Sony 16-35 f2.8 or Sony 12-24 f2.8?

[lmontes1974]

Hi Everyone,

 

I want to buy a grand angular lens. I have Sony 20mm f1.8 but I am not happy with it. Any comments about this two lenses?

[TrekRover]

Hi Luis, I currently have the 12-24mm F2.8 and I think it is a really fantastic lens with sharpness throughout the range. At the 12mm length you're able to capture more in your image without having a major curved distortion if you are taken a photo a horizontal level and not aiming upwards or downwards.

In retrospect I wish I would have gotten the 16-35mm because of the extra zoom range near the 35 for composition reasons. 

On my 24-70mm I often find myself zooming towards 30mm range for composition. Personally for my situation, I think a 16-35mm would be a nice replacement for a 12-24mm and 24-70mm  

[lmontes1974]

Hi Luis, I currently have the 12-24mm F2.8 and I think it is a really fantastic lens with sharpness throughout the range. At the 12mm length you're able to capture more in your image without having a major curved distortion if you are taken a photo a horizontal level and not aiming upwards or downwards.

In retrospect I wish I would have gotten the 16-35mm because of the extra zoom range near the 35 for composition reasons. 

On my 24-70mm I often find myself zooming towards 30mm range for composition. Personally for my situation, I think a 16-35mm would be a nice replacement for a 12-24mm and 24-70mm  

thank you for you thoughts.

[tonygale]

It all depends on your needs, I tend to use my 12-24mm more than my 16-35mm for landscapes. Otherwise I use my 24-70/2.8 GMII

[Drew_Geraci]

The 12-24 is the best bang for your buck. It has a large wide range and it's great for landscape and architecture photography. There's nothing wrong with the 16-35mm but the AF motors on the 12-24 are far more responsive and the image sharpness on the 12-24 is something to marvel at. If you have the cash though, get both!! ha. 

[TrekRover]

The 12-24 is the best bang for your buck. It has a large wide range and it's great for landscape and architecture photography. There's nothing wrong with the 16-35mm but the AF motors on the 12-24 are far more responsive and the image sharpness on the 12-24 is something to marvel at. If you have the cash though, get both!! ha. 

I heard a rumor there may be a 16-35mm GM 2 soon! Hopefully they will update the motors 😄

[lmontes1974]

It all depends on your needs, I tend to use my 12-24mm more than my 16-35mm for landscapes. Otherwise I use my 24-70/2.8 GMII

It’s for landscape and astrophography

[lmontes1974]

I heard a rumor there may be a 16-35mm GM 2 soon! Hopefully they will update the motors 😄

I heard sane rumor, but I think that will be not for this year….

[LensBrew]

I'm personally waiting for the new 16-35mm GM. I'm assuming it will be lighter and more responsive than the current one. I have the 14mm 1.8 GM lens, and that focal length is too wide for my needs. So to cover a wide angel range that suits my work I chose the 16-35mm. Not to mention the bulbous front element on the 12-24 makes me uncomfortable and too protective to use it properly.

One question thought, why are you not happy with your 20mm G lens? Could you give us some reasons why either one those 2 zooms is better for your workflow than the 20mm.

[tonygale]

It’s for landscape and astrophography

I think the 12-24/2.8 will do more for you with that in mind

[davidmclain]

I have both and for me, the 12-24 is more of a specialty lens I use when I need to be super wide and the 16-35mm is a more versatile everyday lens. Based on what you have said, I think you should go with the 16-35.

[lmontes1974]

I'm personally waiting for the new 16-35mm GM. I'm assuming it will be lighter and more responsive than the current one. I have the 14mm 1.8 GM lens, and that focal length is too wide for my needs. So to cover a wide angel range that suits my work I chose the 16-35mm. Not to mention the bulbous front element on the 12-24 makes me uncomfortable and too protective to use it properly.

One question thought, why are you not happy with your 20mm G lens? Could you give us some reasons why either one those 2 zooms is better for your workflow than the 20mm.

I don't like too much the image quality. Is light, very comfortable the size for travel, but I feel that the image quality is better on 12-24 or 16-35. 

[IraBlock]

That's a tough one as they are both terrific lenses. It really depends on what and how you shoot and what is your next longer lens.

[JCorreia]

16-35 is a very versatile zoom range. But the image quality should be better on your 20 G. I recently sold my 16-35 GM (in anticipation of the GM2) and have the 12-24GM and 24-70GM2. On a recent trip, I definitely missed the versatility of the 16-35, but am much happier with the improved image quality that I get with the newer lenses. 

[lmontes1974]

16-35 is a very versatile zoom range. But the image quality should be better on your 20 G. I recently sold my 16-35 GM (in anticipation of the GM2) and have the 12-24GM and 24-70GM2. On a recent trip, I definitely missed the versatility of the 16-35, but am much happier with the improved image quality that I get with the newer lenses. 

yes, I think that I will wait for the 16-25 GM2...thank you¡

[Drew_Geraci]

The 12-24mm is probably the most versatile wide-angle lens of any camera manufacturer and the quality is absolutely incredible. Tack sharp, no coma or chromatic aberration. It's my go-to wide-angle lens for pretty much everything.  The 16-35 is my next favorite but maybe wait until they update the motors on it for AF. You really can't go wrong with either though 🙂 Happy shooting!