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

turtle

New member
... and there WILL be significant sample variation, if my (and many other people's) experiences with other Sony Zeiss lenses is anything to go by.

My 55mm FE is my second, and truly superb. The first was a total dog and focused the left at 5m when the right was at 20m.
My 35mm FE is my third and not perfect, but still extremely good almost everywhere almost all the time. The first was a dog (very soft right side) and the second had a medium soft left side and permanently squishy top left corner.

I know users of the 24-70 f4 OSS had trouble getting good copies in far too many cases and cannot see this 16-35 being any different. This is not a lens to buy mail order the day before an important trip LOL. Buying may be a 'process'.

I hear people say the 35mm FE is 'underwhelming', but assuming one is talking technically speaking (rather than the look, which is subjective) a good copy is still quite remarkable for its resolution and contrast. Mine wows me for what I shoot with it, but to hear some people talking you'd think they were different lenses and they are.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Not many (or may be just me) do not have the patience to go through several samples, especially when they are this bloody expensive (check/compare the prices in Japan where they also import them from Thailand or wherever they are made) to find that sample that may work.

I like Sony for their sensor in a compact package. Looking forward to that BSI sensor and next gen of cams.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Guy, only exception would be he nikon 14-24, granted on a D800e, it is massive compared to the A7R.
True the Nikon has been one of the best around. Mine had bad focus creeping but even so it was a good lens. It still maybe the king of zooms in DSLR style of lenses. Actually I have more need in the mid range . I would love it if someone made a hot kick butt 28-70 F2
 

chrisd

New member
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.
After I picked up the Canon 16-35/4 when it came out, I could not tell the difference in sharpness versus my 17mm TS-E (comparing them both on my A7R), which is the reason I sold the 17mm tilt-shift (I still have the 24mm TS-E). Keeping the 17mm just for the shift capability was not enough justification to keep it. The Canon 16-35/4 sharpness is stellar, the IS the best I have seen, and I was prepared to sell it to trade for the smaller/lighter FE. But after seeing this comparison, I will wait to see more sample images before making that change.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
tough crowd...
I'm not sure one photographers uploads are enough to condemn the 16-35FE,but then again maybe mine will ship sooner:) I don't need 16mm, but will certainly crop out offending corners, if needed. That's kinda the beauty in extreme wides, there's so much latitude. Most know that zooms will always be less sharp than primes, obviously because of many more elements to shoot through. For a weather resistant AF extreme wide, this lens will is an exciting addition to the A7.

Bill's snowy images at 20mm look pretty sharp in the corner...maybe a little moire too.
 
Everyone's got their own 'benchmark'; for me it's the Zeiss 18mm ƒ3.5 ZE. I love that lens.

If the 16-35mm comes close in performance at 18mm, I'll be thrilled. Everything else will be a bonus.

B&H should be shipping mine this week.
 

tn1krr

New member
A pair of full size JPG 16mm F5,6 on Flickr. With this lens, not always stopping down means better corners.
If one looks at dxomark results for different apertures and focal length the very same conclusion can be made. At 16 mm F/4 is showing as better than F/8, at 24 mm the difference is even bigger. On the wider end the FE 16-35 seems best wide open; depending on type of photography one does this may be either a blessing or a curse.

Have not really had time to test my FE 16-35 on real world conditions yet, but we shot a little comparison last week between my FE 16-35/4 OSS and a buddy's A mount 16-35/2.8 ZA; indoor so focus distances were not that long. FE 16-35 was clearly better at extreme corners @16 mm, same with 35 mm when shot at F/4. At F/2.8 the 16-35/2.8 ZA corners were very soft, nowhere near comparable to FE in F/4. The 16-35/2.8 appeared better at 21 mm, 24 mm was pretty even. Nothing really conclusive there either as I was only helping this buddy to decide if he feels the 16-35/4 would work better for his photography (stars mostly) that the current 16-35/2.8.
 
If one looks at dxomark results for different apertures and focal length the very same conclusion can be made. At 16 mm F/4 is showing as better than F/8, at 24 mm the difference is even bigger. On the wider end the FE 16-35 seems best wide open; depending on type of photography one does this may be either a blessing or a curse.

Have not really had time to test my FE 16-35 on real world conditions yet, but we shot a little comparison last week between my FE 16-35/4 OSS and a buddy's A mount 16-35/2.8 ZA; indoor so focus distances were not that long. FE 16-35 was clearly better at extreme corners @16 mm, same with 35 mm when shot at F/4. At F/2.8 the 16-35/2.8 ZA corners were very soft, nowhere near comparable to FE in F/4. The 16-35/2.8 appeared better at 21 mm, 24 mm was pretty even. Nothing really conclusive there either as I was only helping this buddy to decide if he feels the 16-35/4 would work better for his photography (stars mostly) that the current 16-35/2.8.
So there is probably sample variation. My copy for sure is not at its best at F4 and 16mm, as shown on their sharpness measurement, while there is a similarity with what they show at other focal lengths. The field for them is totally green at 16mm 4-5,6 including extreme corners.
This degradation of corners stopping down is something i am not used to....
 

Viramati

Member
So there is probably sample variation. My copy for sure is not at its best at F4 and 16mm, as shown on their sharpness measurement, while there is a similarity with what they show at other focal lengths. The field for them is totally green at 16mm 4-5,6 including extreme corners.
This degradation of corners stopping down is something i am not used to....
OMG this sure sounds like a complex beast making it somewhat difficult to use with confidence. It would almost seem that one need to do a whole load of testing at different apertures and focal lengths and then write the results down it a little black book which you would need to consult every time you use the lens so as to get optimal results. It would seem that gone are the days when the basic rule of thumb was that stopping down improved performance until defraction set in.
I would be interested to see how it performs on the A7s as my FE24-70 almost seems like another lens on the A7s as apposed to the A7 where it is good but not perfect and really shines on the S
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Turtle seems to have the winning formula on the FE lens scenario. :p
 
I have been able to replicate DXO results at 16 mm. To obtain good sharpness from center to corner, it is necessary to focus on corners, losing a little on center. Resolution on center is very high, out resolving the sensor and creating moirè , and a little defocusing does not show.
But this is a thing for landscape perfectionists. For my use, I am comfortable with standard
center focus operations...
 

ggibson

Well-known member
A comparison between the A7+16-35mm and A6000+10-18mm:

α6000 with SEL 10-18mm F4 OSS vs. α7 with FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS | JÖRG HAAG

Might be interesting for some to compare. The 16-35mm clearly wins, though that is expected for twice the price on camera+lens. The corners on the 10-18mm are obviously worse, whereas the difference in the center is less pronounced.

For my money, two of the biggest benefits of the 16-35mm are the longer focal range and ability to get shallower DOF on a full-frame sensor. These qualities make it a much more viable walk-around lens. Perfect to pair with the FE 55mm, IMO.
 

dandrewk

New member
Reading some of the posts in this thread, I'm reminded of the sage words of a friend: "Just take the shot!". Complex beast indeed. ;)

I'm also reminded of some posts in Mac forums regarding Apples new splendid 5k iMac. Some users filled their screen with black, cranked up the brightness to 100% and then viewed the monitor in pitch black. They were SHOCKED to see a bit of light leaking around the edges, something that happens with EVERY LCD monitor. They wondered why Apple continues to build these things in China.

In what world would one expect a zoom lens to match edge/edge quality of a Leica WATE costing 4x the price? That wouldn't say much about the esteemed Leica. If your work requires this level of perfection, why would you even consider a zoom lens?

Every review so far has put this lens at or near "best in class". That, along with vastly more functionality and usability is enough for most.

Meanwhile, I'm suspending judgement until I receive the lens. Given what I've seen so far, I'm optimistic.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I'm with you, dandrewk. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

For everyday shooting, this lens (at least, my copy) is just fine. If I wanted the absolute ultimate in image corners then I wouldn't be using a zoom in the first place. I want something light and portable that does an excellent job, accepting it won't be perfect.

My purpose was simply to test the lens enough to know (a) its limitations and (b) to ensure I didn't get a lemon.

Let's go take some photographs instead of counting angels.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
But Bill I can dance pretty darn good. LOL

Seriously though it will always come down to what you are looking for we all know photography gear is like being married. You better learn to compromise on it or your in big trouble waiting for the perfect one. LOL
 
Top