Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
 

Hi

I got the LAEA2 adapter. Now i have two choices of lens and need some advice

1) Sony 16-50mm F2.8
2) Sony Zeiss 24mm F2
I could get a deal the different for Zeiss is only $100-$150 more than the 16-50mm

Do we really need that zoom range when video shooting? i heard some people saying that the 16-50mm is as sharp as a zeiss lens, is that true? however it's just a kit lens for A77

My usage are wedding, events, commercial, documentary

Lenses i have now: e 16mm f2.8, e 50mm f1.8, fd 35mm f2.8, voigtlander 35mm f1.4, fd canon 35-105mm

Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
 

Although only used the 16-50 a few times, I can tell you it's a cracking lens and covers a good range.

If you went for that, you could sell on your sony 16mm and canon fd 35mm since the Sony covers both focal lengths & at the same maximum aperture of f2.8 (but have heard the LAEA2 adaptor loses some light v the LAEA1).

Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
 

The 16mm is still worth to keep, since it's light weight, i like to use it when I handheld my glidecam 2000
And it will also give f2.8 with autofocus compare to autofocus at f3.5 with laea2

Fd 35mm is only $40, it doesn't really hurt my pocket
Instead, I'd want to sell to Voigtlander, it cost $650 And i think I will leave the 1650 on camera most of the time

Besides, do you find 1650 need lens support on fs100? It seems heavy with the laea2

Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
 

With the LAEA1 adaptor and the 16-50mm you can get away without a lens support, although have personally found shooting handheld with it awkward so I do use a monopod sometimes (although same applies to the FS100 with any lens, for me).

Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
 

I will use it with manfrotto 561 monopod most of the time. It helps alot when using lens without IS.
Will you take this 1650 lens off when not using it?

I use laea2, I think it's heavier than laea1.

Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
 

Just to change the thread a little, does anyone have an opinion of the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
It's a quarter of the price of the Nikon 17-55 for example.

Re: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 or Zeiss 24mm F2?
 

I watch some reviews, it's not really sharp... I think sigma will have better quality than tamron

If you get a used Nikon, it's about $900. I choose Sony 16-50 2.8, brand new is still $900
It's a sharper lens compare to the two I mention above. With laea2 adapter, u can have autofocus (stay at f3.5) and parfocus, iris control, and not so heavy.

Do u really the zoom? I feel that I should get Zeiss 24mm f1.8 instead.

If you are really on a budget, not bad for tamron. But I will get a better lens for this range because it's gonna be a 'always on to go' lens