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 Zeiss 16 - 35

peterv

New member
Hi all, after reading almost every thread in the Sony section, I decided to take the plunge and buy an a900. (sold my Panasonic G1 and Leica M8 to finance this adventure...)
Since there's still not much information about the Sony Zeiss 16 - 35 I thought I'd start this thread.

At first, after reading the enthusiastic comments about the Sony Zeiss 24 - 70 I thought I'd buy that lens, but the general consensus on this forum and in other reviews is that this lens is not exactly stellar between 50 and 70 mm. The first lens I bought for the a900 was the Sony Zeiss 85 mm so I thought I might just a well go for the extreme wide angle. So far, I'm not disappointed. Yes, at 16 mm f2.8 the corners aren't great, but I'm not going to use f2.8 anyway. At f5.6 -f8.0 with the help of DXO the corners become quite acceptable for such a wide angle. I also did some tests inside a bookshop were I used f8.0 with 100 ISO and 1/5 (SSS really helps a lot here) and 1600 ISO and 1/60. Both shots look quite nice on my 24" Cinema Display. One has a little motion blur, the other some noise, but nothing I couldn't live with if I needed the shot and the depth of field.

Here are some testshots (no artistic intention) I took yesterday, developed in DXO. I'm still new to this software, and as you can see I still have a lot to learn. Controlling the exposure and DR I still find especially difficult with DXO. After fourteen days with the a900 and one week with DXO I'm quite happy with the results. Though I think C1 and Rawdeveloper give sharper results with more detail, DXO with the lens and perpective corrections can come in very handy with a lens like the Sony Zeiss 16 - 35. I did Keystoning corrections on the lighthouse picture.

One last thing for now, there's a new review of this lens here:

http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/sony-carl-zeiss-16-35mm-f28-review

Peter
 

jonoslack

Active member
Congratulations Peter
I hope you're very happy together. :)
That first lighthouse shot is fine.
I'm still dithering about the 16-35, not because I have any doubts about it, but because the 24-70 covers most of my needs (and I don't find mine to be poor between 50-70).
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Hi Peter,

Welcome to the club! :)

The 24-70 was my first Sony lens, and I was curious about all this internet hype so I tested against my Carl Zeiss 28/2.8 and 35-70 on a 1Ds2. It was either equal or better than both lenses at all tested apertures. Not only that, but it is sharper than the 16-35 from 24 to 35 too. I would buy this lens without any hesitation if I were you ;)
 

Eoin

Member
Hi Peter, Congrat's on the new purchase. I find the perspective one can get with this lens quite interesting. Coming back to Sony / Zeiss dSLR from the M8 it's taken me a while to adjust to the lack of quality in the corners. But I guess when one considers full frame and close to 25 megapixel resolution, it's hard for a Ultra wide angle zoom to be perfect.

Not to induce you to another lens purchase, but I agree with what Edward and Jono say with regard to the 24-70. It out performs the 16-35 in the 24-35 range and is no slouch in the 50 to 70 range either.

But seeing as you have the sublime 85, just keep repeating to your self "I don't need anything in the 35-70 range" :ROTFL:.

Enjoy!
 

jonoslack

Active member
But seeing as you have the sublime 85, just keep repeating to your self "I don't need anything in the 35-70 range" :ROTFL:.

Enjoy!
:ROTFL:
And while you're about it you could try repeating:
"I don't need the 135 f1.8"

It won't do any good though:)
 

Eoin

Member
Ahh!, but Peter doesn't have anything beyond 85mm. The 135 is an ABSOLUTE necessity. No point even trying to tell yourself you don't need it LOL. It makes grown men go weak at the knees :ROTFL: , if there is one reason to jump to the Sony mount this is it :lecture:. The 135 will make you wet your pants, it's photography's equivalent of the multiple orgasam if I can say that :ROTFL:.
 

peterv

New member
Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone! As a matter of fact the 135 is next on my list. I understand that resistance is futile...
 

peterv

New member
Hi all,
now I have a question about this lens.
In AF mode the focus ring turns freely.
I've read both the camera and lens munal and as far as I know all settings are correct. What setting did I overlook?
Thanks.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I think the Sonystyle spec. is poorly worded. It means that the ring does not rotate when autofocus is actually operating. When autofocus is "still" you can then turn the ring as you wish.
Bill
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Hi Peter, Congrat's on the new purchase. I find the perspective one can get with this lens quite interesting. Coming back to Sony / Zeiss dSLR from the M8 it's taken me a while to adjust to the lack of quality in the corners. But I guess when one considers full frame and close to 25 megapixel resolution, it's hard for a Ultra wide angle zoom to be perfect.

Not to induce you to another lens purchase, but I agree with what Edward and Jono say with regard to the 24-70. It out performs the 16-35 in the 24-35 range and is no slouch in the 50 to 70 range either.

But seeing as you have the sublime 85, just keep repeating to your self "I don't need anything in the 35-70 range" :ROTFL:.

Enjoy!
So let me get this straight.
I own both the CZ24-70 and the CZ16-35, The CZ16-35 is best between 16-24mm and everything I have read so far tells me that F8 is the sweet spot for the 16-35, 24mm and above switch to my CZ24-70?? Is F8 the "sweet" spot on the 24-70?

In regards to the CZ 135mm if one had to choose between the CZ85 or the CZ135 is the 135mm the winner?

Thanks everyone
Steven
 

douglasf13

New member
Sounds like you've got a sweet setup you're putting together, Steven. NICE. As far as corner sharpness on a flat plane with the 24-70 is concerned, f 5.6-f8 seems to be the sweetspot, except for at 70mm, where you probably want to go f11. Hopefully Edward chimes in here, because he really has this stuff dialed in.

Optically, the 135ZA is slightly superior to the 85ZA, although they are both topflight. I chose the 85 simply because that is the working distance that I prefer (not to mention the lens is smaller,) and I have a couple of very good Zeiss m42 and Zeiss Hasselblad lenses with adapters that cover my ~135mm range, albeit they aren't f1.8 and are manual focus. Both lenses are great, and you won't be disappointed (be prepared for more longitudinal CA with the 85, though.)
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Hi Douglas and Steven,

I concur that you need to stop down both the 16-35 and 24-70 to 5.6 or 8 for maximum sharpness. With good light, I would even stop down to f/11 just for the extra DOF. As I mentioned before, it is scene dependent. I have gotten some very sharp photos corner to corner at f/2.8 while on others, even f/11-13 were not enough. So I guess with landscape photos, no surprise, just do what you would with any other lens :)

I did find the 24-70 to be better than the 16-35 from 24 to 35. But the difference isn't so dramatic and I wouldn't actually swap lenses to get the better sharpness. Both are perfectly fine. The only exception is at 35 where the 24-70 really shines. The 16-35 while not bad stopped down is no match at this focal length. At 70, the 24-70 while not stellar is imho still better than the 70-300G, so I wouldn't swap lenses either, except to use one of the ZA primes.

Regarding the 85 vs 135, I am aware of the common belief that the 135 is slightly better, and if so, I would think only in the LoCA department. I have both, and I don't see any difference in performance. If there is any, I would say it is in favour of the 85, especially below 2.8, where the 85 seems to have more punch (actually imho the 85 has more Zeissness than the 135 whatever that means :D). However, similarly to the 24-70 and 16-35, I wouldn't chose one over the other for better sharpness, just to get the focal length I need. When I'm shooting portraits I make sure to use both in the same session to get both flavours :)

Sounds like you've got a sweet setup you're putting together, Steven. NICE. As far as corner sharpness on a flat plane with the 24-70 is concerned, f 5.6-f8 seems to be the sweetspot, except for at 70mm, where you probably want to go f11. Hopefully Edward chimes in here, because he really has this stuff dialed in.

Optically, the 135ZA is slightly superior to the 85ZA, although they are both topflight. I chose the 85 simply because that is the working distance that I prefer (not to mention the lens is smaller,) and I have a couple of very good Zeiss m42 and Zeiss Hasselblad lenses with adapters that cover my ~135mm range, albeit they aren't f1.8 and are manual focus. Both lenses are great, and you won't be disappointed (be prepared for more longitudinal CA with the 85, though.)
 

carstenw

Active member
So, I think I have understood what all this means, but is there anyone who would be willing to post a raw image (perhaps to yousendit.com) taken at 16mm perhaps at f/8 (is that the last stop where diffraction hasn't yet made the image soft, or can you go to f/11)?
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I think corners can benefit from f/11, especially if the lens is focused at infinity and the lower corners are in the foreground, which is totally at the opposite direction of the field curvature of this lens. Here are 2 examples taken at f/9.5:

View attachment 16172

View attachment 16173


So, I think I have understood what all this means, but is there anyone who would be willing to post a raw image (perhaps to yousendit.com) taken at 16mm perhaps at f/8 (is that the last stop where diffraction hasn't yet made the image soft, or can you go to f/11)?
 
Last edited:
Top