As always, solid content. I like that Sony seems to be filling every possible gap in their lens line-up to the point of overkill. I have the 16-35PZ4, and while I like the idea of faster glass always, in the wide angle range (for me) I'm generally stopping down the lens more often than not. So f2.8 becomes less of a need. If I was journalist, low light capability would be a key factor, but then I would likely miss the extra zoom to 35mm. And for Astro-photography, want something faster than f2.8 as well. I'll also add that I do find it convenient to have lenses with a bit of overlap in focal lengths, so that on days I want to carry one or two lenses only, I don't feel like I need to constantly changing lenses to get the focal length I want.
Great video as always - thanks for the comparisons. One thing you might consider regarding the reverse protrusion is which focal length you shoot more at, the 16mm end or the 24mm end. If you shoot a higher percentage of photos at the 24mm end, having the lens compact at 24mm as the default position makes more sense. This might be the logic behind the reverse protrusion design.
The reverse zoom to me is a non-issue to me if you plan to use the lens and not worry about how others perceive you. I use this lens with my A7CR and with both the 24-50/2.8 G and on my A7RV with the 24-70/2.8 GM II. Take care.
lol, overlapping frivolous range. That’s funny. Bit true. But funny. But seriously having that overlap can prevent a lot of lens changing, as I’m sure you know! Thanks for your thoughts on this.
I’m not sure who this lens is for. The one prime you didn’t mention is the excellent and small 24G/f2.8. At $1,200, it’s a hard sell. I understand the appeal of the 24-50, but this 16-25 makes no sense to me.
should probably use that lens more often, have nice memories using that one for travel. The range of the 16-25 is a bit limiting, but I'm sure that incidental wide users can appreciate it as a "just in case" type of lens for events and whatnot.
The lens is probably for people who as yet don't have the UW range covered. I have the tamron 17-28 & the sigma 20mm f2. I got the tamron almost new for 500$ and the sigma new for slightly under 500 at a deal. I also have the tamron 24mm f2.8 & love it for the macro and sharpness. So though I enjoy what sony keeps bringing out I am not inclined to spend the extra. Also the lenses that I have perform extremely well for what I require & I am using them on an a7r5. There is a kind of threshold point of sharpness
Thanks for the video. While I have Sony’s 16-36/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 GM II I do want a smaller set of lenses for the compact C bodies I’m now using a lot. I’m considering the 24-50/2.8 G but for wider I currently have the Sigma 16-28/2.8 which is not much bigger and has internal zoom which I like. Admit I like the aperture ring and focus hold features that now is on almost every Sony lens so we will see if I upgrade to this. Also admit I prefer f/2.8 to f/4 and not a fan of PZ controls.Admit that the 24-50/2.8 pairs well with the 20/1.8 G for most of what I really shoot. Take care.
A lens that’s not of the G Master series, that zooms only 9mm And cost 1200$ ? They might as well hold us at gunpoint and steal our wallets. If you only sneeze, you will move your head forward to cover that 9mm.
I hadnt considered 9mm lol. To be fair, it is on the wide end and those 9mm make up 25 degrees in fov. 16-35 has 44 degree fov coverage, 24-70 has around 50 degree coverage, however, telephotos have even less, the 100-400 has a 18degree coverage area, but yeah, the coverage is low, even the Tamron 20-40 has a coverage of 38 degrees, and that is regarded as low by many. Sigma's 16-28 has around 32 degrees of coverage, 3mm in that range can make a meaningful difference.
