Which Sony glass is actually gonna give me the absolute best results for high-res landscape stuff? I'm taking my a7R V out to the Dolomites next month and really want to make the most of that 61MP sensor.
Currently torn between the 12-24mm f/2.8 GM and the newer 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II. The 12-24 seems amazing for those massive mountain vistas but the lack of front filters is kinda a dealbreaker for my long exposure shots. The 16-35 seems way more practical for hiking but I'm worried if it's sharp enough corner-to-corner for big prints. My budget is around $2500. Which one should I pull the trigger on for this trip?
Honestly, I would suggest being a bit cautious about dropping $2500 on a GM just for a single trip. I did something similar when I went to Zion last year, thinking I absolutely needed the most expensive glass to justify my high-res body. That massive, heavy setup made those long mountain hikes pretty miserable, and I honestly regretted the weight every mile. Since landscapes usually require stopping down to f/8 or f/11 anyway, paying that huge premium for an f/2.8 aperture you wont even use seems like a waste of cash that could go toward your actual travel expenses. If youre worried about filters and weight, you might want to look at the Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 PZ G. It is incredibly sharp and much easier to hike with than the heavier alternatives. I saved over a grand going that route and still got 40-inch prints that look incredible. For those who really feel they need that f/2.8 speed, the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art for Sony E is a beast and way cheaper than the Sony version. Just be careful with those bulbous front elements... I scratched one once and it was a total nightmare. Using the leftover budget for a top-tier filter setup like the NiSi V7 100mm Filter System Kit is probably a smarter move for the Dolomites than blowing it all on one lens.
@Reply #2 - good point! Honestly, lugging a heavy f/2.8 GM up a mountain when you're gonna be shooting at f/8 or f/11 anyway is basically paying a tax in sweat and money for nothing. Since you're worried about filters and hiking, you should check out the Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 PZ G. It's way lighter, cheaper, and takes standard 72mm filters without any bulky adapters. I've seen some tests on the a7R V and it resolves plenty of detail when stopped down. Another option if you don't need ultra-wide is the Sony FE 20-70mm f/4 G. The extra reach on the long end is killer for isolating peaks in the Dolomites, and 20mm is usually plenty wide for most vistas. You save like over a thousand bucks vs the GM II and your back won't be screaming at you on those trails. Sharpness-wise, modern G lenses are so good now that the 'GM or bust' mindset is kinda outdated for landscape work where you're always on a tripod anyway. Put that extra cash toward a really high-end tripod or a nice filter set like the Lee Filters 100mm System Starter Kit.
I've spent way too many hours staring at MTF charts and pixel-peeping files from my own 61MP setup. In my experience, the newer 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II is actually the sweet spot for the Dolomites. I've tried many wide zooms over the years, and the version II of the 16-35 is significantly sharper in the corners than the original and even edges out the 12-24 at certain focal lengths. Plus, it's a lot lighter than it looks. Heres what I usually do for high-res trips:
Oh man, the Dolomites are absolutely legendary! You're gonna love it there! Honestly, for that 61MP sensor on the a7R V, you really need to be looking at the absolute top-tier glass from Sony. I'm totally obsessed with MTF data and resolving power, and their premium series is basically designed specifically for these high-resolution bodies.