Site Sponsors
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 303

Thread: Sony FE 16-35/f4

  1. #151
    Senior Member johnnygoesdigital's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Annna T View Post
    I'm not sure whether the A7 séries are a good idea for iceland : right now, I have been taking night pictures from my windows and the batteries are exhausted incredibly fast. Part of it is due to my use if the Metabones smart adapter with Canon lenses. But a very large part is also due to the cold. And it isn't even very cold here (4/5 degrees Celsius to 10 degrees Celsius). Either take a lot of batteries or pick another camera with a bigger battery.
    I've never had any battery issues with the A7. Make sure you're in airplane mode as that will significantly increase battery life. 80% of my shooting is outdoors in much, much colder temps - I get hundreds of shots per battery. Perhaps the battery grip or extra batteries would help if you're using a "smart" adapter because I also saw an increase when using an SSM lens.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #152
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    And keep your (spare) batteries in a warm place near your body in a pocket and not in your (cold) photo bag. Even if they get cold/exhausted in the camera that will get them back working again for many more shots even without charging them.

  3. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    You know the little pouch in tightywhities? That's for A7 batteries when working in cold climates

    I'll take plenty of spares and have a car charger, so no worries. I shoot very few frames generally anyway, so not worried.

  4. #154
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by turtle View Post
    You know the little pouch in tightywhities? That's for A7 batteries when working in cold climates
    over-sharing
    www.douglaswoodphotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #155
    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 johnnygoesdigital View Post
    I've never had any battery issues with the A7. Make sure you're in airplane mode as that will significantly increase battery life. 80% of my shooting is outdoors in much, much colder temps - I get hundreds of shots per battery. Perhaps the battery grip or extra batteries would help if you're using a "smart" adapter because I also saw an increase when using an SSM lens.
    +1 A7R

    I don't need a lot of shots to "get" the shot. Kinda like my golf, 18 shots and it's all over.....then I go to the 2nd hole ;0

    Robert
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #156
    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 just rented this for a week for a trip to New York in early December. Should be fun
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  7. #157
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    232
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    if you want to learn how to use battery wisely. take a sigma DP1/2/3m with you on a trip. by the time you come back, you will make A7r last two months in one charge.
    Keep It Simple.
    XQ2 / A7r / 15mm / 25mm / 28-35-50mm
    EOS M3 / 18-35mm
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Tried it out today in store on my A7s and results look impressive, Should really have taken along the A7 but never mind. Have been considering selling the FE24-70 which I find a somewhat frustrating lens as sometimes it seems to perform well and sometimes not to degree that it almost seems random and I feel I just can't trust it.

  9. #159
    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 Viramati View Post
    Tried it out today in store on my A7s and results look impressive, Should really have taken along the A7 but never mind. Have been considering selling the FE24-70 which I find a somewhat frustrating lens as sometimes it seems to perform well and sometimes not to degree that it almost seems random and I feel I just can't trust it.
    I sold my 24-70 for the exact same reason. It seemed to be bland and inconsistent for me despite some initial glowing reviews by others. I found it adequate at times and not so much at the others. I decided after much internal debate I much rather shoot a prime in the mid range and leave zooms to the UWA and telephoto focal lengths. Truth be told I would only use a mid range zoom if it covered enough focal length to be a great all purpose "walk around lens" for vacation like a 24-105mm or 24-120mm lens.

    I'm waiting to try out a 16-35 and see if it'll fit the bill. I'm most interested in how it performs specifically in the 16-25mm range as I have native solutions in the 35-55 range.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  10. #160
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4



    Shot at 16mm....
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ
    Likes 14 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #161
    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 Don Libby View Post


    Shot at 16mm....
    Now you're just enabling...
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #162
    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 Don Libby View Post


    Shot at 16mm....
    Don that looks pretty dang good what aperture f8
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  13. #163
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Sorry, feeling a little under the weather today and forgot to add the information.

    This was shot with a A7r. Converted to shoot FS with a 830nm filter on the lens. The file was opened in C1 where I did a WB and lens correction then over to PS-CC for shake reduction (I do that on any file captured handheld) then saved as a jpeg. No cropping was done. More samples on our latest blog.

    Everything I see about this lens screams it's a keeper. I got it for the sole reason to be able to shoot 16-24 as I also have a 24-70 that's equally as good.

    Don 'the enabler'
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  14. #164
    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 HiredArm View Post
    I sold my 24-70 for the exact same reason. It seemed to be bland and inconsistent for me despite some initial glowing reviews by others. I found it adequate at times and not so much at the others. I decided after much internal debate I much rather shoot a prime in the mid range and leave zooms to the UWA and telephoto focal lengths. Truth be told I would only use a mid range zoom if it covered enough focal length to be a great all purpose "walk around lens" for vacation like a 24-105mm or 24-120mm lens.

    I'm waiting to try out a 16-35 and see if it'll fit the bill. I'm most interested in how it performs specifically in the 16-25mm range as I have native solutions in the 35-55 range.
    I'm with you on this. I can foresee a light walk around kit featuring the FE16-35 + FE55 1.8. If I really needed the extra reach, the FE70-200 would go along, but that's a bigger bag.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #165
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Got a few "test" shots with the new FE 16-35 last weekend. All of these were handheld, most are cropped slightly for straightening or perspective correction. All were post-processed in LR, with a couple of blended exposures thrown in.


    f/8 33mm 1/125 ISO 100


    f/8 16mm 1/60 ISO 800


    f/4.5 16mm 1/60 ISO 250


    f/4.5 16mm 1/60 ISO 1000


    f/4.5 18mm 1/60 ISO 500

  16. #166
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Seems like this thread has gone a little quiet. Here is one from yesterday - a long exposure, shot with 10 stop ND filter at 8 seconds, 20mm, f/8, ISO 100.

    Last edited by chrisd; 30th November 2014 at 18:26.

  17. #167
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    337
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    One of the reasons this thread may have gone a little quiet is that availability does not yet seem to be universal. I am waiting to try one out, but my dealer hasn't received one yet, and claims no one yet has either in France.

  18. #168
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Got mine last weekend. So far it seems like a keeper but I haven't had a good chance to exercise it properly yet.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #169
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    3D-Kraft did a review of "adorable" WA lenses, including the FE16-35 and Leica WATE:

    Adorable wide angles - Zeiss FE 16-35 vs. Leica WATE and some other 21mm lenses

    I won't reveal the results, but WATE owners might not want to click on the link.

  20. #170
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by dandrewk View Post
    3D-Kraft did a review of "adorable" WA lenses, including the FE16-35 and Leica WATE:

    Adorable wide angles - Zeiss FE 16-35 vs. Leica WATE and some other 21mm lenses

    I won't reveal the results, but WATE owners might not want to click on the link.
    What I would like to see is a direct comparison between the WATE on the M 240 and the FE16-35 on the A7. I would expect the FE lens to be better than the WATE on the Sony but my feeling is that the WATE is overall a better performer when mounted on the Of course it has a lot smaller range, only 16-21, but it is small in comparison with a decent DOF scale and a beautiful rendering
    Interestingly it would appear from his example that the WATE slightly outperforms the FE in the corners at f8 and 21mm.

  21. #171
    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 Viramati View Post
    What I would like to see is a direct comparison between the WATE on the M 240 and the FE16-35 on the A7. I would expect the FE lens to be better than the WATE on the Sony but my feeling is that the WATE is overall a better performer when mounted on the Of course it has a lot smaller range, only 16-21, but it is small in comparison with a decent DOF scale and a beautiful rendering
    Interestingly it would appear from his example that the WATE slightly outperforms the FE in the corners at f8 and 21mm.
    My tests with the A7R , repeated many times and in different conditions, show that the WATE is consistently better than the 16-35 on corners and partly on edges, from 16mm
    to 20mm, with difference progressively diminishing. But I also verified that even the smallest imperfection in the adapter is critical for WATE, so I had to make a selection to find the right one (Novoflex). We do not know if this procedure has been followed in the cited test. (and what is the consistency between even the same brand of adapters)
    I decided to keep both lenses, for many reasons, but particularly for the splendid performance of the zoom in the 24,28, and slightly less so, 35mm range.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #172
    Senior Member Slingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    My tests with the A7R , repeated many times and in different conditions, show that the WATE is consistently better than the 16-35 on corners and partly on edges, from 16mm
    to 20mm, with difference progressively diminishing. But I also verified that even the smallest imperfection in the adapter is critical for WATE, so I had to make a selection to find the right one (Novoflex). We do not know if this procedure has been followed in the cited test. (and what is the consistency between even the same brand of adapters)
    I decided to keep both lenses, for many reasons, but particularly for the splendid performance of the zoom in the 24,28, and slightly less so, 35mm range.
    Around the time of your posts here 3dkraft wrote on SAR at New Zeiss 16-35mm reviews and size comparison. | sonyalpharumors

    "If you see tests, where the sharpness of the Zeiss/Sony FE 16-35 is less than the (manually focused) comparison candidates, ask the reviewer, if he also focused the FE 16-35 manually! It IS sharp but I saw several pictures giving a different impression and I am quite sure that the cause was a wrong focus setting."

    at the time I assumed it was about your test. I posted the link to his test here in this thread but never asked you if you manually focused in your tests. Also did you turn OSS off?

  23. #173
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    My tests with the A7R , repeated many times and in different conditions, show that the WATE is consistently better than the 16-35 on corners and partly on edges, from 16mm
    to 20mm, with difference progressively diminishing. But I also verified that even the smallest imperfection in the adapter is critical for WATE, so I had to make a selection to find the right one (Novoflex). We do not know if this procedure has been followed in the cited test. (and what is the consistency between even the same brand of adapters)
    I decided to keep both lenses, for many reasons, but particularly for the splendid performance of the zoom in the 24,28, and slightly less so, 35mm range.
    It's a very close call between these two lenses, at least with the samples I had...I tried a variety of adapters and also settled on the Novoflex adapter for the WATE.
    If I owned a Leica M and a Sony A7/? I would have kept the WATE for sure...But my interest is really only in what Sony is doing nowadays!
    I re did my tests critically manually focusing the Sony and obviously the WATE and I now had the Sony a fraction a head in terms of corner and edge resolution when stopped down to F8 with hyperfocal distance focusing. With the added bonus of exif data, weather sealing, OSS, the extra zoom range as you say up to 28mm which is excellent, less colour shift and vignetting and Now LR profiles + not to speak about the price. I decided to go all in on the Sony 16-35mm FE with no regrets...I'm not a Sony or Leica fanboy, if lensbaby came out with a better FE mount lens tomorrow I would happily go with that.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #174
    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
    My tests with the A7R , repeated many times and in different conditions, show that the WATE is consistently better than the 16-35 on corners and partly on edges, from 16mm
    to 20mm, with difference progressively diminishing. But I also verified that even the smallest imperfection in the adapter is critical for WATE, so I had to make a selection to find the right one (Novoflex). We do not know if this procedure has been followed in the cited test. (and what is the consistency between even the same brand of adapters)
    I decided to keep both lenses, for many reasons, but particularly for the splendid performance of the zoom in the 24,28, and slightly less so, 35mm range.
    Molto grazie Sergio
    I have the leica M and nowadays the lenses I use on it most are the WATE and 28 summicron both of which are my main reasons for sticking with the system. I had been hoping (probably a little foolishly) that the FE16-35 would at least equal or better the leica lenses. As I use the WATE nearly exclusively for landscape etc I will be hanging onto the leica M. I am wondering if the 16-35 is any easier to focus accuratley for landscape work than the FE24-70 which I find to be a real pain when it comes to middle-distance and horizon shots?

  25. #175
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Viramati View Post
    Molto grazie Sergio
    I have the leica M and nowadays the lenses I use on it most are the WATE and 28 summicron both of which are my main reasons for sticking with the system. I had been hoping (probably a little foolishly) that the FE16-35 would at least equal or better the leica lenses. As I use the WATE nearly exclusively for landscape etc I will be hanging onto the leica M. I am wondering if the 16-35 is any easier to focus accuratley for landscape work than the FE24-70 which I find to be a real pain when it comes to middle-distance and horizon shots?
    David, if you typically stop down to F8 for landscape work and like to use hyper-focal distance focusing to keep everything sharp from near infinity to close up then the 16-35mm FE can be a bit problematic I found to start with. Some Pre-testing and making notes at each focal length is advisable beforehand to save disappointment later.
    If you just apply and transfer what the DoF scale readings taken from the WATE says back onto the manual focus scale of the 16-35mm you will end up getting two completely different sets of results for those two lenses IMO...The Sony lens needs to be focused out just a little bit further than the WATE...Well it does on my sample.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #176
    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 Barry Haines View Post
    David, if you typically stop down to F8 for landscape work and like to use hyper-focal distance focusing to keep everything sharp from near infinity to close up then the 16-35mm FE can be a bit problematic I found to start with. Some Pre-testing and making notes at each focal length is advisable beforehand to save disappointment later.
    If you just apply and transfer what the DoF scale readings taken from the WATE says back onto the manual focus scale of the 16-35mm you will end up getting two completely different sets of results for those two lenses IMO...The Sony lens needs to be focused out just a little bit further than the WATE...Well it does on my sample.
    The FE 16-35/4 OSS seems to have quite a focus shift (could explain those pretty strange dxomark field maps too when stopping down) and some forward field curvature, Lloyd chambers have been testing the lens and has reported this on several entries of his blog, even on the publicly accessible side. So focus carefully and preferably with the aperture you are gonna shoot with. Or know what the focus shift is gonna do on different Focal lengths and apertures, just like advised above.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #177
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by tn1krr View Post
    The FE 16-35/4 OSS seems to have quite a focus shift (could explain those pretty strange dxomark field maps too when stopping down) and some forward field curvature, Lloyd chambers have been testing the lens and has reported this on several entries of his blog, even on the publicly accessible side. So focus carefully and preferably with the aperture you are gonna shoot with. Or know what the focus shift is gonna do on different Focal lengths and apertures, just like advised above.
    I can honestly say that I haven't experienced any real noticeable field curvature or any focus shift for that matter with this particular lens - Although if Dxomark and Lloyd Chambers says their is, then I bow to their better judgement.
    My gripe is I am not entirely happy with the (A7R) cameras distance focusing scale to rely on, as it's a bit crude as it steps up and down in bite sized chunks, I would prefer something a bit more linear + I'm not entirely convinced it's even that accurate either Hopefully future A7 and A9 series cameras will come up with something a bit better than what we have at the moment.

  28. #178
    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 would adjust your ad adjustment for say a focal length. Than check other focal lengths and see if it changes
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  29. #179
    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 Slingers View Post
    Around the time of your posts here 3dkraft wrote on SAR at New Zeiss 16-35mm reviews and size comparison. | sonyalpharumors

    "If you see tests, where the sharpness of the Zeiss/Sony FE 16-35 is less than the (manually focused) comparison candidates, ask the reviewer, if he also focused the FE 16-35 manually! It IS sharp but I saw several pictures giving a different impression and I am quite sure that the cause was a wrong focus setting."

    at the time I assumed it was about your test. I posted the link to his test here in this thread but never asked you if you manually focused in your tests. Also did you turn OSS off?

    I explored all the options, the examples I am posting now are with manual focus and no OSS. What you can see, independently from the comparison,
    is that the WATE is very, very good on corners, and that is clearly difficult, in any case, to perform better. (focus exactly on the same plane for both, focused stopped down to taking aperture to avoid focus shift etc.)
    Both crops are upper right corner, F8.

    FE 16-35

    _DSC4117 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


    WATE

    _DSC4118 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

  30. #180
    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 Barry Haines View Post
    I can honestly say that I haven't experienced any real noticeable field curvature or any focus shift for that matter with this particular lens - Although if Dxomark and Lloyd Chambers says their is, then I bow to their better judgement.
    My gripe is I am not entirely happy with the (A7R) cameras distance focusing scale to rely on, as it's a bit crude as it steps up and down in bite sized chunks, I would prefer something a bit more linear + I'm not entirely convinced it's even that accurate either Hopefully future A7 and A9 series cameras will come up with something a bit better than what we have at the moment.
    Lloyds test pics show the focus shift pretty clearly and the curvature is not that huge. dxomark does not comment on such things on their tests but their stopped down "sharpness field maps" look quite odd and could maybe be explained by focus shift. I think the "know the lens and make notes" like you mentioned above applies to this lens a bit more than maybe to some other lenses. Whatever the reason behind it may be.

    I agree on the EVF focus scale accuracy, not really a precision tool. Nice to have though, but personally I mostly use it to get decent starting point in handheld MF and also I check it to see I'm turning the focus ring into correct direction when what I'm seeing in EVF is badly OOF.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #181
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I would adjust your ad adjustment for say a focal length. Than check other focal lengths and see if it changes
    Guy, the AF locks on perfectly with my two native lenses (I have no complaints). So need for any AF fine adjustment that I can see of.
    It's the actual scale in the viewfinder that I am less happy with.

    I keep seeing Sergio's samples and without rubbing it in my 16-35mm seems to perform a bit better...I'm sure we just have another case of sample to sample variations.

  32. #182
    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

    From all that I see on this lens. It's sounds like sample variance. I get a rental lens on Friday for a week. See if I can run some tests with it too.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  33. #183
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I would adjust your ad adjustment for say a focal length. Than check other focal lengths and see if it changes
    Guy, I just did exactly as you said (manually focusing) and yes if I'm being honest I can see a difference between the two extreme focal lengths of 16mm and 35mm at f4 when focusing as close as possible (As close as the lens will allow me to that is) using a steel ruler at an angle, that ties up with Sergio's results...But by the time I'm at circa 0.7m the point becomes pretty well mute as far as I see it...Personally I didn't buy the lens for macro work and I would always refocus at whatever focal length I was shooting at anyway....Just my 2 pence worth. This may be a problem for some folks here but not for me.

  34. #184
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Thanks all for some very useful feedback in the last few posts. I have come to realise that at least with WATE I know exactly what it is doing and where I am focussing as this is what frustrates me with the FE zooms as with the FE24-70 i'm never quite sure what it is doing and exactly where and what is in focus. The A7 series manual focus scale is next to useless and really should be a lot more detailed. Also with the fly-by-wire focussing you have no idea when you are really at infinity. So when it come down to it I can see the 16-35 being useful for reportage work but just to hit and miss for landscape

  35. #185
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Perhaps this is a stupid question (someone will tell me to read the manual), but is it possible to set the A7 series cameras to focus stopped down at the aperture setting, not wide open (at f4 in this case)? That would eliminate any focus shift behaviour, would it not?

  36. #186
    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 Barry Haines View Post
    Guy, I just did exactly as you said (manually focusing) and yes if I'm being honest I can see a difference between the two extreme focal lengths of 16mm and 35mm at f4 when focusing as close as possible (As close as the lens will allow me to that is) using a steel ruler at an angle, that ties up with Sergio's results...But by the time I'm at circa 0.7m the point becomes pretty well mute as far as I see it...Personally I didn't buy the lens for macro work and I would always refocus at whatever focal length I was shooting at anyway....Just my 2 pence worth. This may be a problem for some folks here but not for me.
    Agree we would always adjust focus after a focal change on zooms. Usually this is a small amount. What I was trying figure was if it was a severe amount. This would say something about the elements movements. My guess this has a floating element for close focusing as well. My Nikon 14-24 had a pretty bad focus shift. So on one hand some of this could very well be somewhat normal. But I'm reading it sounds fairly severe. But most of us would use it manual anyway and BTW I do not like the fly by wire setting. I don't like the mechanics of it so I switched it off
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  37. #187
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    @ chrisd: I think all native E-mount lenses focus (and measure light) when stopped down.

    Only A-mount lenses via one of the LA-EA2 or 4 adapters focus (and measure light) wide open and only close down upon pressing the shutter button.

  38. #188
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Agree we would always adjust focus after a focal change on zooms. Usually this is a small amount. What I was trying figure was if it was a severe amount. This would say something about the elements movements. My guess this has a floating element for close focusing as well. My Nikon 14-24 had a pretty bad focus shift. So on one hand some of this could very well be somewhat normal. But I'm reading it sounds fairly severe. But most of us would use it manual anyway and BTW I do not like the fly by wire setting. I don't like the mechanics of it so I switched it off
    Guy, I'm looking forward to seeing what you think when you get your rental...I would be even more interested if you rented a WATE at the same time

    The closer you get the problem becomes more severe as with any lens...Only you will know the point of acceptability...Getting a rental is a good idea for you and anybody in doubt.

  39. #189
    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 pegelli View Post
    @ chrisd: I think all native E-mount lenses focus (and measure light) when stopped down.

    Only A-mount lenses via one of the LA-EA2 or 4 adapters focus (and measure light) wide open and only close down upon pressing the shutter button.
    If one puts Live View Display to "setting effect off" all native E Mount lenses focus wide open and only stop down for exposure when shutter button is pressed. So we get to pick which behavior we prefer.

  40. #190
    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
    Agree we would always adjust focus after a focal change on zooms. Usually this is a small amount. What I was trying figure was if it was a severe amount. This would say something about the elements movements. My guess this has a floating element for close focusing as well. My Nikon 14-24 had a pretty bad focus shift. So on one hand some of this could very well be somewhat normal. But I'm reading it sounds fairly severe. But most of us would use it manual anyway and BTW I do not like the fly by wire setting. I don't like the mechanics of it so I switched it off
    Most of the time I DMF when I need to manually focus my FE lenses. Fly by wire is just weird.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  41. #191
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Agree we would always adjust focus after a focal change on zooms. Usually this is a small amount. What I was trying figure was if it was a severe amount. This would say something about the elements movements. My guess this has a floating element for close focusing as well. My Nikon 14-24 had a pretty bad focus shift. So on one hand some of this could very well be somewhat normal. But I'm reading it sounds fairly severe. But most of us would use it manual anyway and BTW I do not like the fly by wire setting. I don't like the mechanics of it so I switched it off
    The problems you had with the Nikon (or anything with the A99/A77) is not applicable in this case as the focus is off the sensor. Totally different scenarios.

  42. #192
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Haines View Post
    I can honestly say that I haven't experienced any real noticeable field curvature or any focus shift for that matter with this particular lens - Although if Dxomark and Lloyd Chambers says their is, then I bow to their better judgement.
    My gripe is I am not entirely happy with the (A7R) cameras distance focusing scale to rely on, as it's a bit crude as it steps up and down in bite sized chunks, I would prefer something a bit more linear + I'm not entirely convinced it's even that accurate either Hopefully future A7 and A9 series cameras will come up with something a bit better than what we have at the moment.
    I thought that when using focus by wire to focus manually, then the speed at which you are turning the wheel may make a difference and that it doesn't help to add marks on the ring/barrel because they would change depending on that speed : aka if you turn slowly, you will have to go further and if you turn fast, then a smaller turn will yield a bigger change. I seem to remember having read something like that in the manual.. but I didn't insist, I prefer AF given the state of my eyesight..
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #193
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Annna T View Post
    I thought that when using focus by wire to focus manually, then the speed at which you are turning the wheel may make a difference and that it doesn't help to add marks on the ring/barrel because they would change depending on that speed : aka if you turn slowly, you will have to go further and if you turn fast, then a smaller turn will yield a bigger change. I seem to remember having read something like that in the manual.. but I didn't insist, I prefer AF given the state of my eyesight..
    Hi Annna, I’m not sure I entirely follow you, what I was trying to say in a roundabout way - Was that when you are in manual focus mode and you rotate the lens focusing ring, the lens distance scale obviously now becomes active on the rear screen and in the EVF.
    As you rotate the lens focusing ring in a linear motion (either slowly or fast) the distance focusing scale moves left to right and back again in actual “stepped increments” if you look very closely (It’s not linear).
    Those actual stepped positions can be used as aide-memoire for where to position your pre-selected/pre-calculated hyperfocal distances for various different focal lengths.
    That’s handy for Landscape workers...Personally though I would rather have an alternative easier method that was linear and not stepped.

  44. #194
    Senior Member Slingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Thank you Sergio. I really appreciate all the tests and knowledge you have provided about this lens. I bet it's tough to be one of the first with a lens.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #195
    Senior Member Barry Haines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    1,817
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I just rented this for a week for a trip to New York in early December. Should be fun
    Guy, enjoy your NY trip with the 16-35mm, if you get time I would just do a few test shots at home just to familiarize yourself with the focusing (That could prove to be beneficial later on when in NY).
    I confess I did not instantly take a shine to this lens!
    The 35mm end of the zoom is it's weak link (and not just my copy).
    I personally like to treat the lens as a 16-28mm zoom and would add a fast 35mm lens on a trip.
    Cheers Barry

  46. #196
    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 little bugged about the 35 end of this zoom.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

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

  47. #197
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Here is one at 16mm f/8 ISO100 1/160 handheld. Minimum cropping for perspective distortion and lens profile corrections.

    Humber Bay by chrisd666, on Flickr

  48. #198
    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 Guy Mancuso View Post
    Yea little bugged about the 35 end of this zoom.
    It seems to be pretty much same case with every 16-35. We tested the A Mount 16-35/2.8 ZA against the FE 16-35/4 and the A mount model was noticeably softer on F/4 aperture. Canikons do not really shine in 35 mm either.

    IMO 35 mm is the right place for zoom compromizes that are gonna be there anyway. Optimized the wide end the best you can since starting from 24 mm (and even more so from 35 mm) there are lots of other options.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #199
    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
    Yea little bugged about the 35 end of this zoom.
    The good part is that there are plenty of great 35mm lenses out there. There aren't quite so many great UWA options so I kind of like hearing this. I may pickup this lens before my Vegas trip in February. I'm starting to see a few good examples of what it can do in broad daylight or sunset that aren't just brick walls.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  50. #200
    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 Guy Mancuso View Post
    Yea little bugged about the 35 end of this zoom.
    Guy, my copy, which has got such a bad reputation against the Wate at 16,
    is very good at 35, also shooting brick walls ( just a little less than at 24/28,
    but anyway very usable). And look also is not anonymous...

    35 F4

    _DSC4042 by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr
    Likes 7 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
  •