is a component of the variable focal lengths or is Sigma focus breathing just not as apparent as you trend towards the tele focal lengths?
Fantastic review! My purchase choice is a lot easier to make thanks to you. Amongst the 3 I'd go with the Sigma 16-28 f2.8 BUT I'm really tempted by another lens...the Sony 16-35 PZ f4, which would nicely cover the whole focal range along with my Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8. Have you ever used the Sony 16-35mm and what are your thoughts on it? Thanks again!
@NelsonGomes1 After that message, I researched a little more and my choice has eventually fallen upon the Sony 16-25 f2.8, which I'm very happy with as it's a fantastic lens :)
My choice is Sony16-35 f4 PZ. Excellent sharpness, internal zoom, 35mm on the narrow end, the ability to zoom from a lever on the lens or on the camera lever on some new models, low focus breathing.
haha - no - but some many tests I I run for the cameras, lenses and equipment are out filming myself - so that's my version of vlogging. I have no stories to tell🤣
Mark, to my eye, the image quality between the three is a wash. In your still samples, I noticed a creamier bokeh on the Tamron. I have the Tamron 17-28 and it has performed well for me. One major advantage of the Tamron is that its filter size matches three other Tamrons I have. This saves me lot of money when I am buying filters. I only carry one set of filters and use it on four different lenses. I wish the Tamron was wider but for a true wider coverage, I may need to go to a Sony 12-24 or a Sigma 14-24.
I just sold that lens for the 16-25. The Sigma is a great lens but it's so heavy for what it is. It's twice the weight of the 16-25. If weight doesn't bother you, then get it. For travel or street, I'd get the 16-25 for sure.
Mark, with A7C (gen 1), do you have a video for quick video settings? I'm ashamed to ask this but i am looking for a auto set for quick video shoot that requires no edit... i prefer to edit my pics but video, i won't have time for that always :(
Just do iA (intellegent auto) at first. If you want more consistency, then eventually, you can set the white balance yourself, PPOFF. Shutterspeed 1/50 if shooting at 25fps. Set the ISO to 100 and set your aperture the way you want. You'll need an ND filter in bright sunshine.
Most lenes these days don't have image stabilization. The stabilization in the camera is much better than lens stabilization, especially e-stabilization. In fact, some lenses with stabilization actually fight the camera's IBIS giving poor results. The only time lens stabilization will be a benefit is if the camera body doesn't have stabilization.
Hi Mark! I have a big doubt about the quality of the lens. I'm considering buying the 16-25mm for my Sony APSC 6700, but I wanted to confirm if for social networks there would be a big difference in quality between that lens or the Sigma 18-55 2.8? Or even the Sony APSC 16-55 2.8? Please help me with this question.
Sony 16-25 (affiliate): geni.us/Sny1625 or geni.us/Sony1625Ado
Sigma 16-28 (affiliate): geni.us/Sigma1628Holiday or geni.us/Sig1628Ado
Tamron 17-28 (affiliate): geni.us/Tamron1728Holiday or geni.us/tam1728ad
CANADIANS: geni.us/CameraCanad
Video Shot with (affiliates):
Camera: geni.us/fx30SaleMark or geni.us/fx30adora
Lens: geni.us/sny15 or geni.us/sony15adMark
once again you are 1 step ahead of even my amazon search recommendations
I own the Tamron and I am totally satisfied. Only thing I ever wished was more zoom range. Then I got the Sony 16-35 gm, but it was too heavy and clunky. So I sold it and kept the Tamron which I am very happy with.
Really impressive comparison Mark! I agree the Sony 16-25mm would be my preferred lens out of these 3 options.
thanks, Jason!!
Still happy with my Tamron 17-28 and considering it's 5 years old, it performs well compared to its new contenders. Today I would probably go with the Sigma as it's little bit better for the same money.
I can't even afford any lenses but been watching your videos ever since you started making videos on sony zve10. I have different youtube accounts for category of content but I'm your subscriber in all of the a/c's. Love your presence!
thanks!!
Great review. I got the Tamron when it was $100 off here in the U.S. I have found it to be a very sharp lens. I wish it had an AF/MF switch, the one switch that should be mandatory on all lenses. I also think the build quality of the Tamron is very good. BTW, when looking at the backend of the Tamron, you will see that the rear elements also move when zooming. One thing in common with the Sony is the 67mm filter. Also, the zooming ring is same as Sony, the Sigma goes in reverse direction. Not a biggie.
Thank you. Just the video I wanted to see. I bought the Sony 24-50/2.8 G and planned to pair it with the Sony 16-25/2.8 G you reviewed here but hadn’t pulled the trigger yet since I did own several other wide angle zooms. This was for my travel kit with the A7CR and A7CII. Previously when I had an A7C version one I bought the Sigma 16-28/2.8 DG DN and 28-70/2.8 DG DN used but in mint condition. Fast forward to now and I see your comparison and it gave me pause with how much you seem to like the Sigma. I don’t do video right now so things like focus breathing don’t impact me. So for now I’m holding off on the Sony and will continue with the Sigma at the wide end and the Sony G in the midrange. Would really like to see you do a comparison of the Sony 24-50/2.8 G and the Sigma 28-70/2.8 DG DN. That would be great. Appreciate all your hard work you have done. Do also own the Sony 16-35/2.8 GM II and 545 grams I think it’s really not that heavy which is why didn’t jump at the Sony 16-25/2.8 G. Thank you again and take care.
I also bought the Sony 24-50 and the Viltrox 16mm 1.8
Always great to see your videos. Thank you very much
I bought this Tamron 5 years ago, and the first impression was that it's a Sony lens, but without aluminum outer casing :)
Thanks for the review. Bought the Tamron for the 67mm and 600 euros brand new with the 5 years warranty !
I just bought the Sigma 16-28 a couple of weeks ago and love it for photography, especially at the wide end. The shallow depth of field and and great looking bokeh when shooting wide open really make this lens a great purchase for me.
it’s amazing
I would do the same i no longer own the tammy great lens but slightly lacking in punch and shrpness dept. I also own still the Sig 14-24 f2.8 which is superb lens but is big and heavy so am thinking of Sig 16-28 as a walk around and keep the 14-24 for planned architecture shots etc.
Great breakdown! Thank you
Hey Mark, I just wanted to share that after months of aiming to get zve10, I finally got purchased a used a6400 with kit lens and the nifty fifty😄
Nice!! Enjoy - an amazing camera
congrats
Thanks for always being so thorough with these reviews 🙏🏻
I learned something new here about dynamic active stabilization and third party lenses that I'd never heard before. That totally makes sense if some of the additional stabilization is coming from cropping in on the sensor 💡
Great video Mark. I just picked up the Tamron 17-28 and love it. I had the Zeiss 16-35 F4 previously and I think the Tamron is better in terms of having a lower aperture and lighter body.
Got the Sony 16-25 to replace my 16-35gm vI. Love its compact size and image is great!
Yes - I held back on buying the 16-35 GM because it was too big for me - so thus is perfect.
16-35 GM used is actually cheaper than 16-25 though. I'd buy a pz 16-35 or Tamron 17-50 to complement the 16-35 GM.
Big fan of that tamron 17-28 first full frame lens I purchased. Also new zv-e10 July 10th?!? Are you excited goodness knows I am.
the Tamron is great. Fingers crossed!!
Nice stuff man!
Thanks, Shane!!
At 7:03, the Tamron looks soft compared to the sharpness of the Sigma, especially when looking at the hairs of your beard.
Hi Mark! I have a big doubt about the quality of the lens. I'm considering buying the 16-25mm for my Sony APSC 6700, but I wanted to confirm if for social networks there would be a big difference in quality between that lens or the Sigma 18-55 2.8? Or even the Sony APSC 16-55 2.8? Please help me with this question.
Thanks for the wonderful and thorough comparison. I was contemplating which of these 3 to pair with my Sony A7C2. Since I'm an amateur photographer, I settled for the Tamron due to the combination of size/weight, and price since I found a used one for half of the retail cost.
I have heard great things about that Sony lens as well. Great video!
thanks, Paul. yes, it’s my most used lens at the moment
Wow, that's a very, very good comparison. I was starting to think about buying the Sony, but the Sigma looks really impressive (even if all 3 lenses are very good). What I don't like of the Sony is the external zoom, but everything else is really great. What I would be curious to discover is the difference in the night shots, stars, Milky Way etc. I'm quite often in northern Europe and shoot northern lights and night shots in general. If Sigma is comparable with the Sony I could go with it
Always some compromise. Like 24 vs 28. 24mm to some people is essential. To me ultrawide end at 28mm vs 35mm is also quite big difference. With 35mm I can literally use 35mm to get some portrait shot without switch lens. But with 28mm I have to switch lens. I do not know. If max budget is $1000. I would probabaly go with sony 16-35 f4 pz over these choices.
Happy Camera Canada Day! Go eat a juicy beaver burger today to celebrate!
beaver burgers are in season, finally!!
Fitting a filter to the Tamron makes it 'internal zoom', weather sealing it properly that way 😊
good point!!
Totally support your choice!
After using all three you mentioned, I finally settled on the Tamron 20-40f2.8
an excellent lens!!
I have the Tamron 17-28 and have been thinking of switching to the 20-40.
It aint 16 or 17mm though and that makes a huge difference.
@@marknathan7744 That is true. For my super wide shots, I was thinking of a Viltrox 16mm f1.8.
@@marknathan7744 Yes, the difference that I don't use. And giving up on a more commonly used length 35
Hi What one do you use for clinet work or wedding's if you do paid jobs.
Hi mark, nice review. I have a few questions: is there any superzooms for APSC except the tamron 18-300? what do you thik about the tamron 18-300? is it worth or shall we wait for a year or two? if possible can you please make a review on the tamron 18-300? :)
Just got the 18-300 myself and it’s impressive for what it offers. Actually able to shoot in full frame with only a 20% crop so I’ve used it on my A7Rv in 4k60 in full frame mode essentially.
The stabilization and range are what’s impressive. I have used mostly for video so can’t speak direct to sharpness per se. But in 4k, I’m loving the image.
Other testers have compared it very favorably to the Sony 70-350 APSC lens. Tamron now has their 50-300 full frame which is just as small but I would say might be better optically.
But for the overall range, it has been fun to use and just never worry about if I can get the shot.
Tamron or sigma ?? Which one is for real estate video? Please suggest me ! Thanks
I am about to get the 16-25 Sony to replace my 16-35 gm MKI. As I also own the 35GM and the 24-70GM MKII so my 16-35 is only ever used at 16-22mm so the size and weight saving is what I am looking for.
I came to the same conclusion. I love my 35GM too much. I know every time I use the 16-35 at 35mm I'd want to use the 35GM instead. I'll deal with swapping out lenses lol.
I would rather have the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 Di III VXD Lens for Sony E. Wide enough and longer reach plus cheaper. I would go with the Sony too but then I start thinking the 16-35mm then it never stops. Cheers!
hey mark suggest me a lens for video i have 56 mm sigma i am confused with 30 and 16 which should i get next ?
I think the absolute best would be the sigma 10-18 on, let's say, an a7Rv. Way less weight. It doesn't cover the whole ff sensor, bit it's close enough (I think Mark said 12mm field of view?) so you could have a 12-28 in a very compact format
Which one would you prefer for architectural shots, and if they are going to be printed?Sony 16 35 zeiss sigma 16 28 2.8 tamron 17 28
It's interesting to see the variance in Tamron and Sigma copies, the Tamron was oddly bad here sharpness wise compared to other tests I've seen, which usually pull ahead of the Sigma.
As great as usual. Did you work with Tamron or Sigma 17/70 f2. 8? Btw any discount codes for canada camera ?
I’ve been sent loaners from tamron and sigma for other kens reviews. Tamron loaned me the 17-70 and sigma loaned me the 18-50 for review. No paid sponsorships, no free products. But both excellent companies to deal with for the loans. I wish I had a discount code for Camera Canada!! I’ll see if I can work something out with them - currently I pay full prices as well 🤣
@@MarkBennettCameraCrisis how dare they?
for several months, I've been watching and hoping for a miracle that I can purchase one of those lenses with my Sony S7CII which I am also wishing to have.😊🤞❤🙏
Did you managed to snag any of those yet? 😅
Hi Mark, isn't it true external zooms aren't as convenient to use on a gimbal? Thx😮
Usually, yes, but this one zooms so little, I don't think it will much of a problem
Am i crazy for thinking the Sigma looks slightly sharper than the Tamron?
How does the lens you use affect the burst rate of the camera?
Only newer Sony lenses will be able to shoot more than 15 frames per second. All other lenses are limited to 15 or less. So if you have an a9 or a1 series that shoots more than 15 - you will be capped at 15 with the 3rd party lenses and won’t get the full burst mode
@@MarkBennettCameraCrisis I just don't understand what the optics of a lens has to do with shutter ability of a camera body. That makes no sense to me. Did Sony just nerf the abilities when using third party lenses?
I'd picked Tamron 20-40 f/2.8 or 17-50 f/4 instead. 16-25 is a bit overpriced, costing more than 16-35 GM used.
Pick the og 16-35mm 2.8. 35 is clutch. It is for shooting people for video.
me too, the longer you use it, the more you will find out it's a hidden gem
20 is not that wide if you shoot real estate or shoot indoors
17-50 & 50-300 combo good for travel
Tamron 17-50 is pretty soft at 17mm f/4 and at 50mm f/4. Which is too bad. It's okay from 20-40mm, but what's the point when there's a 20-40mm f/2.8 already?
just the video I'm looking for. But what do you think is wider at 16mm? Some people say Sony is a bit wider but i can see on your video that Sigma is wider than Sony. This can help me decide coz i work in Real estate a small difference in focal range is important. I have the Laowa 12mm but i need a wide zoom lens for secondary cam. Thanks so much
I still like my Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art. It's an oldie but I like the range more on the Sony ZV E10.
The best ibis and handheld work is the Lumix S5 ii ?
Yes, that would be my vote for full frame
Which one to buy for sony zvE1
any will work, but if you have the budget, the Sony 16-25 will be great
Mark, what's interesting is that the Sigma 30mm f1.4 prime shows very little focus breathing. I wonder if this is a component of the variable focal lengths or is Sigma focus breathing just not as apparent as you trend towards the tele focal lengths?
it really just depends on the lens. Lots of 50’s have bad focus breathing, the Sony 35 GM has a lot of breathing. There’s no rhyme or reason
I own 1635GM1 and 2470GM2 , plan to replace 1635GM1 with 1625G because of weight and size .... do you think worth it ?
I love the size and weight of the 16-25. I would do that yes
Fantastic review! My purchase choice is a lot easier to make thanks to you. Amongst the 3 I'd go with the Sigma 16-28 f2.8 BUT I'm really tempted by another lens...the Sony 16-35 PZ f4, which would nicely cover the whole focal range along with my Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8. Have you ever used the Sony 16-35mm and what are your thoughts on it? Thanks again!
DId you buy the Sigma, I have the 35-150 too, and I'm thinking getting the 16-28
@NelsonGomes1 After that message, I researched a little more and my choice has eventually fallen upon the Sony 16-25 f2.8, which I'm very happy with as it's a fantastic lens :)
My choice is Sony16-35 f4 PZ. Excellent sharpness, internal zoom, 35mm on the narrow end, the ability to zoom from a lever on the lens or on the camera lever on some new models, low focus breathing.
an excellent lens - if you don't need the 2.8 - I think that lens is the way to go!!
The real winner.
My Lord I ordered a zv-e10 yesterday and now I get a email from Sony that there's a new ZV-series camera coming July 10th...
Those eyebrows are out of control Mark! You have my address. Please pack the Sigma and Tamron in bubble wrap this time. THANK YOU 💛
On the way
@@MarkBennettCameraCrisis Haha! Hope you are well Mark :)
Here's a question Mark. You always say you're out and about vlogging. Where? Is there a secret channel I don't know about? 😂
haha - no - but some many tests I I run for the cameras, lenses and equipment are out filming myself - so that's my version of vlogging. I have no stories to tell🤣
Mark, to my eye, the image quality between the three is a wash. In your still samples, I noticed a creamier bokeh on the Tamron.
I have the Tamron 17-28 and it has performed well for me. One major advantage of the Tamron is that its filter size matches three other Tamrons I have. This saves me lot of money when I am buying filters. I only carry one set of filters and use it on four different lenses. I wish the Tamron was wider but for a true wider coverage, I may need to go to a Sony 12-24 or a Sigma 14-24.
Yippee 🎉🎉🎉
I still believe that viltrox 13mm f1.4 lens is much better than those three 🤞🏽🤞🏽
The Viltrox is an APSC lens and a prime. These are full frame zoom lenses. But I do love that Viltrox very much
What about Sigma 14-24 2.8
I just sold that lens for the 16-25. The Sigma is a great lens but it's so heavy for what it is. It's twice the weight of the 16-25. If weight doesn't bother you, then get it. For travel or street, I'd get the 16-25 for sure.
Mark, with A7C (gen 1), do you have a video for quick video settings? I'm ashamed to ask this but i am looking for a auto set for quick video shoot that requires no edit... i prefer to edit my pics but video, i won't have time for that always :(
Just do iA (intellegent auto) at first. If you want more consistency, then eventually, you can set the white balance yourself, PPOFF. Shutterspeed 1/50 if shooting at 25fps. Set the ISO to 100 and set your aperture the way you want. You'll need an ND filter in bright sunshine.
What do you think about Nikon z6 iii
looks amazing. haven’t been able to test one yet.
Avoid.
Hey can you show us your neighbour who always mess with you 😅
one thing unites these 3 lenses, they all have castrated far end, making them all a lot less useful then a real 16-35
all the way to 35 can really be fantastic at times. But I need a small 2.8 wide zoom - so one of these three is for me.
Quite a big size difference between these lenses and a 16-35.
I'd spend my money on the Sony 16-35 f4 PZ
If you don't need 2.8, that is probably your best option, yes.
It's not just you - I find the reverse zoom on the Sony lens extremely annoying
right??
Sony for compatibility and performance. Sigma for value. Tamron is for when someone gives you one for free.
🤣
focus breathing and stabilizations kills the Tamron and sigma for me
yeah - it’s a disadvantage for sure
I didn't realize the A7cII doesn't have active dynamic stabilization!?
Just active stab. It’s good, but not as good as dynamic
None of them have image stabilization
No good for video
Most lenes these days don't have image stabilization. The stabilization in the camera is much better than lens stabilization, especially e-stabilization. In fact, some lenses with stabilization actually fight the camera's IBIS giving poor results. The only time lens stabilization will be a benefit is if the camera body doesn't have stabilization.
Hi Mark! I have a big doubt about the quality of the lens. I'm considering buying the 16-25mm for my Sony APSC 6700, but I wanted to confirm if for social networks there would be a big difference in quality between that lens or the Sigma 18-55 2.8? Or even the Sony APSC 16-55 2.8? Please help me with this question.