Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 303

Thread: Sony FE 16-35/f4

  1. #51
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Man I would love to test this lens right now
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Mine was delivered today but no chance to test it yet. Will report by the weekend!

  3. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    Mine was delivered today but no chance to test it yet. Will report by the weekend!
    Lucky! Mind if I asked you where you ordered it from?

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Chris, I ordered it on-line from Sony.ca on Saturday and it arrived by Purolator yesterday. I always get very good service from them. (Looking at how much I've spent there, I ought to!)

    Bill
    Bill CB

    www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #55
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,813
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    Mine was delivered today but no chance to test it yet. Will report by the weekend!
    Congratulations Bill on your latest acquisition...Look forward to hearing your findings
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Well, I got a chance to play with the FE 16-35 today, despite our first snow of the season!

    It's a pretty good lens, though like most zooms the extremes are not perfect. For example, at f5.6 the corners at 16 mm are a bit soft, but at 19 mm they're very good. Likewise 35 mm is pushing it a bit (I'd rather use the FE 24-70 at 35, where it shines) but 30 mm is good.

    This one was taken at 16 mm, f8, processed at C1 8 defaults except for a little correction with the CA tool. There is very little distortion.

    I'll take a few more in coming days, at smaller apertures. Meanwhile, the lens is a keeper. A small bag with the a7r, 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 and three batteries only weighs 3 kg (less than 7 lbs.)

    Bill CB

    www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #57
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Yea having the 17 and 24 TSE than the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. This lens would be handy to have. I plan on adding the Minolta 200mm 2.8 high Speed lens to my kit. Okay Im making no secret it about my plans and Im going on the rumor of the new A7rII if it has the AF I have currently on the A77II than I am all in on the FE mount, so having the 16-35 would be perfect for PR work and even better with the A7s since who cares about high ISO and a slower lens, right I mean i can go easily ISO 3200 and make up the speed. This way I could sell my Sigma 18-35 for the A77II and the A77II and get MY WHOLE SYSTEM into FE mount. I don't like what I have to do today but it works so until we get the A7 and A7r into AF A6000 or A77II territory than that is my plan. Ill get this in January sometime.

    But I am going to rent it for a trip to NY in early December since Ill be shooting the city and adding to my stock of NY images.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    In my earlier post I commented that distortion was quite low at 16 mm. Here's one where I lined up the window on the left with the edge of the frame. Not too bad - and I could have corrected it with the Distortion tool in C1 8 - though I hope they will soon have a profile for the FE. (I tried the existing profile in C1 8 for the A mount 16-35 but it didn't help.)

    ISO 400, 1/40th @F8, hand held. No sign of shutter jar.

    Bill CB

    www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #59
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Yes, Guy, I'm thinking a bit like you. I have the a99 and several A mount lenses, including the ZA 24-70. I hardly need it as well as the FE version.

    The trouble is that I love my 70-400G! I can put it on the a7r (LEA4 adapter) but then I lose the stabilization. Likewise my fabulous Sigma 70 mm Macro.What's a guy to do?

    I think I'll sell the ZA 24-70 but keep the a99 with the 70-400 permanently attached. The Macro I can use with the a7r because I'm usually using it on a tripod and IBS doesn't matter.

    At the end of the day, though, I'm still an MFDB man.....

    Ah, the problems of having so many (not TOO many) systems.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    In my earlier post I commented that distortion was quite low at 16 mm. Here's one where I lined up the window on the left with the edge of the frame. Not too bad - and I could have corrected it with the Distortion tool in C1 8 - though I hope they will soon have a profile for the FE. (I tried the existing profile in C1 8 for the A mount 16-35 but it didn't help.)
    Note for those using ACR/LR - Adobe has a lens profile for the FE16-35 as part of the available ACR update beta.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Looks very nice Bill, I'm envious of your FE 16-35 (but not of that powdery white stuff).

    My dilemma is whether to keep my EF 16-35/4 which I am very happy with on my A7R (with MB IV), or sell it and get the FE version. From the limited samples I have seen, I believe the FE mount is close but not as sharp as the Canon, but that opinion is not based on any proper comparisons. But assuming there is a slight loss in sharpness, there is a lot to be gained by using the native mount lens, with weather sealing in a smaller, lighter package. The other downside to me is the upgrade will cost me about $700 with the value of a used EF 16-35/4 around $1000, and the FE around $1700 including taxes here in Canada.

    Decisions, decisions...

  12. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Bill, how is the OSS on the 16-35?

  13. #63
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    The OSS is fine - just the same as on the 24-70 or 70-200. If I'm leaning on, say, a door frame or wall, I can get sharp results at 1/2 second! Not every time, but likely every other shot.
    Bill

  14. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4 VS WATE

    To start with conclusion: WATE has better corner sharpness at 16 mm and all
    apertures.
    Just an example to show the difference at F8. I shoot many different subjects, with identical results. Difference in color is partly due to passing cloud and
    partly to the absence of a vignetting correction profile for the WATE.

    full image
    full by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    WATE
    wate by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    16-35
    16-35 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    that said, the 16-35 gets rapidly better leaving the corners, and in a very large part of frame the 2 lenses are equally (very) good.

    Sergio
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #65
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Answers that question NOT a replacement for my Canon 17 TSE. So right now makes no sense with my setup. Ill wait till the new year and see what changes i need to make to my system with reduction of the A77II if a new A7 series comes with better AF stuff. What I would like to get is a small 35mm lens. I had the Sigma 35 ART and its a great lens but I want some type of travel lens. Im wondering if Canons new 16-35 is actually better here, its certainly cheaper.
    Last edited by Guy Mancuso; 16th November 2014 at 08:47.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  16. #66
    Senior Member MikeEvangelist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4 VS WATE

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    Just an example to show the difference at F8.
    Thanks for posting this!

  17. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    That's a big difference. I expected more from the Sony, especially given the comparisons to the new Canon 16-35IS and the Nikon 14-24.

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4 VS WATE

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    To start with conclusion: WATE has better corner sharpness at 16 mm and all
    apertures.
    Just an example to show the difference at F8. I shoot many different subjects, with identical results. Difference in color is partly due to passing cloud and
    partly to the absence of a vignetting correction profile for the WATE.



    that said, the 16-35 gets rapidly better leaving the corners, and in a very large part of frame the 2 lenses are equally (very) good.

    Sergio
    Well if that is the difference at F8 I would hate to see what F4 looks like. Not that I am that interested in this lens seeing that I have the WATE I really would have thought that it should perform better at 16mm seeing that photographers will probably buy it for it's ultra-wide capabilities. Is it de-centered by any chance?

  19. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    At F4 the difference is greater than at F8, but not a lot. It is not decentered, the same happens on all corners. It is due to field curvature, with a subject that on sides is much nearer, (U shaped) it is on par if not better than WATE.
    In post #56, Bill notes that the lens is better between 19 and 30 mm, but I had no time for an extensive test

  20. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Pixel peeped accurately with U shaped subject, WATE is still better.

  21. #71
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    Pixel peeped accurately with U shaped subject, WATE is still better.
    Not good (such posts) since I am hoping to see a flood of WATE in the used market to buy one.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #72
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I'm extremely happy with my 17 TSE best super wide I have used and yes I had a WATE. Plus you get benefits but you do get a work out. Lol

    Heck of a lot cheaper by at least 2 times.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    337
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I tried a second-hand WATE a while back for some 3 weeks. Corner performance et al. indeed impressive, but I felt it was not the best in other terms. Not bad in any way, just not quite as good as Super Elmar 21 and Elmar 24, so I didn't buy such as expensive lens for next-to-best performance. Just my personal opinion, though.

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I'm extremely happy with my 17 TSE best super wide I have used and yes I had a WATE. Plus you get benefits but you do get a work out. Lol

    Heck of a lot cheaper by at least 2 times.
    Yeah I may have to go the Canon TS-E route myself if this turns out to be another "meh" lens. It looks promising on one hand but the crops looked almost unfocused compared to the WATE.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    337
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I don't think it is altogether reasonable to harbor too much hope that a zoom lens like the 16-35 will outperform a lens costing some 3x to 4X more. That could be happen if the WATE didn't mate well to the A7R, but this isn't the case. In a straight shoot-out, either the Leica wins, or they are crooks for asking so much more money, and Sony idiots for not asking more.

  26. #76
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,813
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4 VS WATE

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    To start with conclusion: WATE has better corner sharpness at 16 mm and all
    apertures.
    Just an example to show the difference at F8. I shoot many different subjects, with identical results. Difference in color is partly due to passing cloud and
    partly to the absence of a vignetting correction profile for the WATE.

    full image
    full by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    WATE
    wate by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    16-35
    16-35 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    that said, the 16-35 gets rapidly better leaving the corners, and in a very large part of frame the 2 lenses are equally (very) good.

    Sergio
    Many thanks Sergio...I was hoping to carry out more or less the same tests in a couple of days time when my 16-35mm FE arrives...I still will as I think it will only reinforce what you are already saying and what I suspected all along.
    I think the lens will still make a great lightweight travel lens none the less.
    Extra Pro's like covering 21-35mm, exif data relayed, weatherproofing and a similar o/a weight by the time you add on a Voigtlander close up adapter and the Leica filter holder..Thanks again Barry

  27. #77
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    These zooms I'm afraid just do not meet some of our expectations for corner quality. One big issue is always the widest end of these zooms are the worst and only a good prime will cut the cheese. For PR type work some of this won't matter but we all seem to want a lens to serve two masters and we want to use them in all situations like landscape and PR type work. I just don't think we can expect that and still keep them small and light weight plus at reasonable costs. My opinion is this you want something wider than let's say 28mm don't even look at zooms go right for the primes. I just never seen a great corner zoom in these wide areas. Also let's face facts the folks on this forum are not the real market almost all of use are after the highest quality. So strangers reading this forum need to understand who we really are and not soccer moms. No offense there but you know what I mean.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Oh well looks like I will still need to hang onto the M and WATE

  29. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Guy, only exception would be he nikon 14-24, granted on a D800e, it is massive compared to the A7R.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #80
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I commented earlier that this lens is pretty good at 19 or 20 mm. This is F8 at 20 mm.



    And the top right corner...

    Bill CB

    www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    ... and there WILL be significant sample variation, if my (and many other people's) experiences with other Sony Zeiss lenses is anything to go by.

    My 55mm FE is my second, and truly superb. The first was a total dog and focused the left at 5m when the right was at 20m.
    My 35mm FE is my third and not perfect, but still extremely good almost everywhere almost all the time. The first was a dog (very soft right side) and the second had a medium soft left side and permanently squishy top left corner.

    I know users of the 24-70 f4 OSS had trouble getting good copies in far too many cases and cannot see this 16-35 being any different. This is not a lens to buy mail order the day before an important trip LOL. Buying may be a 'process'.

    I hear people say the 35mm FE is 'underwhelming', but assuming one is talking technically speaking (rather than the look, which is subjective) a good copy is still quite remarkable for its resolution and contrast. Mine wows me for what I shoot with it, but to hear some people talking you'd think they were different lenses and they are.

  32. #82
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Not many (or may be just me) do not have the patience to go through several samples, especially when they are this bloody expensive (check/compare the prices in Japan where they also import them from Thailand or wherever they are made) to find that sample that may work.

    I like Sony for their sensor in a compact package. Looking forward to that BSI sensor and next gen of cams.

  33. #83
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    Guy, only exception would be he nikon 14-24, granted on a D800e, it is massive compared to the A7R.
    True the Nikon has been one of the best around. Mine had bad focus creeping but even so it was a good lens. It still maybe the king of zooms in DSLR style of lenses. Actually I have more need in the mid range . I would love it if someone made a hot kick butt 28-70 F2
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #84
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I agree we may need to look at other copies too. I agree with that comment for sure.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  35. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Answers that question NOT a replacement for my Canon 17 TSE. So right now makes no sense with my setup. Ill wait till the new year and see what changes i need to make to my system with reduction of the A77II if a new A7 series comes with better AF stuff. What I would like to get is a small 35mm lens. I had the Sigma 35 ART and its a great lens but I want some type of travel lens. Im wondering if Canons new 16-35 is actually better here, its certainly cheaper.
    After I picked up the Canon 16-35/4 when it came out, I could not tell the difference in sharpness versus my 17mm TS-E (comparing them both on my A7R), which is the reason I sold the 17mm tilt-shift (I still have the 24mm TS-E). Keeping the 17mm just for the shift capability was not enough justification to keep it. The Canon 16-35/4 sharpness is stellar, the IS the best I have seen, and I was prepared to sell it to trade for the smaller/lighter FE. But after seeing this comparison, I will wait to see more sample images before making that change.

  36. #86
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    tough crowd...
    I'm not sure one photographers uploads are enough to condemn the 16-35FE,but then again maybe mine will ship sooner I don't need 16mm, but will certainly crop out offending corners, if needed. That's kinda the beauty in extreme wides, there's so much latitude. Most know that zooms will always be less sharp than primes, obviously because of many more elements to shoot through. For a weather resistant AF extreme wide, this lens will is an exciting addition to the A7.

    Bill's snowy images at 20mm look pretty sharp in the corner...maybe a little moire too.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #87
    Senior Member MikeEvangelist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Everyone's got their own 'benchmark'; for me it's the Zeiss 18mm ƒ3.5 ZE. I love that lens.

    If the 16-35mm comes close in performance at 18mm, I'll be thrilled. Everything else will be a bonus.

    B&H should be shipping mine this week.

  38. #88
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    A pair of full size JPG 16mm F5,6 on Flickr. With this lens, not always stopping down means better corners.

    _DSC3743 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    _DSC3748 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr
    You can find moire at all focal lengths and apertures on a large part of frames.
    20mm center and corner crops full open in a dull, gray, raining day.

    center 20mm by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


    corner20mm by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


    Sergio
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Espoo, Finland
    Posts
    125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    A pair of full size JPG 16mm F5,6 on Flickr. With this lens, not always stopping down means better corners.
    If one looks at dxomark results for different apertures and focal length the very same conclusion can be made. At 16 mm F/4 is showing as better than F/8, at 24 mm the difference is even bigger. On the wider end the FE 16-35 seems best wide open; depending on type of photography one does this may be either a blessing or a curse.

    Have not really had time to test my FE 16-35 on real world conditions yet, but we shot a little comparison last week between my FE 16-35/4 OSS and a buddy's A mount 16-35/2.8 ZA; indoor so focus distances were not that long. FE 16-35 was clearly better at extreme corners @16 mm, same with 35 mm when shot at F/4. At F/2.8 the 16-35/2.8 ZA corners were very soft, nowhere near comparable to FE in F/4. The 16-35/2.8 appeared better at 21 mm, 24 mm was pretty even. Nothing really conclusive there either as I was only helping this buddy to decide if he feels the 16-35/4 would work better for his photography (stars mostly) that the current 16-35/2.8.

  40. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post
    If one looks at dxomark results for different apertures and focal length the very same conclusion can be made. At 16 mm F/4 is showing as better than F/8, at 24 mm the difference is even bigger. On the wider end the FE 16-35 seems best wide open; depending on type of photography one does this may be either a blessing or a curse.

    Have not really had time to test my FE 16-35 on real world conditions yet, but we shot a little comparison last week between my FE 16-35/4 OSS and a buddy's A mount 16-35/2.8 ZA; indoor so focus distances were not that long. FE 16-35 was clearly better at extreme corners @16 mm, same with 35 mm when shot at F/4. At F/2.8 the 16-35/2.8 ZA corners were very soft, nowhere near comparable to FE in F/4. The 16-35/2.8 appeared better at 21 mm, 24 mm was pretty even. Nothing really conclusive there either as I was only helping this buddy to decide if he feels the 16-35/4 would work better for his photography (stars mostly) that the current 16-35/2.8.
    So there is probably sample variation. My copy for sure is not at its best at F4 and 16mm, as shown on their sharpness measurement, while there is a similarity with what they show at other focal lengths. The field for them is totally green at 16mm 4-5,6 including extreme corners.
    This degradation of corners stopping down is something i am not used to....

  41. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    So there is probably sample variation. My copy for sure is not at its best at F4 and 16mm, as shown on their sharpness measurement, while there is a similarity with what they show at other focal lengths. The field for them is totally green at 16mm 4-5,6 including extreme corners.
    This degradation of corners stopping down is something i am not used to....
    OMG this sure sounds like a complex beast making it somewhat difficult to use with confidence. It would almost seem that one need to do a whole load of testing at different apertures and focal lengths and then write the results down it a little black book which you would need to consult every time you use the lens so as to get optimal results. It would seem that gone are the days when the basic rule of thumb was that stopping down improved performance until defraction set in.
    I would be interested to see how it performs on the A7s as my FE24-70 almost seems like another lens on the A7s as apposed to the A7 where it is good but not perfect and really shines on the S

  42. #92
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,604
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Turtle seems to have the winning formula on the FE lens scenario.

  43. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I have been able to replicate DXO results at 16 mm. To obtain good sharpness from center to corner, it is necessary to focus on corners, losing a little on center. Resolution on center is very high, out resolving the sensor and creating moir , and a little defocusing does not show.
    But this is a thing for landscape perfectionists. For my use, I am comfortable with standard
    center focus operations...
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    If you focus on center...
    focus on center by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    you get this corner
    you get this corner by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    if you focus on corner
    focusoncorner by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    you get this center
    yougetthiscenter by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


    what i can't understand is why flickr destroys in this way originals that were perfectly black and white and much less sharpened.

  45. #95
    Senior Member ggibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    743
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    A comparison between the A7+16-35mm and A6000+10-18mm:

    α6000 with SEL 10-18mm F4 OSS vs. α7 with FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS | JÖRG HAAG

    Might be interesting for some to compare. The 16-35mm clearly wins, though that is expected for twice the price on camera+lens. The corners on the 10-18mm are obviously worse, whereas the difference in the center is less pronounced.

    For my money, two of the biggest benefits of the 16-35mm are the longer focal range and ability to get shallower DOF on a full-frame sensor. These qualities make it a much more viable walk-around lens. Perfect to pair with the FE 55mm, IMO.

  46. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Reading some of the posts in this thread, I'm reminded of the sage words of a friend: "Just take the shot!". Complex beast indeed.

    I'm also reminded of some posts in Mac forums regarding Apples new splendid 5k iMac. Some users filled their screen with black, cranked up the brightness to 100% and then viewed the monitor in pitch black. They were SHOCKED to see a bit of light leaking around the edges, something that happens with EVERY LCD monitor. They wondered why Apple continues to build these things in China.

    In what world would one expect a zoom lens to match edge/edge quality of a Leica WATE costing 4x the price? That wouldn't say much about the esteemed Leica. If your work requires this level of perfection, why would you even consider a zoom lens?

    Every review so far has put this lens at or near "best in class". That, along with vastly more functionality and usability is enough for most.

    Meanwhile, I'm suspending judgement until I receive the lens. Given what I've seen so far, I'm optimistic.
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #97
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I'm with you, dandrewk. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    For everyday shooting, this lens (at least, my copy) is just fine. If I wanted the absolute ultimate in image corners then I wouldn't be using a zoom in the first place. I want something light and portable that does an excellent job, accepting it won't be perfect.

    My purpose was simply to test the lens enough to know (a) its limitations and (b) to ensure I didn't get a lemon.

    Let's go take some photographs instead of counting angels.
    Bill CB

    www.billcaulfeild-browne.ca
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #98
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    But Bill I can dance pretty darn good. LOL

    Seriously though it will always come down to what you are looking for we all know photography gear is like being married. You better learn to compromise on it or your in big trouble waiting for the perfect one. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    winnipeg & neelin
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    ... is like being married. You better learn to compromise on it or your in big trouble waiting for the perfect one. LOL
    I'd say you ARE in big trouble if your 'compromise' reads this.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  50. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Not sure Guy, lenses are a lot cheaper, even the really really expensive ones.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •