Not top notch, the distortion control is just not there. As is tradition for Sony lenses anyhow.

@@fandyus4125 I think all manufacturers are designing lenses with higher distortion nowadays because they know it will be always used with correction profiles, since this is not the lens for a film cameras. In JPEG/video it will be done automatically and the RAW converter will apply the profile as well. So in the end, it's the post-correction performance that matters and it's great here. I don't see any problems, except not-perfect corners after correction, but still much better than the previous version of 16-35 and the competition. IMHO that's a pretty negligible compromise in order to achieve this impressive size.

@@fandyus4125 Both Canon and Nikon f4 version show a similar amount of distortion and Nikon is on top noticeably soft in the corners at the wide end and it generally improve much more stopped down then the better Sony and Canon versions. The Sigma 85mm also has noticeable distortion… there many other examples of this across brands so the Sony isn’t true, Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron all have plenty of lenses with pronounced distortion it’s a trend across brands and one cannot say one is better or worse then any other.

Because the lens doesn't correct distortion optically. Soon, we may not need a lens at all. Everything is digitally created.

@@kikipratama1 but does it matter in the end, if you end up with sharp and non distorted image? Can you tell the difference between end result of optical VS digital correction?

99% of people will be better off with the 16-50 kit lens (24-75mm equiv) which is 12x cheaper and 4x smaller

the rivals are rf 1435 and z 1430

@@kevc.2958 neither will work on my camera though, I ended up buying the 16-35mm F4 PZ...

I'm not trying to answer for Christopher, but if size, weight, and video aren't your priorities then I have to think the GM is where you want to be. Although my two copies were quite soft around 35mm - still a very good lens.

@@jakelindsay6251 Thank you for the advise.

I am debating the same thing and still haven't been able to decide. Based on what I am seeing the the gen 1 24-70 gm I could wait and buy the 16-35 GM sub $1K.

@@ECDPhotography That would be an insane deal, although I doubt the 16-35mm GM will get as cheap as the 24-70mm GM since it's considered a much better lens.

@@mrmonday42 I picked one up for $1250! Mint condition with packaging and UV filter.

Sadly, Gerald Undone said it does reset every time you turn it off.

@@RandumbTech ugh that's so disappointing!

@@TravelMangoMedia No, it doesn't. Gerald Undone test the pre-production version. The final release version fix that. I bought tihs lens and did test it on it. It will keep the focal lenght where it was.

@@ericsam1223 that's great news!!

Can you say if this lens reset every time you wake up the camera? Someone already confirmed that it does when you turn on but I wan to know if it's the same for waking up the camera too. What I mean that is, when you've been shooting at a let's say at full zoom, then you take a break but you don't turn off the camera, but after a while the camera goes into "sleep" mode for battery conservation but when you press the shutter it wakes back up. Whe you do that does the lens stay at the full zoom focal length you left it at it does it resets back to wide "default" focal length?

@@TravelMangoMedia yes i'm confirming this. But, most of the time if I'm shooting in the moment the lens will of course stay right where I left it. So if I turn the camera off (I don't have it set to sleep that quickly since I'm a news/sports shooter I need my gear awake) and then I turn the camera back on, I'm in a totally different shooting situation anyway so the change in MM didn't matter at all. I hope I've explained this well enough.

@@SlotCarNewsOfficial thanks! The kind of shooting I do I would be an issue. And I have the older 18 to 105 one and that used to cause me to miss a lot of momants just from the the second or two it takes to reset whether from sleeping or turning it on. I hardly use it nowadays. To just be able to turn and you camera it it be ready instantaneously and be able to swiftly turn to your desired focal length is something we take for granted until dealing with a PZ lens lol

The Sigma I think it's a step forward... but not in terms of size.

@@CristoforoBonissone thanks. I eventually replace Sigma 14-24 with Sony 16-35 GM2.

@@eViperRabbit I'm very sorry to lose the creativity of those two millimeters (14mm). If you travel on rough terrain I understand the choice of Sony but if you travel on city terrain the Sigma is your choice. I think.

It's good enough for 4k, let alone 1080p :-)

Go with prime. You already have a zoom lens

Maybe you're right, maybe it does deserve a 'highly' :-)

He’s a canon fanboy/hates when Sony is better than them.

@@Yupthereitism That's one of the dumber things I've read on the internet today.

@@Yupthereitism Nonsense.

How it performance with apsc camera ?

I fully agree on this, I too would like a little more wide angle, like Canon and Nikon are offering. Seems Sony is now the conservative market leader and the other brands are the disruptors...

What about Sony 12-24 f2.8 gm lens?

The wide end even corrected is actually at least 15mm, if not wider.

@@frankfeng2701 Do you have a link to the site showing that? I might consider the lens if it's wider than 16mm.

@@kapilesh14 Heavy, can't take filters. Would say the same for the f/4 version too.

distoration can be adjusted by body without notice, according to my usage and many review, its image quality is way better than old 1635 (with in-body distortion compensation enabled)

Needing good performance at 35mm is the main reason to upgrade for stills shooters. The ZA is known to be soft to very soft at 35. I have one and tested.. it is indeed super smudgy at 35.

It’s overall better then the old GM, especially at the long end where many copies of the GM version really ran into some noticeable softness especially in the corners, many of them you need to stop down noticeable at the long end for getting rid of that underwhelming performance, this one is just better beyond 24mm as this one is performing through the range, I never seen a GM version that managed to do so, but that was generally how it was back then, but today you can get almost equal performance through the range. The main draw back is distortion, vignetting and that one stop slower, but on the other hand it has far better flare and aberration control then the GM version. But really this is really small and lightweight so for travel, street and video I think it’s a nice package. Also there resellers who has been told a new GM should come out late 2022 or early 2023. I’m sure it will fix those issues and overall be better then this but also at an additional price. I ended up getting on some months ago as I was literally shocked how well rounded a lens this is. I thought like you there where no way, but Sony really pulled a surprise on this one.

@@mikni4069 thank you so much for your feedback! The latest Sony releases have been incredibly good.

@@AndreMonz Agree, you should try it out, I just love this as a casual lens, so small and light and it reminds me of the hay day days of m4/3. I love that I can now have lenses that are this small with so few compromises..

Dony 😊

Noo.. keep em up, please :)

You can tell he's been tired of them for years, that's why the reviews are so low effort and practically useless.

1700$ in my country. Way too expensive

sony with 12-24 2.8 and canon rf 10-20 f4.

Nah

No, you don’t. Just as with the RF14-35, the uncorrected image has a larger field of view than the advertised wide angle, so no pixels need to be ‘invented’.

That’s the only way you can make lenses that small and light, you won’t get a UW zoom lens under 400g and prime seize if you don’t accept this. Even Nikon 14-30 or Canon 14-35 f4 lenses have some identical amount of distortion and vignetting also the case with both Tamron and Sigma in around the range as well has noticeable amount. If one doesn’t find it acceptable there is the OM 2.8 version that generally has far less of these issues but sharpness and contrast generally isn’t much gain if any. Also uncorrected these has a larger view. So no you don’t have to do what you say.

@@GroovBird so why not put a zoom stop before the really bad distortion. I have an R6 and A74 and need a wide angle zoom for one of them. The RF is more expensive but I dislike the power zoom on the Sony. Need to re watch the RF wide angle review.

@@tekguyphoto 16mm will always have noticeable distortion especially in a zoom the GM uncorrected also has noticeable distortion and making it small and light certainly isn’t helping. I do not get the issue people have with distortion on a UW lens. I understand it’s not something you wanna see in the short tele range or a 50mm range but on a UW you’re going to get distortion the only way to avoid it is making the lenses very large, bulky and expensive. The PZ is fine, I own one I was like many other really sceptical but people really overreact on this, PZ is far better today then some years ago.

Even the 14mm GM has some distortion

Why does it matter if the end result is good?

​@@pizzablender After correcting such distortion, there will be nothing good at the edges. In case of a 10% barrel correction, pixels at the edges can be stretched up to 40%. This not only kills the very idea of "honest" details, but also increases noise and artifacts.

@@dima1353 I have the lens, your just talking nonsense it’s a UW lens not a mid prime or short tele prime. You will always have noticeable distortion on photography UW lenses… even the best corrected Mirrorless UW the 14Gm has distortion every other lens at 14mm has noticeable even more so especially the zooms. To reduce this effect the lenses would need to be made big, heavy and expensive, there no photography UW lens that doesn’t have noticeable distortion going wider then 20mm. The only one I ever seen was some plus €4000 cine lenses and to get truly good results we talked at least €10-20.000!

@@dima1353 The pixels may be moved a large distance, but the stretching is pretty minimal. As you say, 10%.

@@dima1353 That's why these lenses have a wider FOV than what is stated, so that those "blurred" pixels on the edge of the image are literally cropped out. You have no idea what you're talking about.

what a rambling, take some photos and stop commenting.

@@hardywoodaway9912 Make me. But you know what, just for you, I'll do that middle bit. I'll go out and take some photos with my significantly cheaper lenses that have so much better distortion characteristics that not once have I had to correct them in post in the four years I've had them, because the distortion is invisible in normal shooting.

@@RealRaynedance Blah blah blah. You can buy multiple primes and carry them all around to get better distortion performance at a given focal length, or you can buy this one lens and rely on software fixes to get you 99% of the way there. There are very few (if any) UW zoom lenses (ZOOM, not PRIME) that have the performance you are asking for because it just isn't realistic without making a gigantic, heavy lens. Price - Performance - Form Factor. Pick Two.

@@beaugagne1 Price and performance. Every time. Sony's cameras are bordering on comically small and chasing size when it's not necessary because _the current 16-35 wasn't big_ and it results in this kind of sacrifice feels either lazy or completely apathetic. And yes, I'm aware the power zoom mechanism makes it bigger than if it didn't have it.

@@RealRaynedance Yeah but the 16-35 ZA is mushy garbage at 35. I've had two and seen it first hand, and reviewers commonly cite the issue too. For those of us who need performance at 35, this lens is very appealing.