Hi FolksI wondered if any of you have/had both the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM and the Sony 35mm GM f1.4?What was the performance like? obviously you can only tell at the 35mm endThe weight different is 680g vs 525g. Is that a big deal?Both are GM so quality should be exceptionalBoth are almost similarly priced. Where I am getting it from, the 16-35 is only about £100 moreIs there more focus breathing on one compared to the other?I am more a family, landscape, architecture and wildlife kind of amateur photographer. I will pair it with my A9 or may go for a smaller lighter and newer body (suggestions welcome)Perhaps the most important question I need answering, is the zoom more important than the been able to stop down to 1.4?My only experience in the past is a 55mm f1.8 Canon and the results were amazing (I used it on a crop body) and the Canon zoom lens in the 24-70 range.At the end of the day, are the pictures going to come nice enough with the 16-35 zoom? will they have good colour rendering? or will the 35mm f1.4 surpass the zoom in every aspect?Am I missing anything else here?Thanks all

S0nySh00ter wrote:Hi FolksI wondered if any of you have/had both the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM and the Sony 35mm GM f1.4?What was the performance like? obviously you can only tell at the 35mm endThe weight different is 680g vs 525g. Is that a big deal?Both are GM so quality should be exceptionalBoth are almost similarly priced. Where I am getting it from, the 16-35 is only about £100 moreIs there more focus breathing on one compared to the other?I am more a family, landscape, architecture and wildlife kind of amateur photographer. I will pair it with my A9 or may go for a smaller lighter and newer body (suggestions welcome)Perhaps the most important question I need answering, is the zoom more important than the been able to stop down to 1.4?My only experience in the past is a 55mm f1.8 Canon and the results were amazing (I used it on a crop body) and the Canon zoom lens in the 24-70 range.At the end of the day, are the pictures going to come nice enough with the 16-35 zoom? will they have good colour rendering? or will the 35mm f1.4 surpass the zoom in every aspect?Am I missing anything else here?Thanks allThis is my input and my advice. In no way do I want to sound preachy, just informative.Your question "Is  the zoom more important than being able to Open up (terminology is  stop down) to F 1.4"Yep, it is backwards in that way.  You would stop down to a smaller aperture like F 11 and open up to a larger aperture that is represented by a smaller number like F 2.8I would say the best next step is to truly understand and grasp how F stops / aperture works. How Depth of Field works and the relationship of shutter speed.Then perspective. There is a difference when you stand in one spot say at 35 mm vs physically walking to the subject. You will see the background seem to get bigger or smaller.  Take the same 35 mm from a different angle is something else.The right answer is Yes, No and Depends. This all falls on the photographer. the camera or lens cant make that decision.You further ask "at the end of the day are the pictures going to come through nice and so forth...  Again that rests more on your than the camera or lens.This depends how you edit and process the image. You will get the most control from shooting in RAW, but learning and experimenting in JPEG is what I have done.  I have been shooting since the '90's before digital was prevalent and affordable.  When first introduced it was very very expensive with tiny memory card capacities under 1 GB for the most part.Words can only describe so much here. A web site like Creative Live TV might help. Yes it might cost, but it can be worth it.  Sure, explore YouTube as well.https://www.creativelive.com/#?page=1

What other lenses do you currently have in your kit, and do you know if you generally prefer zooms or primes?I don't have the 16-35 (I use the Sigma 14-24), but I do have the 35 GM, and it's one of my favorite lenses in the system.For me, the answer here would really be both, depending on the scenario. There are plenty of times where I prefer zoom lenses because I'm likely stopping down for more depth of field anyway, and I value the versatility in focal length. Landscapes/cityscapes are a classic example here; my go-to landscape kit has no primes lenses in it, and I really value the ultra-wide zoom in that scenario.But then there are other times where I value the faster aperture of the prime lens. Most of my favorite photos of my kids, family events, candid shots, etc., are taken with a fast prime at a wide aperture. It's also super handy to have in low-light situations, especially indoors, assuming you can afford the shallower depth of field that comes with the wider aperture. Also, those GM primes consistently nail focus at wide apertures, which I really appreciate.I suppose that's not much help, but so much of this comes down to personal preference.

S0nySh00ter wrote:Hi FolksI wondered if any of you have/had both the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM and the Sony 35mm GM f1.4?What was the performance like? obviously you can only tell at the 35mm endThe weight different is 680g vs 525g. Is that a big deal?Both are GM so quality should be exceptionalBoth are almost similarly priced. Where I am getting it from, the 16-35 is only about £100 moreIs there more focus breathing on one compared to the other?I am more a family, landscape, architecture and wildlife kind of amateur photographer. I will pair it with my A9 or may go for a smaller lighter and newer body (suggestions welcome)Perhaps the most important question I need answering, is the zoom more important than the been able to stop down to 1.4?My only experience in the past is a 55mm f1.8 Canon and the results were amazing (I used it on a crop body) and the Canon zoom lens in the 24-70 range.At the end of the day, are the pictures going to come nice enough with the 16-35 zoom? will they have good colour rendering? or will the 35mm f1.4 surpass the zoom in every aspect?Am I missing anything else here?Thanks allYou compare a zoom to a prime, as apple vs orange. I am sure 35 GM is certainly noticeably sharper especially 35mm side is weak in 16-35 GM.To me a 16-35 zoom is more versatile and 16mm is much wider than 35mm. I replaced 16-35 GM with 16-35 PZ months ago and quite happy. The new PZ not only half weighted but noticeably sharper. I did a side-by-side test.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66928493I have old Sigma 35/1.4 for portrait. Used to have Loxia 35 that replaced by CV 40/1.2 Nokton in landscape/cityscape that is much better in sunstars (than 35 GM) but also lighter/smaller while MF is perfect fine in landscape/cityscape. I see two different sets of primes for different purposes, one for portrait and another for landscape/cityscape where I much prefer Voigtlander and Loxia MF lenses.

I have both and I use them for different purposes. I would NOT choose one or the other based on price, size, weight, sharpness, etc.The 16-35 GM is my favorite wide angle zoom. I also tried the 16-35 f/4 G PZ and it is sharper than the GM, and much lighter weight, but the GM has better bokeh if you're going to use it for environmental portraits at f/2.8. I didn't try any other wide angle zooms because the 16-35 focal range is very useful for me.The 35/1.4 is excellent at night or low light, or when I need fast autofocus. The 35 image quality is really superb.If I'm going to be primarily shooting people at 35 mm, then the prime gives better results. But for anything wider, the 16-35 GM is always good enough image quality for me.I don't shoot video, so I don't know or care if they have focus breathing.

I have the Sony 24-105 f/4 G and the 12-24 f/4 G.  I was considering the 16-35 f/2.8 GM for better image quality but now I am probably going to the get 35mm GM f1.4 for environmental portraits.  I loved my fast Nikon/Sigma/zeiss  primes as they just gave that special thing.

I haven't both, but my approach is a f4-zoom for flexibility plus a prime for large apertures, in this case 16-35/4 PZ G and maybe Sigma 35/2 DG DN (both together still cheaper than the 16-35/2,8 GM).

All I can say is that once I bought my 35GM, I sold my 16-35GM without any hesitation.The 16-35 is a HUGE lens and I'm much better served with a 35GM and 14mm combo.

Ryanide wrote:All I can say is that once I bought my 35GM, I sold my 16-35GM without any hesitation.The 16-35 is a HUGE lens and I'm much better served with a 35GM and 14mm combo.I was considering that combo as an option.  I think I am just going to get the Sony 35 GM as I read that it is fantastic and may be a really good travel/environmental portrait lens.  I was thinking of the Sony 1.8 G but if I am to get a prime on top of the zooms I already have that cover 35mm I might as well get the best. I don’t do much video so focus breathing is not much of an issue.

Ryanide wrote:All I can say is that once I bought my 35GM, I sold my 16-35GM without any hesitation.The 16-35 is a HUGE lens and I'm much better served with a 35GM and 14mm combo.Thanks. This is music to my ears. I also could buy the 14mm as part of a Prime Lens combo.I had a rokino 14mm prime that I used to enjoy. it was manual focus though, so no one else liked to use it.any sample images you can share as you seem to have had both at the same time?thanks for any further insight you can give.

dth29 wrote:I haven't both, but my approach is a f4-zoom for flexibility plus a prime for large apertures, in this case 16-35/4 PZ G and maybe Sigma 35/2 DG DN (both together still cheaper than the 16-35/2,8 GM).thanks. in the past, i had a 24-70 f4. i. really wasnt impressed. i promised myself, i am done with lenses at f4. hence the quest to now get the best. but then, each to their own.thanks for the comment. i will investigate the sigma 35/2 for sure

The Ryantist wrote:I have both and I use them for different purposes. I would NOT choose one or the other based on price, size, weight, sharpness, etc.The 16-35 GM is my favorite wide angle zoom. I also tried the 16-35 f/4 G PZ and it is sharper than the GM, and much lighter weight, but the GM has better bokeh if you're going to use it for environmental portraits at f/2.8. I didn't try any other wide angle zooms because the 16-35 focal range is very useful for me.The 35/1.4 is excellent at night or low light, or when I need fast autofocus. The 35 image quality is really superb.If I'm going to be primarily shooting people at 35 mm, then the prime gives better results. But for anything wider, the 16-35 GM is always good enough image quality for me.I don't shoot video, so I don't know or care if they have focus breathing.thanks and valid points.the only 2 lenses that i now own are the 70-200 f4 and the 200-600so i need to start on getting some wide lenses. i dithered and delayed for a couple of years nowcould you put some example pics of both the 35/f1.4 and the 16-35GM please? I dont think anyone has done a side by side comparison.

PWPhotography wrote:S0nySh00ter wrote:Hi FolksI wondered if any of you have/had both the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM and the Sony 35mm GM f1.4?What was the performance like? obviously you can only tell at the 35mm endThe weight different is 680g vs 525g. Is that a big deal?Both are GM so quality should be exceptionalBoth are almost similarly priced. Where I am getting it from, the 16-35 is only about £100 moreIs there more focus breathing on one compared to the other?I am more a family, landscape, architecture and wildlife kind of amateur photographer. I will pair it with my A9 or may go for a smaller lighter and newer body (suggestions welcome)Perhaps the most important question I need answering, is the zoom more important than the been able to stop down to 1.4?My only experience in the past is a 55mm f1.8 Canon and the results were amazing (I used it on a crop body) and the Canon zoom lens in the 24-70 range.At the end of the day, are the pictures going to come nice enough with the 16-35 zoom? will they have good colour rendering? or will the 35mm f1.4 surpass the zoom in every aspect?Am I missing anything else here?Thanks allYou compare a zoom to a prime, as apple vs orange. I am sure 35 GM is certainly noticeably sharper especially 35mm side is weak in 16-35 GM.To me a 16-35 zoom is more versatile and 16mm is much wider than 35mm. I replaced 16-35 GM with 16-35 PZ months ago and quite happy. The new PZ not only half weighted but noticeably sharper. I did a side-by-side test.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66928493I have old Sigma 35/1.4 for portrait. Used to have Loxia 35 that replaced by CV 40/1.2 Nokton in landscape/cityscape that is much better in sunstars (than 35 GM) but also lighter/smaller while MF is perfect fine in landscape/cityscape. I see two different sets of primes for different purposes, one for portrait and another for landscape/cityscape where I much prefer Voigtlander and Loxia MF lenses.Thanks. but i need to keep my kit bag uncrowded, so the idea is to build the prime kit slowly and also try keep a gap in focal lens. hence thinking the 35/f1.4 will be a good first investment and torn by the knowledge that i will not get the zoomso wondering if i am going to miss the zoom more or the bokeh of the 1.4 more?

The Lamentable Lens wrote:What other lenses do you currently have in your kit, and do you know if you generally prefer zooms or primes?I don't have the 16-35 (I use the Sigma 14-24), but I do have the 35 GM, and it's one of my favorite lenses in the system.For me, the answer here would really be both, depending on the scenario. There are plenty of times where I prefer zoom lenses because I'm likely stopping down for more depth of field anyway, and I value the versatility in focal length. Landscapes/cityscapes are a classic example here; my go-to landscape kit has no primes lenses in it, and I really value the ultra-wide zoom in that scenario.i have the 70-200 f4 and the 200-600. these go with the A9i used to have a 24-70 f4 and a 14mm wide angle MF in the past (but that was a video lens)i dont do landscape much nowadays, but if I did and needed to stop down more, then a zoom would be an excellent choice.for landscapes and astro, i am thinking of getting a 14mm in the futureBut then there are other times where I value the faster aperture of the prime lens. Most of my favorite photos of my kids, family events, candid shots, etc., are taken with a fast prime at a wide aperture. It's also super handy to have in low-light situations, especially indoors, assuming you can afford the shallower depth of field that comes with the wider aperture. Also, those GM primes consistently nail focus at wide apertures, which I really appreciate.this does help as these are the things I want to focus on right now. it helps to know the prime will shine in these situations.I suppose that's not much help, but so much of this comes down to personal preference.thanks for your thoughts!

LenRivers wrote:S0nySh00ter wrote:Hi FolksI wondered if any of you have/had both the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM and the Sony 35mm GM f1.4?What was the performance like? obviously you can only tell at the 35mm endThe weight different is 680g vs 525g. Is that a big deal?Both are GM so quality should be exceptionalBoth are almost similarly priced. Where I am getting it from, the 16-35 is only about £100 moreIs there more focus breathing on one compared to the other?I am more a family, landscape, architecture and wildlife kind of amateur photographer. I will pair it with my A9 or may go for a smaller lighter and newer body (suggestions welcome)Perhaps the most important question I need answering, is the zoom more important than the been able to stop down to 1.4?My only experience in the past is a 55mm f1.8 Canon and the results were amazing (I used it on a crop body) and the Canon zoom lens in the 24-70 range.At the end of the day, are the pictures going to come nice enough with the 16-35 zoom? will they have good colour rendering? or will the 35mm f1.4 surpass the zoom in every aspect?Am I missing anything else here?Thanks allThis is my input and my advice. In no way do I want to sound preachy, just informative.Your question "Is the zoom more important than being able to Open up (terminology is stop down) to F 1.4Yep, it is backwards in that way. You would stop down to a smaller aperture like F 11 and open up to a larger aperture that is represented by a smaller number like F 2.8yeah, its been a while so i got the terminology wrongI would say the best next step is to truly understand and grasp how F stops / aperture works. How Depth of Field works and the relationship of shutter speed.i do know the relationships, without which you cant really do bird photography by keeping in manual mode.Then perspective. There is a difference when you stand in one spot say at 35 mm vs physically walking to the subject. You will see the background seem to get bigger or smaller. Take the same 35 mm from a different angle is something else.yes, a good valid point. but here, my experience isnt as solid as it should have been. and i guess, unless i get both lenses and compare side by side, i wont really learn. but does it matter with the zoom from only 16 to the 34mm? i mean, i can understand the argument if it was a 24-70 to a 35mm comparison.. please clarifyThe right answer is Yes, No and Depends. This all falls on the photographer. the camera or lens cant make that decision.You further ask "at the end of the day are the pictures going to come through nice and so forth... Again that rests more on your than the camera or lens.This depends how you edit and process the image. You will get the most control from shooting in RAW, but learning and experimenting in JPEG is what I have done. I have been shooting since the '90's before digital was prevalent and affordable. When first introduced it was very very expensive with tiny memory card capacities under 1 GB for the most part.yup. i always shoot RAW, no point doing JPEG as almost every image needs to be touched a bit. true that after you have 500 images, you have to sweat to cut them to like 20. but that's the gameWords can only describe so much here. A web site like Creative Live TV might help. Yes it might cost, but it can be worth it. Sure, explore YouTube as well.https://www.creativelive.com/#?page=1will check that out. always good to invest in good knowledge. the payback comes in timeoverall, thanks for your thoughts. you have always had good feedback!

S0nySh00ter wrote:PWPhotography wrote:S0nySh00ter wrote:Hi FolksI wondered if any of you have/had both the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM and the Sony 35mm GM f1.4?What was the performance like? obviously you can only tell at the 35mm endThe weight different is 680g vs 525g. Is that a big deal?Both are GM so quality should be exceptionalBoth are almost similarly priced. Where I am getting it from, the 16-35 is only about £100 moreIs there more focus breathing on one compared to the other?I am more a family, landscape, architecture and wildlife kind of amateur photographer. I will pair it with my A9 or may go for a smaller lighter and newer body (suggestions welcome)Perhaps the most important question I need answering, is the zoom more important than the been able to stop down to 1.4?My only experience in the past is a 55mm f1.8 Canon and the results were amazing (I used it on a crop body) and the Canon zoom lens in the 24-70 range.At the end of the day, are the pictures going to come nice enough with the 16-35 zoom? will they have good colour rendering? or will the 35mm f1.4 surpass the zoom in every aspect?Am I missing anything else here?Thanks allYou compare a zoom to a prime, as apple vs orange. I am sure 35 GM is certainly noticeably sharper especially 35mm side is weak in 16-35 GM.To me a 16-35 zoom is more versatile and 16mm is much wider than 35mm. I replaced 16-35 GM with 16-35 PZ months ago and quite happy. The new PZ not only half weighted but noticeably sharper. I did a side-by-side test.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66928493I have old Sigma 35/1.4 for portrait. Used to have Loxia 35 that replaced by CV 40/1.2 Nokton in landscape/cityscape that is much better in sunstars (than 35 GM) but also lighter/smaller while MF is perfect fine in landscape/cityscape. I see two different sets of primes for different purposes, one for portrait and another for landscape/cityscape where I much prefer Voigtlander and Loxia MF lenses.Thanks. but i need to keep my kit bag uncrowded, so the idea is to build the prime kit slowly and also try keep a gap in focal lens. hence thinking the 35/f1.4 will be a good first investment and torn by the knowledge that i will not get the zoomso wondering if i am going to miss the zoom more or the bokeh of the 1.4 more?For me in general not specific to two lenses you mentioned is that zoom and prime complement each other, one doesn't substitute another. Therefore I own bunch of zoom and prime lenses and going to add another two zoom soon (after sold others) - 20-70 G and 70-200 GM II in next few months before the big Africa trip in August.In addition I differentiate prime lenses into two groups, one mainly for portrait and another mainly for landscape (where I chose MF Voigtlander and Loxia).

S0nySh00ter wrote:Hi FolksI wondered if any of you have/had both the Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM and the Sony 35mm GM f1.4?What was the performance like? obviously you can only tell at the 35mm endThe weight different is 680g vs 525g. Is that a big deal?Both are GM so quality should be exceptionalBoth are almost similarly priced. Where I am getting it from, the 16-35 is only about £100 moreIs there more focus breathing on one compared to the other?I am more a family, landscape, architecture and wildlife kind of amateur photographer. I will pair it with my A9 or may go for a smaller lighter and newer body (suggestions welcome)Perhaps the most important question I need answering, is the zoom more important than the been able to stop down to 1.4?My only experience in the past is a 55mm f1.8 Canon and the results were amazing (I used it on a crop body) and the Canon zoom lens in the 24-70 range.At the end of the day, are the pictures going to come nice enough with the 16-35 zoom? will they have good colour rendering? or will the 35mm f1.4 surpass the zoom in every aspect?Am I missing anything else here?Thanks allI have both lenses - and an excellent copy of the 16-35/2.8 GM (which is notoriously unpredictable at the long end). The 16-35 is an outstanding performer, with great colors and sharpness. I have an album of photos with it here:https://flic.kr/s/aHsmgZGDCDThe Sony 35/1.4 GM is considered the best 35 in existence by many. It will likely be sharper and with equal or better colors (in truth, I almost never shoot with it, but cannot bring myself to sell it).If you want to shoot at 35, get the 35, you will never be disappointed. If you want a lens that goes wide - where the 16-35 is strongest - and 2.8 is enough, look at the 16-35GM (or wait for the new version to come out in a month or two and get a used one).While primes to zooms are not always apples to oranges, in this case, it really is. For instance, you could look at the excellent 24-70/2.8 GM II instead, which is probably stronger at 35 and offers you flexibility on each side. I think you only get the 16-35 if you want the wide end.

travelinbri_74 wrote:While primes to zooms are not always apples to oranges, in this case, it really is. For instance, you could look at the excellent 24-70/2.8 GM II instead, which is probably stronger at 35 and offers you flexibility on each side. I think you only get the 16-35 if you want the wide end.So true, which is why I have not done a head to head comparison. Either lens is objectively great at what it is.OP: I saw you used to have a manual 14 mm lens and a 24-70? So only you can decide if you want an apple or an orangeI have both, and use both.I will say that I've been using zooms more than primes lately, and I could imagine traveling with just the 16-35 and a telephoto as long as I don't need the really low light capabilities.

The Ryantist wrote:travelinbri_74 wrote:While primes to zooms are not always apples to oranges, in this case, it really is. For instance, you could look at the excellent 24-70/2.8 GM II instead, which is probably stronger at 35 and offers you flexibility on each side. I think you only get the 16-35 if you want the wide end.So true, which is why I have not done a head to head comparison. Either lens is objectively great at what it is.OP: I saw you used to have a manual 14 mm lens and a 24-70? So only you can decide if you want an apple or an orangeI have both, and use both.I will say that I've been using zooms more than primes lately, and I could imagine traveling with just the 16-35 and a telephoto as long as I don't need the really low light capabilities.I know what you mean.  Flexibility is nice with zooms but when you want that just that bit of special! I don’t know maybe you can achieve that in post.  I will say there is something about the simplicity of having just one fixed focal length.

Padsterman wrote:Ryanide wrote:All I can say is that once I bought my 35GM, I sold my 16-35GM without any hesitation.The 16-35 is a HUGE lens and I'm much better served with a 35GM and 14mm combo.I was considering that combo as an option. I think I am just going to get the Sony 35 GM as I read that it is fantastic and may be a really good travel/environmental portrait lens. I was thinking of the Sony 1.8 G but if I am to get a prime on top of the zooms I already have that cover 35mm I might as well get the best. I don’t do much video so focus breathing is not much of an issue.The Sony 35 1.4GM is my favorite lens and stays on the camera most of the time. It is a great buy. Super sharp and detailed and quite flexible since you can blow out backgrounds, if you want.The 16-35GM is not even close to this lens @ 35mm in quality or size. Initially I thought it was going to be my one perfect lens, but that never happened.And the Sony 14mm is incredible. Sharpness in another league and again, small in size.