The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
How does the Canon 16-35/4 work on Sony A7rII and what about other wide angles?
- Thread starter ErikKaffehr
- Start date
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
The way I see it, the 24-30 range is well covered with the 24-70 zooms I presume many of us have. But 11-24 would replace two very expensive lenses, namely the 17/4 TS and the 24/3.5 TSE. but still not cost much more than the 24/3.5 TSE LII and 16-35/4 L I have now.
Originally, I felt the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 was doing me good service, but later found that it was not performing well enough when I was shooting in the Dolomites. I also found that sometimes 22 mm is needed, not 24. That was when I decided to buy a 16-35.
The ability to use tilts plays a major role in my buying decisions. With Canon lenses tilts/shifts are possible with an adapter on the Sony A7x, no AF and stopped down aperture, obviously.
The TSE lenses have a large image circle and low distortion, so they have advantages, too.
Best regards
Erik
The way I see it, the 24-30 range is well covered with the 24-70 zooms I presume many of us have. But 11-24 would replace two very expensive lenses, namely the 17/4 TS and the 24/3.5 TSE. but still not cost much more than the 24/3.5 TSE LII and 16-35/4 L I have now.
Originally, I felt the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 was doing me good service, but later found that it was not performing well enough when I was shooting in the Dolomites. I also found that sometimes 22 mm is needed, not 24. That was when I decided to buy a 16-35.
The ability to use tilts plays a major role in my buying decisions. With Canon lenses tilts/shifts are possible with an adapter on the Sony A7x, no AF and stopped down aperture, obviously.
The TSE lenses have a large image circle and low distortion, so they have advantages, too.
Best regards
Erik
Years ago, I had an Alpa and Aptus back, but sold it and went back to 4x5. I was happy shooting 4x5 but when fuji stopped making 4x5 instant film and my business picked up, started looking around for better options workflow wise. That's what led me to the a7's. Although I thought about it on many occasions, I could never bring myself to buy a 5d - the sony is the first camera that comes close to the dynamic range and feeling(out of the camera) of color neg film. So to answer your question, I am coming to this as someone who owns no canon glass(except for the recently purchased 16-35). I do own some Pentax 645 and 67 lenses I've tried on the sony, and they're hit or miss - lots of CA's and I'd only use them teathered because the focus is hard to nail.
Does the 24-70 allow for some movement? I thought I read somewhere that it didn't.
Does the 24-70 allow for some movement? I thought I read somewhere that it didn't.
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi,
No, I don't think it is usable with movements. I have my Hasselblad lenses for that. But, I would think that the 24-70/2.8 works with tilts.
Best regards
Erik
No, I don't think it is usable with movements. I have my Hasselblad lenses for that. But, I would think that the 24-70/2.8 works with tilts.
Best regards
Erik
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Decent corners at 17/11…
Hi,
I shot this one today. Corners are pretty OK! May be better on a Canon 5Ds, but I have little reason to complain…
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I shot this one today. Corners are pretty OK! May be better on a Canon 5Ds, but I have little reason to complain…
Best regards
Erik
I can't comment on 16-35mm but i just came back from Asia with A7r and 17-40mm. my images suffered alot exactly how you described it. the 17-40 edge/corner performance really isn't up for it and making stitch-work next to impossible.
i bought 17-40mm over 16-35mm (both FE and canon L) because the extra 5mm at tele end, but now i regretted bringing it with me and should have stuck with my simpler set up, just VC 15mm and Batis 25mm for wide, and 28-35-50mm for normal. [for wider than 15mm, i use sony 10-18mm f4 as backup, which covers to 11mm if used carefully]
before the 17-40mm i had the sigma too, but like you said, even stopping down doesn't quite get the performance the sensor deserved.
side note: opposite to what internet reports state, when using 17-40mm on my A7r, it suffered vibration problem above 1/500s. normal 1/100-1/400s is perfectly fine.
side note 2: the 17-40mmL does balance beautifully on A7r tho..... (both both and lens are 4XX grams each)
i bought 17-40mm over 16-35mm (both FE and canon L) because the extra 5mm at tele end, but now i regretted bringing it with me and should have stuck with my simpler set up, just VC 15mm and Batis 25mm for wide, and 28-35-50mm for normal. [for wider than 15mm, i use sony 10-18mm f4 as backup, which covers to 11mm if used carefully]
before the 17-40mm i had the sigma too, but like you said, even stopping down doesn't quite get the performance the sensor deserved.
side note: opposite to what internet reports state, when using 17-40mm on my A7r, it suffered vibration problem above 1/500s. normal 1/100-1/400s is perfectly fine.
side note 2: the 17-40mmL does balance beautifully on A7r tho..... (both both and lens are 4XX grams each)
Annna T
Active member
Bad news, I was considering getting one because of the lighter weight. So if I understand you correctly, stopping down to F8 or f11 doesn't improve the corners performance to suitable level ? Or were you only considering the F4 F5.6 apertures ?
Here's one of the shot (F9, 1/500s) which i tried to use for stitching pano. the center is very sharp, but moving slightly towards the edge:
some may think it's to do with depth of field, but have a look at the left side of the photo. similar performance:
notice the definition in the tree line and also the mountain ridge in the back.