Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II?

[rgarven]

Friends,

Have a 24-105 G lens and a F4 12-24G. I'm looking for something I can shoot landscaper daughter free plus also maybe some night sky stuff so I want at least a 2.8.

I am looking at the

Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II any thoughts?​

Rob

 

[rgarven]

I meant landscape photography

 

[Richard A]

I have a Sigma 16-28 F2.8. I'm very happy with it. It is a pretty compact lens. I have the Sony 24-70 F2.8 & I didn't want the amount of overlap of focal length the 16-35 would give.

 

[iamdlewis]

You can do night sky shots with what you have. Sure F2.8 does help since it is 1 stop but it isn't that much when talking about night sky shots.

I have a Tameron 17-28 F2.8 and it is by far my least used lens. I don't find landscape shots taken shorter than 24mm that necessary or really that appealing. If I need something wider than 24mm (I have the 24-105 G) to capture what I want it is easy enough to stitch several images together. When I travel and I get down to the gear that has a slight chance of being used I just can't justify the 17-28 over other gear 99% of the time.

So a question back to you is, do you think you'll use the Sony 16-35 GM II enough to justify the $2000+ price or will a $500+ Tameron or $700+ Sigma both of which got very good reviews for night sky photography be easier to justify?

 

[Landshark99]

The only thing I can add is I love my 16-35 GM II great lens, for me the overlap with my 24-70 is great because it means less changing of lenses. the debate for me is why do I find the need to hang on to my 24 F1.4 prime

 

[ShilenH]

I meant landscape photography

I have a 16-35 GM I (older version) lens and it is my favourite landscape lens because it adds so much drama to the sky and general backgrounds at the 16mm end. The only issue with this lens is that it is quite heavy so carrying this together with other lenses and so the GM II version has that advantage. I bought to 20-70mm F4 as an all around versatile lens but feel that I need wider than 20mm for landscape. My thoughts are that, in your case, if you were to get the 16-35GM II, you will get a better more modern lens for landscape photography but then you will need to change lenses when you want to do astronomy or when you want the versatility of the jack of all trades that the 25-105 can do.

 

[Westydude]

I'm also looking at adding a fast, wide angle lens to my kit (I'm an accomplished hobbyist/amateur)...current kit: A7iii with 24-105 G OSS. I'd like to start working on astrophotography and am looking at the 24mm f/1.4 GM vs the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM (original). Any major trade offs or limitations on 2.8 vs 1.4 for astro? As a hobbyist, i'd consider looking at less expensive 3rd party comparable lenses but would prefer Sony native lenses when budget allows.