Add 35mm 1.8 prime (keep Zeiss 18mm) vs. trade in Zeiss, run with 16-35 2.8 GM

[reinocruz]

I’m realizing that I feel a void after trading in and upgrading my A7ii for Riii, turning my 24-70 as well as it was a kit lens.

I’m left with a wide angle Zeiss Batis 18mm, then up to a 70-200 f4.
Nothing in between.
Would you....
A) Add a 35mm 1.8
B)Trade in 18mm, grab a Sony 16-35 2.8

Mostly into nature landscape & street photography. Would like to keep wide angle ability, but also something midrange.
I know there are other options, but these are two I’ve narrowed it down to. Opting not to go Tamron, not too familiar with Sigma, and am thinking to stick with Sony glass for now.
TIA for your feedback.

 

[UncleVanya]

35 is a good focal length for street/city, and I'm sure the 18 is very nice for wider landscapes. I guess the real question is how often you will find 35 too tight and need to switch to the 18. In street photography this may cause you to lose the shot, but chances are 35 will be sufficient. The other question is how often you will want to go wider than 18 in particular in your landscape shots.

Finally, if you really enjoy primes, logic may not be able to make this decision.

 

[ExSpectator]

The 16-35gm is by all accounts fantastic (I don't own it myself) for landscapes, but hardly inconspicuous for street...

You might also want to add something like the excellent 24/1.4 to your list as one versatile option to split the difference.

Finally I know it's not sticking with Sony, but for the cost of the 16-35GM have you considered instead picking up the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN Art (a superb lens) + a compact prime like the 35/1.8 (either Sony or the new Samyang option, which also seems quite good) or even a used CV (pick your preferred 35/40/50) - the CV40/1.2 might currently be my favorite native walkaround lens if you don't need AF

 

[reinocruz]

35 is a good focal length for street/city, and I'm sure the 18 is very nice for wider landscapes. I guess the real question is how often you will find 35 too tight and need to switch to the 18. In street photography this may cause you to lose the shot, but chances are 35 will be sufficient. The other question is how often you will want to go wider than 18 in particular in your landscape shots.

Finally, if you really enjoy primes, logic may not be able to make this decision.

Haha! Oh, logic..
I hear you and appreciate the reply. I haven’t found myself needing wider than 18. I think my main motive is keeping the least amount of lenses in my sling. And by having the 16-35, I could remove the 18, but still close in a bit if needed.
Thanks for the thought jogging.

 

[reinocruz]

The 16-35gm is by all accounts fantastic (I don't own it myself) for landscapes, but hardly inconspicuous for street...

You might also want to add something like the excellent 24/1.4 to your list as one versatile option to split the difference.

Finally I know it's not sticking with Sony, but for the cost of the 16-35GM have you considered instead picking up the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN Art (a superb lens) + a compact prime like the 35/1.8 (either Sony or the new Samyang option, which also seems quite good) or even a used CV (pick your preferred 35/40/50) - the CV40/1.2 might currently be my favorite native walkaround lens if you don't need AF

I’ve been looking at the Sigma as well. As stated, I just haven’t gone that route yet, hence not adding it to the choice. Yet, that is...
Worth taking another look though. So thanks for the input.
I’ll look at CV too.
I know the 16-35 isn’t discreet, just trying to keep my lens count low, so thought to have a wide (16) but still have a mid (35) would suffice as the next doesn’t begin till 70-200. The 18-70 gap is a bit much. And to add a 35 prime, not opposed, but I’d have to readjust the camera bag for yet an additional lens.
Dang, this hobby of ours, huh? Ha!
Thanks.

 

[rorycambra]

I’m realizing that I feel a void after trading in and upgrading my A7ii for Riii, turning my 24-70 as well as it was a kit lens.

I’m left with a wide angle Zeiss Batis 18mm, then up to a 70-200 f4.
Nothing in between.
Would you....
A) Add a 35mm 1.8
B)Trade in 18mm, grab a Sony 16-35 2.8

Mostly into nature landscape & street photography. Would like to keep wide angle ability, but also something midrange.
I know there are other options, but these are two I’ve narrowed it down to. Opting not to go Tamron, not too familiar with Sigma, and am thinking to stick with Sony glass for now.
TIA for your feedback.

I know how you feel. I have the 28-75 Tamron and the 24Gm 1.4 and the FE 55mm F1.8 ZA. I feel like I need another lens.

 

[reinocruz]

I know how you feel. I have the 28-75 Tamron and the 24Gm 1.4 and the FE 55mm F1.8 ZA. I feel like I need another lens.

What type of shooting do you do most?
I’m hopefully going to address my dilemma today.
As long as I have something that gives me wide, close in, and add something in between, I shouldn’t find much else to “need”.. haha!
I considered going the Tamron route. I appreciate their consistent thread size so filters can be shared. I almost jumped on their 70-180 2.8. Really cool lens, if you haven’t played with it, yet. Cheers!

 

[Reciprocum]

Tamron zooms on a R body ?....
I returned my only Tamron zoom after 2 days with a non R body. Tamron made a SonyGM/SigmaArt prime snob out of me .