FE 16-35 @16 Vs. Voightländer 15 mkIII

[danlindberg]

Recieved an assignment that requires a superwide and wonder if anybody knows if the latest SuperHeliar 15 mk III is worse/as good/better compared to the native FE16-35 at its widest setting??

(Cannot do this assignment with my Alpa unfortunately)

Main objective is optical/end result superiority but it is 'nice' if the Voightländer is 'as good' because it is half price.......

Cam is A7R.

Thanks

 

[iiiNelson]

From what I've seen from other people's images... I'd go with the 16-35/4.

 

[danlindberg]

Yeah, my gut feeling says the same, but at the same time there are quite a few places I have read that the zoom is at its best between 18-25. So I was thinking that maybe at 16 it could be a close call between the two?

 

[Annna T]

Yeah, my gut feeling says the same, but at the same time there are quite a few places I have read that the zoom is at its best between 18-25. So I was thinking that maybe at 16 it could be a close call between the two?

Looking at the DXO measurement doesn't lead to that feeling. Nor what I have read here on this forum.
Tests and reviews for the lens Sony FE Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS mounted on Sony A7RMeasurements - DxOMark

But it may depends on what characteristics you are looking and at what aperture you will use it. For sharpness, the zoom is better at 16mm than at 24mm. And from 24mm up to 35mm my 24-70mm F4 is better than the 16-35mm, when it comes to sharpness.

Now of course vignetting and distorsion are worse at 16mm than at 24mm.

Guy was raving that this lens is already very good at the shortest aperture and that is is already sharp at F2.8. Same for other on this forum. Look for the pictures of Barry Haynes for instance : he is shooting many with the 16-35mm. And when the lens was issued, Guy started a thread with several test pictures showing how sharp that lens is even at short aperture.

Here is the thread discussing the 15-35mm F4 : http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/51651-sony-fe-16-35-f4.html

 

[Vivek]

So I was thinking that maybe at 16 it could be a close call between the two?

After 2 iterations the Cosina lens just (barely) managed to have least color shifts and other demons. Close call? Hardly!

 

[Hausen]

If it is one assignment I would rent the Zeiss 15 2.8. Mine is with a Nikon mount and love it on A7r with Nikon metabones adaptor.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Renting the 15 is not a bad idea. But the zoom from like 17 to 21 I would be hard pressed to find something as good. I'm going to sell mine at some point get the Batis 25 and maybe get the canon 17 TSE again but I'm in debate on selling the zoom right now. You coup cheat hear and get a Samyang 14mm for cheap but very good but you HAVE to fix the distortion . The safest bet is the zoom or a Zeiss 15

 

[uhoh7]

The CV15 v3, according to some regulars at FM who have the 1635 also, is the sharper lens. G knows it should be. But the 7r sensor is so dang picky, the obvious is not always the case. I do see lots of very nice, sharp shots with the 1635, including from Guy

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Love to try the CV 15. Like to run the comparision

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The CV15 v3, according to some regulars at FM who have the 1635 also, is the sharper lens. G knows it should be. But the 7r sensor is so dang picky, the obvious is not always the case. I do see lots of very nice, sharp shots with the 1635, including from Guy

Yea have to say on last workshop I was damn impressed with my 16-35 shots. I really may just keep it and figure a way to get the Batis 25. My issue is really making buy for the A7rII and the two Batis glass at the same time. The 85 and body are first though.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

The CV15 v3 also seems to be a wonderful and small lens. The colour cast issue seems to be cured. I have the CV 21 Ultron and find it a very good sharp lens with very little distortion. For that I take the colour cast for granted. Quiet simple to repare in PP though.

I would say, go to a sellar and stick it on your camera and take a few shots with it.

 

[danlindberg]

Thanks for input everyone!

Unfortunately there are no rental houses close by, in Spain all professional photography suppliers are in Valencia/Barcelona/Madrid. Where I live there is none.

I guess the native zoom is a safe choice but I am still interested in the little Cosina lens in the latest version. The few samples I have found were with A7II and not the R so maybe one has to be careful to evaluate too much by that. But what I could see there was nice rendering and according to the shooter sharp till edges at f8. No colourcast at all and no fringing. However, quite pronounced vignetting.....

 

[RickG]

Dan,

I'm not sure if it's helpful to you but I've been really happy with the CV 15mm viii on the A7. I really wanted to get the Sony 16-35 but I figured the CV 15 was a little less than half the price so I would give it a try first.

So far I've been loving it. It's small and light and is much sharper than I expected. I have the CV 35mm 1.2 and the CV 21mm 1.8, which I have used a lot over the last year (and have been very happy with).

I've attached a few images as examples. I'm not sure I could expect much better corners, but I may be a bit naive.

The first image (at the beach) was taken hand held at 1/100 sec, probably using f/5.6, with no cropping. I hadn't pulled out the tripod yet. It was just sort of a test shot. I was really happy with the sharpness. The second image was shot with a 10 stop ND filter with some light cropping around the edges.

View attachment 89025

View attachment 89026

I've been lurking on this site for the last few years but have been hesitate to post. I love seeing everyone's work and have been humbled by it.

It's been a great education. Thanks.

- Rick

 

[ggibson]

Nice shots, Rick!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Really like to know just how good this 15mm really is against my 16-50 zoom because I want the 25mm Batis