I believe the timeline is very important so you can skip the parts that you don't care about. Lens Flare test for example means nothing to me but I include it in my videos cause it matters to some people
You might be interested in watching this video as well Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Zeiss 16-35mm f4 DEEP REVIEW ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ir57at3-mSE.html
Thank you for such a concise review. It's rare that reviewers are this much to the point. I enjoyed your choices of images to compare. They seemed to be quite real world. Personally, I am surprised that an old lens (2014) like the Zeiss is compared (favorably so) to a more modern and more expensive lens like the G master. It's a testament to good lens design. I would like to see if the Zeiss can stand up when compared on an A74.
Thank you for watching mate. I like to make honest reviews, where I put myself in the viewer's shoes. Check this video as well: Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Zeiss 16-35mm f4 DEEP REVIEW ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ir57at3-mSE.html
I’ve had the Zeiss 16-35 for awhile and find it to be a brilliant lens for city and landscape and interiors. It’s sharp as hell and I really appreciate the build quality!
Great comparison vid! I’ve had the Zeiss 16-35 for awhile now and find it to be a brilliant lens for cityscape, landscape and interiors! Good build quality too.
Good choice! Later I switched to Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 check out this one: Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Zeiss 16-35mm f4 DEEP REVIEW ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ir57at3-mSE.html
I’m surprised that there was no noticeable additional video stabilization with the Zeiss OSS. I keep hearing that it makes quite a difference with handheld and Sony’s new active mode.
Very well put together video. It was very well thought out, the pacing was nice, production very high and very easy to follow. Well done! Liked and subbed!
Godspeed Journeys I really appreciate the approach. Glad you like the content. Im currently preparing another video Zeiss vs Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 Shall be done by the end of this month :)
Excellent comparison, guys! I have a question...As a landscape and product STILLS X-T3 shooter (no video), I have been debating on selling my Fuji kit (reluctantly), and moving into FF, specifically the Sony a7Rlll and lenses like the Sony 16-35 f/4, and the 90mm f/2.8 G Macro . Since I shoot 99% tripod-mounted, neither IBIS nor video interests me. So, my question is, for large print output (around 24"x 36" prints), how much of an improvement in terms of image sharpness, detail rendition, dynamic range, base ISO performance, etc., would I see over the already excellent X-T3 (combined with the ultra-sharp Fujinon XF80mm f/2.8 Macro lens), when using the a7Rlll and the Sony 90mm f/2.8 G Macro or Sony 16-35 f/4 tripod-mounted? Thanks!
Hi steve. I didn't use the X-T3. I know it's a great camera. Elia Locardi uses Fuji camera for most of his Landscape and cityscape projects. Art doesn't need expensive camera. I made most of my landscape portfolio with Canon 6D. www.omarghomrawi.com/photography So if you're doing that type of work you're satisfied with Fuji, I believe stick with what you have and save some money.
@@OmaGhomrawi Hi Oma. Thank you for your sound advice! And yes, if I wasn't an insatiable "pixel peeper" obsessed with image sharpness and detail, I certainly like your suggestion. However, I''ve been on the Fuji X-System for about 8 years now, and think I've reached the limit if print detail with my good exposure/post processing techniques. Hence, my desire to move to FF...either with the Sony a7Rlll or the Nikon Z7. I did hear some folks say that Sony bodies have a "sensor dust" issue. Have you found this? Thanks again!
Big thank for for your video. I do really like the way you compare, it's very details. I pick the Zeiss over the Gmaster because of weight and cheaper. Subscribed.
Do you think the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm will be as sharp as the GM on a Sony a7R IV? I will mostly shoot f/8 - f/11, so I don’t need the wide aperture, but I’m afraid that it doesn’t resolve as much of the sensor. It would be nice to save some money, so I can use the rest on a prime.
I never tested both lenses on a7r iv You might be interested in watching this video as well ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6AurZAIJWug.html Tamron 17-28 f2.8 vs 16-35 G Master vs Sony Zeiss f4 | Ultimate REVIEW
Oma Ghomrawi Thanks. Yeah, I understand. The Sigma 14-24mm is probably the best for my use for architecture. But sometimes I also do landscapes and might need filters. I haven’t really used filters before, but it’s nice to avoid glare, reflections or getting a longer exposure. Maybe the GM is it. You can probably tell a significant difference on the Sony a7R IV compared to the Sony a7 III.
Check this one may fill the gap you're looking for Tamron 17-28 f2.8 vs 16-35 G Master vs Sony Zeiss f4 | Ultimate REVIEW ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6AurZAIJWug.html
I think for most shooters, the Zeiss would be a no brainer. However, if you are doing professional work, especially interior shots for real estate, etc, I would think you'd want the GM because corner to corner sharpness and no vignetting is so important and those issues are not something you can really fix in post. Other than specific professional lines of work in which you need that, the Zeiss seems like the obvious choice. For a real estate photographer, GM seems to be a considerably better choice. Curious what your thoughts are because I am trying to make this decision at this very moment, and my main purpose for needing a 16mm is for real estate interior. It's also why I just watched your comparison. Feed back appreciated, and great video! Thanks
Thank you for watching mate :) I started feeling in Love with Tamron 17-28mm f2.8. I bought it first in order to test it and make a review but I decided go keep it and sell Zeiss Check my review here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ir57at3-mSE.html
As a real estate photographer and videographer, I'm still using the Zeiss because I do other kinds of work as well and don't want to sink a whole bunch of my budget into one lens. I've used the GM for real estate and it's clearly the better option, but that f/2.8 is usually not necessary for real estate. When it is, I just rent the GM or a 14mm 1.8.
You might be interested in watching this one ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ir57at3-mSE.html Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Zeiss 16-35mm f4 DEEP REVIEW
Jack Major you might be interested in watching this one as well: Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Zeiss ! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ir57at3-mSE.html
Excellent comparison. I have the 16-35/4 and I like it. The image quality for both lenses is very close on these 24mp A7III bodies. I wonder if the GM would improve with a 42mp sensor like I use. I was suprised the Zeiss handles flare better. This is very important with wide to ultra wide shooting to me.
true that you can have both 16-35 zeiss and samyang/rokinon 35 1.4. but how about astro? 16-35 2.8 can get nice astro and lowlight video. and what about when you do travel a lot and can't afford to change lens? sometimes the client would only give you like few minutes to shoot before you go to the next area.. the GM gives you that much of versatility having to bring only 1 lens and can do it all. prime lenses are best if you have all the time to prepare and get the best shot. each lenses serves it's purpose. if you have all the time to prepare, and doesn't shoot that much in lowlight then 16-35 zeiss would be enough.
Oma Ghomrawi good for you. i didn't like 17-28 when i tested it. main issue is it can't be your 1 lens for travel. you will want to swap lenses due to 28mm is not a good focal length vs 35. and 16mm vs 17mm is noticeable when on tight spaces. after renting and trying it, i've decided not taking it. if only tamron made identical focal length, it would be great similar to the case of 28-75 vs 24-70. i have the tamron 28-75 by the way :)
Thanks! You might be interested in watching this one as well.. Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Zeiss 16-35mm f4 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ir57at3-mSE.html
@@suhasm8779 Zeiss has soft image quality at 35mm, while 16mm is pretty sharp. Try to clean the lens, check your focus, use proper shutter speed: 1/100 when shooting 50fps.
Which combination is best for staring landscape photography Canon EOS R + EF16-35 F4L Or Sony A73 + Zies 16-35 F4. My first choices is canon but i am confused because there is no IBIS
You might be interested in watching this one as well: Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 vs Zeiss 16-35mm f4 DEEP REVIEW ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ir57at3-mSE.html
