Good God, man, this video is EXACTLY what I needed to see, thank you for helping me make my decision. I was leaning towards the 16-35 f4 based on quality and price for real estate, now I'm going that direction.
@@GeorgeSpacesOut For MOST real estate shots, yes. Not for small bathrooms/powder rooms and small bathrooms. I do a lot of modest sized homes and I have to stitch together 2 images shot at 16mm, and I wish I had a 14mm lens.
I plan to get A7RV with Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 (crop 2X to 800mm), should I pair it with a Sony 14mm F1.8 (crop to 28mm F3.6 DOF) or 12-24mm F4 as ultrawide and everyday lens if I use them mainly for photo and for video mainly with Panasonic HC-X1500 25-600mm camcorder? I was deciding between these and Loawa 10-18, Sigma 14-24 F2.8, Sony 16-35 F4 PZ, Tamron 17-50 F4 and Sony 20 F1.8 but I think >=30mm can covered with few steps back on the tele Lena's 50mm, F2.8 is just slight better than F4 hence better get faster lens if I really need that, 17&16mm aren't wide enough for indoor, this is why I reduced to these 2 options, but will Sony update the 12-24mm F4 soon? The Power Zoom is tempting but is it essential or any of these even the fix lens can do dolly zoom just fine? And can I set profile for each lens so the pic&vid took by the golden look Tamron lenses and cooler look Sony lenses will look consistent? 14mm is better with the A7RV's cropped 4K60 with active stabilisation?
Thanks for video. You helped tip my mind towards the 16-35, (ordered today) rather than 12-24 which is where my initial instinct lay. It was your comment of "mountains as speedbumps" which resonated when referencing 12mm. I'm a new convert to Sony from Nikon and had just sold my Nikkor 14-24mm - lovely lens but heavy at 1kilo, with a bulbous front element like Sony 12-24 that isn't grad filter friendly. I did use 14mm but like your experience with 12mm often found that perspective a bit extreme.
Ricky McC a wise decision indeed because you can do focal range blending in post processing to make mountains bigger. EDIT: having a focal range of up to 35 mm will greatly benefit the focal range blending. 24 mm wasn’t enough for me.
I liked your term...' would look like a speed bump' I agree, extreme wide angle does shrink the view. I have the 12-24 on an A7r.. and use the widest 12mm from time to time but I also use the camera's 'Apsc' setting to get a whole range of extra focal lengths on the same lens. A good review thanks...
For Real Estate Or Architectural the Sony 12-24mm is BY FAR the better lense for my needs, simply b/c the ability to go ultra wide. I also own the 24-105 f4. The whole reason I went mirrorless was for lightweight and for my needs, F4 zooms, are the new F2.8s. I simply can go ISO 6400 rather than ISO 3200 with no issues at all. The Sony 12-24mm F4 is lightweight!! like half the size of the GM and you can use it on a gimbal if you do video work.. Unlike Canon 11-24 or Nikon 14-24 or sigma 12-24, this Sony is lightweight where as the others are Heavy lenses. But the reason the 12-24 F4 is superior is the ability to shoot ultra wide, and then you have the ability to FIX perspectives in POST and then CROP. to needs. Sony does not offer any Native glass with Tilt Shift mechanism.. Other than Rokinnons E mount Tilt shift, which is ok but not highest of quality build wise, but for the price the results are solid... With the 12mm you are able to shoot ultra wide and fix perspective in posts and then CROP. I sold my zeiss 16-35 f4 and kept the 12-24mm f4 G and the Sony 24-105 F4 G, which are both lightest int here class.. Compared to the F2.8 GM, the weight was the biggest issue for me going with F4 rather than 2.8.. Lastly, I got a 70-200 F4 again vs 2.8, the F4 is really sharp and lightest in its class.. Then if I need Fast Glas, I got the loxia 21mm, loxia 35mm, the zony 55mm 1.8 (DXO sharpest 55mm lense for Sony) and sony 85mm 1.8. At the end of the day, its all great glass, and it comes down to your individual needs. For myself, lightweight portability is Key vs a stop brighter in zooms. I got primes if I need low light but I think many ppl would be shocked seeing these F4 zooms from sony compared to the GM 2.8 zooms, they are right on par.. The extra reach from 16mm to 12mm is simply something I could not pass on. To each his own though... thx for video.
Thank you for watching! I couldn't agree with you more that at the end of the day, it's about one's individual needs. I'm glad the 12-24 works for you. I liked the lens myself, but in the end, I didn't really see the need for the 12-15 mm range. I missed having the flexibility of on the higher end of the focal range (35 mm max vs 24 mm), especially for landscapes.
At first, I was using this one (www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ME7N6P8/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1), but it started malfunctioning a few months after I got it, so I just use the time on my camera now.
I was in the same predicament. The only reason I'd personally need that extra stop of aperture is for astrophotography, which I hardly ever do, so I stuck with the F4.
I think using a the 12-24 in crop mode would be more ideal with a Sony a7RII and up because a7III photos in crop mode are about 10 MP, which is decent. The a7RIII in crop mode, for example, shoots 18 MP photos.
I know you are already talking about it but I have this exact dilemma now whether to go for the 12-24 f4 or the 16-35 f4. I would not want to regret that i did not get the wider lens!! I am an architectural, hotel and lifestyle photographer and I need some more help on this to address better my decision please!!! Can you make a video related to architectural photography and compare the 2 lenses side by side also in terms of image quality, sharpness, etc? Thank you!!!
What did you decide? I have the 16-35 and use it for real estate. It's fine for most shots, but not for smaller bathrooms and bedrooms. Leaning toward the 12-24.
In a perfect world, there would be a 12 - 35 mm Zeiss lens. 12mm can be great to have at times but the majority of the time 16 - 35 is far more useful. And like he said about speedbumps, sometimes you want that extra reach when 24mm isn't enough. I am very happy with my 16-35mm purchase. I recommend the F4 version unless you do a lot of astrophotography. And even then with a the Sony A7iii, the great sensor and high iso compensates somewhat for the aperture diiference with the f2.8 version.
Nice video, I have been debating whether to get the 12-24 or the 16-35GM, but the Zeiss 16-35 might actually be the better option at this point for me.
Jan Karlsson if you don’t shoot astrophotography, then the 16-35 F4 should be more than enough. The only reason I’d personally need the extra stop of aperture the GM offers is if I constantly shot astrophotography, and I don’t.
Zeiss 16-35 is a great lens(photo), good wide also for small to mid-size gimbal work(video). 12-24, preferably the GM2.8, takes advantage of the tight, interior/indoor spaces needed for real estate etc.
I am going the other way. I have the 16-35 f4 and use it daily for real estate. Every other day I wish I had bought the 12-24mm. Why? Small bathrooms. I constantly find myself squished in small spaces wishing that I could go just a BIT wider. Like 14mm. Occasionally 12. But I can’t. I’m stuck at 16mm. Also...the 12-24 is nearly rectilinear. The Zeiss is not. Even applying the LR lens profile doesn’t remove it all the way. The curve of the barrel distortion is still there. The only downside is that I do zoom to 35 for detail shots. I have had my eye on the 85mm 1.8 for that though.
Yup, small bathrooms have been the biggest challenge for me shooting RE with at 16-35. If business was booming, I'd definitely splurge and just have both. Alas, photography is mostly a hobby for me.
to use the 12mm you have to be a compositionist like annie leibovitz, i mean you have to be the landscape version of her to understand, which would be like modeling the mountain tops, sediments, and trees.
Thanks for the video. I too was undecided about the two lenses. Im leaning toward the 16-35. Stabilization would be nice and the price is a bit better. Thanks.
Thank you for watching! I personally find stabilization a bit gimmicky for such wide angle lenses, but some people do use them for dramatic portraiture and action, so I can see how IS would in handy in those situations.
"Zoom stack". Yeah, that probably came out wrong. I usually refer to it as focal length stacking. When you take a landscape photo with mountains in the background, the distortion from the lens can make mountains look much smaller. If I encounter that, I'll take two photos of the scene--one at my desired focal length, and the second one zoomed into the mountains. I'll then stack those two images together in post so I can preserve both the wide focal length of the foreground and the size of the mountains in the background.
Kinda surprised, even if you don't need the focal length from 12-16 the 12-24 f/4 is practically as sharp as the 16-35GM. The 16-35 f/4 Sony/Zeiss is a very very soft lens. Especially in the corners. That's partly why you're seeing so many on eBay for several hundred less than their new price. Zeiss makes incredible glass but the f/4 zooms originally released with Sony full frame systems are considered quite bad.
fantomfoto the 12-24 is definitely sharp. I’ve used a copy of the 16-35 that was tack sharp up until about 24 mm. The one lens that I’ve had mixed feelings about is the 24-70 F4. It’s softer than what I’d expected from a lens with a Zeiss badge.
You are SPOT ON !! I owned the Zeiss 24-70 f4 and Zeiss 16-35 F4 since they were released.. 24-70 f4 was very SOFT in corners but when it came out, that was all there was! lol! I loved it and used it alot, however, it was the 16-35 zeiss that stayed on my lense when needing shot 24-35mm b/c it was better than the 24-70.. The 16-35mm F4 was a beauty. All metal.. lightweight f4 lense.. It even had OSS from what I remembered. But with the New Releases of the GM 2.8 and then the G series which are mostly F4 lenses, the G lense badge are superior optics. The 90mm macro is one of Sony sharpest lenses.. The 2.8 GM zooms are superior optically but the WEIGHT was the problemf or me.. Where as the G badged New 24-105 F4 is as sharp as the F2.8 GM 24-70,. plus you get the extra reach which is great!! and then for the 12-24mm Sony F4 G, this is I beleive THE BEST LENSE that no one really has!! Everyone buys the 2.8 GM 16-35 which is so so HEAVY or the older Zeiss 16-35 which is softer. As for ND filters, you can use new filters from NISI, or even put filters on the REAR mount for ND filters is an option also. There are hacks out there to put 77mm or 82mm filters inside the outer element with some tape also. I believe you can get like 14mm with no vignetting.. But use rear ND gel to get full 12mm or get nisi or other manufacturers 150mm glass.. Also if you go with 150mm ND filters, that will cover every lense you buy the REST of oyur life!! youc an use step up rings then from 72mm 77mm 82mm or w/e else you got. It would be nice if Sony had designed the unit with DROP IN FILTERS but too little too late now.. AMybe int he future for a Wide angle GM release.. The new 24mm f1.4GM is the 1st lense Iw ould consider buying that is a GM b/c it is the 1st lightweight one.. All the others are simply too heavy for my needs and the G badge, is right on par QUALITY wise.. And I use the 42MP R series and the Newest glass is simply AMAZING.. They are all best in class VS compeition.. The G badges are underestimated IMHO and I prefer the G glass to the GM glass b.c of weight and also there is the price as while. The 12-24mm f4 G is my New FAV lense and for video its light enough to go ona gimbal and its all INTERNAL zoom which is simply AWESOME! its half the weight compared to its competition which is simply insane!
You can. It can be cheaper; I just find ultra wide primes to be quite niche. I can see a 16 mm prime being good for me if I exclusively shoot wide field astrophotography or wide landscapes, but at times, I've found that 16 mm isn't always ideal. I've been able to score some good landscape photos over the entire focal range of the 16-35. As far an UWA prime, I am considering a Rokinon/Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 for astrophotography. It's a very affordable lens because it's completely manual. Might as well since it's already quite difficult for AF lenses to achieve focus in dark conditions.
Let's not forget that it's a SONY/Zeiss lens, not a Zeiss. I own both (this one is pretty good don't get me wrong) but Zeiss/Zeiss lenses are on a whole new level than the Sony/Zeiss lenses and many times the price tag reflects that. Again, good lens, but not nearly as nice as my true Zeiss lenses.
The zeiss, he said this can be fixed in post. Turn around less work,the g master 16-35 blows the zeiss out of the water. Like you said,he doesn't want to wide. 12-24 nitch . Just like the 85mm g,nitch it's good for what it's made for.
If you're really on a budget then get a used Canon, Nikon or Tokina ultrawide zoom. For landscape, real-estate and architecture manual focus is fine or ever preferred most of the time. Lenses like the Canon 17-40mm or Tokina 17-35mm are real steals on eBay.
I agree with you. I've shot some real estate with a 12 mm Rokinon on an a6000 and a 14 mm Rokinon on a Canon 6D. You can definitely get away with it. The only time I find manual focus challenging is at night, but to your point, shining a flashlight at a nearby object can do the trick to achieve manual focus in dark conditions.
Sorry your explanation of why you don’t want to keep the Sony 12-24 mm is not logical.That you hardly ever shoot 12 mm or below 16mm.Whats stopping you just turning the zoom to 16 mm still giving you up to 24mm.I know you said you liked the Zeiss rendition of colour, which is more of a valid reason, as well as the difficulty of attaching filters.You seem to say you already had a Zeiss 16-35 f4 lens so what could have attracted you to the 12-24 mm initially.It’s a pity you didn’t show the difference in image quality between the both lens a bit more.I have the 16-35 and find the image quality a bit soft..
There was really no point in me having this lens if I was hardly ever shooting at below 16 mm. I also missed being able to zoom up to 35 mm. Since shooting this video, I got heavy into storm chasing and discovered that even 16 mm wasn't wide enough for me to capture supercells when I'm closer to them, so I may end up getting the 12-24 again in the future.
The 12-24 f4, is much sharper than the Ziess. (Why this is not even mentioned is odd) It's razor sharp at f/4 from 12-24. The ziess is only sharp in the center at f4 and at 35mm is bad, you can't use 35mm at f4 unless you like ghosting.
UPDATE: So I really got into storm chasing this year and I discovered that not even 16 mm is wide enough for supercells. They're much larger than I thought they'd be so I may try to get the 12-24 again before the next monsoon season starts.
Hahaha signature Zeiss pop..the nonsense bs of naive people. Oh and open your eyes ..that lens is nowhere near as sharp the as the 12-24mm and that has been tested PROFESSIONALLY
I'm sorry you had to be pedantic and disrespectful. I certainly don't appreciate it, but I hope you've had some better days since posting this because I know as a fellow human being, you can be better than this. Thank you for watching and you take care.
