Zeiss 16-35/2.8: RUN don't Walk !!!!

[mwalker]

I too believe the output of the A900 is special. I haven't had as many digital cameras as some of you but the A900 got as close to my M8 (CCD) as any other camera I have had, (i.e. 5D, D700) with twice the resolution. The glow Jono refers to is real and as far as color accuracy its as good as I have seen out of the box without much PP. The lenses are spectacular.

 

[edwardkaraa]

I really do not agree with nautilus regarding the color filtering. There is no color filtering in digital because sensors are color blind. It is just a matter of Bayer demosaicing. If nautilus means the RGB filter array which covers the pixels on the sensor, then Sony in fact has done so much better than the competition that people are comparing the A900 results with MFDB not 35mm Dslr. Of course, a side effect of the strong RGB filters is that the camera does not do well at high-iso. Canon clearly stated that it reduced the strength of the color filter array in the 5D2 in order to achieve exceptional high-iso performance. Of course it also claims there is no effect on color separation and depth, but we all know there should be an effect. As far as I'm concerned, color quality and depth and the film like rendition is what attracted me to the A900 in the forst place, together with the Zeiss lenses. Coming from a 1Ds2 user, a camera which is no slouch in the color department, this must say something.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Got the 16-35, now have to do some tests

 

[Eoin]

Mine arrived yesterday evening, just 2 quick shots hand held on the way to catch the bus home(carbon footprint reduction).

Notice the banding in the 2nd shot! :wtf:

 

[edwardkaraa]

Banding in 2nd shot doesn't look that bad in the resized image. I imagine it must look much worse at full size. Anyhow, if I understood the manual correctly, it states that 1600 is the highest iso of the sensor. Anything above that is considered as expanded sensitivity. Another indication to the above is the camera auto-iso that goes to 1600 max. Some reviewers for some reason say the max iso is 3200 but nowhere in the manual is it mentioned.

 

[Eoin]

I am not too concerned about it at this point, just pointed it out before someone else did. Extreme ISO and over exposed light sources do have a tendency to do funny things. At least there is no ghosting aka uv/Ir filters.

 

[picman]

If I am not mistaken there is some light banding in the first shot too, at the same place emanating horizontally from the overexposed streetlights.

 

[Braeside]

Anyhow, if I understood the manual correctly, it states that 1600 is the highest iso of the sensor. Anything above that is considered as expanded sensitivity. Another indication to the above is the camera auto-iso that goes to 1600 max. Some reviewers for some reason say the max iso is 3200 but nowhere in the manual is it mentioned.

I think 200-3200 is the real range, because in the ISO menu anything outside this range is underlined indicating the expanded range. I rarely shoot above ISO 800 myself.

 

[edwardkaraa]

I think 200-3200 is the real range, because in the ISO menu anything outside this range is underlined indicating the expanded range. I rarely shoot above ISO 800 myself.

I think you are right! Thank you for pointing this to my attention. Honestly I never noticed the underlines. The manual's english, as usual, is a bit confusing.

 

[dhsimmonds]

Mine is on order and should arrive next Monday. I couldn't wait for Gordon Brown's economic "easing" solutions!! Anyway proceeds of the sale of my DMR and R9 plus 6 R lenses was burning a hole in my pocket!

 

[edwardkaraa]

I did a few tests and comparisons with the 24-70. I feel the 16-35 is more refined with internal zooming and the focusing and zoom rings are much smoother (too smooth in my opinion). The colors are very clearly on the cooler side, unlike all other 3 ZA lenses. Now performance wise, I have some reservations and will not give my opinion before I inquire more about it. The 24-70 seems to be better in all test at all apertures and in every part of the pictures. I noticed some back focusing with the lens so I did a series of tests with AF adjust, and a very strange thing happened. The sharpest results come at -2 AND +2 adjustments which is absolutely absurd. I repeated the tests at different focal lengths and different subjects, but results were mostly repeatable. I believe this lens must have an odd field curvature shape, and Sony must have adjusted the AF for this lens to account for it, making it not as sharp in the center. This is only guessing from my side, but will wait until the weekend and do some more tests before I post some samples.

 

[fotografz]

Did a color chart test of all 4 Zeiss lenses using consistent profoto strobe lighting ... no color differences ... my 16-35 wasn't cooler. :thumbup:

My 16-35 zoom ring is well dampened and most certainly isn't loose, but does offer slightly less resistance compared to the 24-70 ... which is as it should be since the 24-70 has to restrain zoom creep due to the front section extension ... I hate zoom creep, which the Zeiss 24-70 doesn't do, thank God.:thumbup:

So far, none of the lenses I am using for the A900 camera need any focus adjust that I can detect (Zeiss or Sony) ... and that is consistent for both of my A900 bodies. That was NOT true for my Nikon D300 where I had to micro adjust almost every lens .... which turned out to be mostly the camera, however it's now also spot on thanks to Nikon service ... and they did it door-to-door in less than a week. :thumbs:

 

[fotografz]

Er, make that "not true for my Nikon D3" ... not the D300, which is long gone. LOL!

 

[edwardkaraa]

Did a color chart test of all 4 Zeiss lenses using consistent profoto strobe lighting ... no color differences ... my 16-35 wasn't cooler. :thumbup:

Mine is very clearly on the cool side. It reminded me of the Contax 18mm f/4. I'm starting to suspect that I might have a bad copy or something :thumbdown: