Birma wrote:... Both with Sony A99 and KM 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (D).
I am very interested to investigate which wide-angle I am most comfortable with on FF. I like the Sony CZ 16-80 on APS-C and so something 24+ on FF would seem to be ideal. The Sony CZ 24-70 is a big purchase and if 28+ was sufficiently wide for me then the Sony or Tamron 28-75 would be less painful for the bank balance. However perhaps even wider would be better. I have not enjoyed using the Tamron 11-18 range on APS-C, but maybe there is a different feel to ultra wide on FF? I decided to get hold of a second-hand 17-35 (f/2.8-4) and then with my 24-105 (and 35-70) I could investigate what I felt most comfortable / useful with on FF before making a bigger investment in glass. I tried shots at 17, 24, and 35 and the ones at 17 on FF were may favourite. Obviously very early days and no decisions yet.
The KM 17-35 is a nice enough lens. Vignetting and soft in the corners at 17mm (perhaps just as would be expected with this field of view). Zooms and focuses nicely for sedate landscape shooting. Big flare in the first shot, but the sun is in the centre of the frame (nice to have an EVF in these cases to protect the eyes!). Seems crisp enough over most of the frame and the corners improve as you zoom in.
The ZA 24-70 f2.8 is definitely a great lens and surely worth it's expensive price.
The Sony/Minolta 28-75 f2.8 is a good option (good IQ, great at close focus, the Sony version is SAM and, in my own experience, focus a little faster and more accurate than the Minolta) I don't think you need a zoom that starts at 24mm if you already have the 17-35 f2.8-4. In order to avoid vignetting or soft corners, use the 17-35 at f11 (and a slim filter, not the regular ones). At the long end, this lens can be soft if wide open
I don't believe the 24-105 is good enough for 24MP full frame cameras -It was quite good on the 7D; just OK on the A700 and if you got FF I fear you'll be disappointed.