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!

Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

mjm6

Member
OK, I think I know what the answer is going to be for a few reasons, but I thought I'd ask...

The older ZA 16-35 f2.8 is bigger, 2x as heavy, and a stop faster (which explains the size and weight difference).

It also has a closer focus distance, higher maximum magnification, 9 blades instead of 7 in the aperture, more distortion, worse chroma (especially at the wide end), etc.

It's not a perfect performer at all, and comparisons at dxomark indicate that the FE version of this lens should be the superior lens in most respects... but not necessarily all. Bokeh and waveform distortion, is not clear, but it appears the FE is worse for the distortion.

However, it is faster, and if you shoot in the f8-11 range, they both may perform similarly in terms of sharpness.

Plus, it will fit on my a900, which I am still very happily shooting. If I buy the new FE lens, that will likely mark the beginning of the end of the a900 for me, and I'll probably sell it along with the wides that this lens will replace.

I looked around and didn't see any comparisons online, so I'm hoping someone out there in the ether can comment on this from experience, and any examples would be lovely!


Thanks,


---Michael
 

mjm6

Member
I can't answer my own question, but I decided to purchase the new FE 16-35 f4 version, so I guess this question is somewhat moot.

It's going to take a bit to get used to the lens, as it is the first native FE mount lens I own. All the rest are A mount or adapted older MF lenses. It seems to really change the way the camera works, too (a7r), so I need to pull out the damn manual and figure out how to get the most out of the camera and lens.

We'll see, but I suspect I'll be putting up my 19mm and 28mm Leicas for sale shortly.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Yah. Very happy with it here. I still wish the wide M lenses worked better on the A7 series, but the 16-35/4 takes a lot of that sting away.

--Matt
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Both, Steven. My copy at least is outstanding. This was shot at 16 mm yesterday on the a7II. I find (like most zooms) that the best definition is at a bit less than the extremes - maybe 19 mm to 32 mm for this lens, though I don't hesitate to use it any length at f5.6 or f8.

I haven't done any formal comparisons on its performance on the a7II vs. the a7r. In casual shooting I see no difference.

Bill

 

kuau

Workshop Member
Thanks Bill,
I just picked a used A7r to go along with my A7 so was thinking about get the 16-36/4 zoom.
So it sounds like with all Sony lenses finding a good copy is key..

Nice image btw

Steven
 
Top