Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

  1. #1
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    OK, I think I know what the answer is going to be for a few reasons, but I thought I'd ask...

    The older ZA 16-35 f2.8 is bigger, 2x as heavy, and a stop faster (which explains the size and weight difference).

    It also has a closer focus distance, higher maximum magnification, 9 blades instead of 7 in the aperture, more distortion, worse chroma (especially at the wide end), etc.

    It's not a perfect performer at all, and comparisons at dxomark indicate that the FE version of this lens should be the superior lens in most respects... but not necessarily all. Bokeh and waveform distortion, is not clear, but it appears the FE is worse for the distortion.

    However, it is faster, and if you shoot in the f8-11 range, they both may perform similarly in terms of sharpness.

    Plus, it will fit on my a900, which I am still very happily shooting. If I buy the new FE lens, that will likely mark the beginning of the end of the a900 for me, and I'll probably sell it along with the wides that this lens will replace.

    I looked around and didn't see any comparisons online, so I'm hoping someone out there in the ether can comment on this from experience, and any examples would be lovely!


    Thanks,


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

  2. #2
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    I can't answer my own question, but I decided to purchase the new FE 16-35 f4 version, so I guess this question is somewhat moot.

    It's going to take a bit to get used to the lens, as it is the first native FE mount lens I own. All the rest are A mount or adapted older MF lenses. It seems to really change the way the camera works, too (a7r), so I need to pull out the damn manual and figure out how to get the most out of the camera and lens.

    We'll see, but I suspect I'll be putting up my 19mm and 28mm Leicas for sale shortly.
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  3. #3
    Senior Member MikeEvangelist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    I predict you'll be happy with the 16-35. It's become my most-used lens.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Marin County, CA
    Posts
    593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    I agree. Everything from this lens has been outstanding. It has yet to disappoint.

  5. #5
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    Yah. Very happy with it here. I still wish the wide M lenses worked better on the A7 series, but the 16-35/4 takes a lot of that sting away.

    --Matt

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    It's a really really crisp lens and quite superior at 20 mm.

  7. #7
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    It's a really really crisp lens and quite superior at 20 mm.
    Bill are you using it with and A7 or A7r?

    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,534
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    Both, Steven. My copy at least is outstanding. This was shot at 16 mm yesterday on the a7II. I find (like most zooms) that the best definition is at a bit less than the extremes - maybe 19 mm to 32 mm for this lens, though I don't hesitate to use it any length at f5.6 or f8.

    I haven't done any formal comparisons on its performance on the a7II vs. the a7r. In casual shooting I see no difference.

    Bill


  9. #9
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Anyone compare the ZA 16-35 and the new FE 16-35?

    Thanks Bill,
    I just picked a used A7r to go along with my A7 so was thinking about get the 16-36/4 zoom.
    So it sounds like with all Sony lenses finding a good copy is key..

    Nice image btw

    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com
    Likes 1 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
  •