Sony FE 16-35/f4

[iiiNelson]

Shot at 16mm....

Now you're just enabling...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Shot at 16mm....

Don that looks pretty dang good what aperture f8

 

[Don Libby]

Sorry, feeling a little under the weather today and forgot to add the information.

This was shot with a A7r. Converted to shoot FS with a 830nm filter on the lens. The file was opened in C1 where I did a WB and lens correction then over to PS-CC for shake reduction (I do that on any file captured handheld) then saved as a jpeg. No cropping was done. More samples on our latest blog.

Everything I see about this lens screams it's a keeper. I got it for the sole reason to be able to shoot 16-24 as I also have a 24-70 that's equally as good.

Don 'the enabler'

 

[dandrewk]

I sold my 24-70 for the exact same reason. It seemed to be bland and inconsistent for me despite some initial glowing reviews by others. I found it adequate at times and not so much at the others. I decided after much internal debate I much rather shoot a prime in the mid range and leave zooms to the UWA and telephoto focal lengths. Truth be told I would only use a mid range zoom if it covered enough focal length to be a great all purpose "walk around lens" for vacation like a 24-105mm or 24-120mm lens.

I'm waiting to try out a 16-35 and see if it'll fit the bill. I'm most interested in how it performs specifically in the 16-25mm range as I have native solutions in the 35-55 range.

I'm with you on this. I can foresee a light walk around kit featuring the FE16-35 + FE55 1.8. If I really needed the extra reach, the FE70-200 would go along, but that's a bigger bag.

 

[chrisd]

Got a few "test" shots with the new FE 16-35 last weekend. All of these were handheld, most are cropped slightly for straightening or perspective correction. All were post-processed in LR, with a couple of blended exposures thrown in.

f/8 33mm 1/125 ISO 100

f/8 16mm 1/60 ISO 800

f/4.5 16mm 1/60 ISO 250

f/4.5 16mm 1/60 ISO 1000

f/4.5 18mm 1/60 ISO 500

 

[chrisd]

Seems like this thread has gone a little quiet. Here is one from yesterday - a long exposure, shot with 10 stop ND filter at 8 seconds, 20mm, f/8, ISO 100.

 

[philber]

One of the reasons this thread may have gone a little quiet is that availability does not yet seem to be universal. I am waiting to try one out, but my dealer hasn't received one yet, and claims no one yet has either in France.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Got mine last weekend. So far it seems like a keeper but I haven't had a good chance to exercise it properly yet.

 

[dandrewk]

3D-Kraft did a review of "adorable" WA lenses, including the FE16-35 and Leica WATE:

Adorable wide angles - Zeiss FE 16-35 vs. Leica WATE and some other 21mm lenses

I won't reveal the results, but WATE owners might not want to click on the link.

 

[Viramati]

3D-Kraft did a review of "adorable" WA lenses, including the FE16-35 and Leica WATE:

Adorable wide angles - Zeiss FE 16-35 vs. Leica WATE and some other 21mm lenses

I won't reveal the results, but WATE owners might not want to click on the link.

What I would like to see is a direct comparison between the WATE on the M 240 and the FE16-35 on the A7. I would expect the FE lens to be better than the WATE on the Sony but my feeling is that the WATE is overall a better performer when mounted on the Of course it has a lot smaller range, only 16-21, but it is small in comparison with a decent DOF scale and a beautiful rendering
Interestingly it would appear from his example that the WATE slightly outperforms the FE in the corners at f8 and 21mm.

 

[sergio lovisolo]

What I would like to see is a direct comparison between the WATE on the M 240 and the FE16-35 on the A7. I would expect the FE lens to be better than the WATE on the Sony but my feeling is that the WATE is overall a better performer when mounted on the Of course it has a lot smaller range, only 16-21, but it is small in comparison with a decent DOF scale and a beautiful rendering
Interestingly it would appear from his example that the WATE slightly outperforms the FE in the corners at f8 and 21mm.

My tests with the A7R , repeated many times and in different conditions, show that the WATE is consistently better than the 16-35 on corners and partly on edges, from 16mm
to 20mm, with difference progressively diminishing. But I also verified that even the smallest imperfection in the adapter is critical for WATE, so I had to make a selection to find the right one (Novoflex). We do not know if this procedure has been followed in the cited test. (and what is the consistency between even the same brand of adapters)
I decided to keep both lenses, for many reasons, but particularly for the splendid performance of the zoom in the 24,28, and slightly less so, 35mm range.

 

[Slingers]

My tests with the A7R , repeated many times and in different conditions, show that the WATE is consistently better than the 16-35 on corners and partly on edges, from 16mm
to 20mm, with difference progressively diminishing. But I also verified that even the smallest imperfection in the adapter is critical for WATE, so I had to make a selection to find the right one (Novoflex). We do not know if this procedure has been followed in the cited test. (and what is the consistency between even the same brand of adapters)
I decided to keep both lenses, for many reasons, but particularly for the splendid performance of the zoom in the 24,28, and slightly less so, 35mm range.

Around the time of your posts here 3dkraft wrote on SAR at New Zeiss 16-35mm reviews and size comparison. | sonyalpharumors

"If you see tests, where the sharpness of the Zeiss/Sony FE 16-35 is less than the (manually focused) comparison candidates, ask the reviewer, if he also focused the FE 16-35 manually! It IS sharp but I saw several pictures giving a different impression and I am quite sure that the cause was a wrong focus setting."

at the time I assumed it was about your test. I posted the link to his test here in this thread but never asked you if you manually focused in your tests. Also did you turn OSS off?

 

[Barry Haines]

My tests with the A7R , repeated many times and in different conditions, show that the WATE is consistently better than the 16-35 on corners and partly on edges, from 16mm
to 20mm, with difference progressively diminishing. But I also verified that even the smallest imperfection in the adapter is critical for WATE, so I had to make a selection to find the right one (Novoflex). We do not know if this procedure has been followed in the cited test. (and what is the consistency between even the same brand of adapters)
I decided to keep both lenses, for many reasons, but particularly for the splendid performance of the zoom in the 24,28, and slightly less so, 35mm range.

It's a very close call between these two lenses, at least with the samples I had...I tried a variety of adapters and also settled on the Novoflex adapter for the WATE.
If I owned a Leica M and a Sony A7/? I would have kept the WATE for sure...But my interest is really only in what Sony is doing nowadays!
I re did my tests critically manually focusing the Sony and obviously the WATE and I now had the Sony a fraction a head in terms of corner and edge resolution when stopped down to F8 with hyperfocal distance focusing. With the added bonus of exif data, weather sealing, OSS, the extra zoom range as you say up to 28mm which is excellent, less colour shift and vignetting and Now LR profiles + not to speak about the price. I decided to go all in on the Sony 16-35mm FE with no regrets...I'm not a Sony or Leica fanboy, if lensbaby came out with a better FE mount lens tomorrow I would happily go with that.

 

[Viramati]

My tests with the A7R , repeated many times and in different conditions, show that the WATE is consistently better than the 16-35 on corners and partly on edges, from 16mm
to 20mm, with difference progressively diminishing. But I also verified that even the smallest imperfection in the adapter is critical for WATE, so I had to make a selection to find the right one (Novoflex). We do not know if this procedure has been followed in the cited test. (and what is the consistency between even the same brand of adapters)
I decided to keep both lenses, for many reasons, but particularly for the splendid performance of the zoom in the 24,28, and slightly less so, 35mm range.

Molto grazie Sergio
I have the leica M and nowadays the lenses I use on it most are the WATE and 28 summicron both of which are my main reasons for sticking with the system. I had been hoping (probably a little foolishly) that the FE16-35 would at least equal or better the leica lenses. As I use the WATE nearly exclusively for landscape etc I will be hanging onto the leica M. I am wondering if the 16-35 is any easier to focus accuratley for landscape work than the FE24-70 which I find to be a real pain when it comes to middle-distance and horizon shots?

 

[Barry Haines]

Molto grazie Sergio
I have the leica M and nowadays the lenses I use on it most are the WATE and 28 summicron both of which are my main reasons for sticking with the system. I had been hoping (probably a little foolishly) that the FE16-35 would at least equal or better the leica lenses. As I use the WATE nearly exclusively for landscape etc I will be hanging onto the leica M. I am wondering if the 16-35 is any easier to focus accuratley for landscape work than the FE24-70 which I find to be a real pain when it comes to middle-distance and horizon shots?

David, if you typically stop down to F8 for landscape work and like to use hyper-focal distance focusing to keep everything sharp from near infinity to close up then the 16-35mm FE can be a bit problematic I found to start with. Some Pre-testing and making notes at each focal length is advisable beforehand to save disappointment later.
If you just apply and transfer what the DoF scale readings taken from the WATE says back onto the manual focus scale of the 16-35mm you will end up getting two completely different sets of results for those two lenses IMO...The Sony lens needs to be focused out just a little bit further than the WATE...Well it does on my sample.

 

[tn1krr]

David, if you typically stop down to F8 for landscape work and like to use hyper-focal distance focusing to keep everything sharp from near infinity to close up then the 16-35mm FE can be a bit problematic I found to start with. Some Pre-testing and making notes at each focal length is advisable beforehand to save disappointment later.
If you just apply and transfer what the DoF scale readings taken from the WATE says back onto the manual focus scale of the 16-35mm you will end up getting two completely different sets of results for those two lenses IMO...The Sony lens needs to be focused out just a little bit further than the WATE...Well it does on my sample.

The FE 16-35/4 OSS seems to have quite a focus shift (could explain those pretty strange dxomark field maps too when stopping down) and some forward field curvature, Lloyd chambers have been testing the lens and has reported this on several entries of his blog, even on the publicly accessible side. So focus carefully and preferably with the aperture you are gonna shoot with. Or know what the focus shift is gonna do on different Focal lengths and apertures, just like advised above.

 

[Barry Haines]

The FE 16-35/4 OSS seems to have quite a focus shift (could explain those pretty strange dxomark field maps too when stopping down) and some forward field curvature, Lloyd chambers have been testing the lens and has reported this on several entries of his blog, even on the publicly accessible side. So focus carefully and preferably with the aperture you are gonna shoot with. Or know what the focus shift is gonna do on different Focal lengths and apertures, just like advised above.

I can honestly say that I haven't experienced any real noticeable field curvature or any focus shift for that matter with this particular lens - Although if Dxomark and Lloyd Chambers says their is, then I bow to their better judgement.
My gripe is I am not entirely happy with the (A7R) cameras distance focusing scale to rely on, as it's a bit crude as it steps up and down in bite sized chunks, I would prefer something a bit more linear + I'm not entirely convinced it's even that accurate either Hopefully future A7 and A9 series cameras will come up with something a bit better than what we have at the moment.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I would adjust your ad adjustment for say a focal length. Than check other focal lengths and see if it changes

 

[sergio lovisolo]

Around the time of your posts here 3dkraft wrote on SAR at New Zeiss 16-35mm reviews and size comparison. | sonyalpharumors

"If you see tests, where the sharpness of the Zeiss/Sony FE 16-35 is less than the (manually focused) comparison candidates, ask the reviewer, if he also focused the FE 16-35 manually! It IS sharp but I saw several pictures giving a different impression and I am quite sure that the cause was a wrong focus setting."

at the time I assumed it was about your test. I posted the link to his test here in this thread but never asked you if you manually focused in your tests. Also did you turn OSS off?

I explored all the options, the examples I am posting now are with manual focus and no OSS. What you can see, independently from the comparison,
is that the WATE is very, very good on corners, and that is clearly difficult, in any case, to perform better. (focus exactly on the same plane for both, focused stopped down to taking aperture to avoid focus shift etc.)
Both crops are upper right corner, F8.

FE 16-35

_DSC4117 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


WATE

_DSC4118 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

 

[tn1krr]

I can honestly say that I haven't experienced any real noticeable field curvature or any focus shift for that matter with this particular lens - Although if Dxomark and Lloyd Chambers says their is, then I bow to their better judgement.
My gripe is I am not entirely happy with the (A7R) cameras distance focusing scale to rely on, as it's a bit crude as it steps up and down in bite sized chunks, I would prefer something a bit more linear + I'm not entirely convinced it's even that accurate either Hopefully future A7 and A9 series cameras will come up with something a bit better than what we have at the moment.

Lloyds test pics show the focus shift pretty clearly and the curvature is not that huge. dxomark does not comment on such things on their tests but their stopped down "sharpness field maps" look quite odd and could maybe be explained by focus shift. I think the "know the lens and make notes" like you mentioned above applies to this lens a bit more than maybe to some other lenses. Whatever the reason behind it may be.

I agree on the EVF focus scale accuracy, not really a precision tool. Nice to have though, but personally I mostly use it to get decent starting point in handheld MF and also I check it to see I'm turning the focus ring into correct direction when what I'm seeing in EVF is badly OOF.