David Kilpatrick wrote:But I've been missing the 24mm equivalent (or lens) with my two alternative lenses being the 28-75mm f/2.8 (exceptional for close-ups) and the 28-105mm, on the A900. The 17-35mm is OK at 24mm but can not really be kept on the camera as a walkaround lens. The Sigma 12-24mm is wonderful at 12mm to 16mm, but deteriorates so much that by 24mm it's almost useless (they have always had this problem).
I have the same lenses and a similar problem on my A900. The 28-75 is a very nice lens, its fast and light, but it's sometimes just not wide enough. The 17-35 is not great - I have tried three of them, and its performance is variable. I have the Sigma 12-24, but I rarely need less than 16mm, so I use it at its worst focal lengths.
I invested in the CZ 24-70, which is a great lens, and I have it on my camera most of the time. However, I reckon I would get good benefit from getting down to 16-23, but how do I do that? I'm starting to think that the CZ 16-35 would have been a better purchase than the CZ 24-70. I could then use the 28-75 for mid range. I also have the Sony 50 f/1.4 which gets very little use because of the CZ 24-70.
I'm therefore considering selling the CZ 24-70 and acquiring the CZ 16-35 instead. What I can't find out is whether the 16-35 is as good as the 24-70 in their overlapping focal lengths. Do you have any knowledge about this?