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!

Sony FE 16-35/f4

gurtch

Well-known member
Interesting... I didn't see a note about that with my new 16-35. I'm sure my FW is 1.01, because it hasn't been updated. Seems to be working fine, but I'll update the FW on the camera.

Thanks for the note on this.


---Michael
Hi Michael: My lens had the usual instruction pamphlets in different languages, but also a separate notice about 2"x3" in size (also in several languages) advising to update the firmware "for optimum use of this lens".
So at age 78, maybe it was not just dummy me that had firmware update problems.
Thanks all.
Dave
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The firmware update note is pretty blatant and as we all found out, actually out of date since 1.10 was the latest. I was very concerned that I'd bricked one my A7r's but as a software guy I'm pretty anal about RTFM and then following the steps exactly as documented and I still hit the update unreliability. It should be idiot (ie me) proof.
 

gurtch

Well-known member
Well the new 16~35 arrived. I keep the A7R and several lenses in our car trunk, as it makes a wonderful high res light weight kit. Glad I had it with me Saturday Feb 7 2015, as my bride and I went out for Happy Hour at a local pub to celebrate our 56th wedding anniversary. Across the street from the pub was a sunset to help us celebrate! A7R, 16-35, ISO 400, monopod, lens at 23mm f11. My hands were freezing, but worth it
Thanks for looking, I think so far the lens is a keeper.
Dave in NJ
 

Uaiomex

Member
Anyone here having both this 16-35 and the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens?
At 24mm which has the superior IQ?
Thanks in advanced.
Eduardo
 

jaspat3

New member
I compare at 35mm the FE 16-35mm f4 at F5.6 with 3 other lenses with the same settings. SZ 24-70mm f4, SZ 35mm f2.8 and Minolta MD 35-70mm. I took pictures on tripod of a cover book placed at the center of the frame. The 35mm f2.8 shows clearly aliasing and more details. The 16-35mm is not far, the third is the Minolta and the last the 24-70mm with no aliasing and less details. For each lens two pictures were taken, the first using AF and pressing the trigger (the exposure time was either 1/750 or 1/1000). The second picture was shoot using manual focus and IR remote control. The focus accuracy seems as important as the lens "sharpness".
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
My FE16-35 is sharper than my FE24-70 at 24 mm and sharper than my ZA 24-70 at 24 mm. This is no surprise as 24 is the middle of the range for the 16-35 but the extreme end for the other two. Can't comment on the SZ as I don't have any.
 

soboyle

New member
Just sent back my first copy of the FE 16-35. Corners were unacceptably soft. Also sending back a first copy of the 55 1.8, which was much softer than my FE 35. This is frustrating and not a little discouraging having to do this every time I buy a new Sony lens. The only one I received that hasn't gone back for a 2nd or 3rd try is the FE 35. That lens is excellent. I prefer to stay with system lenses for the faster AF, but the sharpest lens I've used on my A7r so far is my 30 year old Contax/Zeiss 35-70 3.4.
So is a good copy of the 16-35 worth the hassle? Reading this thread makes me think so.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
My first 16-35/4 was, and is, excellent. I returned my 24-70/4 and 70-200/4 as they were soft and decentered, respectively. I have not replaced those, as I hate lens roulette. For the prices that Sony asks for their Zeiss and G lines, they have terrible quality control.

A good 16-35/4, though, is the best zoom I've ever used. On the A7II, it is better than any prime in its focal range I have tried, whether C/Y 21/2.8 and 28/2.8, Leica 35/2, or Minolta 28/2. Granted, those are wider aperture, but if you're stopping down to at least f/4, the zoom is - astonishingly - the best optically on the A7 (the WATE may be a better lens but not, it seems, on the Sony bodies). The Sony 55/1.8 is probably sharper - I know the Leica 50/2 is, but that's a different FoV.

--Matt
 

gurtch

Well-known member
Here are two shots made with the 16-35mm only a few seconds apart. The wider shot was at 23mm focal length, the tighter shot at 35mm. Both shot at f11. Actual pixels on screen shows the 23mm shot is definitely sharper, center and edges than the 35mm shot. At 23mm it is very crisp. At 35mm, it is softer, but certainly useable and should make a decent 20"x30".YMMV.
Daqve in NJ
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Exactly why I want a good 35 prime one for speed but better IQ but below 35mm I'll take this zoom anyday of the week.
 

soboyle

New member
2nd FE 16-35 looks much better after some quick tests at lunch. This one is a keeper I think, even 35 looks pretty good, but 16-28 is very good.
And I love the dynamic range of this A7r sensor.
 

gurtch

Well-known member
I agree with Guy. I carry the tiny Zeiss 35mm f2.8 FE. The night I shot the icy sunsets, I did not have the 35mm in my pocket, and it was too cold to change lenses anyway, but at 35mm it is acceptably sharp. Of course, everyone has their own standards of what is acceptably sharp. I'm an amateur, so my standards are probably different than many of yours. The fact that the 35mm is only f2.8 is no problem for me. Most of my stuff is at F11 or f13. Actually, small and pocketable is way more important to me than an extra stop or two of speed. I also carry the 55mm f1.8 Zeiss, and an A mount 90mm f2.8 Tamron Macro with the LAE4 adapter attached to the lens. A great light weight travel kit: 16-35mm, 35mm, 55mm, and 90mm.
Regards all
Dave in NJ
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Anyone here having both this 16-35 and the Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens?
At 24mm which has the superior IQ?
Thanks in advanced.
Eduardo
the samples I have owned at medium distance the 16-35 was very slightly better in the corners. not that much difference. In comparisn i found the 16-35 considerably worse at 35mm, why I returned the 16-35" But I assume to not have the best sample of 1634 and I assume to have a good sample of the 2470.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I don't know what's wrong with mine. It does not degenerate near 35mm. I just did whole series of MTF measurements expecting to document the falloff and the results are stupidly even:



This is at 20 feet, so nothing like infinity, but still...

Matt
 

serhan

New member
Here is photozone review:
Carl-Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS ( Sony SEL1635Z ) - Review / Test Report

The resolution characteristic varies a bit but it's generally pretty impressive. The center quality is nothing short of outstanding and it's a safe bet to state that it easily exceeds the capabilities of the 36mp sensor at mainstream settings here. In the low to mid range the border quality is also very good to excellent and even the corners are sharp. Unfortunately the 35mm setting isn't quite as impressive. While the center is still fine, and even superb at f/5.6 and f/8, the corners are soft at large aperture settings. However, to be fair - they recover nicely till f/8 so from a real world perspective this may be less relevant. Diffraction has an impact from f/11 onward.

The (focus-)field curvature is quite pronounced at 16mm at f/4 & f/5.6 so the corners can be pushed out-of-focus in real life situations. However, the curvature flattens when stopping down. The effect has decreased significantly at 20mm already. Residual spherical aberrations (focus shifts) are not an issue.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
You know, it might be field curvature at 35mm. I don't have a giant target or $100,000 in test equipment, so I was focusing on the point I question - center, side, or corner. This completely removes field curvature effects.

Or I got a better lens than any reviewer? Possible, I suppose. My personal success rate with Sony lenses is 1 out of 3.

--Matt
 
Top