Any other lenses you're dying to hear more about?!

@BrianCho

4 жыл бұрын

Favorite telephotos! Shooting for landscape vs nature etc. :)

@joshallman4409

4 жыл бұрын

Would love to hear your thoughts on this vs the 20 or 24, if there’s room for both or could you choose just one...

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

@@joshallman4409 I mention this lens specifically in my review of the 20mm. If you NEED a prime (like the 20 or 24 for specifically astro, saving weight on a gimbal, etc), then go that route. If you want versatility and functionality, this is the best!

@robbymacdonald8212

4 жыл бұрын

Why the 20mm over the 24mm?

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

@@robbymacdonald8212 It's a focal length that I find more useful, personally. Nothing super fancy to my opinion there, I just prefer a wider prime for astro.

Your two photos that showcase what this lens can shoot at 16mm for landscape photography and at 35mm for environmental portrait are so beautiful and ILLUSTRATIVE. I'm sold on it. Thank you for such a DETAILED & EXCELLENT video.

Great video showing some really awesome images! That 16-35 2.8 GM lens was the single lens that made me switch from Niikon to sony. Nikon has 16-35 F4 but it has insane distortion at widest focal length and I wasn't too fond of it's performance. As soon as I switched this sony 16-35 GM was one of the first lenses I bought and it has made me happy every time I use it!!

Totally thinking about adding this lens to my bag. You got me sold. Love stumbling upon other smaller channels putting out sick content.

Thanks for the review. I saw your review on the 12-24 F2.8 and decided to pull the trigger and buy it...it has been a great, SHARP lens...and it lives on my camera body 95% of the time. However, having said that...there are times I wish I can stick an ND filter on it or Polarizer...but alas can't really do that obviously on the 12-24. So...thinking it would be good to get the 16-35 GM...curious though, is it as sharp as the 12-24 and also, how does it do with creating sunstars? The 12-24 is really a great lens in creating sun stars. Any input would be much appreciated it! Thanks!

Nate, Thanks so much for the educational piece! It was super helpful!

My kit 16-35, 50 1.4 gm, 85 1.4gm 3 lenses to basically hit every base in my photography needs

Thanks for putting out this review! Nate, have you tried out the new GM II version? I recently upgraded to the A7RV, so I'm pondering getting the 16-35 GM II and selling my 35mm f/1.4 GM (and maybe even my 24mm f/1.4 GM).

Thanks for the review Nate. Nicely done. Subscribed.

I am looking for a lens that takes great landscape photos and video with my Sony Alpha a7S III but also can be used to take photos and video of people fly fishing in rivers and streams. Is this the best sony lens for both of those jobs ?

WOW !Beautiful Shots. What about portrait??? Does great job?? Thanks

what lens would you recommend for sony a7iv when filming vid shots??

Nice work bro! Love your adventure and creativity! Love from Aus

@Nateinthewild

2 жыл бұрын

Appreciate it, Ben!

sometimes this lens is not turning on... Any ideas why and how can I fix that?

Wow, this video makes more inclined to buy & start exploring my creativity !

I want to buy three or four lens for travel? Should I get 16-35gm, Sigma 24-70 and 70-200gm or 100-400gm and I like to shoot travel, street, landscape, astrophotography, bird and shoot airplanes?

Have you used the Sigma 14-24?

Great vid. w/ excellent examples. I only have 2 lenses . . . 24-105G , and 100-400GM. I was considering a low light / astrophotography lens like the 24mm 1.4 GM . . . but i really like the versatility of telephoto lenses. Do you think I would be satisfied with the 16-35GM paired with my A7iii for low light, astro, landscape work? . . . or is it pointless on the lower resolution 24Mega pix. body as opposed to the 'R' series of bodies w/ 42 mega pix.? Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

Not at all! I use the 16-35mm on my a7iii all the time, one of my favorite combos for astrophotography!

I just saw your sick photo of the Kimo Theather here in Albuquerque. Would love to connect if you are ever in the area again!

Primes is more for studio or where you have ton of time to change it imo. Unless its 24mm or 35mm prime those can work everywhere but anything more specific get that feels

Thanks for the info and advice! Much appreciated

this is so helpful! Thank you!

Well explained, love it.

Just ordered this last week!

Hi, I want to shoot inside restaurants food review style, i will be shooting the actor across small tables in restaurants. I used to shoot with 20mm and 1.85:1 aspect ratio. It fits just the actor and the dish on the table just enough. Now I want to shoot in 2.39:1. I am thinking 16-35mm f2.8 gm ii vs 14mm f1.8 gm. Which one i should go far? 16-35 mm will be more verstile all around but i dont know if it will be wide enough to fit the actor and the dish on the table in 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

please let me know why do you prefer it vs 12-24 GM?

You sold me, I was debating on this or a 24mm

Hey Nate, I was wanting this lens for mountain bike photography. 600/1000 shutter is my standard range, needing good low light capability. Would you still recommend this lens?

@Nateinthewild

3 жыл бұрын

Absolutely! f/2.8 is plenty of light and you should be able to achieve that shutter range with no issue.

What is the opening song? thanks for the video

Hey man, how well do you think the 16-35mm f/2.8 would do with a a6500? I currently have the kit lens and looking to get into landscape photography and just find it lacks sharpness

@Nateinthewild

2 жыл бұрын

Hey sorry I missed this initially! It will be amazing on that camera, but it won't be a 16-35mm because the a6500 is a crop-sensor camera.

Nice vid! I´m thinking about a F4 version of this lens, cause I already own the Tokina 20mm F2 AF for astrophotography and for landscapes and I´m in love with the sharpness. It would be nice to have the 2.8 aperture zoom lens, it would be than the only lens I use for sure. But its nice to have many lenses too lol

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

I've heard the f4 is fantastic as well

Hi, Great video. I just saw a photo on a fine art photography site and commented on how sharp the landscape image was, and what lens he used. The answer was this one. Is this lens compatible with a Canon 5d mark iv? Thanks and I have subscribed.

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

Hi Gary, unfortunately this lens is only compatible with Sony cameras, but they do make adapters so you can use it on your Canon.

Goodness, this makes me want this lens even more... now I just need to be able to afford it haha Awesome video!! :)

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

Haha it's definitely not cheap, but it's worth every penny!

I just saw your videos of 20mm, 20 vs 24 and this one. I need to buy a wide angle but i'm goig crazy because my first choise was the 20mm then i found the Baris 18mm and now this 16-35. 20mm 1.8 is the most intresting for the lowest price and 1.8, but this 16-35 2.8 bring me to think to sell my 24-104 and buy the 16-35. Can you help me?

@MonicaHolly143

3 жыл бұрын

Tamron 17 28 is the lens to buy

Thinking of selling my 35mm f1.8 & Zeis Batis 18mm to trade up to this lens 👍 Like you said, on paid jobs, you often don’t have time to swap back and forth between primes.

Thank you for this 🤙🏽

I got this lens recently, but I'm wondering if I need 20mm 1.8 for Astro photography and for low light shooting.

@Nateinthewild

3 жыл бұрын

You definitely don't NEED the 20mm for astro, but it would be a nice compliment to your bag if you have the money!

Just picked one up today

Yeah, I love 16-35 range, I opted the f4 version in favor of the lighter weight on an A7C. For most of my landscape shots, I use f8 to f11 anyway so I don’t miss f2.8 and the image quality is perfectly fine on a 24mp sensor. I usually carry a 50mm f1.2/A7r4 and this A7C/16-35 f4 to shoot and this covers 90% of my needs.

@tsizzle

Жыл бұрын

Which 16-35 f/4? Zeiss with OSS or the new Sony PZ?

@pr1sm155

11 ай бұрын

would the image quality be worse at 40mp?

Great video and I love your work (and Autumn's)! Any thoughts on the Sony Zeiss 16-35 f/4 as an alternative?

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks, man! I don't own that one, but in my past experience it's pretty amazing also. Plus, a bit lighter and more compact, I know Mahesh (Starvingphotographer) absolutely swears by it!

@olimiz5539

4 жыл бұрын

@@Nateinthewild don't you think the f4 could be a bit too slow for environmental portraits or in situations when the light isn't that great? Would a 20mm f1.8 be a good compromise? I know it's a prime, but it's kind of in the middle between 16 and 35...

@laeicawezlar4417

4 жыл бұрын

Oli Miz enviro portrait the 24 GM is king

That was THE lens I wanted to buy first when I thought about going to Sony from Nikon since Nikon itself doesn't have a native 16-35 2.8. That range is just incredible. Could just use this lens for almost anything other than wildlife. It's the lens I always use for landscape/interior pictures. That 35mm zoom range is the sweet bonus part of it plus being able to use screw on filters. Totally worth it!

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

Nikon doesn't have a native 16-35 2.8? That's shocking to me!

@snowen1

4 жыл бұрын

@@Nateinthewild They've got a 16-35 f4, or a 17-35 f2.8 (or a 14-24mm f2.8). This is next focal length range I'm hoping to pick up, though I've been going the Tamron route lately because $$$.

Have you tried the 20mm f/1.8? It obviously loses the focal length versatility but for weight sensitive applications like backpacking the saved weight is amazing. I found I didn't often miss the zoom and the f/1.8 is great if you are doing astro or other dark scenes.

@Nateinthewild

2 жыл бұрын

I was on the early tester team for the 20mm, I absolutely love it. kzread.info/dash/bejne/lI19r9KCYLmtnZs.html

@FrankWoehner

Жыл бұрын

@@Nateinthewild for astro and landscape. for which lens of these two (1635 2.8; 20 1.8) would you go for? Would the 2.8 be enough on my Sony a7rii or better choose the 1.8 from the 20mm? thx

Probably my favourite (and my 70-200 f4)

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

That's my other favorite! Planning on doing a review for that sucker next!

Could you work with 16-35 f/4? Especially with the new PZ version from Sony?

@Nateinthewild

Жыл бұрын

I made a video specifically about that, give it a watch! :)

Definitely a super handy focal range! I'm stuck with using just the one end of my 18-200mm because that's a key focal length I'm missing at the moment for the pivot to video I've done lately, and I'm slightly dying inside everytime I use it.

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

18-200?!

@snowen1

4 жыл бұрын

@@Nateinthewild It was purchased as an all-in-one hiking lens and I've pretty much regretted it ever since. I'm making it work because I have it, and it's got the widest range, but I don't really like it.

Gah! The imposter played us weak in the club

What would you choose...I have option to buy this for $2600 CAD after tax with the standard one year warranty through Sony OR $3900 with 4 year drop and spills and cracks coverage purchased through Amazon.

@MayankBadhan

3 жыл бұрын

Or the 16-35 Zeiss F4

Nice vid. Owned the f4 G version for 2 years ever since I switched into Sony. Made some great pics with that Sony/Zeiss w/a zoom, but I'm starting to hanker after the GM and I'm wondering in real world terms just how much better the GM is in terms of IQ? Also if +1 stop vs the f4 is really useful in practice for a w/a when it's so easy to push ISO one stop or, if needed, just use a faster prime? I'm lucky in that I can afford one, just unsure if it's really worth the significant extra wedge, bulk and mass? Albeit mass at 680g is only + 160g vs. my f4, which doesn't sound that much more in practice. Generally I appreciate great engineering/design. I'm a sucker for quality and prepared to pay more if/when it's justified - but equally hate wasting money. I already suffer from GAS so don't just want to pay a premium for the sake of snobbery or just a modest benefit. I would appreciate perspectives from anyone who might have owned/used both, to help inform my decision. Any views? Shared real user experiences, opinions and insights, rather than an academic or theoretical comparison of differences could really help. Also what does Tamron bring to the w/a party, in practice, with an extra stop, albeit also with a truncated range 17-28mm? I hear good things about Tammie but suspect quality and sheer satisfaction in owning/using isn't up to GM levels? Apart from cost, when I bought my G I thought IQ would be pretty good (which it is) and that in all probability f4 would be OK or that I could easily push ISO + 1 stop if needed. F4 isn't really fast enough for astro, so I previously bought a 24mm f1.4 GM prime, but a fast wider capability would be neat. Also considering a Sony 20mm f1.8. prime and whether that might make a better choice to accompany my f4 16-35 when I need faster wide? Or whether it's better to just go GM, sell my G?

@CedricRachmad

3 жыл бұрын

already have the 24gm but looking for versatility. Considering 16-35 f4 or GM. Had the 17-28 but think is less versatile. Have you made up your mind?

@rickymcc8624

3 жыл бұрын

@@CedricRachmad Yes. I bought the GM f2.8. I had previously also bought the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 - that's a pretty good lens too but the GM is more suitable for what I want. I have now sold both my Sony 16-35mm f4 and Tamron 17-35mm f2.8. The GM is simply 'nicer' and as mentioned in my original comment I'm lucky that I can afford it. I extensively tested all 3 side by side in controlled conditions, on a tripod at 16, 17, 20, 24, 28 and 35mm at apertures f2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 and f11. Honestly in isolation all lenses were pretty good and will suffice for most situations. The Tammie was surprisingly good, even wide open and at 17mm was equal in edge details and contrast to the GM but suffered Vs GM at 24 and 28mm. Overall the GM was definitely the best. But so it should be at twice the price. It was maybe 20-20% better (subjective) not twice as good so much poorer value. But for me it was absolute performance not price that drove my decision. Honestly any of the trio would be a good choice.

@CedricRachmad

3 жыл бұрын

@@rickymcc8624 thnx for that answer. I too suffer from GAS and hate to have dead money laying in a closet. So i have to consider how much use I have for it. Right now I must be honest. Not much. Another consideration is to buy the Tammie and a good 35mm to have best of both worlds. But it would be so much more convenient to have that in one lens…sigh….first world problems 😊

Hey Nate, I am wondering if you would be willing to share / give credit to the artist who produced the song you used in this video? Thanks

@Nateinthewild

4 жыл бұрын

Sunset Drive by Virgil Arles

hi. does this lens work on my A5100 sony cam too ?

@Nateinthewild

Жыл бұрын

It sure does!

Do you recommend any ND filter to use with this lens?

@MayankBadhan

3 жыл бұрын

Yes

@ohscarivera

2 жыл бұрын

Yes

This is my first and only lense... have been trying to research other lense to see if there is anything else worth buying but since I really only enjoy landscape photography hard to find any that would be worth buying after this

@Nateinthewild

3 жыл бұрын

I think a 70-200mm would be an excellent addition, then. Don't underestimate how amazing a good telephoto lens can be for landscape photography!

@rachel7550

3 жыл бұрын

@@Nateinthewild yes after looking at your pictures I am thinking that would be the next best lense also! Between the 70-200 and the 100-400, which do you like more?

How does it compare to the 16-55mm? What exactly is the difference, besides the obvious focal length? Debating between the Sony E 16-55mm F2.8 and the Sony G 16-35mm F2.8

@Nateinthewild

2 жыл бұрын

The 16-55mm is a crop-sensor lens for smaller APS-C sensors. It won't work on a full frame camera like any of the a7-series, and on the A6xxxx series of cameras it will function more like a 24-70 f/2.8. Still a great lens, but it depends on what camera you're using.

@jayj1268

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nateinthewild I appreciate the response. I’m shooting with a Sony A73. So I’ll probably just get the 16-35mm. Thank you for the clarification 🙌🏼

Such an incredible in depth review on this lens. I have been going back and forth for the last 2 months trying to decide wether I should purchase this, you’re review gave me the information and confidence I needed to purchase. Thank you 🙏

@Nateinthewild

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you, glad you liked it! If you don't mind, it would be supremely helpful if you used the affiliate link in the video description!

Yeah! It’s the one everyone wants.. everyone wishes it was in their bag lol. Or on the camera all the freakin time. That’s the lens of dreams.

I’m quite the opposite of you. My most used lens is Tamron 35-150mm F2.8-4. The only time I grab my Sigma 14mm F1.8 is for Milky Way and indoor shots. I don’t know why I don’t like the wide look landscape shot.

I like this guy.

Super let down by this lens, especially for Astro :( the sigma 14-24 was way better. I think the focal length is amazing but for its price tag I just expected more

I have the canon 16-35 2.8 ii

i rented if for a weekend, was a loot of fun and it helped me to get some of the shots i wanted, i do photograpy just for passion with a classic A7 mk1, still was fun and results were way above my expectations. i recomand everyone to rent first before they buy, for example i rented the 55mm and i ended up seeing almost no gain over my classic 80' pancolar for street photography, i am actually more confident with the manual focus than with the autofocus from this 7 years old camera :))

No stabilization though.

Sensational lens, then I looked at the price and started crying like a baby. Coz I'm also poor like a baby, ended up adapting a used EF mount Tamron 15-30mm G1 at about a quarter of the price. Great results, though now my baby sized arms are sore from lugging this 1.1kg (vs 680g of the Sony) chunk of glass around. Maybe one day I can look to upgrade to this, the bulk and weight savings (especially out of my wallet) would be very much welcome.

it is so damn expensive. If I had the budget for it..yeah ,, definitely

Dude a mrbeast comment!! Whoa!

Granted, buying the 14mm + 24mm + 35mm costs more, and they're not stabilized either, but I mostly do low light... Astro, Camp fire, time lapse At the wide angles, I'd rather have primes, finishing off the long range with the F4.0 stabilized 105mm zoom For Landscape time lapse, there just isn't an alternative to the Sony 14mm F1.8 :D If I had money for only one lens, it would be the 14mm F1.8 and then get a used Samyang 35mm F2.8 just to close the camera when I put it in the belt pouch :p As for the standard point made in favor of zooms: "sometimes you can't zoom with your feet or car" - I RARELY ever have that problem in real life! To me, it seems like one of those theoretical reasons camera salesmen use...

@Nateinthewild

2 жыл бұрын

""sometimes you can't zoom with your feet or car" - I RARELY ever have that problem in real life! " Sounds like someone lives somewhere without mountains ;)

@Pharesm

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nateinthewild lol funny you should say that! I live on the top of a 2000 meter high mountain - the top of which I actually own! And the next mountain across the valley is a semi-active volcano that is still a bit higher :D So zooming with the tractor or with your feet takes a little extra time, but I'm not in a rush. Where other people take their motorcycles, I insist on walking - and I noticed, if I wasn't walking, I'd miss 90% of the coolest shots - because *landscapes unfold as you walk* and you never know ahead of time where the next awesome vista awaits! Something you just can't catch by running out your zoom lens! I will bet you, that walking instead of zooming gives you 10 times more great shots - and ones that aren't the same ones everybody else already has on postcards ^^

I think the Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Lens is even better.

@Nateinthewild

3 жыл бұрын

I love that lens also, but it didn't even exist when I made this video.

I would if it didn't cost an arm and a leg!

Great video and all but what’s your secret to super white teeth

It’s so ridiculously expensive!

Such a classist tittle

@Nateinthewild

Жыл бұрын

lmaoooooo bro what

Hiking at lakes in valleys and forests? Have your 16-35mm. Hiking at altitude, among mountains, climbs, snow peaks? Have your 70-200mm. Shooting a birthday party, corp event, restaurant? Have your 24-70mm on. Are you hipster that prefers the shooting experience over the actual photos you make? Or are you a beginner that got suckered into someone else’s notion of a beginner lens ? Only take your 50mm prime. Do you have a friend coming over who wants a portrait / headshot? Also take your 50mm prime (or 85mm prime)