So I finally pulled the trigger on a Sony A7R IV because I want to get serious about my landscape stuff, mostly hiking around the Olympic Peninsula and the Oregon coast. Ive been doing a ton of reading and Im stuck between a couple of paths. Most people say the 16-35mm GM II is the gold standard but then I see the 12-24mm f/2.8 and those ultra-wide shots look incredible. My logic was that if Im spending over $2,000 I should get the most range possible, but then I realized the 12-24 doesnt take standard screw-on filters easily. I really need my CPL and NDs for long exposures at the beach, so thats a huge hurdle.
I also looked at the 20mm f/1.8 G which everyone says is crazy sharp and way lighter for my backpack, but Im worried Ill get to a cliffside and feel cramped. Im trying to decide if the convenience of the 16-35 outweighs that extra 4mm on the wide end or if I should just go for a prime and learn to stitch panoramas. Budget is somewhat flexible but Id like to stay under $2,500 if I can. Does anyone who actually hikes with this gear have a preference? Is 12mm actually usable for most shots or is it just a gimmick that makes everything look too distorted...?
In my experience hiking the PNW, 12mm usually makes the headlands look like tiny dots in the distance. I've tried many setups and found that fumbling with bulky square filter holders on a windy cliff is just a total nightmare.
- Go with the Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II for those 82mm threads.
- If you need wider, stitch a vertical panorama. Filter convenience is king near salt spray.
Been thinking about your dilemma. Honestly, 12mm is a cool party trick but it often makes majestic mountains look like tiny dots on the horizon. I've spent years lugging gear up trails and trust me, that extra width usually isnt worth the headache of custom filter systems. If you want the best results on that A7R IV sensor without breaking the bank or your back, the Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G is basically a cheat code. Its insanely sharp. Whenever I feel cramped at 20mm, I just shoot vertical frames and stitch them. You end up with a massive file that looks way cleaner than a single ultra-wide frame anyway. But if you really need the zoom, the Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II is the only glass I'd trust for those 61 megapixels. Its pricey but you wont regret it when you're on a windy cliff and dont want to be swapping lenses in the rain.
> Regarding what #3 said about "Been thinking about your dilemma. Honestly, 12mm is a cool party trick", I have to agree. From a technical standpoint, the extreme perspective distortion at 12mm often diminishes the perceived scale of large geographical features. Since youre shooting with an A7R IV, resolving power is the most critical metric for your glass. Here is how the two most reliable options stack up:
- Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II: This lens was specifically updated to handle high-resolution sensors. The MTF charts show significantly better corner-to-corner sharpness compared to the version I. The 82mm front thread is a massive advantage because you can use a standard B+W 82mm Master Circular Polarizer without the light leak issues common with rear-filter or square systems.
- Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G: Technically, this lens is a masterpiece for the price. It is lighter for long hikes and holds its own against GM glass in terms of center resolution. Its a decent option if you prefer primes. For the Oregon coast, the 16-20mm range is usually the sweet spot. If you prioritize mechanical reliability and weather sealing in salt spray, the 16-35mm is the logically superior choice.
Since youre using the A7R IV, you need glass that handles that 61MP sensor! My breakdown for the coast:
- Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II is incredible because it fits standard 82mm filters for your long exposures.
- Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G is amazing for weight, but you might feel cramped on tight cliffs.
- Sony FE 12-24mm F2.8 GM is fantastic glass but way too bulky for hiking with square filter kits. The 16-35 is the clear winner!
