The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony FE 16-35/f4

chrisd

New member
Looks very nice Bill, I'm envious of your FE 16-35 (but not of that powdery white stuff).

My dilemma is whether to keep my EF 16-35/4 which I am very happy with on my A7R (with MB IV), or sell it and get the FE version. From the limited samples I have seen, I believe the FE mount is close but not as sharp as the Canon, but that opinion is not based on any proper comparisons. But assuming there is a slight loss in sharpness, there is a lot to be gained by using the native mount lens, with weather sealing in a smaller, lighter package. The other downside to me is the upgrade will cost me about $700 with the value of a used EF 16-35/4 around $1000, and the FE around $1700 including taxes here in Canada.

Decisions, decisions...
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
The OSS is fine - just the same as on the 24-70 or 70-200. If I'm leaning on, say, a door frame or wall, I can get sharp results at 1/2 second! Not every time, but likely every other shot.
Bill
 
Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4 VS WATE

To start with conclusion: WATE has better corner sharpness at 16 mm and all
apertures.
Just an example to show the difference at F8. I shoot many different subjects, with identical results. Difference in color is partly due to passing cloud and
partly to the absence of a vignetting correction profile for the WATE.

full image
full by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

WATE
wate by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

16-35
16-35 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

that said, the 16-35 gets rapidly better leaving the corners, and in a very large part of frame the 2 lenses are equally (very) good.

Sergio
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Answers that question NOT a replacement for my Canon 17 TSE. So right now makes no sense with my setup. Ill wait till the new year and see what changes i need to make to my system with reduction of the A77II if a new A7 series comes with better AF stuff. What I would like to get is a small 35mm lens. I had the Sigma 35 ART and its a great lens but I want some type of travel lens. Im wondering if Canons new 16-35 is actually better here, its certainly cheaper.
 
Last edited:

jagsiva

Active member
That's a big difference. I expected more from the Sony, especially given the comparisons to the new Canon 16-35IS and the Nikon 14-24.
 

Viramati

Member
Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4 VS WATE

To start with conclusion: WATE has better corner sharpness at 16 mm and all
apertures.
Just an example to show the difference at F8. I shoot many different subjects, with identical results. Difference in color is partly due to passing cloud and
partly to the absence of a vignetting correction profile for the WATE.



that said, the 16-35 gets rapidly better leaving the corners, and in a very large part of frame the 2 lenses are equally (very) good.

Sergio
Well if that is the difference at F8 I would hate to see what F4 looks like. Not that I am that interested in this lens seeing that I have the WATE I really would have thought that it should perform better at 16mm seeing that photographers will probably buy it for it's ultra-wide capabilities. Is it de-centered by any chance?
 
At F4 the difference is greater than at F8, but not a lot. It is not decentered, the same happens on all corners. It is due to field curvature, with a subject that on sides is much nearer, (U shaped) it is on par if not better than WATE.
In post #56, Bill notes that the lens is better between 19 and 30 mm, but I had no time for an extensive test
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm extremely happy with my 17 TSE best super wide I have used and yes I had a WATE. Plus you get benefits but you do get a work out. Lol

Heck of a lot cheaper by at least 2 times.
 

philber

Member
I tried a second-hand WATE a while back for some 3 weeks. Corner performance et al. indeed impressive, but I felt it was not the best in other terms. Not bad in any way, just not quite as good as Super Elmar 21 and Elmar 24, so I didn't buy such as expensive lens for next-to-best performance. Just my personal opinion, though.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I'm extremely happy with my 17 TSE best super wide I have used and yes I had a WATE. Plus you get benefits but you do get a work out. Lol

Heck of a lot cheaper by at least 2 times.
Yeah I may have to go the Canon TS-E route myself if this turns out to be another "meh" lens. It looks promising on one hand but the crops looked almost unfocused compared to the WATE.
 

philber

Member
I don't think it is altogether reasonable to harbor too much hope that a zoom lens like the 16-35 will outperform a lens costing some 3x to 4X more. That could be happen if the WATE didn't mate well to the A7R, but this isn't the case. In a straight shoot-out, either the Leica wins, or they are crooks for asking so much more money, and Sony idiots for not asking more.
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4 VS WATE

To start with conclusion: WATE has better corner sharpness at 16 mm and all
apertures.
Just an example to show the difference at F8. I shoot many different subjects, with identical results. Difference in color is partly due to passing cloud and
partly to the absence of a vignetting correction profile for the WATE.

full image
full by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

WATE
wate by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

16-35
16-35 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

that said, the 16-35 gets rapidly better leaving the corners, and in a very large part of frame the 2 lenses are equally (very) good.

Sergio
Many thanks Sergio...I was hoping to carry out more or less the same tests in a couple of days time when my 16-35mm FE arrives...I still will as I think it will only reinforce what you are already saying and what I suspected all along.
I think the lens will still make a great lightweight travel lens none the less.
Extra Pro's like covering 21-35mm, exif data relayed, weatherproofing and a similar o/a weight by the time you add on a Voigtlander close up adapter and the Leica filter holder..Thanks again Barry
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
These zooms I'm afraid just do not meet some of our expectations for corner quality. One big issue is always the widest end of these zooms are the worst and only a good prime will cut the cheese. For PR type work some of this won't matter but we all seem to want a lens to serve two masters and we want to use them in all situations like landscape and PR type work. I just don't think we can expect that and still keep them small and light weight plus at reasonable costs. My opinion is this you want something wider than let's say 28mm don't even look at zooms go right for the primes. I just never seen a great corner zoom in these wide areas. Also let's face facts the folks on this forum are not the real market almost all of use are after the highest quality. So strangers reading this forum need to understand who we really are and not soccer moms. No offense there but you know what I mean.
 
Top