Sony a900 WA Lens Option Advise Please :-)

[KETCH ROSSI]

Hi guys,

I'm getting the Sony a900, I know I'll be purchasing the Sony/CZ 85 and 135 mainly for Portrait, but I also need a Wide lens for the occasional Landscape (Panorama) and Architecture Photography.

Was considering the Sony/CZ 16-35, but I usually stay away from Zooms, and work with Primes same as I do in my Cinematography work, as I find the IQ of the Primes always superior.

I'm looking for the personal experience advise in which Wide Angle Lens to consider for the a900, main consideration here is obviously not the speed of the lens but the absolute best IQ.

(BTW) If the IQ of the 16mm FE is great I have no problem in De-fishing the images.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

 

[douglasf13]

Regardless of whether it's a zoom, the 16-35 is probably the best wide angle performance for Sony (Nikon's best wide is also a zoom.) If you must go with a prime, I like my 20 2.8, and the corners are sharp when stopped down.

 

[Dave_Anderson]

Agree, the 20 2.8 is a fine lens. Here is a pic I took recently in one of our datacenters With the Minolta 20 2.8:

This one is with the Minolta 16mm 2.8:

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

It is not that I MUST not use Zoom, especially if it is as good as you say Douglas, but we all know that especially for Landscape and Architecture Photography, the wide angle lens must have exceptional Sharpness in order to bring out every detail corner to corner.

Nice shots Dave, definitely those two look like they have a great deal of sharpness in their resolving power, even so I never look at a web compressed posted image to make any conclusions, but the above shots look nice.

Will look them up.

 

[fotografz]

My copy of the ZA 16-35 is excellent.

For the best possible go here:

http://www.leitax.com/Leica-lens-for-Sony-cameras.html

Contact them to see if a R 19/2.8 latest version can be used. They say it can on their web site, but I'd double check.

My Leica dealer Sam at the Classic Connection is getting these done for his Leica clients. Phone: 1 (888) LEICASAM ... tell him Marc Williams sent you.

I'm going to be getting a Leica R 100/2.8 Macro converted for my A900.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Oh, and note the Carl Zeiss 35/2.8 PC lens converted for use on a Sony camera

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Thanks Marc,

I was considering either the 16-35 or the 24-70 but there are very few reviews out there and they don't convince me, the 16-35 is considered too harsh on a the a900 for heavy vignetting on the 16 as well as CA, and the 14-70 which I would like, is reported to have very bad bokeh at the 70mm.

Will look up the Leica leica lens option.

 

[Dave_Anderson]

Understood... Try these; they are the originals uploaded to SmugMug.:

20 2.8, 1/13-f8-ISO320

16 2.8, 1/10-f8-ISO320

At full res you can see the CA in the 16. OTOH, the image from the 20 is pretty sharp IMHO. Still, as you say, they are only JPEGs.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Thanks Dave, to what I can see the 16 has produced a sharper image, and more detailed then the 20.

Were this shots both with a tripod? Same settings?

 

[Dave_Anderson]

Almost the same settings. I tried to edit both previous posts with details, but could only edit the most recent for some reason.

Both shots taken with my old battleship Leitz Tiltall tripod.

Another point of potential interest, when I was between the racks using the 20 there was quite a bit of airflow buffeting things around. I don't see any direct evidence of that -- just FYI.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Almost the same settings. I tried to edit both previous posts with details, but could only edit the most recent for some reason.

Both shots taken with my old battleship Leitz Tiltall tripod.

Cool thanks Dave, then the 16 seems sharper to me.

The Edit option goes away after one hour from your original post, I have been thru the same thing

 

[gsking]

I've tested my 17-35mm 2.8-4 and it performed better (at least in the center, and on APS-C) than the 24mm prime, both wide open. And the 24 usually gets better marks than the 20mm. Most reviews say both need to be shot at f/8.

Not sure why this lens doesn't get good marks. It kept me from buying those two primes. I'm sure that edge sharpness or distortion on FF may be lacking, but it's price performance is excellent.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Thanks for the input Greg, using the FF a900 all lenses will be put to the test not only by the Resolve power of the 24.6MP sensor but cause of the size, and some lenses bearably cover the Image Circle, and therefor Vignette quite a bit as reported on the 16-35 at 16 WO.

 

[Dave_Anderson]

FWIW, this is the only example I have of the 16 on the a900 that is even marginally useful for evaluating vignetting, only in the lower right corner.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

NO Dave the pic you posted of the 16 is great, I was referring at the reporting heavy vignetting of the Carl Zeiss 16-35 @ 16 WO.
Fisheye lenses always in my experience have abetter way of handling vignetting do to their extreme wide angle of view up to 180 Degree, and image circle covered.

 

[Dave_Anderson]

NO Dave the pic you posted of the 16 is great, I was referring at the reporting heavy vignetting of the Carl Zeiss 16-35 @ 16 WO.

Yes, I understood that, and seeing the remarks I realized that my previous shot taken with the 16 won't tell you anything useful about vignetting... since you seem to be considering that lens I thought I'd toss out a shot where you could look at that.

I know what the lens is capable of and don't feel any great need to defend it... my Preciousssss....

If you go with this lens on the a900 the main issues you may encounter are the lack of filter options(though three are built-in) and more than anything you may struggle to keep your feet and/or tripod out of the frame.

 

[KETCH ROSSI]

Sorry Dave, I tough you didn't, that is an Italian reading here

I will definitely consider a Fisheye, but only if I can't find a fit to my needs in either a Prime, or zoom for it, I really like to stay with original Alpha mount lenses and avoid any kind of adapters, asI visited Marc's link and even so I love Leica glass, I just don't like fittings and any type of adapters, they never really work out for me, one way or an other.

 

[Dave_Anderson]

Yes, the a900 tends to be a bit unhappy with adapters. You end up in manual mode. Sometimes it can't be helped, like with bellows. At least the metering and focus confirm works with a chipped adapter, the AEL exposure bars really help in some situations.

 

[Eoin]

NO Dave the pic you posted of the 16 is great, I was referring at the reporting heavy vignetting of the Carl Zeiss 16-35 @ 16 WO.

It would be my experience that the 24-70 suffers from medium vignetting not the 16-35. I see no apparent vignetting with the 16-35, excellent lens imo.

 

[dhsimmonds]

I agree, the 16- 35 in my experience does not vignette but the 24-70 is renowned for it.