I’m looking at switching over to E mount, specifically the a7R V, and wanted to get some second opinions on the UWA situation for Sony.I’m starting from a blank slate, lens wise, other than the 20-70. I’d like a wide angle for a mix of travel, travel architecture (doesn’t need to be hyper corrected), landscapes, and some commercial stuff like car interiors. Filters are unnecessary, and I’m not afraid of flare unless it’s wildly uncontrolled.With those factors in mind, I’m looking at the following models:Sony 12-24 f/4 - seems to be the best “one lens” option, but doesn’t get rave reviews for IQ. New, it also feels slightly expensive.Sony 12-24 f/2.8 - speaking of expensive, this lens only really makes it into the list because it could pull like triple duty as a UWA zoom and a fast enough 14 and 20mm for astro use, thereby justifying the price vs a f/4 and a 20 f/1.8, for example. It’s also quite big for travel carry, and isn’t an option I’m particularly enthusiastic about - is the IQ that good to do everything I’d need of it?Sony 16-35 PZ - a slight downgrade from my current kit in terms of FOV. Sound like it has good IQ though, and the PZ aspect is interesting for video/gimbal use. Would need to supplement with something wider to avoid feeling like I’m losing capability though. Maybe a MF prime at 12mm or similar? Also, feels a bit crazy to get a whole extra lens for the 16-20mm range, then still add another for <16mm.Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 DG DN - good IQ, OK range, good price all things considered, but pretty big. Despite good reviews, I don’t see this lens get namechecked a lot in discussions. Is there a hidden issue to it?Sony 14mm f/1.8 - quite cool for Astro, but big and less useful for my commercial work, where some zoom range would come in handy. This is a down-the-road bonus lens in my mind.Is there any option I’m missing? If you were building a Sony kit, what option(s) would you choose?

I currently have the three widest Voigtlander fully manual, full electronic primes: 10mm F5.6, 12mm F5.6, and 15mm F4.5. They are small and nice to operate. They have native electronic benefits like 5-axis stabilization, Lens Compensation, and MF Assist.I did try a 12-24mm F4 G, and it was clearly better in the corners than the Voigtlanders. But this one had some alignment issues.This is decent guide:https://phillipreeve.net/blog/user-guide-ultra-wideangle-lenses-sony-alpha-7-series/

Seehttps://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/It includes links to reviews of each lens, with numerous full resolution photos so that you can judge and compare for yourself.

My own choice is the PZ 16-35. Very good, light & compact, it's  also usually the wide half of my travelling/cycling/hiking/trekking kit.I quite rarely use lenses wider than 16mm, but I do have a Voigtländer 12 5.6, which has very nice contrast, flare resistance, sunstars and reasonable size & weight. Extreme corners never get perfect, but that's very rarely noticeable in real photographs.I'm tempted by the GM 14, but that's mostly a case of GAS, since, apart from astro, I can just crop the 12mm...

With the 20-70 already in your kit, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to add the 16-35.There's a Samyang AF 14mm f/2.8 that hasn't been mentioned.  Haven't used it, so I can't say much else.

I had the 12-24 f/4 and was happy with it until I saw the results from the 12-24 f/2.8. The newer lens is superior in every way! The extra expense and weight are most assuredly justified.The 14mm has been more useful than I ever imagined, especially in dimly-lit situations and for astro. Smaller and lighter than the 12-24, too.

Why not just start with the 20-70 f4 and see if you really need the ultra wide end below 20mm. I have the 12-24 2.8 gm and it is an absolute masterpiece in every way esp with handling flare and getting the sharpest corners but it is not so easy to carry around and not the cheapest. But its def much better than the f4 version.I would think the 20-70 will serve you pretty darn well for most of your shooting but the difference between 20 and 12 is massive esp when shooting indoors. If i started with that lens i would think about adding a fast prime like the 14 gm which can come very handy for those low light situations and astro. I definitely also am a fan of smaller lighter primes like the 20 1.8g just such an incredible optics package you can toss in your bag. Adding a 16-35pz wouldn't make much sense if i had the 20-70 but there is a noticle difference between 16 and 20 for sure. I have the 16-35 gm and havent used it that much after getting the 20 1.8g and 24-70 gm ii (loving this combo).The great thing is that you joining at a really good time where we are so spoiled for choices you tend to have GAS often 😂

ADCImagery wrote:I’m looking at switching over to E mount, specifically the a7R V, and wanted to get some second opinions on the UWA situation for Sony.I’m starting from a blank slate, lens wise, other than the 20-70. I’d like a wide angle for a mix of travel, travel architecture (doesn’t need to be hyper corrected), landscapes, and some commercial stuff like car interiors. Filters are unnecessary, and I’m not afraid of flare unless it’s wildly uncontrolled.With those factors in mind, I’m looking at the following models:Sony 12-24 f/4 - seems to be the best “one lens” option, but doesn’t get rave reviews for IQ. New, it also feels slightly expensive.Sony 12-24 f/2.8 - speaking of expensive, this lens only really makes it into the list because it could pull like triple duty as a UWA zoom and a fast enough 14 and 20mm for astro use, thereby justifying the price vs a f/4 and a 20 f/1.8, for example. It’s also quite big for travel carry, and isn’t an option I’m particularly enthusiastic about - is the IQ that good to do everything I’d need of it?Sony 16-35 PZ - a slight downgrade from my current kit in terms of FOV. Sound like it has good IQ though, and the PZ aspect is interesting for video/gimbal use. Would need to supplement with something wider to avoid feeling like I’m losing capability though. Maybe a MF prime at 12mm or similar? Also, feels a bit crazy to get a whole extra lens for the 16-20mm range, then still add another for <16mm.I did that with my Laowa 11/4.5 & Tamron 17-28/2.8, but A) I'm shooting for pleasure and B) I don't shoot a 20/24/28-xxx zoom at all, if I carry a second zoom it's the Tamron 50-400. The 11/4.5 & 17-28 (or a Sony 16-35/4 G) together still weigh lesstogetherthan most of the higher end zooms you're looking at tho, so there's that... But if you need 12mm or even 14mm for commercial work then the Sony 12-xx zooms (or the Sigma 14-24 if you don't mind the relative bulk) will end up beating any of the manual UWA primes.I've splurged on my wide primes instead (20G / 35GM) and I really enjoy having a mix of both even if my E mount kit is way more lopsided towards primes than my previous M4/3 kit, I always kinda figured it'd be that way. I'm pretty size conscious so if I was in your shoes I'd go with the 12-24 f4 or the 14GM depending on whether you need the zoom flexibility or the low light ability more, both seem like they'd be more enjoyable to travel with alongside the 20-70 G than the rest.I wanted to retain filter use and more of a walkabout range on my UWA zoom but that's not really an issue with the 20-70 in tow, a 1.25x crop of the 14GM to ~18mm is still good for nearly 40MP on your body so the 12-24's main advantage would be going to 12-13mm.

QuietOC wrote:I currently have the three widest Voigtlander fully manual, full electronic primes: 10mm F5.6, 12mm F5.6, and 15mm F4.5. They are small and nice to operate. They have native electronic benefits like 5-axis stabilization, Lens Compensation, and MF Assist.I did try a 12-24mm F4 G, and it was clearly better in the corners than the Voigtlanders. But this one had some alignment issues.This is decent guide:https://phillipreeve.net/blog/user-guide-ultra-wideangle-lenses-sony-alpha-7-series/Thanks for the link to an interesting site - very thorough. Surprising that they don't have hands on experience with some of the more common lenses, yet extensive testing of the more esoteric ones.

ADCImagery wrote:QuietOC wrote:I currently have the three widest Voigtlander fully manual, full electronic primes: 10mm F5.6, 12mm F5.6, and 15mm F4.5. They are small and nice to operate. They have native electronic benefits like 5-axis stabilization, Lens Compensation, and MF Assist.I did try a 12-24mm F4 G, and it was clearly better in the corners than the Voigtlanders. But this one had some alignment issues.This is decent guide:https://phillipreeve.net/blog/user-guide-ultra-wideangle-lenses-sony-alpha-7-series/Thanks for the link to an interesting site - very thorough. Surprising that they don't have hands on experience with some of the more common lenses, yet extensive testing of the more esoteric ones.They tend to review far far more primes than zooms and many of the writers have a predilection for MF stuff, but it's still a great resource with some great photogs.

Sevan wrote:Why not just start with the 20-70 f4 and see if you really need the ultra wide end below 20mm. I have the 12-24 2.8 gm and it is an absolute masterpiece in every way esp with handling flare and getting the sharpest corners but it is not so easy to carry around and not the cheapest. But its def much better than the f4 version.I would think the 20-70 will serve you pretty darn well for most of your shooting but the difference between 20 and 12 is massive esp when shooting indoors. If i started with that lens i would think about adding a fast prime like the 14 gm which can come very handy for those low light situations and astro. I definitely also am a fan of smaller lighter primes like the 20 1.8g just such an incredible optics package you can toss in your bag. Adding a 16-35pz wouldn't make much sense if i had the 20-70 but there is a noticle difference between 16 and 20 for sure. I have the 16-35 gm and havent used it that much after getting the 20 1.8g and 24-70 gm ii (loving this combo).The great thing is that you joining at a really good time where we are so spoiled for choices you tend to have GAS often 😂I know I need something wider than 20, even just for my commercial work - stitching a pano or whatever is untenable for real estate/ car interiors.

I commented over on FM....but figured I'd post my take on your list here.Sony 12-24/4 G - While I've never shot one, it's one of the earlier Sony lenses...and we know how much Sony has improved over the past couple of years.   While it's smallest and lightest of the <16mm zooms, I'm not sure it's going to live up to your expectations for sharpness.   And as you note, it isn't cheap.Sony 12-24/2.8 GM - The biggest and heaviest in your list, again I've never shot it, but it's supposed to be wonderful.   It's also the most expensive, but it does give you 12mm and is also faster than the G.Sony 16-35/4 PZ - Seems like a tough sell given your 20-70/4 G.   I guess if you don't like switching lenses, you could make an argument, but the overlap is quite large.   And if you have to then also buy something wider, I'm not sure it makes sense.   I guess it would pair well with the 14/1.8 GM, but then you still don't have 12mm like the choices above.Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN - I do have this lens, and I shoot it on an a7R V.   Extremely happy with this lens, and it has pretty much replaced my primes in the range, it's that good.   (I have the Laowa 15/2, Batis 18/2.8, Loxia 21/2.8, GM 24/1.4 and Batis 25/2....just for reference).   It's a little bigger than the 12-24/4 G and heavier as well.   But it is slightly smaller and lighter than the 12-24/2.8 GM.Sony 14/1.8 GM - I have not shot this lens, but it gives you speed if you want to shoot astro.   Not as flexible as the zooms above, but smaller and lighter.   It's not 12mm if that's important, so the Sony zooms have the advantage there.My recommendation would be the 12-24/2.8 GM if you have to have 12mm and you don't mind spending the money.   Or the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN if you don't absolutely need 12mm and you are cost conscious.   The money you save could be put towards another high quality prime (or zoom) if you still feel you have a gap in your lenses.ADCImagery wrote:I’m looking at switching over to E mount, specifically the a7R V, and wanted to get some second opinions on the UWA situation for Sony.I’m starting from a blank slate, lens wise, other than the 20-70. I’d like a wide angle for a mix of travel, travel architecture (doesn’t need to be hyper corrected), landscapes, and some commercial stuff like car interiors. Filters are unnecessary, and I’m not afraid of flare unless it’s wildly uncontrolled.With those factors in mind, I’m looking at the following models:Sony 12-24 f/4 - seems to be the best “one lens” option, but doesn’t get rave reviews for IQ. New, it also feels slightly expensive.Sony 12-24 f/2.8 - speaking of expensive, this lens only really makes it into the list because it could pull like triple duty as a UWA zoom and a fast enough 14 and 20mm for astro use, thereby justifying the price vs a f/4 and a 20 f/1.8, for example. It’s also quite big for travel carry, and isn’t an option I’m particularly enthusiastic about - is the IQ that good to do everything I’d need of it?Sony 16-35 PZ - a slight downgrade from my current kit in terms of FOV. Sound like it has good IQ though, and the PZ aspect is interesting for video/gimbal use. Would need to supplement with something wider to avoid feeling like I’m losing capability though. Maybe a MF prime at 12mm or similar? Also, feels a bit crazy to get a whole extra lens for the 16-20mm range, then still add another for <16mm.Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 DG DN - good IQ, OK range, good price all things considered, but pretty big. Despite good reviews, I don’t see this lens get namechecked a lot in discussions. Is there a hidden issue to it?Sony 14mm f/1.8 - quite cool for Astro, but big and less useful for my commercial work, where some zoom range would come in handy. This is a down-the-road bonus lens in my mind.Is there any option I’m missing? If you were building a Sony kit, what option(s) would you choose?

i appreciate the thorough rundown of the options. It’s looking more and more like the Sigma 14-24 is in the sweet spot of range, quality, and price. I just don’t think Sony’s 12-24 f/2.8 is going to fit into the budget, as I need to build out other parts of the kit.

ADCImagery wrote:i appreciate the thorough rundown of the options. It’s looking more and more like the Sigma 14-24 is in the sweet spot of range, quality, and price. I just don’t think Sony’s 12-24 f/2.8 is going to fit into the budget, as I need to build out other parts of the kit.That's a good choice. You'll be getting some great images out of it. Amazing value too.

ADCImagery wrote:Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 DG DN - good IQ, OK range, good price all things considered, but pretty big. Despite good reviews, I don’t see this lens get namechecked a lot in discussions. Is there a hidden issue to it?No hidden issues.  It's a great lens, and I've been very happy with it.  The two primary downsides are (1) it's a chonk, and (2) it has no filter threads.  But there's not really a competitive zoom that doesn't have those issues, and the IQ out of the Sigma is excellent.I'm sure the Sony 12-24 GM is a fantastic lens (I have several GM lenses, and I'm partial to them).  But don't sleep on the Sigma -- it's quite good.

ADCImagery wrote:QuietOC wrote:I currently have the three widest Voigtlander fully manual, full electronic primes: 10mm F5.6, 12mm F5.6, and 15mm F4.5. They are small and nice to operate. They have native electronic benefits like 5-axis stabilization, Lens Compensation, and MF Assist.I did try a 12-24mm F4 G, and it was clearly better in the corners than the Voigtlanders. But this one had some alignment issues.This is decent guide:https://phillipreeve.net/blog/user-guide-ultra-wideangle-lenses-sony-alpha-7-series/Thanks for the link to an interesting site - very thorough. Surprising that they don't have hands on experience with some of the more common lenses, yet extensive testing of the more esoteric ones.I trust their reviews based on my own experience following their advice.

ADCImagery wrote:I’m looking at switching over to E mount, specifically the a7R V, and wanted to get some second opinions on the UWA situation for Sony.I’m starting from a blank slate, lens wise, other than the 20-70. I’d like a wide angle for a mix of travel, travel architecture (doesn’t need to be hyper corrected), landscapes, and some commercial stuff like car interiors. Filters are unnecessary, and I’m not afraid of flare unless it’s wildly uncontrolled.With those factors in mind, I’m looking at the following models:Sony 12-24 f/4 - seems to be the best “one lens” option, but doesn’t get rave reviews for IQ. New, it also feels slightly expensive.Sony 12-24 f/2.8 - speaking of expensive, this lens only really makes it into the list because it could pull like triple duty as a UWA zoom and a fast enough 14 and 20mm for astro use, thereby justifying the price vs a f/4 and a 20 f/1.8, for example. It’s also quite big for travel carry, and isn’t an option I’m particularly enthusiastic about - is the IQ that good to do everything I’d need of it?Sony 16-35 PZ - a slight downgrade from my current kit in terms of FOV. Sound like it has good IQ though, and the PZ aspect is interesting for video/gimbal use. Would need to supplement with something wider to avoid feeling like I’m losing capability though. Maybe a MF prime at 12mm or similar? Also, feels a bit crazy to get a whole extra lens for the 16-20mm range, then still add another for <16mm.Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 DG DN - good IQ, OK range, good price all things considered, but pretty big. Despite good reviews, I don’t see this lens get namechecked a lot in discussions. Is there a hidden issue to it?Sony 14mm f/1.8 - quite cool for Astro, but big and less useful for my commercial work, where some zoom range would come in handy. This is a down-the-road bonus lens in my mind.Is there any option I’m missing? If you were building a Sony kit, what option(s) would you choose?

ADCImagery wrote:I’m looking at switching over to E mount, specifically the a7R V, and wanted to get some second opinions on the UWA situation for Sony.I’m starting from a blank slate, lens wise, other than the 20-70. I’d like a wide angle for a mix of travel, travel architecture (doesn’t need to be hyper corrected), landscapes, and some commercial stuff like car interiors. Filters are unnecessary, and I’m not afraid of flare unless it’s wildly uncontrolled.With those factors in mind, I’m looking at the following models:Sony 12-24 f/4 - seems to be the best “one lens” option, but doesn’t get rave reviews for IQ. New, it also feels slightly expensive.Sony 12-24 f/2.8 - speaking of expensive, this lens only really makes it into the list because it could pull like triple duty as a UWA zoom and a fast enough 14 and 20mm for astro use, thereby justifying the price vs a f/4 and a 20 f/1.8, for example. It’s also quite big for travel carry, and isn’t an option I’m particularly enthusiastic about - is the IQ that good to do everything I’d need of it?Sony 16-35 PZ - a slight downgrade from my current kit in terms of FOV. Sound like it has good IQ though, and the PZ aspect is interesting for video/gimbal use. Would need to supplement with something wider to avoid feeling like I’m losing capability though. Maybe a MF prime at 12mm or similar? Also, feels a bit crazy to get a whole extra lens for the 16-20mm range, then still add another for <16mm.Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 DG DN - good IQ, OK range, good price all things considered, but pretty big. Despite good reviews, I don’t see this lens get namechecked a lot in discussions. Is there a hidden issue to it?Sony 14mm f/1.8 - quite cool for Astro, but big and less useful for my commercial work, where some zoom range would come in handy. This is a down-the-road bonus lens in my mind.Is there any option I’m missing? If you were building a Sony kit, what option(s) would you choose?So many Wide/Ultra wide option in Sony system, this is one of the reason I am still shooting with this system because that's what I use mostly, so even I really don't like the Sony body design, ergo, control layout, but just  the E mount WA offering will keep me around for a while. Out of your list, for zoom, I would choose between the 12-24GM and Sigma 14-24, both F2.8 with great optic. I will lightly favor the 12-24 because of the 12mm on the wide end.I am mainly a prime lens user and will always grab my Prime lens first when I get out of the door, and E-mount has plenty of great option there, for WA up to 35mm here is what I settle down with after trying many many different lenses available out there:For Landscape, I absolutely love the Sony 14GM, Voigtlander 21 F1.4, Voigtlander 35 F2 APO. I prefer MF for landscape, so I only use AF lens unless it can optically out perform the MF lens that I have. so I stick with 14GM as my only AF lens as those Voigtlander 10, 12 15 from my own experience they are not in the same league as the 14GM, I owned the Voigtlander 10 and 15 at one point before the 14GM was released.For astro, one of my main use of wide/Ultra wide: Sony 14GM, Sigma 14 1.8, Laowa 15 F2, Sony 20 1.8, Sigma 20 1.4 DN DG, Samyang 24 .8, Sony 35 GM ( had the 24GM but since this is not my favorite FL for astro so I just sold it and replace with a cheap but really good Samyang 24 1.8). I use them all regally because I shoot with 2 or 3 camera at the same time out there, but if I can only have one Len for each focal length for this application, it would be the 14GM, Sigma 20 F1.4 DGDN and 35 GM.Architecture/interior: Canon TSE 17, Canon TSE 24L II with Metabones adapter. I have 4 Canon Tilt and shift lens, they are just so fantastic for this application, much better than using " regular lens" and then software correction. they are also great for general landscape when you want to get everything in focus in one shot, no need for the focus stacking any more.For travel: I travel wit the best lens I have, not the lightest or smallest kind of " travel lens", I always travel with photography in mind so all depends on where I am going, then I just pick some lens from the list above, in rom fact, I do have a Tamron 28-200 but hardly shoot with it. if Photography is not te main purpose of the trip, I would just use my phone, so for me it's either the best lens I have or my cell phone, nothing in between.

My vote is for the Sigma 16-28/2.8.

Tim Devine wrote:I commented over on FM....but figured I'd post my take on your list here.Sony 12-24/4 G - While I've never shot one, it's one of the earlier Sony lenses...and we know how much Sony has improved over the past couple of years. While it's smallest and lightest of the <16mm zooms, I'm not sure it's going to live up to your expectations for sharpness. And as you note, it isn't cheap.Sony 12-24/2.8 GM - The biggest and heaviest in your list, again I've never shot it, but it's supposed to be wonderful. It's also the most expensive, but it does give you 12mm and is also faster than the G.Sony 16-35/4 PZ - Seems like a tough sell given your 20-70/4 G. I guess if you don't like switching lenses, you could make an argument, but the overlap is quite large. And if you have to then also buy something wider, I'm not sure it makes sense. I guess it would pair well with the 14/1.8 GM, but then you still don't have 12mm like the choices above.Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN - I do have this lens, and I shoot it on an a7R V. Extremely happy with this lens, and it has pretty much replaced my primes in the range, it's that good. (I have the Laowa 15/2, Batis 18/2.8, Loxia 21/2.8, GM 24/1.4 and Batis 25/2....just for reference). It's a little bigger than the 12-24/4 G and heavier as well. But it is slightly smaller and lighter than the 12-24/2.8 GM.Sony 14/1.8 GM - I have not shot this lens, but it gives you speed if you want to shoot astro. Not as flexible as the zooms above, but smaller and lighter. It's not 12mm if that's important, so the Sony zooms have the advantage there.My recommendation would be the 12-24/2.8 GM if you have to have 12mm and you don't mind spending the money. Or the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN if you don't absolutely need 12mm and you are cost conscious. The money you save could be put towards another high quality prime (or zoom) if you still feel you have a gap in your lenses.ADCImagery wrote:I’m looking at switching over to E mount, specifically the a7R V, and wanted to get some second opinions on the UWA situation for Sony.I’m starting from a blank slate, lens wise, other than the 20-70. I’d like a wide angle for a mix of travel, travel architecture (doesn’t need to be hyper corrected), landscapes, and some commercial stuff like car interiors. Filters are unnecessary, and I’m not afraid of flare unless it’s wildly uncontrolled.With those factors in mind, I’m looking at the following models:Sony 12-24 f/4 - seems to be the best “one lens” option, but doesn’t get rave reviews for IQ. New, it also feels slightly expensive.Sony 12-24 f/2.8 - speaking of expensive, this lens only really makes it into the list because it could pull like triple duty as a UWA zoom and a fast enough 14 and 20mm for astro use, thereby justifying the price vs a f/4 and a 20 f/1.8, for example. It’s also quite big for travel carry, and isn’t an option I’m particularly enthusiastic about - is the IQ that good to do everything I’d need of it?Sony 16-35 PZ - a slight downgrade from my current kit in terms of FOV. Sound like it has good IQ though, and the PZ aspect is interesting for video/gimbal use. Would need to supplement with something wider to avoid feeling like I’m losing capability though. Maybe a MF prime at 12mm or similar? Also, feels a bit crazy to get a whole extra lens for the 16-20mm range, then still add another for <16mm.Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 DG DN - good IQ, OK range, good price all things considered, but pretty big. Despite good reviews, I don’t see this lens get namechecked a lot in discussions. Is there a hidden issue to it?Sony 14mm f/1.8 - quite cool for Astro, but big and less useful for my commercial work, where some zoom range would come in handy. This is a down-the-road bonus lens in my mind.Is there any option I’m missing? If you were building a Sony kit, what option(s) would you choose?Great answer, I added - also on FM - that the Sony 14 could make sense here as it covers the special needs the 20 doesn't meet at an extremely small size and light weight, and gives you extra light gathering to boot (astro, indoors, etc).I am traveling with the 14 and 20-70 for the first time starting today (just got the 20-70) - will report back