Sony 16-35mm f4 vs. f2.8: Hi all, I'm a Sony shooter, and while I'm currently developing my portraiture business, I also enjoy shooting land/seascapes, which I sometimes sell, so image...

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

Hi all, I'm a Sony shooter, and while I'm currently developing my portraiture business, I also enjoy shooting land/seascapes, which I sometimes sell, so image quality is very important to me. For landscapes, I'm currently using my Sony 16–35mm, F4 mounted on an A7RIV, but I feel my images could be sharper. I shoot mostly sunrise/set and I'm sure user error is a huge component, but I'm also wondering if the F2.8 version may improve my image quality. So, I'm wondering if any of you have had any experience with these lenses. I'm considering renting the F2.8 to make my own comparison, but I thought I would ask the group as well since there are so many amazing photographers here. A friend is getting some amazing results on her D850 with a Tamron 15-30, but unfortunately it's not available in the Sony FE mount, and I'm not sure if adapting is the best option. Any feedback on your experience would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Pat F 4119 wrote:

Hi all, I'm a Sony shooter, and while I'm currentl... (show quote)

With today's lenses, sharpness is more up to the photographer than it is the lens. You will find the 2.8 no sharper than your f4. Generally speaking an f4 lens is very sharp. I would spend more time looking inside your shooting technique than I would looking for a new lens.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

You didn't specify how you shoot landscapes & settings. Before you change lenses, get a sturdy tripod & remote release. Also shoot in either live view or mirror up mode (Nikon terminology but Sony must have these features) to avoid mirror slap/shake. Then if you're still not pleased with sharpness, get a prime lens that go good reviews (no distortion or vignetting, and sharp).
That's my 2₵.

ggenova64

Tamron has great lenses for Sony E-Mount.
Sony has 20% interest in Tamron.
17-28mm F2.8 Di III RXD (Model A046)
or any Prime Lenses
20mm F/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 (Model F050)
24mm F/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 (Model F051)
35mm F/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 (Model F053)

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Pat F 4119 wrote:

Hi all, I'm a Sony shooter, and while I'm currentl... (show quote)

I really don't see the need for a fast ultra-wide unless you are doing low light or astro photography, ultra wides are certainly not the best lens for portraiture or subject isolation. I am a Canon shooter and have gotten amazing results with a 16-35 f/4. You may also consider what can be done in post to improve your images. I am a big fan of Photoshop but when it comes to sharpening and noise, Topaz more than worth the investment and comes at a fraction of the price of a new lens.

In-lightened Loc: Kansas City

I am new to Sony and have been doing research. I found this guy who has created a list of lens he found to be sharp on the A7RIV...it would appear, at least according to him, the f2.8 would add some sharpness. I am always surprised at how often Sigma comes in right at the top. Primes are a go to for sharpness as well.

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

And I just bumped into this on FredMiranda if the f2.8 is the decision:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733240
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1733238

And finally, as others have suggested, technique.

User ID

Pat F 4119 wrote:

Hi all, I'm a Sony shooter, and while I'm currentl... (show quote)

No problem adapting except AF speed isn’t really “sports grade”, which doesn’t appear to be a barrier for you.

I use mainly Sony and nearly all of my lenses are Canon EF, USM and STM. The older “DC motor” lenses don’t AF very well if at all. Also, the newer the Sony the better the AF with adapters. The a7III and a6500 are excellent. The a7II can be picky about which lenses AF well.

Changing (upgrading?) lenses will do nothing for your sharpness. Some camera bodies are visibly sharper, but all lenses from midrange on up all about equal for sharpness. Lens differences are mainly distortion and corner shading. The very far corner sharpness may be better with some lenses, but that is meaningless in real world use.

My EOS 5DRS is easily waaaaaay sharper than my a7III and Z6, but you already have a camera in that class, so the only open path to greater sharpness is to just “clean up your act”.

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

User ID wrote:

No problem adapting except AF speed isn’t really “... (show quote)

Thanks, this is very helpful. It seems this is coming down to me improving my skills which is where I thought it would lead. One of the things I enjoy most about photography is that there is always something new to learn, so I'm up for the challenge. Thanks again for your response!

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

billnikon wrote:

With today's lenses, sharpness is more up to the photographer than it is the lens. You will find the 2.8 no sharper than your f4. Generally speaking an f4 lens is very sharp. I would spend more time looking inside your shooting technique than I would looking for a new lens.

Yes, the more I look into this, I agree that the upgraded lens won't do much for what I'm trying to accomplish. I'll continue to work on my skills. Thanks for your feedback.

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

[quote=ecobin]You didn't specify how you shoot landscapes & settings. Before you change lenses, get a sturdy tripod & remote release. Also shoot in either live view or mirror up mode (Nikon terminology but Sony must have these features) to avoid mirror slap/shake. Then if you're still not pleased with sharpness, get a prime lens that go good reviews (no distortion or vignetting, and sharp).

For landscapes I almost exclusively shoot long exposures on a tripod, and I can't say that my manfrotto tripod is the most stable. That certainly could be part of the issue. As for mirror slap, I'm using a mirrorless camera, so that's not an issue.
Thanks for your feedback, and I think I'm going to continue working on improving my skills.

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

ggenova64 wrote:

Tamron has great lenses for Sony E-Mount.
Sony has 20% interest in Tamron.
17-28mm F2.8 Di III RXD (Model A046)
or any Prime Lenses
20mm F/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 (Model F050)
24mm F/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 (Model F051)
35mm F/2.8 Di III OSD 1:2 (Model F053)

Thanks, I'll look into these!

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

Blurryeyed wrote:

I really don't see the need for a fast ultra-wide unless you are doing low light or astro photography, ultra wides are certainly not the best lens for portraiture or subject isolation. I am a Canon shooter and have gotten amazing results with a 16-35 f/4. You may also consider what can be done in post to improve your images. I am a big fan of Photoshop but when it comes to sharpening and noise, Topaz more than worth the investment and comes at a fraction of the price of a new lens.

Thanks, I'm not familiar with topaz, but I regularly do use Photoshop and I am a big fan of the high pass filter. I'll look into topaz, thanks!

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

In-lightened wrote:

I am new to Sony and have been doing research. I ... (show quote)

Hi, thanks for the info, this is very helpful. I'm thinking primes might be a great option as well. Time to do more research!

Canisdirus

Yes, both lenses are very sharp.

I can tell you the Sony 20mm f/1.8 is a very sweet prime lens that is frankly underpriced.

Small, lightweight, and falls in between your 16-35mm focal.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

In addition to a good tripod, also check out Topaz Sharpen AI and DxO PureRaw. I think both offer free trials.