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

Barry Haines

Active member
Well we are all waiting for your test results folks. ITs YOUR turn to tell me. LOL

Seriously if I had the cash it be in my hands.

I have the Canon TSE 17 and 24. 50 ZA 1.4 and 85 1.4 ZA for the A7r my need is the Minolta 200mm 2.8 High Speed and this dang 16-35 and I am in business.


Than the A77II i have the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and use the 50 and 85 but again that Minolta 200mm would be handy as heck here too.
(DOUBLE POST)
For those interested I made up today a few Leica WATE and Sony 16-35mm test comparison images at various apertures on a close up planar subject (full size)...You can draw your own conclusions but do bear in mind these are for a 2 dimensional planar subject...Handheld OSS on...You can see the colour shift corners of the Leica WATE and that it vignettes more than the Sony 16-35mm....The vignetting and colour shift can be corrected with a profile...Cheers Barry.
(Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like what you see)...All SOOC jpgs no PP.

FLICKR GALLERY...LEICA (WATE) 16-21mm F4 + SONY 16-35mm F4 FE

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54602555@N08/sets/72157649315551921/
 

dandrewk

New member
(DOUBLE POST)
For those interested I made up today a few Leica WATE and Sony 16-35mm test comparison images at various apertures on a close up planar subject (full size)...You can draw your own conclusions but do bear in mind these are for a 2 dimensional planar subject...Handheld OSS on...You can see the colour shift corners of the Leica WATE and that it vignettes more than the Sony 16-35mm....The vignetting and colour shift can be corrected with a profile...Cheers Barry.
(Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like what you see)...All SOOC jpgs no PP.

FLICKR GALLERY...LEICA (WATE) 16-21mm F4 + SONY 16-35mm F4 FE

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54602555@N08/sets/72157649315551921/
The plot thickens.
 

frozenbb

Member
(DOUBLE POST)
For those interested I made up today a few Leica WATE and Sony 16-35mm test comparison images at various apertures on a close up planar subject (full size)...You can draw your own conclusions but do bear in mind these are for a 2 dimensional planar subject...Handheld OSS on...You can see the colour shift corners of the Leica WATE and that it vignettes more than the Sony 16-35mm....The vignetting and colour shift can be corrected with a profile...Cheers Barry.
(Don't shoot the messenger if you don't like what you see)...All SOOC jpgs no PP.

FLICKR GALLERY...LEICA (WATE) 16-21mm F4 + SONY 16-35mm F4 FE

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54602555@N08/sets/72157649315551921/
Not bad - it seems my credit card will soon be getting more use. You said all shots were handheld, too, correct? OSS really does help.
 

Slingers

Active member
Thanks to everyone posting samples. I've been enjoying reading this thread. A couple of thoughts I have had is, I wonder if OSS is having a negative effect on the image quality. Is there the same shot somewhere already with OSS on and another with it off at 16mm especially? Is the testing on a tripod being done with OSS turned off?

Barry, it looks to me that if your lens has a problem in he corners it's more pronounced on the left. So I'm interested to see your tripod shots.
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Thanks to everyone posting samples. I've been enjoying reading this thread. A couple of thoughts I have had is, I wonder if OSS is having a negative effect on the image quality. Is there the same shot somewhere already with OSS on and another with it off at 16mm especially? Is the testing on a tripod being done with OSS turned off?

Barry, it looks to me that if your lens has a problem in he corners it's more pronounced on the left. So I'm interested to see your tripod shots.
Hi Slingers, you could very well be right that one side or corner is slightly different from the other side as I tried to square off on the wall as best as I could but do bear in mind that these are just rough hand held shots so don't read to much into it that the lens has a problem, it's a zoom at the end of the day so you are not going to get prime lens perfection...I won't be doing a tripod set BTW as way to busy with family at present.
Cheers Barry
 

Viramati

Member
Here is another review showing a comparison with other lenses.

Adorable wide angles - Zeiss FE 16-35 vs. Leica WATE and some other 21mm lenses
some interesting results there. I don't know if anyone has has the leica M and the WATE as I do but I would be interested in a edge comparison with the 16-35 on the A7 and WATE on the M. I find the results on the M with the WATE to be superb and of course you have the added benefit of the leica profiles to correct for distortion, vignetting etc and the custom built sensor. if the A7 and 16-35 came close in performance I would be one step nearer to leaving the leica system
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Here is another review showing a comparison with other lenses.

Adorable wide angles - Zeiss FE 16-35 vs. Leica WATE and some other 21mm lenses
Many thanks for that Slingers,
I will just add that I carried out quite a few more tests than those wall shots yesterday (3D renderings and such like) and was pixel peeping all evening until I had :bugeyes:
I think it's no secret when I say that the WATE performs at it's very best at 21mm f8 in the corners, that is where I use it the most (16mm and 18mm obviously are best also at f8 than wide open at f4).
The Sony 16-35mm may very well do a better or similar job wide open compared to the WATE as that review says...But I am now pretty convinced in my own mind looking at my results for my own particular lenses that the WATE does a better job in terms of resolution (+ distortion, flare and CA) in the corners on 3D renderings on 16mm, 18mm and 21mm when set at f8.
As I see it - It all comes down to your own particular brand/style of photography what kind of images you like to make! It's all a matter of how obsessive one is about corner sharpness vs the benefits of having AF, OSS, weather sealing, exif data recorded and that extra 21-35mm quickly at your disposal (+ not to speak of saving a trunk full of money :grin:
I found yesterday that I managed to capture and react much quicker with the Sony 16-35mm lens than I ever could have done with the WATE because I would have had to switched lenses!...That extra 21-35mm is pretty handy if you have to respond quickly to a particular situation...Speaking personally I'm happy to sensor crop out some soft corners where others perhaps are not...I don't find that the WATE is as good as some prime lenses in the corners anyway...Well maybe on the A7R it is ;)
Cheers Barry
 

jagsiva

Active member
Ah, the kraft-3D tests more positive and more in line with the DXO results. I with C1 now in closer collaboration with Sony, a proper lens profile can only move this more in the right direction. A little disappointed that the profile was not released in the new 8.0.2 release. Guess I'm ordering the lens....thanks for all the posts.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I think all these comparisons to the WATE speak volumes about the 16-35mmFE. I know similar focal lengths are part of the reason, but in regards to price point comparisons, the Sony Zeiss FE16-35mm wins every time. For pure entertainment value, I'd like to see how the 16-35FE compares to it's Alpha counterparts such as the 16-35 f/2.8, or even a prime such as the 24mm Distagon. Weather/dust resistance aside, the Alpha mounts w/adapter offer an incredible amount of lens choices for the A7 series with AF!
We just need a native portrait FE 1.4 prime for the A7!

Maybe something in the 85mm 1.4 or a 135mm 1.8?
 

philip_pj

New member
JGD, from what I have seen it will 'do' the ZA A mount WA zoom, and the fact that it is mentioned and tested beside such illustrious company as Barry has, and the always excellent 3D Kraft reviewer also - it is shaping up very nicely.

Barry you know how to get us salivating with that lineup of yours ;-)

The real comparo is the recently released Canon lens in real world conditions. And for a 'clean' comparison - the WATE and SEM struggle against beam angle-cover glass issues but still go surprisingly well - the Distagon 18mm, 21mm and 25mm, the 21mm technically is very close to the 21/24 SEM lenses.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I just did a quick down and dirty comparison with the 16-35mmFE OSSf/4 and the 24mm ZA distagon f/2.0. both set @ f5.6 /1/100th. I know these two are different types of lenses (f/4 zoom vs f/2 prime), but I was curious nonetheless on how the 16-35 would perform @ 24mm. The 24mm distagon f/2.0 had very slightly better center resolution and micro contrast - (it should having fewer elements), but the overall image resolution winner goes to the 16-35FE. With an adapter(LA-EA3) the SSM motor on the distagon works good, but is certainly slower and sometimes doesn't lock on AF targets. The 16-35 FE, is an impressive lens, and i was debating over staying with a prime or the functionality of a zoom.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I decided to test it on the IR converted camera as that's what it was bought for. The terrifying aspect of trying a new lens is how it'll work on/in IR as some lenses can create a hotspot. I tested the 16-35 using the full spectrum and 590nm IR and so far am very pleased.

The 16-35 arrived too late last night to do any meaningful test outside so decided to test it in the living room.


16mm f/4 1/15 ISO 50 Tripod


16mm f/4 1/15 ISO 50 Tripod

The following were done this morning.


16mm f/4 1/160 ISO 50 Handheld


16mm f/4 1/160 ISO 50 Handheld

These were all opened in C1 Pro where I profiled the lens before taking it over to PSCC to run through NIK Software. Based on these and the others I haven't shared I think this lens is a keeper.

Don
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Completely off topic but do you have to "scrub" your full spectrum or IR shots before putting them in C1 Don?
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Completely off topic but do you have to "scrub" your full spectrum or IR shots before putting them in C1 Don?
Not any more. I've started a new workflow where I shoot custom WB similar to an LCC at the beginning of each shot. I open the files in C1 (this also works well in Adobe Bridge) and using the LCC/WB do a custom WB then copy that on all the image files. There's times when I mix up the filters shooting between FS, color, and either 590, 720, and 830 and just shoot a WB in between the files; works as a bookend as well as. I've found this to be much easier than shooting a custom white balance in camera then having to go through the hassle of scrubbing the files in Sony Data Converter before opening in either C1 or PS. The only down side to doing this is I loose the filter color in the screen as I capture the image (always has a reddish hue) but find that a minor inconvenience.

Don
 

dandrewk

New member
I am very pleased with the new lens. My first comparisons with my Nikon 16-35/4.0 show it to be every bit as sharp in the center with improved corner sharpness. I never liked the Nikon WA zoom on the a7 largely because the images seemed so flat and lifeless, even after post production.

None of that exists in the FE16-35. Great contrast and color rendition. It's pretty much everything I wanted/needed it to be.
 
Top