my head is actually spinning trying to pick a lens for my A7IV before my trip to the Isle of Skye next month. Everything native is way too much money right now. Im torn between these two:
the Art is heavy as a brick and I gotta hike miles with it but the 16-28 feels like maybe it wont be sharp enough? budget is strictly $1000 max and I need to buy it this week. I just want something that wont break my back but still gives me those crisp mountain shots... which is actually better for long treks?
Grab the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary! I lugged the Art through Skye once and it was agony. This 450g beauty is magic tho!!
Coming back to this, you really need to be careful about the filter situation if you are heading to Skye. The Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 DG DN Art is an incredible piece of glass, but that bulbous front element means you cant just screw on a circular polarizer or ND filter. For landscapes in a place like Scotland, that is a massive technical hurdle. A few things I would suggest checking:
Just found this thread today. In my experience hiking through the Highlands, Ive seen plenty of folks make the mistake of prioritizing theoretical sharpness over actual portability. Over the years, Ive tried many setups and the heavy glass trap is real... it can really ruin a trip.