The first review of the new 16-35mm FE Zeiss has been published at Techbang (google tranlsation here). While the automated google translation makes a bit of mess on the text it’s still good to check out the site to see the many full size image samples! And there is also that comparison with the Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 L lens (Click on image to enlarge):
These are the conclusions from the reviewer:
– He liked the compact size and material quality
– Image quality is very high
– Good distortion suppression
– Slow focusing speed on the A7
– Higher price compared to the Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 (but the Zeiss is better)
Zeiss FE 16-35mm preorder links:
Zeiss 16-35mm FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony Store US.
Zeiss 16-35mm FE in Europe at Sony DE, UK, ES, IT, FR, CH, AT, NL, BE, FI, SE, NO, PT.
0 Responses
“Slow focusing speed on the A7”?
I think he means A7R.
Which pretty much goes without saying on the a7r…
It says slow on the A7r compared to the a6000, which makes sense. A7 and A7r feel almost the same for me in focussing speed
You’re experiencing distortions in space and time.
I love the looks of his A7r! 🙂
Should have the hood.
funny, he mask the sensor plane mark but didn’t bother to hide the Alpha 7r logo.
This guy forgot one piece of tape/scratching paint away over the model name. Jokes aside, it’s good to see reviews. Let’s hope more are coming and hopefully the 90mm gets into the hands of an internet writer soon.
I read the original text, it’s a site from Taiwan. I didn’t see anywhere he mentioned the Sony is better than the Canon in terms of picture quality. He did say the Sony is more compact, especially compared to the Canon with a adapter. To my eyes, the Canon is sharper and more contrasty.
I agree looking at the sample shots teh Canon looks a little better, even with the known issues with adapters
The new lens looks fairly encouraging so far
Comparing the RAW and jpegs there does still seem to be some evidence of distortion that is being corrected by software, but not as badly as the 24-70mm.
I’ll keep an eye out for future reviews
The flashing, auto-starting video ads suck big time. Thumbs up if you agree!
That side by side photo has me canceling my order. What a shame. Going for a99 at nice new price and ZA 24/2.
yeah right 😉 If you make that kind of decisions based on one picture (which is actually looking a bit better than the good Canon lens) I would say both cameras are total overkill for you. Take the RX100III or an a6000 with the good 10-18mm
nice try being a troll…..
So you could tell it was a joke. I don’t think directing readers to products from the same manufacture would constitute trolling 🙂
Here a-mount users troll e-mount and the other way round ever day 😉
haha joke or not, trolling doesn’t have to be to a different brand….it can be to a different mount/system which is what you were doing based on one side by side picture from some unknown source lol
You are correct. Still meets definition of trolling, and I apologize. But it wasn’t Sony hate as we so often see here. Either way, we should all try to make productive and relevant comments. I failed to do so.
I’m confused; did you look at the enlarged version – I think the Zeiss is looking quite a bit nicer if you just take that single side by side shot for comparison
Yes, cancel your order and schedule an eye test.
Search flickr with fe1635 for better test results. This review is really bad at 35mm. I wonder if the reviewer gets a defect lens or any special reasons
Although it’s difficult to tell with this sample when zooming in the Zeiss looks a bit better, less fringing and more detail. The fringing on the edges of the Canon lens image gives the impression of more contrast, but it just more fringing. The size of the Zeiss lens fits the A7 body better.
I fear I have no future as a pxiel peeper… They look close enough that I’d choose whichever was more convenient (the Sony if I only shot Sony, the Canon if I also shot Canon).
simply buy an e-mount camera so you can shoot sony, nikon, canon and all other lens mount your heart desires and your bank account can afford lol
Only if you are prepared to make the compromises necessary when using adapted lenses.
What a ridiculous comment.
We do wish you would just bugger off
This just makes disappointing you that much sweeter.
Thanks!
What’s ridiculous about his comment? I find the so-called adapter “issues” to be much more ridiculous.
Isn’t it great that we can have different options? I love variety.
Have a great day!
Yep, thought so, no argument.
You too!
let’s wait for a real review in English….the translation is so messed up, you can’t even get it to make sense lol
minipixels.net | Automotive Photography
Yes he meant he with a7 has faster focus in low light situation
This pic tells me nothing. However, I’m kind of digging the size of that lens with the A7R. You know, that’s not to shabby. 16-35 is pretty sweet as well.
Honestly i don’t care about comparing to the Canon. As an A-mount user I’d be more interested in how the FE compares to the ZA.
He can only compare what he has access to. It might not suit you, but the Canon seems like a good choice to me. A recent design with similar specifications.
I shoot Nikon & Sony, but it’s still interesting to see how it compares to the competition in general.
Fair enough.
Indeed the Canon is a good one. For that the review on PZ says so.
However as said I’d be interested in a side by side comparison to the ZA.
The ZA works quite well on my A7R. I am no “size-and-weight-whiner”, but that size and weight fact (520g vs. 1100g) makes the FE considerable to me.
So if the FE has as good IQ and colors I’d probably buy it.
The ZA is decent, but this looks better to me. Obviously a stop slower though, but also smaller / cheaper.
Both recent and with similar specifications; the Zeiss however is the better performer both in sharpness and color correction and has a size advantage. If you shoot using an E mount it’s a no brainier.
This dude says he jump ship from his Canon 5D Mk3 to the A7R~
Many of us did just that.
And many of us did that and went back to canon
I could see that, the Sony A7R is a camera that’s very demanding of its user and its a camera I rarely recommend (when asked) for someone to buy. I more often recommend the Panasonic’s to lesser experienced shooters who cannot settle on a system, they’re less likely to get bored with the micro 4/3rds system as there’s so much choice.
The A7R & A7S are very specific cameras for people with a specialized interest!
I’d consider the A7S less specialized than any other camera. Set it on Auto ISO and any novice can shoot all day long without worry. It’s also fairly fast AF, it’s small and unobtrusive, has a tilt screen and EVF. All the features a lesser experienced person could benefit from.
The A7S is a very specialized camera when you enter the multi-media/filmmaking world. Sure you’re correct if one simply dabbles in stills, its an easy camera to operate, the polar opposite of the A7R for a stills beginner. This little camera will run right alongside Sony F5’s & F55’s as a B camera.
So basically in short:
Author found there is no good WA lens for the sony A7R
Other lens are heavy or some other issues.
photos against canon is to show how much smaller it is and that is before adapter too!
The lens focus on quality, the SONY FE 24-70mm ZA focused more on portability.
focal length very useful on apsc cameras too (he used a6000)
filters a bit big to carry around
starts at 35mm focal length everytime you switch camera on
expensive but it’s zeiss
This lens isn’t a power zoom, not sure how it starts at 35mm every time you turn the camera on?
I have no idea, just translating.
It says something about the short end but I am not sure what it means. I am fluent in Chinese but I am not good at camera terminology
Short end normally refers to the wide end of the range, in this case 16mm.
What the author was saying is that when the lens is at default position (i.e. “not extended”), it is at 35mm. You need to “lengthen / extend” the lens to change it to 16mm. He said this is counter-intuitive and need sometime to get used to.
You can see the last two pictures on page 1 to see what he means.
http://digiphoto.techbang.com/posts/7022-sony-fe16-35mm-f4-za-oss-use-ideas?page=1
P.S. I am a Chinese.
Well, then clearly the guy has no idea what he is talking about. Let’s wait for another review.
I like the size of this lens. I’m pretty sure it will deliver optically as well.
One thing I really learned from the review is that most people have no idea how to use an Ultra-Wide lens. That guy has absolutely no control of perspective this lens creates. He also proves why you should NOT use an UW for people shots, unless you have a good reason to do so (he doesn’t).
Not having a proper wide angle for the A7 has actually made me realize that I was overusing them in the past. Funny that, but 35mm + 50mm (and something around 85-100mm) are indeed the best focal lengths for everyday photography.
His distortion shots (second page, the green board) are a massive failure too.
I won’t comment on image quality until I see the comparison in RAW. This review is a fail to me.
Ok. So perhaps it will be functionally similar to the SLR equivalent, substantially smaller with a decent price penalty. I’ll take that equation.
Nevermind, found it. The Canon is 20%, etc.
Quite a bit, did you see the side by side comparison? It included the adapter but still.
Indeed.
If it’s a little better than the canon, or as good as, with zeiss coating, for me is more than enough.
You mean t*? No it’s pretty crappy actually, I’ve had a side by side comparison of my Zeiss UV filter with t* and a b+w UV filter with mrc nano, the difference was already too obvious to the naked eye. I’d say the mrc nano has 1/2 a stop to a full stop advantage over the t*.
To be honest I was really disappointed in the Zeiss because I bought the Zeiss in Germany and it was much more expensive than the b+w, which I bought in China.
How and in what sense does one UV filter have a 1/2 to a full stop advantage over another UV filter?
I mean transmission. And I’m talking about the coatings, they just happen to be on UV filters. If the same piece of glass has 98% transmission with no coating, 99% transmission with one coating and 99.5% with another, I think we could call the latter coating one stop better, because it deflects 50% less light.
Really? I think you’re talking absolute b*llocks, which is nothing new.
I did confuse a small concept in that last statement, but it’s no big deal and doesn’t change the fact that the t* coating sucks at suppressing flare compared to the mrc nano. You’re probably just ranting about because you have too many lenses with t* and feel insecure about your investment.
Wrong, I actually prefer the MRC nano for, if nothing else, the fact that it is much easier to clean. However, the image quality differences are negligible.
I wasn’t ranting, just pointing out that your b*llshit about 1/2 to full stop advantages was exactly that. B*llshit.
You just had to make me.
I just removed both filters and put them on a black plastic lens cap under an led light with two rows of bulbs.
Set my camera to spot metering, aperture wide open. When I point the center spot onto the big blot of green from the lights reflection on the Zeiss, I got 1/160-200s at ISO100. With the b+w’s dim purple reflection I got 1/100-125s. Conditions are not optimal as spot metering measures an area larger than a single bulb’s reflection, and the black plastic cap introduces its own reflection, so the actual difference between the two’s reflections are bigger than what this test could show.
So I’ll put it to you this way: the t* gives off flare at least one stop brighter than mrc nano.
I don’t care if you call the difference negligible or not. It’s clearly there and could be quantified.
Comparing a native FE lens with an adapted Canon one does’n make justice to the latter. Both are optimised for their specific sensors and using an adapter will reduce IQ. To resolve the A7r resolution Sony needs to develop a lens like the Nikon 14-24 f2.8G ED with a bulb like front element.
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
Theoretically true but who cares. The Canon 16-35mm is sharper on the A7r than on any Canon body even if it’s not optimized for it.
Uhm no thanks. In what universe does it NEED to have a bulbous front element anyway?
Now that this is delivered, I’ll like to see a 28-135mm F4 “normal” ver. Same optics as the pro video but w/o the weight. More commoner friendly, if I may put it 😀
The optics are a considerable part of the weight.
I think it’s unlikely you’ll get your wish.
Do you mean without the power zoom?
It’s optical properties is what makes it large and expensive, the casing / controls add to that somewhat but you can’t just make the exact same lens ‘normal’ sized.
The A7R looks better without the Sony logo…maybe I will try something similar with my a850…!
What the hell? Check out the distortion shots on the second page:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigiphoto.techbang.com%2Fposts%2F7022-sony-fe16-35mm-f4-za-oss-use-ideas&edit-text=
He didn’t say that it controlled distortion well, he said that it controlled distortion well WITH IN CAMERA CORRECTION.
Another epic fail.
If you’re gonna solve everything digital then release a “Zeiss firmware” and charge your ripoff price on that. Leave the uncorrected lens cheap.
the distortion from raw don’t look that bad though? I don’t see the “fail”
So where are those who loudly and proudly stated as fact that this lens must be compromised and be ‘cr@p’ like the 24-70mm and couldn’t possibly be as good as the Canon 16-35mm f4 IS L?
Hiding. Same as those who were stating that the 10-18mm was not good. When you look at the categorical statements here about loss of IQ because of adapters or SLT, or some blurriness in the corner of a UWA lens, you’d wonder who are these people and what are they shooting.
So it extends when zooming out to 16mm? Hum.
I’m not too fond of the fact that it extends when zooming out. Beyond that, this lens seems to be a winner. I’m glad I didn’t get the Canon to use on my Metabones and instead decided to wait until I really needed a wide lens before purchasing.
I’m all for the Sony Zeiss but since these were shot in JPEG, I wonder if there’s some internal CA removal going on in favour of the native lens.