Worth upgrading from Sony 16-70 f/4?

[GabAzz]

I have a few lenses, and my standard zoom is the 16-70 f/4. Is it worth upgrading to the sigma 18-50 f/2.8?

I have quick primes and my next purchase is the 16mm f/1.4. (planned for early next month)

Also most of my pictures, close to 90%, are at the extremes of the lens. [the 16-70]

I was also considering the Sony 16-55, but the size really put me off. I would like the 16mm but I'm asking maybe the 18 is enough. And the price difference cannot go unnoticed. Unlikely to go FF but it's always on the back of my mind.

I'm also a hybrid shooter, in fact I'm grabbing the 16mm f1.4 for video mainly.

So, is the 18-50 worth as an upgrade to the 16-70 or should I stay with the 16-70 and use primes when I need the wider apertures?

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

So, why the Sigma 18-50 and not the Tamron 17-70? It would be a focal range very similar to what you are currently using, and the constant f2.8 is great for indoors and any scenario where a wider aperture helps.
I will admit, the Tamron is heavy, but you get used to it.

 

[GabAzz]

Size, weight and price. That's why I'm not seriously considering the tamron. If I were to consider the tamron, then Id go for the Sony 16-55

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Fair point.

 

[evacguy]

Hi Gabriel, welcome to the group. What do you shoot - photographs and video?

 

[GabAzz]

Hi Gabriel, welcome to the group. What do you shoot - photographs and video?

Yes both. But I intend this lens mainly for photos. For video I set up 2 cameras on 2 primes and let them shoot on a tripod. (Hence why I'd like the sigma 16mm to match with the 30mm) have one wide front shot and one more zoomed in side shot.

 

[evacguy]

Yes both. But I intend this lens mainly for photos. For video I set up 2 cameras on 2 primes and let them shoot on a tripod. (Hence why I'd like the sigma 16mm to match with the 30mm) have one wide front shot and one more zoomed in side shot.

What I meant was, what type of photography/videography do you do? For example, potraits, landscape, wildlife, weddings, street, etc?

 

[GabAzz]

I like macro mostly, if you can classify insects as wildlife. Otherwise, I don't go birdwatching nor wedding or street photography. I do a bit of automotive. I'd like the lens to be a lens that I can use for a bit more of a casual setting where I do not have to switch lenses much. I'd do a landscape and then might go for a portrait. And I guess the focal length would be great for stationary cars (and having a small front lens is great for polarised filters.

 

[evacguy]

I like macro mostly, if you can classify insects as wildlife. Otherwise, I don't go birdwatching nor wedding or street photography. I do a bit of automotive. I'd like the lens to be a lens that I can use for a bit more of a casual setting where I do not have to switch lenses much. I'd do a landscape and then might go for a portrait. And I guess the focal length would be great for stationary cars (and having a small front lens is great for polarised filters.

I'm new to all this, so what do I know, but I just love the Sony GM 70-200mm f2.8 OSS II. There is almost nothing this lens can't do. It can focus down to 0.4m and has some great reach. The bokeh is wonderful. The lens is also light so I take it everywhere. I photograph anything and everything, even insects like bees with the 70-200mm lens. In fact, I the lens is always on the camera. Sometimes though, it would be useful to have a fast 35mm or 50mm prime. If you are based in Malta you have some wonderful architecture to photograph in Valetta and Msida, and some wonderful landscapes in Gozo. You also have some dark skies which are ideal for night sky photography. I'm hoping to visit some time soon with my camera and 70-200mm lens (and possibly a 50mm lens).

 

[GabAzz]

I'd love.to grab the gm70-200 ii. But sadly it's out of my.budget.

 

[screamingmind]

Hi Gabriel, here's what I can share, and hopefully it can give you a bit more info to decide:
I bought the Sigma when it first came out just to test it (didn't use a standard zoom before that, just primes) and even when buying it was almost certain that I'd end up selling it and I'd move on to either the Tamron 17-70 or the Sony 16-55.

However even when wasn't blown away at first, I got to play with it a bit more and then took it on a few trips and slowly but surely fell in love with it. It's cheap, small, light and easy to handle, the picture quality is excellent in my opinion, even compared to the Sigma 56 1.4 which is my absolute favorite in terms of optical quality.
It also has a minimum focus distance of just 12 cm minimum distance.

I don't hesitate to recommend this lens, but then again I haven't used the 16-70 f.4, so I can't objectively tell how much of an improvement it will be to you, as you'd only gain 1 stop of exposure with this upgrade.

I also have to point out that I tend to favor the longer end of the zoom, and the difference between 50mm and 70mm will probably be noticeable to you. Just something to consider.

Let us know what you decided when you do

 

[GabAzz]

Hi Gabriel, here's what I can share, and hopefully it can give you a bit more info to decide:
I bought the Sigma when it first came out just to test it (didn't use a standard zoom before that, just primes) and even when buying it was almost certain that I'd end up selling it and I'd move on to either the Tamron 17-70 or the Sony 16-55.

However even when wasn't blown away at first, I got to play with it a bit more and then took it on a few trips and slowly but surely fell in love with it. It's cheap, small, light and easy to handle, the picture quality is excellent in my opinion, even compared to the Sigma 56 1.4 which is my absolute favorite in terms of optical quality.
It also has a minimum focus distance of just 12 cm minimum distance.

I don't hesitate to recommend this lens, but then again I haven't used the 16-70 f.4, so I can't objectively tell how much of an improvement it will be to you, as you'd only gain 1 stop of exposure with this upgrade.

I also have to point out that I tend to favor the longer end of the zoom, and the difference between 50mm and 70mm will probably be noticeable to you. Just something to consider.

Let us know what you decided when you do

That's my thing if it is worth upgrading. It is not the best lens but I like it. And I also have better FL particularly the 16mm gets a lot of use.

While I like the IQ, it is not the sharpest lens.

 

[Gaz]

I’ve been looking at faces using modern Sony GM lenses. There’s something to be said about the softer light reflecting off the faces of my aging friends, especially when I fit a 50mm F1.4 Pentax prime I acquired for film back in the ‘80’s. It’s as if the generation of lenses from the time, match the subjects of that time.

All this sharpness, contrast, perfect focus, and now AI framing, is a fad that will pass when everybody has a portfolio of images that match everyone else’s.

 

[UncleVanya]

There’s certainly far more than sharpness to good photography. I shoot Pentax and Sony and I use both to make similar images. I tend to not get hung up on sharpness as much as the overall photo.

 

[UncleVanya]

Why not grab a dedicated macro prime? If macro is a large part of your shooting, that seems like a natural option.

 

[GabAzz]

I have a macro prime. Well it's not the Sony 90mm f2.8 (which I would love to have but can't justify grabbing) but still I think that they are NB. I have the Sony 30mm f3.5 and an old vivitar series 1 105mm

 

[GabAzz]

I’ve been looking at faces using modern Sony GM lenses. There’s something to be said about the softer light reflecting off the faces of my aging friends, especially when I fit a 50mm F1.4 Pentax prime I acquired for film back in the ‘80’s. It’s as if the generation of lenses from the time, match the subjects of that time.

All this sharpness, contrast, perfect focus, and now AI framing, is a fad that will pass when everybody has a portfolio of images that match everyone else’s.

I have a Minolta MC 50mm f1.4. while wide open it is not as sharp as the Sony 50mm F1.8 OSS, it is a fantastic lens.

 

[Gaz]

I have a macro prime. Well it's not the Sony 90mm f2.8 (which I would love to have but can't justify grabbing) but still I think that they are NB. I have the Sony 30mm f3.5 and an old vivitar series 1 105mm

I grow orchids so I’ve been ogling the sony macro lenses. I looked past the 30mm because the focal distance is so close. The fifty seems such a waste as I already own a couple, and the 90mm is expensive. I’m using an old Tamron completely manual to get by.

There’s a sigma 105 macro. Maybe that’s for me.

 

[GabAzz]

I grow orchids so I’ve been ogling the sony macro lenses. I looked past the 30mm because the focal distance is so close. The fifty seems such a waste as I already own a couple, and the 90mm is expensive. I’m using an old Tamron completely manual to get by.

There’s a sigma 105 macro. Maybe that’s for me.

Even my vivitar is manual. The 30mm is difficult for insects and moving stuff, but for items like money etc... it's even better than the vivitar. I got a good couple of photos out of it.

We grow a lot of flowers, but I don't like taking photos of them at home. The background is part of the image and if something is.in the background I feel that it takes away a bit from the picture.

And if the flowers are big enough you could get away with a long telephoto. Something around 200mm