Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM and FE 12-24mm f/4 G lenses announced

Sony announced two new FE lenses:

Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM

  • E-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format
  • Aperture Range: f/2.8 to f/22
  • Two Extra-Low Dispersion Elements
  • Three Aspherical and Two XA Elements
  • Nano AR and Fluorine Coatings
  • Two Direct Drive SSM AF Groups
  • Focus Hold Button, AF/MF Switch
  • Dust and Moisture-Resistant Construction
  • Eleven-Blade Circular Diaphragm

Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G

  • E-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format
  • Aperture Range: f/2 to f/22
  • Four Aspherical Elements
  • One Super ED and Three ED Elements
  • Nano AR Coating
  • Direct Drive Super Sonic Wave Motor
  • Focus Hold Button, AF/MF Switch
  • Dust and Moisture-Resistant Construction
  • Seven-Bladed Rounded Diaphragm

Full press release:

Sony Introduces Two New Wide-Angle Full-Frame E-Mount Lenses

SAN DIEGO, May 17, 2017 – Sony Electronics, a worldwide leader in digital imaging and the world’s largest image sensor manufacturer, has today announced two new additions to their growing lineup of full-frame E-mount lenses.

The new lenses include the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM large aperture wide-angle zoom lens (model SEL1635GM) and the FE 12-24mm F4 G ultra wide-angle zoom lens (model SEL1224G). The FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM lens brings the incredible high-resolution and beautiful bokeh of Sony’s flagship G Master series to a wide 16-35mm focal length for exceptional landscapes, cityscapes, portraits and more, while the 12-24mm F4 G, Sony’s widest full-frame E-mount lens to date, offers a dynamic new perspective for all Sony E-mount shooters. In total, Sony’s full-frame E-mount lens lineup now covers from ultra-wide 12mm to super-telephoto 800mm (with teleconverter) focal length range.

New FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

The new FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM wide-angle zoom joins the acclaimed FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM and FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS to round out Sony’s lineup of F2.8 large aperture zoom lenses. Equipped with a variety of Sony’s most advanced lens technologies, it’s the first wide-angle G Master model, making it ideal for an extensive variety of shooting situations - landscapes, architecture, close up portraits, sports, action and much more. It’s also exceptionally lightweight and compact, maximizing portability and usability.

The new lens features exceptional corner-to-corner sharpness, with an optical design that includes five aspherical elements, two of which are Sony’s original XA (extreme aspherical) elements that reduce aberration and delivers the ultimate resolution throughout the entire zoom and aperture range. The front XA element on the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM is the largest XA element ever produced, ensuring optimum quality. Additionally, two ED (Extra-low-Dispersion) glass elements keep chromatic aberration to a minimum while maximizing resolution, and Sony’s original Nano AR coating suppresses internal reflections to ensure excellent image contrast and clarity.

The lens features a near circular aperture shape at all settings, and the combination of the aforementioned XA element with its 11 blade aperture design produces images with sharply focused subjects and beautifully defocused backgrounds or “bokeh”. It also has two DDSSMs (Direct Drive SSM) that compose a floating focusing system and ensure that AF acquisition is speedy and quiet, making it an ideal choice for shooting still images as well as movies.
The FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM is also dust and moisture resistant, has a fluorine coating on the front lens that helps to both prevent dust or grease marks and remove them easily if they do become a trouble. There’s also a customizable focus hold button and a hood release button.

New FE 12-24mm F4 G Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

A uniquely designed ultra wide-angle zoom lens, the new FE 12-24mm F4 G lens produces outstanding image quality in a compact, lightweight design, weighing in at approximately 20 oz. Sony’s widest full-frame E-mount lens, it offers a dynamic perspective for landscape, architecture and interior photography, and is well-suited for both stills and video shooting.

The lens features an innovative optical design with four aspherical elements that ensure excellent corner to corner sharpness and resolution. Additionally, the lens has three ED glass elements and one Super ED glass element that minimize chromatic aberration throughout the entire image, and also includes Sony’s original Nano AR coating.

The new FE 12-24mm F4 G lens includes a DDSSM (Direct Drive SSM) for fast, quiet and precise AF performance, plus a customizable focus hold button and focus mode switch. It’s also dust and moisture resistant.

Pricing & Availability

The new FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM Wide-angle Zoom Lens will ship this August and will be sold for about $2,200 US and $3,000 CA.

The new FE 12-24mm F4 G Ultra Wide-angle Zoom Lens will ship this July sold for about $1,700 US and $2,300 CA.

This entry was posted in Sony. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • sickheadache

    Sony is Leica Proud. Just wait till Sony produces…Telephoto Lenses. Sony is going to stick a price tag of 10 grand each..on 300mm and 400mm and 500mm And above. lol

    • and you will have to wait a few more years…

    • These aren’t too badly priced. Canon’s 11-24 is $1k more than the 12-24 (albeit a mm wider at the wide end) and the Sony 16-35 is only $100 more than the Canon 16-35’s launch price of $2,200 (although it seems as though they can be had for less now, but Sony lenses get discounts every year as well).

  • paige4o4

    Oh boy. My 14-24 was one of the lenses keeping me tied to Nikon (even though it can be adapted). But Sony is reinforcing the idea that they are interested in making Pro hardware. Especially considering the 12-24 at $1700 sounds like crazy good deal.

    • jmb2560

      Exactly the same feeling here. The 14-24mm is virtually my “prime” lens for landscape photography. I use it most of the time with a Lee 150mm. I had it for 6 years and I still love it. Let’s wait and see how the Sony 12-24mm compares but I agree that it’s tempting.

  • TinusVerdino

    At least you can put a screw on filter on the 16-35 albeit an expensive one. Sony should add some color to it’s lens design. This black on black is getting a bit boring

    • Neopulse

      It also has red and silver :-/

  • 120_300 OS for nikon

    Nice but there is an Sigma 12-24 art on the market for 1599 us dolars and now even hundred less at i think it was B&H

    • EcoR1

      You might want to check the weight of the Sigma. Sony 12-24mm weights 565 g. Sigma is 1150 g + ~150 g adapter. That’s a mad crazy difference. Worst of all, the Sigma is seriously more front heavy when the adapter is pushing the weight even further away from the camera. I think for a Sony user it would be laughable to choose Sigma when you consider the weight & ergonomic benfits of Sony 12-24.

      • Ivan Kutsarov

        Yes but maybe Sigma is better optically. Cheaper + better can compensate weight factor.

    • abortabort

      A third party lens cheaper than an OEM lens (and cheaper still already on sale)? Who would have known?! Only marginally cheaper and half the weight… that is actually surprising.

  • Neopulse

    Now the super telephoto primes (zooms also hopefully) like a 300mm f/4 and a 400 f/5.6 in their lower tier lines.

    • abortabort


      • Neopulse

        Already out

        • abortabort

          I am aware.

  • Jeffry De Meyer

    I thought they were going to release a very special lens

    • abortabort

      The 12-24mm is ‘surprising’ in specification.

      • Jeffry De Meyer

        Dunno, sigma has one and had a variable aperture one for even longer

        • The Sony is half the weight of the Sigma.

          • Jeffry De Meyer

            Is that important for an ultra wide lens? I find it really hard to shoot those out of hand since you need to pay attention to so much.

          • Azmodan

            No, but if you are going on a long hike and want to reduce weight, lugging a 565g lens is a heck of alot nicer than a 1.2kg lens, especially since you’ll have other gear too. I would rarely use a lens like this handheld for landscape, but in tight interiors of say church where no tripods allowed it would also be a lot nicer to handhold than the Sigma or Canon.

  • AYWY

    No more APS E-mount love?

    • abortabort

      100-400mm, 85mm f1.8, 50mm macro…

      Don’t they already have a 10-18mm f4 APS-C lens?

      • AYWY

        Not interested in FE lenses that are over-priced and over-sized for APS use.

        The 10-18 is great but i hope a uw zoom can reach 24mm. And that was released in 2012. And nearly 3x more expensive than Canon’s new 10-18mm. Really don’t care about constant aperture if i’m going to be at f/5.6 and lower. We just got a 30 f/1.4 from Sigma last year, but overall the commitment to native aps emount is wanting.

        • abortabort

          Yeah the FE 100-400mm is way bigger than the Fuji APS-C lens… oh wait. The FE 85mm f1.8 is way bigger than the Fuji 90mm f2 lens… oh wait.

          Does it take a special kind of stupid to be like you?

          • AYWY

            Not interested in Fujis. Sony and Fuji APS are getting overpriced.

            Why so angry?

          • You probably said something bad about Sony. Happens every time 🙂

          • abortabort

            Actually nothing worse than these APS-C idiots who repeat the same mantra like it’s fact, when faced with actual facts they trip over themselves with confusion.

          • but fuji is metal, more durability for similar weight and size.

          • abortabort

            According to whom exactly? Considering the 100-400mm hasn’t been released yet and nobody has reviewed it, it makes this statement pure fanboy fantasy.

          • according the lenses that’s already been released. Has sony made a metal lens? I thought they were all plastic?

            Also last I checked (about a year ago) sony equivalents we’re a lot more expensive than the same FL (and similar aperture) as Fuji. Or has that changed now?

          • abortabort

            Have a look at lens rentals teardown of the 70-200mm G Master (I would link it but links go into moderation), looks pretty metal to me. Same with a plethora of their other lenses, Sony didn’t start making lenses with E-Mount, my 135mm STF is pretty metal for example. Think you’re getting some bad info (KR perhaps?). Saying that, the 85mm just released is probably plastic, it’s a budget lens that is not only smaller and lighter than the 90mm Fuji, but cheaper as well (while still covering FF).

            Saying that, I think you have missed my point, the optical design is largely what makes a lens the size it is, not whether it is made of metal or plastic (however these would affect weight to an extent). The Batis 85mm is not cheaply made and is still smaller than the Fuji 90mm.

            As for whether they are more expensive, which lenses? It’s a bit hard to know what you are specifically referring to. The Sony 24mm f1.8 is more expensive than the Fuji 23mm f2, but is optically better. The Sony 50mm f1.8 OSS is cheaper than the Fuji 50mm f2, the Fuji may be better. The Sony 35mm f1.8 is cheaper than the Fuji from memory, the Fuji is almost certainly optically better. The Sony 85mm is cheaper than the Fuji 90mm, the 90mm may have a slight edge. The Fujis are weather sealed, the Sony’s aren’t, the Sony 35mm and 50mm have both got OSS, the Fuji’s don’t. The Sony’s are all 1/3 stop faster, for what that’s worth. The Sony’s have been around for about 5 years (except the 85mm, that’s brand new), the Fuji’s are all pretty recent, in fact their most recent lenses.

          • The Fuji 23mm 1.4 is CHEAPER than the Sony 24mm 1.8 and it is FASTER. Fuji advantage.

            The sony 50mm 1.8 is cheaper and is WORSE than the fuji 50mm f2. Fuij advantage

            The sony 35mm 1.8 is about the same price as the fuji, but the fuji opens to 1.4 and all the reviews say this is one of Fuji’s signature lenses, comparing it to Leica. Fuji advantage.

            I get what you say about FL and weight. But being FF doesn’t come cheap unless you make compromises in image quality/smaller apertures.

            So wouldn’t it be more fair to say to those APSC nerds out there that FL and weight is somewhat similar, but quality is better on a dedicated APSC lens (unless you want to pay for the Sony Zeiss lenses, which is way more expensive).

            In summary there’s still value in buying a dedicated APSC lens and camera. You can compare “similar” FF lenses, but you compromise quality. Would that be more of a accurate statement?

          • abortabort

            I compared to the newer f2 series Fuji’s as they are more similar in design to the Sony lenses, both being fast internal focus designs specifically designed for mirrorless cameras. The older lenses are faster (aperture), but they are relatively simple and slow unit focussing designs which are easier to make in a small package (look at M mount lenses, which also happen to be FF). Even still I could argue some of your assessments, the 50mm’s for example, each have their pros and cons, that doesn’t give automatic advantage to Fuji just ‘cos (but that’s getting off track, way, way off).

            As for making compromises. I disagree. Lens designs seem to also. I wouldn’t call the Batis 85mm or Sony 85mm to have significant compromises compared to the Fuji. Sure fanboys the world over will argue until they are blue in the fact that one has some (tiny) significant advantage… But they are all very capable lenses. The FF lenses certainly don’t seem to be at any disadvantage for size or weight due to being full frame. None. Same goes for the 100-400mm GM vs the Fuji.

            This is probably more reflected in the longer FLs mostly, however that is what has been missing in the Sony lineup for APS-C and are now available. What I cannot understand is the stamping that had (say) the 85mm f1.8 been APS-C (only) then is ‘would have been’ smaller, lighter and cheaper. I use the Fuji example (but we could also mention Samsung I guess) as an example of why that is a major fallacy held and repeated by APS-C users. They will find cases that they think are reflective of this, but usually they are so confused by their own argument they will often start ‘explaining’ how for APS-C an 85mm lens would be 56mm and therefore smaller… Sure for an 85mm ‘equivalent’ (but then they’d want a 56mm lens, which is what they should compare it to), but for those who want an actual 85mm lens (~125mm equiv) then no, not so much.

            If a user was hoping for a 100-400mm APS-C lens and thinks that the full frame lens just announced is ‘too big and heavy’, let’s just say they would be very disappointed in what that mythical lens would have actually been (see Fuji lens as example).

            This is my point. They also just got a low cost macro as well that is well suited to APS-C. In fact the APS-C lineup has filled out nicely, with the majority of wider focal lengths already well in place.

          • abortabort

            Where is Nikon’s APS-C 85mm? 100-400mm? What’s that? 🙂

          • Here is the Nikon 85mm APS-C lens (yes, it is a macro):
            Nikon does need more DX primes, nobody is arguing that.

          • abortabort

            It’s definitely smaller lighter than silly full frame lenses of a similar FL / aperture 😉

            Actually I’m arguing that. Well, ok maybe some wider lenses for APS-C would be good.

          • My first comment was just a joke – I do not want to be part of this discussion, I learned my lesson already 🙂

          • abortabort


          • abortabort

            Derp derp. Nope it’s the fact that there is no size and weight advantage for APS-C ‘specific’ lenses. The advantage comes from using a shorter focal length for an ‘equivalent’ FoV. When it comes to ACTUAL FLs there is no advantage. So if someone were wanting an 85-90mm f1.8 lens (actual FL) for APS-C there is no advantage compared to using an APS-C specific lens or FF lens.

            APS-C beggars can’t seem to figure this out though.

          • There is an advantage especially at wide and normal focal lengths. Why don’t you compare the Fuji 14mm f/2.8 to either Nikon or Canon 14mm f/2.8? Or the Fuji 18mm f/2 to any other full frame 18mm f/2.8 (or slower) lens?

          • abortabort

            Well you are comparing FF DSLR lenses to APS-C mirrorless lenses. The advantage of mirrorless is in wide angle, not particularly to APS-C. But yes, there probably is a bigger advantage in that range. Wide angle IS the area where APS-C need their own lenses, if for nothing more than the reduced FoV.

            Most APS-C users complaining about Sony’s lack of new APS-C specific lenses is about things like ‘primes longer than 50mm’ and ‘longer telephoto lenses’. Well that and an f2.8 standard zoom.

            As to your specific example, have a look at Leica and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4’s which are full frame lenses, CV have one upcoming for E-Mount.

          • AYWY

            In which case i can understand why Canon continues to dominate market share. Their product range is varied enough to fit a large variety of people with different income backgrounds and different needs, and don’t belittle the poor.

          • abortabort


            With their extensive range of APS-C specific lenses?

          • AYWY

            Of course. Their range is definitely better. Just in recent years, they keep updating their range.

            2012: 18-135 stm
            2013: 18-55 stm
            2013: 55-250 stm
            2014: 10-18 stm
            2014: 24 stm
            2017: 35 macro stm

            Counting 3rd party updates from tamron, sigma and tokina since 2015 (less than 3 year period) – Off the top of my mind, updated 30 f/1.4, updated 10-24 VC, updated 18-200, new 14-20, new 11-20.

            If we start counting from 2000s their APS library gets even larger.

          • abortabort


            18-105mm f4 (constant) OSS
            18-55mm (yawn)
            55-210mm (yawn)
            10-18mm f4
            24mm f1.8
            30mm Macro

            So what’s good about this again? I’m not seeing the advantage.

            What else do they have?

            18-200mm v 18-200mm
            35mm f1.8 OSS vs nothing for Canon
            16mm f2.8 vs nothing
            20mm f2.8 vs nothing
            50mm f1.8 OSS vs nothing
            Nothing vs 60mm macro
            16-70mm f4 OSS vs 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS
            Nothing vs 17-55mm f2.8

            I’m not talking about third parties (which I agree are great).

            There is not a lot going on there for a system that has been around for what? 3 times as long?

          • AYWY

            (How could i miss the excellent sigma 18-35 and 50-100?)

            I hope to see: A more affordable 24mm. A choice of a UWA that reaches 24mm. A longer macro. A better 30mm macro, 16mm, 20mm and 12mm extension please (used them all for more than a year – just… average. Might as well have a variable aperture UWA.). An affordable variable aperture UWA would be nice too. Zoom that reaches 300mm.

            You are right – Canon don’t even provide some of these lenses! I used to think the same, until i realised 3rd parties are filling the gap. If it isn’t for them, Canikon APS is pathetic! But for whatever reasons, 3rd parties are no longer filling in for APS e mount.

            We have chicken-and-egg. Less lenses means less confident camera buyers. Which means 3rd parties are less confident to release new lenses. It’ll be nice if Sony as the format owner breaks the deadlock. Release a variable aperture UWA (Canon’s $280 10-18 IS STM says hi o_o) or affordable 24mm, and everyone will sit up and take notice.

            OK i know we disagree. You like the premium strategy Sony is working on. While i hope Sony adopts Canon’s wide-range approach. By the end of this year, i’ll pick a new APS body from one of Sony/Canon/Nikon. We’ll see if Sony wins me or I bow to the Canon overlord. (Nikon’s gone all weird now…)

      • The new 12-24 would still be quite wide on a aps-c camera

        • abortabort

          Yes. Although the 10-18mm is probably ‘more’ suitable. There is plenty of new lenses for APS-C users that are genuinely useful.

    • 1741

      They can’t make huge profits from lower end lenses an cameras and it’s the one thing that needs to be addressed by all the camera companies to get more people into photography, they don’t see the problem as they are happy with low volume high profit

      • Eddy Kamera

        They need to capture the higher end market first, after that they don’t even have to do the marketing – pros will endorse their products.

        Sony actually tried the cheaper-alternative approach before, (eg A850 and the A55 and more) but this strategy failed to leave an impression on the market.

        With the introduction of two high-end mirrorless (A7R2 and A7S2), Sony suddenly managed to overtake in the Nikon full-frame segment.

  • Azmodan

    dpreviews test shots with the 12-24 were hardly impressive, they want to get a lot better before I consider this. But the one thing that is goo9d, UWA lenses for mirrorless are one area they can be made a lot smaller for DSLR, at half the Sigma weight that’s huge advantage in the field.

    • CShowalter

      If only that was the case.
      In theory sure, but unless Sony comes up with a thinner sensor stack there is hardly any difference. The 16-35GM is completely in line with similar DSLR designs in terms of size and weight. The 12-24GM is lighter yes, but as you say, the dpreview samples suggest it looks rather meagre (imo) in the corners even stopped down f/8-f/16 (and that is “only” on 24 mp). I mean it is just speculation at this point but I would certainly not rule out that one could come up with a roughly similar performing DSLR desgin.

      • Azmodan

        The Sony is still 100g lighter thn the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III, but the 12-24 is half the weight of the CAnon and Sigma. I doubt it’s in the same class as the Sigma but who knows, if it pewrformas similarly at half the weight I’d be tempted. The wider the lens the more the short register distance (18mm SOny, 44mm Canon) aids in design. I’m sure CAnon and Sigma could design smaller lighter designs but I’d doubt they’d be as well corrected for aberrations and distortion.

  • Max

    Shouldn’t Sony be making some long lenses?

    • Neopulse

      They will…. they just catered to the landscape and astro- guys quite a bit with this release. They have been on a roll lately. I hope a 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 come out for the Sony line and the f/2.8 line for their G line at the end of the year.

  • Originaru

    I would like to see some serious, inteligent, unbiased person to take a deep look on those lenses, as i don’t believe anymore on Sony, i have a gut feeling that those lenses number probably don’t quite match the reality, i want someone to take a look if those are truly 16-35
    Or more like 17 or 18mm…
    I sure that those lenses are receiving super smart software corrections, is quite unbeliveable that Sony, made those lenses and they are as good as they seem to, and Canon and Nikon, experts never did it equal or better before.

  • Back to top