Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 47 of 47

Thread: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Hi all, after reading almost every thread in the Sony section, I decided to take the plunge and buy an a900. (sold my Panasonic G1 and Leica M8 to finance this adventure...)
    Since there's still not much information about the Sony Zeiss 16 - 35 I thought I'd start this thread.

    At first, after reading the enthusiastic comments about the Sony Zeiss 24 - 70 I thought I'd buy that lens, but the general consensus on this forum and in other reviews is that this lens is not exactly stellar between 50 and 70 mm. The first lens I bought for the a900 was the Sony Zeiss 85 mm so I thought I might just a well go for the extreme wide angle. So far, I'm not disappointed. Yes, at 16 mm f2.8 the corners aren't great, but I'm not going to use f2.8 anyway. At f5.6 -f8.0 with the help of DXO the corners become quite acceptable for such a wide angle. I also did some tests inside a bookshop were I used f8.0 with 100 ISO and 1/5 (SSS really helps a lot here) and 1600 ISO and 1/60. Both shots look quite nice on my 24" Cinema Display. One has a little motion blur, the other some noise, but nothing I couldn't live with if I needed the shot and the depth of field.

    Here are some testshots (no artistic intention) I took yesterday, developed in DXO. I'm still new to this software, and as you can see I still have a lot to learn. Controlling the exposure and DR I still find especially difficult with DXO. After fourteen days with the a900 and one week with DXO I'm quite happy with the results. Though I think C1 and Rawdeveloper give sharper results with more detail, DXO with the lens and perpective corrections can come in very handy with a lens like the Sony Zeiss 16 - 35. I did Keystoning corrections on the lighthouse picture.

    One last thing for now, there's a new review of this lens here:

    http://www.alphamountworld.com/revie...5mm-f28-review

    Peter

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Congratulations Peter
    I hope you're very happy together.
    That first lighthouse shot is fine.
    I'm still dithering about the 16-35, not because I have any doubts about it, but because the 24-70 covers most of my needs (and I don't find mine to be poor between 50-70).

    Just this guy you know

  3. #3
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Hi Peter,

    Welcome to the club!

    The 24-70 was my first Sony lens, and I was curious about all this internet hype so I tested against my Carl Zeiss 28/2.8 and 35-70 on a 1Ds2. It was either equal or better than both lenses at all tested apertures. Not only that, but it is sharper than the 16-35 from 24 to 35 too. I would buy this lens without any hesitation if I were you
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  4. #4
    Senior Member Eoin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin / Ireland
    Posts
    410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Hi Peter, Congrat's on the new purchase. I find the perspective one can get with this lens quite interesting. Coming back to Sony / Zeiss dSLR from the M8 it's taken me a while to adjust to the lack of quality in the corners. But I guess when one considers full frame and close to 25 megapixel resolution, it's hard for a Ultra wide angle zoom to be perfect.

    Not to induce you to another lens purchase, but I agree with what Edward and Jono say with regard to the 24-70. It out performs the 16-35 in the 24-35 range and is no slouch in the 50 to 70 range either.

    But seeing as you have the sublime 85, just keep repeating to your self "I don't need anything in the 35-70 range" .

    Enjoy!
    A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin View Post
    But seeing as you have the sublime 85, just keep repeating to your self "I don't need anything in the 35-70 range" .

    Enjoy!

    And while you're about it you could try repeating:
    "I don't need the 135 f1.8"

    It won't do any good though

    Just this guy you know

  6. #6
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    And while you're about it you could try repeating:
    "I don't need the 135 f1.8"

    It won't do any good though
    I think Peter doesn't know yet what he's gotten himself into
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  7. #7
    Senior Member Eoin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin / Ireland
    Posts
    410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Ahh!, but Peter doesn't have anything beyond 85mm. The 135 is an ABSOLUTE necessity. No point even trying to tell yourself you don't need it LOL. It makes grown men go weak at the knees , if there is one reason to jump to the Sony mount this is it . The 135 will make you wet your pants, it's photography's equivalent of the multiple orgasam if I can say that .
    A7II, FE 35, 55 C/Y 18, 28, 85, 100, 28-85

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone! As a matter of fact the 135 is next on my list. I understand that resistance is futile...

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Hi all,
    now I have a question about this lens.
    In AF mode the focus ring turns freely.
    I've read both the camera and lens munal and as far as I know all settings are correct. What setting did I overlook?
    Thanks.

  10. #10
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    All Sony SSM lenses have a freely turning focus ring, even when in AF mode. I believe Canon's do the same.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Thanks for the quick reply!

    Yet here:

    http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...52921665530723

    Sony says: Auto Clutch. For reliable operation, the manual focus ring does not rotate in auto-focus mode.

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Bill Caulfeild-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, Canada
    Posts
    2,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    184

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    I think the Sonystyle spec. is poorly worded. It means that the ring does not rotate when autofocus is actually operating. When autofocus is "still" you can then turn the ring as you wish.
    Bill

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    413
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    OK, I get it now. Thanks!

  14. #14
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by Eoin View Post
    Hi Peter, Congrat's on the new purchase. I find the perspective one can get with this lens quite interesting. Coming back to Sony / Zeiss dSLR from the M8 it's taken me a while to adjust to the lack of quality in the corners. But I guess when one considers full frame and close to 25 megapixel resolution, it's hard for a Ultra wide angle zoom to be perfect.

    Not to induce you to another lens purchase, but I agree with what Edward and Jono say with regard to the 24-70. It out performs the 16-35 in the 24-35 range and is no slouch in the 50 to 70 range either.

    But seeing as you have the sublime 85, just keep repeating to your self "I don't need anything in the 35-70 range" .

    Enjoy!
    So let me get this straight.
    I own both the CZ24-70 and the CZ16-35, The CZ16-35 is best between 16-24mm and everything I have read so far tells me that F8 is the sweet spot for the 16-35, 24mm and above switch to my CZ24-70?? Is F8 the "sweet" spot on the 24-70?

    In regards to the CZ 135mm if one had to choose between the CZ85 or the CZ135 is the 135mm the winner?

    Thanks everyone
    Steven

  15. #15
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Sounds like you've got a sweet setup you're putting together, Steven. NICE. As far as corner sharpness on a flat plane with the 24-70 is concerned, f 5.6-f8 seems to be the sweetspot, except for at 70mm, where you probably want to go f11. Hopefully Edward chimes in here, because he really has this stuff dialed in.

    Optically, the 135ZA is slightly superior to the 85ZA, although they are both topflight. I chose the 85 simply because that is the working distance that I prefer (not to mention the lens is smaller,) and I have a couple of very good Zeiss m42 and Zeiss Hasselblad lenses with adapters that cover my ~135mm range, albeit they aren't f1.8 and are manual focus. Both lenses are great, and you won't be disappointed (be prepared for more longitudinal CA with the 85, though.)

  16. #16
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Hi Douglas and Steven,

    I concur that you need to stop down both the 16-35 and 24-70 to 5.6 or 8 for maximum sharpness. With good light, I would even stop down to f/11 just for the extra DOF. As I mentioned before, it is scene dependent. I have gotten some very sharp photos corner to corner at f/2.8 while on others, even f/11-13 were not enough. So I guess with landscape photos, no surprise, just do what you would with any other lens

    I did find the 24-70 to be better than the 16-35 from 24 to 35. But the difference isn't so dramatic and I wouldn't actually swap lenses to get the better sharpness. Both are perfectly fine. The only exception is at 35 where the 24-70 really shines. The 16-35 while not bad stopped down is no match at this focal length. At 70, the 24-70 while not stellar is imho still better than the 70-300G, so I wouldn't swap lenses either, except to use one of the ZA primes.

    Regarding the 85 vs 135, I am aware of the common belief that the 135 is slightly better, and if so, I would think only in the LoCA department. I have both, and I don't see any difference in performance. If there is any, I would say it is in favour of the 85, especially below 2.8, where the 85 seems to have more punch (actually imho the 85 has more Zeissness than the 135 whatever that means ). However, similarly to the 24-70 and 16-35, I wouldn't chose one over the other for better sharpness, just to get the focal length I need. When I'm shooting portraits I make sure to use both in the same session to get both flavours

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    Sounds like you've got a sweet setup you're putting together, Steven. NICE. As far as corner sharpness on a flat plane with the 24-70 is concerned, f 5.6-f8 seems to be the sweetspot, except for at 70mm, where you probably want to go f11. Hopefully Edward chimes in here, because he really has this stuff dialed in.

    Optically, the 135ZA is slightly superior to the 85ZA, although they are both topflight. I chose the 85 simply because that is the working distance that I prefer (not to mention the lens is smaller,) and I have a couple of very good Zeiss m42 and Zeiss Hasselblad lenses with adapters that cover my ~135mm range, albeit they aren't f1.8 and are manual focus. Both lenses are great, and you won't be disappointed (be prepared for more longitudinal CA with the 85, though.)
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  17. #17
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Thanks Edward, your the man. You explained this very well.
    Steven

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    So, I think I have understood what all this means, but is there anyone who would be willing to post a raw image (perhaps to yousendit.com) taken at 16mm perhaps at f/8 (is that the last stop where diffraction hasn't yet made the image soft, or can you go to f/11)?
    Carsten - Website

  19. #19
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    I think corners can benefit from f/11, especially if the lens is focused at infinity and the lower corners are in the foreground, which is totally at the opposite direction of the field curvature of this lens. Here are 2 examples taken at f/9.5:

    Attachment 16172

    Attachment 16173


    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    So, I think I have understood what all this means, but is there anyone who would be willing to post a raw image (perhaps to yousendit.com) taken at 16mm perhaps at f/8 (is that the last stop where diffraction hasn't yet made the image soft, or can you go to f/11)?
    Last edited by edwardkaraa; 16th November 2009 at 10:27.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  20. #20
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    This is at f/6.7:

    Attachment 16174
    Last edited by edwardkaraa; 16th November 2009 at 10:27.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  21. #21
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Ed, are all these taken at 16mm??
    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  22. #22
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Yes Sir

    Quote Originally Posted by kuau View Post
    Ed, are all these taken at 16mm??
    Steven
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    I think corners can benefit from f/11, especially if the lens is focused at infinity and the lower corners are in the foreground, which is totally at the opposite direction of the field curvature of this lens. Here are 2 examples taken at f/9.5:

    Attachment 16172

    Attachment 16173
    Songklaburi, eh? One of my favorite spots. Lovely people there.

  24. #24
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by Dale Allyn View Post
    Songklaburi, eh? One of my favorite spots. Lovely people there.
    Exactly!
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Thanks for the response, Edward, but it is not possible to properly evaluate the corners from downscaled images, and to some extent, even from full-size JPGs. This is why I was asking if someone could post a raw file to examine. Just one best-case scenario would suffice, I am just curious how good this lens gets.
    Carsten - Website

  26. #26
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    (Edward sent me two raws to examine, taken with the 16-35 at 16mm, one Thai comical statue @ f/6.7, the other a wooden walkway running away from the camera, @ f/9.5, both seen in this thread (shots 3 and 2, respectively, from Edward, on page one))

    I opened them both in RPP (Raw Photo Processor), a package which is very quirky but gives stellar results. It is used, among others, by the world-famous architectural photographer Rainer Viertlböck, and is quite capable of extracting maximum detail.

    In general, I am extremely impressed by the pixel-level sharpness of these files, which approach, and possibly match, my M8 results viewed at 100% with most lenses, but possibly not the very best, like the 90AA. The M8 has no AA filter, so that is quite an accomplishment. The colours also look very nice and natural, quite a difference to Canon, and, I gather, Nikon.

    The corners are interesting. In each shot, there is one corner which is very sharp, but in an unusual way. The plane of maximum sharpness appears to curve back rapidly starting perhaps 3/4 of the way into the corners, so the usual kinds of shots with foregrounds coming to the camera will always be soft in the corners. However, subject matter further back than that (a river below the walkway, a tree behind a tree next to the statue) suddenly come into sharp focus in the extreme corners.

    The lens is otherwise very impressive.

    I think it would be quite a challenge to get really good results in the corners in most normal scenes. However, in certain kinds of scenes, it could help. On the other hand, the soft corners in the foreground are also not disaster zones, but just mildly soft. They would be quite acceptable in most shots, and adding a little vignetting in PP could help.
    Carsten - Website

  27. #27
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Nice review Carsten I have to fully agree with all what you said, I have also come to the same conclusions. It is interesting to note that the 24-70 acts somehow similarly, and that with both lenses, field curvature is constantly changing whenever you zoom in or out. However, I believe that after sometime with this lens, after getting to know the curvature characteristics, one would instinctively compose the shot in a way to maximize corner sharpness and to include at least one very sharp corner as Carsten very well pointed out.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  28. #28
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    This stuff is really interesting. Thanks, guys. Edward, I'm really buying into your Zeiss 3D theory in relation to this field curvature. It would make sense, considering different objects at different distances seem to "pop." Very cool

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Edward, have you done any tests where you slowly zoom out, taking pictures the whole time, and watch the curvature? I wonder if there is somewhere close to 16mm where the corner curvature suddenly moves forward a lot, to help make certain kinds of shots.
    Carsten - Website

  30. #30
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Fascinating!

    Would be nice to have a chat with a Zeiss engineer about that!

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    Edward, have you done any tests where you slowly zoom out, taking pictures the whole time, and watch the curvature? I wonder if there is somewhere close to 16mm where the corner curvature suddenly moves forward a lot, to help make certain kinds of shots.
    Hi Carsten
    I don't have this lens, but on the Olympus 7-14 this is certainly the case - the curvature of field actually seems to 'flip'

    Just this guy you know

  32. #32
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    Edward, have you done any tests where you slowly zoom out, taking pictures the whole time, and watch the curvature? I wonder if there is somewhere close to 16mm where the corner curvature suddenly moves forward a lot, to help make certain kinds of shots.
    No I haven't but that would make a good assignment for this weekend

    I know for certain that the 24-70 has a very flat field curvature at 35mm setting. It would be interesting to see if the 16-35 has a similar setting.

    I am going to take another look at www.lemondedelaphoto.com reviews of both lenses. It is very easy to judge the field curvature from the resolution charts since a drop in the corner resolution clearly indicates stronger curvature.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  33. #33
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Here it is: http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Qual...ique,1870.html

    It seems this lens suffers from curvature at all settings, the best focal length being at 28mm. (it shows mistakingly 24mm in the review).

    At 35mm, the lens shows the worst performance wide open, as is widely believed on Sony forums, but as you can see, it outperforms the other focal lengths once stopped down to f/8-11.
    Last edited by edwardkaraa; 15th May 2009 at 01:09.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  34. #34
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Here's the 24-70 test for those interested:

    http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Le-Pique,1608.html
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  35. #35
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Here are a few shots to illustrate the field curvature at different settings. What do you think? (They way are oversharpened to show the effect clearly)

    16mm
    Attachment 16256

    20mm
    Attachment 16257

    24mm
    Attachment 16258

    28mm
    Attachment 16259

    35mm
    Attachment 16260
    Last edited by edwardkaraa; 15th March 2011 at 09:53.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  36. #36
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    What are we looking at here, is this the entire bottom strip of a series of images? What is the aperture, f/2.8?

    If the answer to both questions is yes, then it looks like the backwards curvature of the field is already much improved by 20mm, perhaps enough to handle with a slightly smaller aperture, like f/5.6 or f/8. At least in this image. However, the angle from the camera to the floor is a bit different from the camera to the horizon in your wooden bridge. Being able to angle the camera down a little puts the backward curving corners more into the ground, if I am thinking right, hiding them a bit. A flatter angle would make the problem a bit worse again.

    Anyway, maybe try to shoot for 20mm if the corners are important. If not, then 16 is quite good anyway. Shooting from a higher vantage point also helps, so a taller tripod or standing on something when possible would help.

    I have not done this much analysis on other similar lenses, except perhaps the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21mm (which has an unfair advantage with the short register distance and smaller zoom range), so I don't know how this compares to similar lenses, like the Canon 16-35 II or 17-40, or the Nikon 17-35, but to my surprise the French review site rated the corners of this lens as very good at f/5.6-f/11, so I guess this problem is very common on such lenses, for this performance to rate so high.
    Last edited by carstenw; 15th May 2009 at 12:07.
    Carsten - Website

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    The corners are interesting. In each shot, there is one corner which is very sharp, but in an unusual way. The plane of maximum sharpness appears to curve back rapidly starting perhaps 3/4 of the way into the corners, so the usual kinds of shots with foregrounds coming to the camera will always be soft in the corners. However, subject matter further back than that (a river below the walkway, a tree behind a tree next to the statue) suddenly come into sharp focus in the extreme corners.
    The Zeiss MTF charts show this complex wavy field curvature. I had the 16-35mm for a short time, was thrilled at the prospects for this lens on my A900 as part of my landscape shooting kit, but even at f/11 most of the corners and some of the edges were unacceptably soft for me, most especially at 20mm and 24mm (although the performance was excellent at 28mm and 35mm). Of course the center sharpness was stunning and the microcontrast very high. I ended up going with Minolta legacy glass, the 20mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.0 which had cleaner corners at f/8-f/11 but do have a mellower drawing style compared to the snappy Zeiss.

    I had to return the Sony 70-300mm everyone raves about because testing against the Minolta 100mm f/2 and 200mm f/2.8 revealed (at least with my copy) the 70-300 to be quite poor in some corners and edges even at f/8, although central sharpness was high. Full-frame is very demanding on optics and it was no different when I shot the D700 where I had to return two copies of the renowned Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 (but not as bad as the corner/edge atrocities with Canon L glass on my 5D a few years ago).

    Joseph Holmes has detailed in a recent article the optical problems he's encountered with lenses for his medium format digital, so I guess it's not unique to DSLRs. I think I was spoiled from the years of using well-corrected glass on 4x5 where there have essentially been no issues to speak of even in 40x50 prints. But the joy of shooting the A900 in the field more than compensates .

    Cheers,
    Ross

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    When you say Minolta 20mm, do you mean the Sony 20mm which is a Minolta design, or a different lens?
    Carsten - Website

  39. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    When you say Minolta 20mm, do you mean the Sony 20mm which is a Minolta design, or a different lens?
    Hi Carsten,

    I acquired the Minolta 20mm f/2.8 which was manufactured several years ago. From what I have read the current Sony branded 20mm is the same Minolta design but with supposedly better coatings suited to digital.

    Cheers,
    Ross

  40. #40
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Agreed about the Minolta 20mm. I have the RS version, which is the newer Minolta version that directly preceded the Sony (they look identical,) and it's corners are sharp at f8-ish or so, but it doesn't have that punchy drawing style of my 24-70ZA. I will probably bite the bullet and end up with the 16-35 at some point though, just to play around with 16mm

  41. #41
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Carsten, Yes for both.

    Seattleducks, Your experience with this lens is typical. As you see in the photos, the curvature becomes quite flat at 28 to 35mm. It also coincides with the zoom physically reversing the movement of its elements which might mean that these 2 settings could be just "optical magnification" of the 24mm setting, which might explain the flatter curvature. As I mentioned earlier, it does help a bit to slightly front focus with the lens for better corners.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  42. #42
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    Here it is: http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Qual...ique,1870.html

    It seems this lens suffers from curvature at all settings, the best focal length being at 28mm. (it shows mistakingly 24mm in the review).

    At 35mm, the lens shows the worst performance wide open, as is widely believed on Sony forums, but as you can see, it outperforms the other focal lengths once stopped down to f/8-11.
    it also looks like F8 is the sweet spot for the 16-35mm I think i will stick with that as I try to conquer landscape work here in Arizona.

    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  43. #43
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    Here's the 24-70 test for those interested:

    http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Le-Pique,1608.html
    I can't read french, I think that's what it is, but F8 again is the place to be on the 24-70, but at 70mm it really falls apart.
    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  44. #44
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleDucks View Post
    The Zeiss MTF charts show this complex wavy field curvature. I had the 16-35mm for a short time, was thrilled at the prospects for this lens on my A900 as part of my landscape shooting kit, but even at f/11 most of the corners and some of the edges were unacceptably soft for me, most especially at 20mm and 24mm (although the performance was excellent at 28mm and 35mm). Of course the center sharpness was stunning and the microcontrast very high. I ended up going with Minolta legacy glass, the 20mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.0 which had cleaner corners at f/8-f/11 but do have a mellower drawing style compared to the snappy Zeiss.
    Ross, when I got my 900 I started with Minolta 20mm also, which I found worked well, but.. What made me go to the CZ16-35, was the convenience, shooting in Arizona, lots of dust blowing around and the prospect of changing lens in the field was not verp appealing. Yeah the corners at f8-11 may not be "as " sharp as the primes, yet after printing them up at lets say 20x30 the corners look fine and most people are not looking at the corners when viewnig a lanscape. Well at least I think they are not. Just my 2 cents
    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  45. #45
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by kuau View Post
    I can't read french, I think that's what it is, but F8 again is the place to be on the 24-70, but at 70mm it really falls apart.
    Steven
    Steven, you're right that f/8 seems to be the sweet spot of both zooms.

    As for the 24-70 at 70mm, please note that it falls apart when tested on a flat resolution target. I have been using this lens for 4 months now and I fail to see the lens weakness at this setting. As Dr. Nasse states in his article about reading MTF, you should remember that MTF charts are two-dimensional but real life is three-dimensional.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  46. #46
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    Quote Originally Posted by edwardkaraa View Post
    Steven, you're right that f/8 seems to be the sweet spot of both zooms.

    As for the 24-70 at 70mm, please note that it falls apart when tested on a flat resolution target. I have been using this lens for 4 months now and I fail to see the lens weakness at this setting. As Dr. Nasse states in his article about reading MTF, you should remember that MTF charts are two-dimensional but real life is three-dimensional.
    Thanks Edward for setting me straight on Dr. Nasse article. It' so easy today to get caught up in all these tests and then sometimes come up with the wrong conclusion.

    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  47. #47
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sony Zeiss 16 - 35

    All taken with the 24-70 at 70mm at f/5.6, 6.7 and 8 in this order. Sorry for the bad photography though

    Attachment 16405

    Attachment 16406

    Attachment 16407
    Last edited by edwardkaraa; 15th March 2011 at 09:53.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

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
  •