It looks like some samples taken with the new lens have been posted to Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/ Looks very promising based on the quick glance I took.
Tony
Tony
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sony 16-35mm f4 FE samples
- Thread starter Tony
- Start date
RAW Files - look pretty good given the shooting conditions, even at F4
Photokina 2014 – Sony first impression – FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA – some RAW samples for download | Viktor's photo blog
Photokina 2014 – Sony first impression – FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA – some RAW samples for download | Viktor's photo blog
RAW Files - look pretty good given the shooting conditions, even at F4
Photokina 2014 – Sony first impression – FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA – some RAW samples for download | Viktor's photo blog
I definitely agree. I pulled the raws into lightroom and even at extreme magnification these files look very good. Now even considering how often Sony lenses have QC issues this leads me to believe that this lens could be part of a must have kit for the A7 cameras. I'm thinking 16-35 zoom, 55mm 1.8 (or 35mm 1.4 if that's your preference) and 70-200 zoom as a go anywhere kit and that's it.
Isn't it a bit hard to evaluate a RAW file image when there isn't a proper lens profile available?
Oh yeah, definitely the power of wishful thinking is involved, but even with such a limited stock of evidence I think it looks pretty good. Of course I'll wait for some decent reviews before I plunk down the cash but plenty enough clues to engage in lens lust.
Isn't it a bit hard to evaluate a RAW file image when there isn't a proper lens profile available?
Even so, impressive results so far. Add a profile, and the only get better.
I'm sure you've seen what lens correction in the RAW converter is capable of based on before and after application. You can also apply the Sony 2.8 16-35 to get a general idea.
For me, if detail is not there, it is not there, and these files don't appear smeared. When I look in the extreme corners at 16mm on these RAW files, it is almost like the Nikon 14-24 before corrections. And that is a great lens, albeit a monster.
Field curvature also looks to be behaving well, but given the indoor nature of the images, not sure how good/severe it is.
Also, the 16mm was shot at 1/60 which is not the most vibration prone ss for the Sony. Taking this and the ISO500 into account, I think it does quite well.
Just my opinion.
I'm sure you've seen what lens correction in the RAW converter is capable of based on before and after application. You can also apply the Sony 2.8 16-35 to get a general idea.
For me, if detail is not there, it is not there, and these files don't appear smeared. When I look in the extreme corners at 16mm on these RAW files, it is almost like the Nikon 14-24 before corrections. And that is a great lens, albeit a monster.
Field curvature also looks to be behaving well, but given the indoor nature of the images, not sure how good/severe it is.
Also, the 16mm was shot at 1/60 which is not the most vibration prone ss for the Sony. Taking this and the ISO500 into account, I think it does quite well.
Just my opinion.
Totally agree. As I mentioned, the fact the files looks as good as they do sans profile is very encouraging.
I'm looking forward to mid November.
The performance at f4 is decent in the corners. The question is 'does it improve on stopping down'. If we get the sort of jump you'd expect by f8, this lens could be great. My only concern is that the MTFs were not that brilliant (albeit better than the 24-70 F4).
Until then I have my huge, but spectacular (adapted) 16-28 Tokina.
Until then I have my huge, but spectacular (adapted) 16-28 Tokina.