17-28 vs 16-35 - does anyone miss that 7mm?

EspressoJunkie

EspressoJunkie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,886
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
Yes
I’m reshuffling systems and Im torn between the Sony 16-35 F4 ( the older one) and the Tamron 17-28.

My usual kit is 35/85 primes and a 16-35 ( or the equivalent for crop) and these are focal lengths I’m ver comfortable with.

However I’ve seen a lot of negativity around the older Sony 16-35 F4 online (especially around the performance at 35mm) and the Tamron definitely seems to be the better lens but I don’t know how much I’ll miss that 7mm on the long end.

Has anyone used either or both? Is the Zeiss 16-35 as bad as people make out?

I know the GM/ PZ lenses are better but they’re both well out of budget.

Any thoughts welcome!
 
I haven't used the new 17-28 but I always thought the 16-35 was a decent performer, especially at the price (and its even cheaper used now) - obviously the GM is on another level and I know a lot of people were a bit bent out of shape about no "GM" Ultra wide angle for a while (after the first 24-70 GM launched) - but I always thought it was good.

I tended to have mine with either a 24-70 or a 35mm prime so I personally wouldn't miss the 7mm but really just depends what you think you'll use.
 
yes usually I would miss that particular 7mm because 35mm is one of the best focal lengths

but as you pointed out its not that simple and you have a 35mm prime if I read that correctly

maybe try the tamron and change it down the line if you really dont get on with it
 
fujilover said:
yes usually I would miss that particular 7mm because 35mm is one of the best focal lengths

but as you pointed out its not that simple and you have a 35mm prime if I read that correctly

maybe try the tamron and change it down the line if you really dont get on with it
Click to expand...
I will indeed have a 35mm prime, but I do like the handiness of not having to change lenses to get that focal length especially if I’m out photographing
 
I had the 16-35 f/4 and replaced it with the Tamron 17-28. The Tamron is a much better lens, the Zeiss is just as bad as everyone says.

I didn't miss what was lost at the long end but did miss the 1mm at the short end so I now have the 12-24 f/2.8.
 
I personally found the 17-28mm rather limiting at both ends.

I have personally fallen out of love with f2.8 zooms in general, they are too much of a compromise. They either large or heavy or expensive or shorter range or not fast enough etc.

I prefer f4 zoom and faster f1.4-1.8 primes. I use zooms where zooms excel i.e. versatility and use primes where primes excel i.e. fast aperture. I don't try to combine the two.
 
Has anyone used the Sony 16-35
f/2.8 said:
I had the 16-35 f/4 and replaced it with the Tamron 17-28. The Tamron is a much better lens, the Zeiss is just as bad as everyone says.

I didn't miss what was lost at the long end but did miss the 1mm at the short end so I now have the 12-24 f/2.8.
Click to expand...
Is the 16-35 that bad?

Thinking back I actually owned one for a short time but I can’t really remember how it performed.
 
Last edited:
EspressoJunkie said:
Has anyone used the Sony 16-35

Is the 16-35 that bad?

Thinking back I actually owned one for a short time but I can’t really remember how it performed.
Click to expand...
I had two copies of the 16-35 f/4 neither were that sharp in the centre and they were honestly awful in the corners. A.F performance wasn’t exactly stellar either. To be fair it’s a very old lens design now.
 
Chances are you will go straight to 35mm from 28 so not a big loss. Kind of pointless forcing yourself to use a worse lens anyway.
It also depends on your body resolution. At 50mp+ you are probably much better off going all primes
 
I've got the Sigma 18-35mm and the Canon 16-35mm, personally I find them both "short" for my tastes. I got used to lens like the 28-85mm or 28-135mm back in film days. Ok they are both superb lens, but I'd want every mm I could get.
 
I have the Sony 16-35mm f4 and am very happy with it. At 35mm f4 it's not great in the corners but if you're shooting at 35mm f4 it's unlikely you're shooting landscapes and then the corners don't matter. At f8 it's plenty good enough imo, and that's on a 50mp sensor.

It's not only the 7mm at the long end I'd miss, 1mm at the wide end is quite noticeable too.
 
Depending on the final use, I probably wouldn't miss the extra 7mm of "reach" of the 16-35 - I'd be more likely to miss the 1mm at the wide end!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top