Best wide-angle zoom lens for landscapes on Sony a7 IV?

Question

Hey everyone! I recently picked up a Sony a7 IV and I’m absolutely loving the autofocus and the 33MP sensor, but I’m struggling to find the perfect wide-angle zoom for my landscape work. I’ve been using a standard 24-70mm, but I keep hitting that 24mm wall when I’m trying to capture big mountain ranges or tight woodland scenes.

I’m planning a trip to the Dolomites later this year, so I really want something that’s sharp from edge to edge and can handle the high resolution of the a7 IV. I’ve been torn between the Sony 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II and the more budget-friendly Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8. Weight is definitely a factor since I’ll be hiking quite a bit, but I don't want to sacrifice image quality for a lighter pack. I’ve also heard the Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ is great for travel, but I’m worried about the f/4 aperture for those low-light blue hour shots.

Has anyone here used these specific lenses on the a7 IV for landscapes? I'm curious if the GM II is really worth the massive price jump for the extra 1mm on the wide end, or if there's a 'sleeper' lens I'm totally overlooking. What’s your go-to wide-angle zoom for getting those crisp, expansive shots?

Harthanty · Accepted Answer

yo, just catching up on this thread! i went through this last year when i was first getting into landscape stuff. tbh, i’m always a bit cautious about dropping massive cash on gear, especially since i’m still learning the ropes. i ended up picking up the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD because the price-to-performance ratio just felt more reliable for a beginner like me. basically, my logic was that the 33MP sensor is great, but i didnt want to over-invest before knowing if i’d actually use 16mm. in my experience, that f/2.8 is reallyyy nice for those blue hour moments you mentioned... i think f/4 might have felt a bit limiting when things get dark. i did look at the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II, but for my hiking style, the lighter Tamron was a safer bet for my knees and my wallet lol. anyway, that’s just how i approached it—balancing that fear of low-light issues with a more conservative budget. gl in the Dolomites! 👍

Tammycurge · Answer

Yo! Adding my two cents here since I've spent way too much time obsessing over corner sharpness on my a7 IV. Honestly, that 33MP sensor is kinda picky—it'll show lens flaws that a lower res body might hide, especially when ur shooting expansive mountain ranges like the Dolomites. Basically, wide-angle lenses struggle most at the edges because of how they bend light to fit the frame. If ur planning to print large or crop in, that 'edge-to-edge' sharpness u mentioned becomes the most important thing. Most budget zooms are sharp in the center, but they turn into a smeary mess in the corners, which is exactly where u don't want to lose detail in a landscape. Here's what I've found over the years: - Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II: Look, it's highkey the best option if budget isn't an issue. Sony fixed the weight problem from the first version, so it's actually pretty light for a GM. That extra 1mm on the wide end actually feels like a lot more when u are standing in front of a massive peak.
- Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary: This is the sleeper lens u might be looking for. It's way cheaper than the GM II and lighter too. The IQ is seriously impressive for the price, tho the corners aren't *quite* as clinical as the Sony at f/2.8.
- Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD: It’s a classic, but honestly, 17mm feels a bit tight sometimes compared to 16mm. I'd probably go for the Sigma instead if u want that extra width for big vistas.
- Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G: I'm always cautious recommending f/4 for landscapes if u do a lot of blue hour work. I mean, the a7 IV has great ISO performance, but having that f/2.8 helps the AF system lock on in dim light without hunting as much. In my experience, if ur hiking the Dolomites, the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II is the "safe" bet to ensure u don't get home and wish u had better glass. It's a massive investment, but for a 33MP sensor, it's pretty much the gold standard. gl with the trip! 👍

glambymahdis · Answer

> I've also heard the Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ is great for travel, but I'm worried about the f/4 aperture for those low-light blue hour shots. Honestly, if youre worried about f/4 but want to stay light, youre looking at a super crowded market right now. Everyone defaults to the GM II vs Tamron debate, but you should really check out the Sony FE 16-25mm f/2.8 G. Its basically the modern answer for hikers who need that f/2.8 speed without the bulk or price of the flagship glass. Another sleeper that gets overlooked is the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary. From a market research perspective, Sigma really nailed the build quality here - it feels a bit more solid than the Tamron 17-28mm and it has internal zooming which is great for keeping dust out in the mountains. Basically, if you can live with a shorter zoom range, these newer compact f/2.8 lenses are the sweet spot for that 33MP sensor. The GM II is incredible, but idk if that extra reach to 35mm is worth an extra thousand bucks when youre already carrying a 24-70mm anyway. I would personally go with the 16-25mm G - it balances perfectly on the a7 IV and the optics are seriously impressive for the size.