I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?

you’ll be losing a stop and the lens will be a little bigger but if the flexibility/versatility is better for you then it’s a great lens that will pair well with your 24-105.

Why not both? If I'm out and about trying to make UWA shots work I'll take my UWA zoom for sure, and a 5L PD Sling at minimum (possibly a 10-20 L sling or backpack with a tele, etc.). I've got the 24/2.8 G and a couple other small lenses like it (Samyang 45/1.8, TTArtisan 50/2) for when Idon'twanna carry anything like that but Istillwant that kinda speed (night shooting and/or social stuff), I can cram the body with a couple lenses like that into a waist pack and it's much more unobtrusive.If you don't need or want to scale down your kit quite that much and aren't gonna miss the extra stop (and change, in the case of the 40G) then sure, you might as well replace them with a lightweight zoom. Heck you could opt for the Tamron 20-40 f2.8 too and you aren't even giving up the speed in that instance, just the size on camera and in-bag bulk when mounted. The 16-35 G is lighter IIRC but not dramatically so, makes more since if you're pairing it with a 24-105 tho.There's also the Sigma 16-28/2.8 & Tamron 17-28/2.8 if you don't want as much overlap with the 24-105 but want that speed. Could always opt for a SY 18/2.8 or that upcoming Sigma 17/4 as the pairing with the 24-105 as well... I don't shoot a 24/28-xxx at all but I'm happy with the 17-28/2.8, I do shoot it at it's widest and at f2.8 throughout the range often tho, often it's the only zoom I bring alongside something like the 35GM and a SY75/1.8... But it'll pair well with my 50-400 too.

Bijo Sam wrote:I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?Hi Bijo Sam,My thoughts are I prefer both my Sigma 16-28/2.8 and my Tamron 20-40/2.8 over my Sony FE PZ 16-35/4. Both are optically excellent and I really can’t overstate the value of f2.8 vs f4 for my use!One cool feature of the PZ that I don’t see on any other of my Sony lenses is the focal length is displayed in the EVF. It has outstanding IQ and the size and weight is really wonderful. There are really no complaints in the results and I know of many who have replaced their GM 16-35 with it. For me, I don’t really like the power zoom and I far prefer f2.8 over f4, especially for wide angle as I tend to use them at indoor family events, concerts or taverns. If you plan to use it outdoors in good light f4 is not a concern.Edit:Also I really like using those primes on the a7c and I wouldn’t sell mine, except I have the Sony 20/1.8 and not the Tamron.

someguy50 wrote:you’ll be losing a stop and the lens will be a little bigger but if the flexibility/versatility is better for you then it’s a great lens that will pair well with your 24-105.I don't mind losing a stop as i will be mostly using it outside during the daytime, i have a 35 GM which is my preferred lens for low-light.

Impulses wrote:Why not both? If I'm out and about trying to make UWA shots work I'll take my UWA zoom for sure, and a 5L PD Sling at minimum (possibly a 10-20 L sling or backpack with a tele, etc.). I've got the 24/2.8 G and a couple other small lenses like it (Samyang 45/1.8, TTArtisan 50/2) for when Idon'twanna carry anything like that but Istillwant that kinda speed (night shooting and/or social stuff), I can cram the body with a couple lenses like that into a waist pack and it's much more unobtrusive.If you don't need or want to scale down your kit quite that much and aren't gonna miss the extra stop (and change, in the case of the 40G) then sure, you might as well replace them with a lightweight zoom. Heck you could opt for the Tamron 20-40 f2.8 too and you aren't even giving up the speed in that instance, just the size on camera and in-bag bulk when mounted. The 16-35 G is lighter IIRC but not dramatically so, makes more since if you're pairing it with a 24-105 tho.There's also the Sigma 16-28/2.8 & Tamron 17-28/2.8 if you don't want as much overlap with the 24-105 but want that speed. Could always opt for a SY 18/2.8 or that upcoming Sigma 17/4 as the pairing with the 24-105 as well... I don't shoot a 24/28-xxx at all but I'm happy with the 17-28/2.8, I do shoot it at it's widest and at f2.8 throughout the range often tho, often it's the only zoom I bring alongside something like the 35GM and a SY75/1.8... But it'll pair well with my 50-400 too.Yes I am trying to scale down on lenses.I did previously own the tamron 17-28, its range was too short so not versatile.The 20-40 is interesting but i prefer the colors and rendering of the sony 16-35 and 20mm is not wide enough.

DP13Photo wrote:Bijo Sam wrote:I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?Hi Bijo Sam,My thoughts are I prefer both my Sigma 16-28/2.8 and my Tamron 20-40/2.8 over my Sony FE PZ 16-35/4. Both are optically excellent and I really can’t overstate the value of f2.8 vs f4 for my use!One cool feature of the PZ that I don’t see on any other of my Sony lenses is the focal length is displayed in the EVF. It has outstanding IQ and the size and weight is really wonderful. There are really no complaints in the results and I know of many who have replaced their GM 16-35 with it. For me, I don’t really like the power zoom and I far prefer f2.8 over f4, especially for wide angle as I tend to use them at indoor family events, concerts or taverns. If you plan to use it outdoors in good light f4 is not a concern.Edit:Also I really like using those primes on the a7c and I wouldn’t sell mine, except I have the Sony 20/1.8 and not the Tamron.I don't care for the f2.8 that much, the Tamron is a nice option but i dont like the tamron rendering. I also prefer the native advantage and all the features of the sony 16-35pz.I feel the same about the compact G primes, i don't want to get rid of them but they are limiting for travel and i hate changing lenses while out travelling.

I went for a trip today into the grungy old cbd part of my city with my sony 24-105mm and most of my favourite shots were at 24mm which made me wonder if I would have preferred going even wider if possible.

Bijo Sam wrote:I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?I don’t have the 40G, but I do have the Sony 20G, 24G and 35 f 1.8. Most of the time I’m traveling they stay home since I got the PZ 16-35. On those occasions, I always take the Tamron 28-200 as well. And I really love this kit.

Bijo Sam wrote:I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?I like the focal range of the 16-35 but I really can't stand the Power zoom operation of this lens so after I tried it I went back to use my adapted Canon 16-35 F4 IS instead, so if I have to pick between the lens from your list, I would just stick with the prime, or I will get a 20-70 F4 if I have to have a zoom. I know, then I will need another 14mm lens to cover the wide end so kind of defeating the purpose of having one single zoom to cover the wide end, but you mentioned you hardly need anything wider than 24, so that may be a good alternative, I know not everyone has issue with power zoom, I just hate it so much, but if you are OK with power zoom, the 16-35 PZ would be a very nice one.

Rluizsm wrote:Bijo Sam wrote:I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?I don’t have the 40G, but I do have the Sony 20G, 24G and 35 f 1.8. Most of the time I’m traveling they stay home since I got the PZ 16-35. On those occasions, I always take the Tamron 28-200 as well. And I really love this kit.Yep, the 16-35pz and the 28-200 seem like the perfect travel combo based on my research, even better if you have 2 bodies.My one lens travel recommendation would be the 24-105 or the 20-70. 28 on the 28-200 is just not wide enough and I would need an additional wide prime or zoom to pair with it.My dream lens is a 20-200mm F4.

Dan_168 wrote:Bijo Sam wrote:I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?I like the focal range of the 16-35 but I really can't stand the Power zoom operation of this lens so after I tried it I went back to use my adapted Canon 16-35 F4 IS instead, so if I have to pick between the lens from your list, I would just stick with the prime, or I will get a 20-70 F4 if I have to have a zoom. I know, then I will need another 14mm lens to cover the wide end so kind of defeating the purpose of having one single zoom to cover the wide end, but you mentioned you hardly need anything wider than 24, so that may be a good alternative, I know not everyone has issue with power zoom, I just hate it so much, but if you are OK with power zoom, the 16-35 PZ would be a very nice one.I am wondering if the PZ and the linear soom would annoy me. Does the linear zoom ring not work so well? I have read that the focal length will show on the screen as you zoom, in this case, it would have been nice if they had included a lcd on the lens to show the focal length.

Bijo Sam wrote:Dan_168 wrote:Bijo Sam wrote:I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?I like the focal range of the 16-35 but I really can't stand the Power zoom operation of this lens so after I tried it I went back to use my adapted Canon 16-35 F4 IS instead, so if I have to pick between the lens from your list, I would just stick with the prime, or I will get a 20-70 F4 if I have to have a zoom. I know, then I will need another 14mm lens to cover the wide end so kind of defeating the purpose of having one single zoom to cover the wide end, but you mentioned you hardly need anything wider than 24, so that may be a good alternative, I know not everyone has issue with power zoom, I just hate it so much, but if you are OK with power zoom, the 16-35 PZ would be a very nice one.I am wondering if the PZ and the linear soom would annoy me. Does the linear zoom ring not work so well? I have read that the focal length will show on the screen as you zoom, in this case, it would have been nice if they had included a lcd on the lens to show the focal length.To be clear, the zoom ring around the lens and the toggle are both power zoom, there's no mechanically coupled zoom control... The ring is just made to emulate that, perhaps better than most previous efforts but not enough to satisfy everyone.A mechanically coupled ring can still be turned faster (tho I don't think that's a big concern with an UWA), and can be set to the FL you want without bringing the camera up, etc. It has a few subtle advantages, whereas the PZ is just smoother for video (tho most of the time you wouldn't wanna zoom an UWA while recording imo) and helps with the lightweight construction to an extent.

I don't like the powerzoom function. So I would always opt for a non PZ lens for photography.If you already have the 24-105mm and like that lens I would just add an ultra wide prime or the Sigma 16-28 / Tamron 17-28 next to that. And if 20mm is wide enough you can add the Sony 20mm f1.8 to the 24-105mm.You say you don't like the rendering of the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8? What difference do you see in the 20-40mm that isn't there with the Tamron 28-200mm from which you say is part of the perfect travel lens combo? I have both lenses but don't see a difference at all.

ricktachtig wrote:I don't like the powerzoom function. So I would always opt for a non PZ lens for photography.If you already have the 24-105mm and like that lens I would just add an ultra wide prime or the Sigma 16-28 / Tamron 17-28 next to that. And if 20mm is wide enough you can add the Sony 20mm f1.8 to the 24-105mm.You say you don't like the rendering of the Tamron 20-40mm f2.8? What difference do you see in the 20-40mm that isn't there with the Tamron 28-200mm from which you say is part of the perfect travel lens combo? I have both lenses but don't see a difference at all.I didnt like the overall rendering of the first generation of FE tamron zooms...something about the colors and harsh oof rendering, the images also had a sharp but flat look to them. This has been improved with the G2 lens. I much prefer the rendering and colors coming out of the newer sigma lenses such as the sigma 28-70.I might just have a bias towards the tamron 20-40mm based on my prior experience with prior tamron lenses. As for liking the tamron 28-200, it has more to do with it providing a versatile zoom range without compromising on sharpness and not the rendering, that said I prefer the rendering and colors coming out of the 28-200 over the sony 24-105.

Impulses wrote:Bijo Sam wrote:Dan_168 wrote:Bijo Sam wrote:I am considering replacing a Sony 40G and 24mm G with the Sony 16-35mm pz? i was previously considering adding a tamron 20mm to the other too primes to have one wider lens but 20mm is not wide enough and I may as well replace all 3 primes for a Sony 16-35 pz. I rarely need wider than 24mm but its good to have and opens creative possibilities. I also have the Sony 24-105 which I like very much. The Sony 16-35mm PZ seems like it might be better than carrying the above 3 primes.Thoughts?I like the focal range of the 16-35 but I really can't stand the Power zoom operation of this lens so after I tried it I went back to use my adapted Canon 16-35 F4 IS instead, so if I have to pick between the lens from your list, I would just stick with the prime, or I will get a 20-70 F4 if I have to have a zoom. I know, then I will need another 14mm lens to cover the wide end so kind of defeating the purpose of having one single zoom to cover the wide end, but you mentioned you hardly need anything wider than 24, so that may be a good alternative, I know not everyone has issue with power zoom, I just hate it so much, but if you are OK with power zoom, the 16-35 PZ would be a very nice one.I am wondering if the PZ and the linear soom would annoy me. Does the linear zoom ring not work so well? I have read that the focal length will show on the screen as you zoom, in this case, it would have been nice if they had included a lcd on the lens to show the focal length.To be clear, the zoom ring around the lens and the toggle are both power zoom, there's no mechanically coupled zoom control... The ring is just made to emulate that, perhaps better than most previous efforts but not enough to satisfy everyone.A mechanically coupled ring can still be turned faster (tho I don't think that's a big concern with an UWA), and can be set to the FL you want without bringing the camera up, etc. It has a few subtle advantages, whereas the PZ is just smoother for video (tho most of the time you wouldn't wanna zoom an UWA while recording imo) and helps with the lightweight construction to an extent.yes, i am aware that it is an electronic zoom and not mechanical , i dont know if that will annoy me as the type of shooting i do mostly involves shooting from a moving vehicle and needing to change zoom in an instant to get a shot.

So I have made a decision to forgo all the previous options and get the 2-70F4 on black friday, if not that then the tamron 20-40mm because the F2.8 increases its versatility