Site Sponsors
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 303

Thread: Sony FE 16-35/f4

  1. #201
    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

    I have a question. Does the front lens element protrude very far if at all? Just curious about how adaptable it is to use lens filters.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  2. #202
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Sergio, that colour shows very nicely what these sony cameras do with good quality optics. Its rich, subtle, beautifully balanced and completely unlike what people ascribed to digital capture only a few years back. I noticed it right from the get-go with my A7 and A7R.

  3. #203
    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 turtle View Post
    Sergio, that colour shows very nicely what these sony cameras do with good quality optics. Its rich, subtle, beautifully balanced and completely unlike what people ascribed to digital capture only a few years back. I noticed it right from the get-go with my A7 and A7R.
    Sony has quietly always been known for great color production from it's users. I knew of the common brands that Sony had the best colors to me and that was the direction I was going when I "needed" a DSLR to supplement the limitations of my M system.

    I didn't know that a FF mirrorless would be available this soon but it made plenty of sense for me to go the Sony direction for the versatility compared to my M9/M9-P. Sadly not all of my M lenses performed quite as well as I hoped (particularly the 24 Elmar ASPH which is a very underrated M lens due to the lack of speed) but I had great options between the some of my Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, and Contax lenses.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #204
    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 turtle View Post
    Sergio, that colour shows very nicely what these sony cameras do with good quality optics. Its rich, subtle, beautifully balanced and completely unlike what people ascribed to digital capture only a few years back. I noticed it right from the get-go with my A7 and A7R.
    I had the same impression.The lens rendering seems also much more Leica,particularly pre ASPH, than Zeiss.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #205
    Senior Member f 1,0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    664
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by HiredArm View Post
    The good part is that there are plenty of great 35mm lenses out there.
    That's right.

    I will use the lens on your next holiday (end of December) almost exclusively. After that, I will look which focal length i used how often.

    Then I decide if I will buy a good Prime like a 24mm (Samyang) or 35mm (Voigtländer).

    Actually, I prefer a 1.4 / 28mm. The Leica ruled out because of the price.

  6. #206
    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 f 1,0 View Post
    That's right.

    I will use the lens on your next holiday (end of December) almost exclusively. After that, I will look which focal length i used how often.

    Then I decide if I will buy a good Prime like a 24mm (Samyang) or 35mm (Voigtländer).

    Actually, I prefer a 1.4 / 28mm. The Leica ruled out because of the price.
    Honestly I just need the lens to be great at 16-25mm to hold me over on the 28/2and 21mm teleconverter. I have the 35/1.2 Nokton II which is great and Guy's old Sigma 35/1.4 in A-mount for AF duties.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  7. #207
    Senior Member f 1,0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    664
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    I had the same impression.The lens rendering seems also much more Leica,particularly pre ASPH, than Zeiss.
    I have used an M8 for 7 years before I bought the Sony. With the same lenses I´m often happier than before.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #208
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by HiredArm View Post
    I have a question. Does the front lens element protrude very far if at all? Just curious about how adaptable it is to use lens filters.
    There's about 3-4mm clearance between the front of the glass and the level of the rim. Hoya HD filters work fine with no vignetting even at f22 and infinity focus. I don't know how thick the rim of the filter can be without a problem but I've noticed that the lens entrance pupil is someway into the lens barrel so the filter front rim may not be able to be much thicker than that of the Hoya's 4.3mm.

    The Lee 100mm filter system with 2 slots, wide angle adapter, plus slim "Landscape" 105mm polariser does not vignette at 16mm (only just OK) which is good news.

    Bob.
    Last edited by Bob Parsons; 3rd December 2014 at 13:00. Reason: Add filter rim thickness
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #209
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    To add to my previous post:

    I've just used the 100mm Lee filter system with polariser on another A7R and another FE 16-35, that combination just started to vignette (almost undetectable), as I said it's very close. Lens manufacturing tolerances and sensor positioning do make a difference.
    I know if you use the Lee two slot wide angle hood with polariser there is a small amount of vignetting. The plate on which the hood is mounted moves the 105mm polariser sufficiently far forward to cause this.

    Bob.
    Last edited by Bob Parsons; 4th December 2014 at 15:26.

  10. #210
    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 rented this lens and in hand right now. So far I like the size and weight very much. It handles nicely too. I only causally shot a few frames with it and looks pretty good so far. It looks like the wide end of it maybe the best part. That is highly unusually for a zoom as almost every zoom I have met has there troubles on the widest side. Will see how it goes for the week
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #211
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Here are a few more images from the FE 16-35:

    f8, 16mm, 1/250s, ISO 100, handheld:


    f8, 20mm, 1/100s, ISO 100, handheld:


    f8, 16mm, 1/320s, ISO 100, handheld:


    f8, 26mm, 28s, ISO 100, tripod:


    f8, 16mm, 1/100s, ISO 100, handheld:

  12. #212
    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 rented this lens and in hand right now. So far I like the size and weight very much. It handles nicely too. I only causally shot a few frames with it and looks pretty good so far. It looks like the wide end of it maybe the best part. That is highly unusually for a zoom as almost every zoom I have met has there troubles on the widest side. Will see how it goes for the week
    How's that lens working out in C1P8?
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  13. #213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    No CA
    Posts
    796
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Impressive, Chris. Wanna trade it for a WATE? :-)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #214
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by thompsonkirk View Post
    Impressive, Chris. Wanna trade it for a WATE? :-)
    Very tempting Kirk. But I'm starting to like this lens. Here is another one. Best sharpness I have gotten so far with this lens. I'm starting to think there is a bit of learning curve coaxing the max sharpness out of it.

    f11, 85s, 16mm, ISO 100, on tripod with 10-stop ND:

  15. #215
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I have been reading that the long end of this lens is somewhat below par, so I shot a series to see how the lens performs at the various focal lengths. I shot at all apertures but I am including only the f8 shots. I find these results to show a very solid performance at all focal lengths. I set the manual focus on the rail in each shot. These images were RAW with minimal processing in Aperture 3.


    @16mm

    Camera Model: ILCE-7
    Lens: Sony FE 16-35mm F4.0 ZA OSS
    Focal Length: 16 mm
    Aperture: f/8.0
    Exposure Time: 0.004 sec (1/250)
    ISO: 320

    @19mm

    Camera Model: ILCE-7
    Lens: Sony FE 16-35mm F4.0 ZA OSS
    Focal Length: 19 mm
    Aperture: f/8.0
    Exposure Time: 0.004 sec (1/250)
    ISO: 320

    @24mm

    Camera Model: ILCE-7
    Lens: Sony FE 16-35mm F4.0 ZA OSS
    Focal Length: 24 mm
    Aperture: f/8.0
    Exposure Time: 0.003 sec (1/320)
    ISO: 320

    @28mm

    Camera Model: ILCE-7
    Lens: Sony FE 16-35mm F4.0 ZA OSS
    Focal Length: 28 mm
    Aperture: f/8.0
    Exposure Time: 0.003 sec (1/320)
    ISO: 320

    @35mm

    Camera Model: ILCE-7
    Lens: Sony FE 16-35mm F4.0 ZA OSS
    Focal Length: 35 mm
    Aperture: f/8.0
    Exposure Time: 0.003 sec (1/400)
    ISO: 320
    Last edited by Saxbike; 8th December 2014 at 16:13.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #216
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Anyone done a comparison to the Leica 19mm II or the Leica 28mm II lenses?

    I'm thinking I can finally sell those two for a single zoom lens. That will lighten the ultra-wide end considerably in the bag, but unfortunately make my wallet a lot heavier?! Hahaha...

    Of course, that will also be the beginning of the end for the a900 in the bag as well... need a new a7r II to come out very soon, and it better have a better screen, no light leaks in the lens mount, and also make a great cup of espresso.


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  17. #217
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I did. Clearly, both are better, for color transparency, contrast, corner sharpness and, obviously they are 2,8. In particular, as you know having it, the 28 from full open eoutresolves
    the
    sensor of the a7r on a large part of the image,and, at F8, generates moirè till extreme corners.(probably the sharpest 28 ever built)
    But... quality advantage is less than one could think. The 16-35 considering also all other
    advantages, is very near. As you do, I am also wandering..
    Sergio

  18. #218
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    I did. Clearly, both are better, for color transparency, contrast, corner sharpness and, obviously they are 2,8. In particular, as you know having it, the 28 at F8 out resolves the sensor of the a7r on a large part of the image,and, at F8, generates moirè till extreme corners.(probably the sharpest 28 ever built)
    But... quality advantage is less than one could think. The 16-35 considering also all other
    advantages, is very near. As you do, I am also wandering..
    Sergio
    Is that a correct statement?
    I thought a better lens gives a better image on a given sensor.
    And vice versa a better sensor gives a better image with a given lens.
    So it's the combination that counts.
    Therefore my question. TIA.
    With best regards, K-H.

  19. #219
    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 k-hawinkler View Post
    Is that a correct statement?
    I thought a better lens gives a better image on a given sensor.
    And vice versa a better sensor gives a better image with a given lens.
    So it's the combination that counts.
    Therefore my question. TIA.
    K-H, the reply to your question, to avoid to be generic, is neither simple nor short, and requires to cite Nyqvist's theorem, spatial frequency etc.
    In practice, let's put the thing this way, if you agree.
    A sensor has a resolution that is strictly related the number of pixels in a
    defined surface, (pixel density). That resolution can be measured in Line pairs per mm, and in the case of a7r this value is approx. 100 for vertical and horizontal lines. (a little less for oblique)
    If the lens has a resolution greater than 100, the part exceeding 100 cannot be
    correctly recorded by the sensor, and creates aliasing, better known by photographer as moirè. everytime you see aliasing on a digital image, you know that the lens has more resolution than the sensor. When the sensor reaches its limit, it can no more cooperate with the lens to produce a better image.
    I do this measurement with every new lens I get.
    If you want, (I esitate to show resolution targets in this forum :sleep006
    I can show how I proceed.

    Sergio
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #220
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    K-H, the reply to your question, to avoid to be generic, is neither simple nor short, and requires to cite Nyqvist's theorem, spatial frequency etc.
    In practice, let's put the thing this way, if you agree.
    A sensor has a resolution that is strictly related the number of pixels in a
    defined surface, (pixel density). That resolution can be measured in Line pairs per mm, and in the case of a7r this value is approx. 100 for vertical and horizontal lines. (a little less for oblique)
    If the lens has a resolution greater than 100, the part exceeding 100 cannot be
    correctly recorded by the sensor, and creates aliasing, better known by photographer as moirè. everytime you see aliasing on a digital image, you know that the lens has more resolution than the sensor. When the sensor reaches its limit, it can no more cooperate with the lens to produce a better image.
    I do this measurement with every new lens I get.
    If you want, (I esitate to show resolution targets in this forum :sleep006
    I can show how I proceed.

    Sergio
    Sergio's info is correct as I see it, but as he also said, the difference may be getting pretty small with this lens.

    The draw of a lens built for the sensor, having all the proper electronics, etc. is also appealing.

    I tend to be a fixed focal length kind of person, but for the lesser used lenses, it seems foolish to be carrying these things around when a zoom will perform as well in most practical purposes.

    Thanks for the feedback Sergio... I'd love to see some comparisons of the three lenses, but if you want to keep them of the interwebs, let me know, and we can have a direct conversation on it.

    I don't blame you for not wanting to post any sharpness testing! You don't want anyone to blame you of being too much of a pixel peeper. Hahaha...


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #221
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    I did. Clearly, both are better, for color transparency, contrast, corner sharpness and, obviously they are 2,8. In particular, as you know having it, the 28 from full open eoutresolves
    the
    sensor of the a7r on a large part of the image,and, at F8, generates moirè till extreme corners.(probably the sharpest 28 ever built)
    But... quality advantage is less than one could think. The 16-35 considering also all other
    advantages, is very near. As you do, I am also wandering..
    Sergio
    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    Is that a correct statement?
    I thought a better lens gives a better image on a given sensor.
    And vice versa a better sensor gives a better image with a given lens.
    So it's the combination that counts.
    Therefore my question. TIA.
    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    K-H, the reply to your question, to avoid to be generic, is neither simple nor short, and requires to cite Nyqvist's theorem, spatial frequency etc.
    In practice, let's put the thing this way, if you agree.
    A sensor has a resolution that is strictly related the number of pixels in a
    defined surface, (pixel density). That resolution can be measured in Line pairs per mm, and in the case of a7r this value is approx. 100 for vertical and horizontal lines. (a little less for oblique)
    If the lens has a resolution greater than 100, the part exceeding 100 cannot be
    correctly recorded by the sensor, and creates aliasing, better known by photographer as moirè. everytime you see aliasing on a digital image, you know that the lens has more resolution than the sensor. When the sensor reaches its limit, it can no more cooperate with the lens to produce a better image.
    I do this measurement with every new lens I get.
    If you want, (I esitate to show resolution targets in this forum :sleep006
    I can show how I proceed.

    Sergio
    Many, many thanks Sergio. Please could you show how you proceed.
    If you don't want to show resolution targets in this forum could you please post them on dropbox and post the url here so that I can have a look at them. TIA.

    So please let me ask you, if I understood your explanation on examples, if I may.

    Let's assume a sensor can resolve 100 line pairs per mm (lppm).
    Let's also assume the first lens can resolve 100 lppm.
    Now if one uses another lens with 200 lppm on that sensor with 100 lppm resolution one doesn't get a better image.
    Is that correct?

    However, in case of the A7R, if one starts with a lens that resolves less than 100 lppm and then changes to a lens that resolves more lppm that would resolve in a technically better image.
    Correct?

    I also would appreciate if you could comment on this thread
    MTF Curves ~ Sensor Resolution - Leica User Forum
    and in particular this post, quote:


    "Quote:
    Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    I am interested in quantitatively comparing the resolution of Leica lenses with the resolution of digital sensors. So, I would like to know how one can determine whether a given lens outresolves a given sensor and vice versa ...


    01af: I wrote so many articles in this topic here in the recent two years ... obviously it was entirely futile.

    So let me repeat it once again: Lenses don't outresolve sensors, and sensors don't outresolve lenses. Better lenses are better on any sensor and better sensors are better behind any lens.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    ... or whether the resolution of lens and sensor are comparable.

    01af: No, they are not.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses? by Rubén Osuna and Efraín García on Luminous Landscape.

    01af: This useless article is full of layman's errors and misconceptions. The maximum useful sensor resolution is not a matter of absolute limits but of return on investment. How much are you willing to spend for further (small) improvement if your current system already is very good?"

    Thanks again for your help.
    With best regards, K-H.

  22. #222
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    61
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Another from the past weekend:

    f8, 1/60s, 16mm, ISO 100, handheld:

  23. #223
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Varese Italy
    Posts
    226
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    K-H wrote:
    "Let's assume a sensor can resolve 100 line pairs per mm (lppm).
    Let's also assume the first lens can resolve 100 lppm.
    Now if one uses another lens with 200 lppm on that sensor with 100 lppm resolution one doesn't get a better image.
    Is that correct?"

    Not exactly. You must consider that while sensor resolution is like a wall, (it has the same contrast up to maximum resolution, and past that only aliases) the lens loses contrast progressively. So the lens with a resolution of 100 will have a lower
    contrast when reaching the "wall" than that with 200, and the last will produce a better image, but with the potential risk of producing visible aliasing in presence of appropriate patterns.

    Reverse also apply, but only in the sense that a sensor with more relative resolution can extract a little more information from the lower part of the contrast curve of a lesser lens, without hitting the wall.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #224
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    K-H wrote:
    "Let's assume a sensor can resolve 100 line pairs per mm (lppm).
    Let's also assume the first lens can resolve 100 lppm.
    Now if one uses another lens with 200 lppm on that sensor with 100 lppm resolution one doesn't get a better image.
    Is that correct?"

    Not exactly. You must consider that while sensor resolution is like a wall, (it has the same contrast up to maximum resolution, and past that only aliases) the lens loses contrast progressively. So the lens with a resolution of 100 will have a lower
    contrast when reaching the "wall" than that with 200, and the last will produce a better image, but with the potential risk of producing visible aliasing in presence of appropriate patterns.

    Reverse also apply, but only in the sense that a sensor with more relative resolution can extract a little more information from the lower part of the contrast curve of a lesser lens, without hitting the wall.

    Many thanks again Sergio. I think I am beginning to see what you are getting at.
    One more question with regards to the statement by 01af, quote:

    "So let me repeat it once again: Lenses don't outresolve sensors, and sensors don't outresolve lenses. Better lenses are better on any sensor and better sensors are better behind any lens."

    In its absoluteness, is this statement correct or not, in your view? TIA.
    With best regards, K-H.

  25. #225
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    51
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Just bought the FE 16-35. Just looked at a few quick snaps from this evening. At a glance, can tell this lens is much better than my not loved FE 24-70 (it is in my pile of stuff to sell that grows in size and depreciates in value). This plus FE 55/1.8 and some sort of short tele in the 85-105 range could be my default travel kit.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #226
    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 k-hawinkler View Post
    Many thanks again Sergio. I think I am beginning to see what you are getting at.
    One more question with regards to the statement by 01af, quote:

    "So let me repeat it once again: Lenses don't outresolve sensors, and sensors don't outresolve lenses. Better lenses are better on any sensor and better sensors are better behind any lens."

    In its absoluteness, is this statement correct or not, in your view? TIA.
    The second part is (nearly) correct, the first is not. The correlation between the two concepts is an inadequate simplification of the effects of the interaction between
    an analog generator (the lens) and an analog to digital converter (the sensor and correlated electronics)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #227
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Sergio,

    Thank you so much, also for the explanation.

    So, how do you go about determining if a lens out-resolves a sensor or vice versa? TIA.
    With best regards, K-H.

  28. #228
    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 k-hawinkler View Post
    Sergio,

    Thank you so much, also for the explanation.

    So, how do you go about determining if a lens out-resolves a sensor or vice versa? TIA.
    in photo 1 you'll see a test pattern, prepared following instructions provided by Norman Coren, creator of Imatest, the program used by professionals to test lenses.

    photo 2 is a 100% crop of center, showing performance of the elmarit 28-2,8 II
    full open. Strong aliasing is visible, centered at 100 lppm, and from the fact that false detail is shown in the area between 100 and 200, we can roughly estimate lens resolution with good contrast up to 130/150.The lens is out resolving the sensor. A precise measurement can be effectuated positioning the camera farther from target.

    photo 3 shows performance of the elmarit full open on corner. We can see approx. 90 or slightly more lppm, (a very respectable value) and no aliasing, the sensor is out resolving the lens.
    (the elmarit creates aliasing also on corners stopping down to 5,6)

    testtarget by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


    elmarit2,8center by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


    elmarit2,8corner by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    in the last crop is also easy to evaluate the effect of vignetting.

    a simple test as this with every new lens for peace of mind.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #229
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Sergio,

    Many many thanks again.
    I greatly appreciate your help.
    With best regards, K-H.

  30. #230
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    in photo 1 you'll see a test pattern, prepared following instructions provided by Norman Coren, creator of Imatest, the program used by professionals to test lenses.

    photo 2 is a 100% crop of center, showing performance of the elmarit 28-2,8 II
    full open. Strong aliasing is visible, centered at 100 lppm, and from the fact that false detail is shown in the area between 100 and 200, we can roughly estimate lens resolution with good contrast up to 130/150.The lens is out resolving the sensor. A precise measurement can be effectuated positioning the camera farther from target.

    photo 3 shows performance of the elmarit full open on corner. We can see approx. 90 or slightly more lppm, (a very respectable value) and no aliasing, the sensor is out resolving the lens.
    (the elmarit creates aliasing also on corners stopping down to 5,6)

    testtarget by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


    elmarit2,8center by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr


    elmarit2,8corner by sergio lovisolo, on Flickr

    in the last crop is also easy to evaluate the effect of vignetting.

    a simple test as this with every new lens for peace of mind.
    Aaaah my eyes! I'm blinded by resolution tests! Hahaha...

    I agree with Sergio, the first part of that statement is completely incorrect in the context of "individual optical capabilities".

    I suspect that despite the sledgehammer approach he used, he may be generally correct in the context of an optical SYSTEM, because at that point, it is the combination of the limitations of every optical component in the chain that results in what you get as the end result.

    But, as Sergio points out, moire is an obvious effect that demonstrates that the lens is performing at a higher level than the sensor. When a sensor is capable of higher performance than the lens, you essentially get a faithful reproduction of the limits of the lens.

    I suspect that a 50MP sensor will finally show the limits of the best of these 35mm lenses, plus or minus.


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #231
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    I will check at home tonight, but until recently, I had a bunch of resolution tests from film scanners that I did about a decade ago, and it is very instructive to see what happens optically to a system as you approach the resolution limits.

    If I have them, I'll post a few to discuss in the context of this question.


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #232
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    I will check at home tonight, but until recently, I had a bunch of resolution tests from film scanners that I did about a decade ago, and it is very instructive to see what happens optically to a system as you approach the resolution limits.

    If I have them, I'll post a few to discuss in the context of this question.


    ---Michael

    Thank you Michael. I am looking forward to your examples. TIA.
    With best regards, K-H.

  33. #233
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    Aaaah my eyes! I'm blinded by resolution tests! Hahaha...

    I agree with Sergio, the first part of that statement is completely incorrect in the context of "individual optical capabilities".

    I suspect that despite the sledgehammer approach he used, he may be generally correct in the context of an optical SYSTEM, because at that point, it is the combination of the limitations of every optical component in the chain that results in what you get as the end result.

    But, as Sergio points out, moire is an obvious effect that demonstrates that the lens is performing at a higher level than the sensor. When a sensor is capable of higher performance than the lens, you essentially get a faithful reproduction of the limits of the lens.

    I suspect that a 50MP sensor will finally show the limits of the best of these 35mm lenses, plus or minus.


    ---Michael

    Thanks Michael.
    IIRC, according to Erwin Puts the Leica APO-R 280/4 resolves 500 lppm and is almost difraction limited wide open.
    I have that lens. It truly performs magnificently! So I don't think a 50 MP sensor will show its limits but we'll see.
    With best regards, K-H.

  34. #234
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Quote Originally Posted by sergio lovisolo View Post
    The second part is (nearly) correct, the first is not. The correlation between the two concepts is an inadequate simplification of the effects of the interaction between
    an analog generator (the lens) and an analog to digital converter (the sensor and correlated electronics)
    One more question please Sergio. If "The second part is (nearly) correct" then there must be situations for which that isn't true. Could you please describe such a scenario. TIA.
    With best regards, K-H.

  35. #235
    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 k-hawinkler View Post
    One more question please Sergio. If "The second part is (nearly) correct" then there must be situations for which that isn't true. Could you please describe such a scenario. TIA.
    "better sensor " is a generic definition. The statement is valid for better dynamic range, better iso, better color in general, etc. but not always for resolution, as shown in the preceding reply. If the energy sent by the lens to the sensor is zero
    at the native resolution of the "better sensor for resolution", there is no advantage. The lens must always be at least as good to provide some contrast at lppm corresponding to sensor resolution.
    Last edited by sergio lovisolo; 10th December 2014 at 12:28.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #236
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Sergio, Thank you. Makes a lot of sense to me.
    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #237
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    any more user experience / feedback/ first impressions about the lens? How good is it? How does it compare to 24-70 Zeiss in the 24-35mm range?
    Any feedback is welcome - Thank you!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #238
    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

    Quick here ISO 640 F9 at 16mm and 1/60th handheld. Early morning

    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 9 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #239
    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

    No correction with lens profiles but I did crop some
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  40. #240
    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 knew going in this was going to be maybe a waste of time. Very low light but I had to shoot it anyway. A7r with the 16-35mm. This was a anniversary for John Lennon in Central park at Strawberry fields area. We sat and sang for about a hour and it was a real kick.

    This is HANDHELD. Now maybe with the new A7II with IBIS I would certainly have done better.

    Shoot at ISO 3200 .4secends at F4 and 16mm

    Regardless of the quality its just a cool shot

    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #241
    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
    No correction with lens profiles but I did crop some
    I thought someone at Phase One said that there was no need for additional lens profiles and that would be corrected automatically in C1P8 when it was announced...

    I thought it seemed fishy. That's a huge factor that causes hesitation for myself (and many others) if they ever hope/want to be the primary RAW converter of choice of Sony users.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  42. #242
    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

    It maybe not loaded yet. I will check but FYI big update coming really soon.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  43. #243
    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
    It maybe not loaded yet. I will check but FYI big update coming really soon.
    Sounds good and I've been forcing myself to use C1P8 the last 2 or 3 months (by not allowing myself to bring my master travel drive with the bulk of my images on it.) So I'm almost comfortable with the interface although it's still not as second nature for me as LR5 or Aperture are.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  44. #244
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    A7II and 16-35 at 16mm. processed in Lr5 and colorefex pro



    A woodland pond by Viramati, on Flickr
    Last edited by Viramati; 13th December 2014 at 12:30.

  45. #245
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    David,

    Superb! Thanks.
    With best regards, K-H.

  46. #246
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    A7II 16-35 at 31mm



    A lowering sun by Viramati, on Flickr

    At 16mm


    Duality by Viramati, on Flickr
    Last edited by Viramati; 13th December 2014 at 14:52.

  47. #247
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    ^^^^ Those are impressive captures, David ^^^^

  48. #248
    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

    +1

    I think this will be my next FE lens.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  49. #249
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    So far this seems to be an impressive lens pretty much across the range so much so that I am considering selling the WATE. What I really miss though is not having a DOF scale which I find to be so useful for landscape and street work.



    Roots and track by Viramati, on Flickr
    Last edited by Viramati; 14th December 2014 at 02:01.

  50. #250
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    A bit north of Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,522
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    569

    Re: Sony FE 16-35/f4

    Hi David
    Wonderful picture!
    What are your considerations between the A7S and the A7II, apart from sheer sensorsize, better details, with the 16-35?
    It still seems like the 7S contribute with more and stronger 3-dimensional feeling, and looking at the "comparometer" at ImagingResource, it looks like the 7II is 3 stops down to the 7S. The S seems to manage 12.800 rather well, and with the 7II, it seems like you have to go down to 1.600 iso to get the same quality.
    But then there is the IBIS in the 7II, and does it offer this together with the OSS in the 16-35?, compared to just the OSS on the 7S...? And how is that?
    (but I don't know if you at all are in need of those high iso's)
    Best
    Thorkil

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
  •