Image courtesy: CameraSize.
The new Zeiss 16-35mm FE is now shipping almost everywhere and I keep receiving more and more tests. First of all see the picture on top to see how much smaller the A7+Zeiss combo is compared to equivalent Canon and Nikon kits. Also note that DxOmark ranked the Zeiss as best here (although it beats the Nikon only by a hair). And here the new tests:
Verdict FE16-35mm vs. SEL10-18mm (alphafotograf.de).
Sony FE 16-35mm F4 Testing (ProImagenz).
Quick look by Steve Huff.
SONY A7R + Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 4/16-35 ZA OSS (SEL1635Z) Timelapse TEST (Youtube).
Check the 16-35mm Zeiss lens price and in Stock status here:
USA/Canada at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony Store US, Sony Canada.
Europe at Sony DE, UK, ES, IT, FR, CH, AT, NL, BE, FI, SE, NO, PT.
Australia and Asia at Sony AUS, Amazon Japan and Digitalrev.
0 Responses
The real comparison should be done in the locker room.
Puny camera but dat wobbl, tho! Sony fgts turned on by wobbly, intimidated by rock hard Nikon and Canon mount holding long and thick lenses up straight. Lel at Sony
I’d rather wait and get a A99II and use with the Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 I already own. It’s smaller and lighter than the Canon or Nikon f/4 combos and the weight difference between it and the A7 combo is negligible (cause I goto the Gym).
Plus it wouldn’t suffer from FE wobble wobble.
It isn’t lighter and it is the same size. Anyway, why limit yourself to a camera? Get a couple of bricks too!
Seems like he spent more time on the a7S and the Voigtlander 15mm than the subject of the video – the 16-35
Indeed, after a few minutes you were like wandering, is he actually ever going to start talking about 16-35…?
Maybe I’ll buy it. But, the reviews have to be stellar. The pic’s I’ve seen are ok- just ok. The Voig would be the hot stuff is not for the color cast and vignette.
There’s a new version of the Voigtlander coming soon. Looks promising.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/09/21/a-quick-look-with-samples-at-the-new-voigtlander-15-4-5-ii-vm-lens-by-ingo-schader/
I just read that. I hear they took into consideration the Sony A7 series, but it doesn’t come out till Feb. Guess I’ll wait. It’s the perfect size.
Then the 36mp A-Mount arrives, and all A-Mount users forget about the wobbliy little sqeakier mount and go back to using the lenses they already own.
Maybe. All the glass I own is A mount or MD. I have zero FE- yet I’m using the A7 and with much success. I have no ultra wide angle lens. For wide angle work I either use the 24mm minolta 2.8 or I have a 9-18mm I use with my Olympus PEN. Either way, I find both lacking. Time for “prime” time- get myself that Voiglander.
Sony’s 20mm f/2.8 is a sweet lens. Own one and I’d never part with it. Minolta’s version can be had for under $300.00.
I own the A7 and its novelty wore off after six months, and now it sits in my pelican case next to my 7D, and Gameboy.
Sell it whilst there’s still some demand for it.
@Thinkinginpictures , Minolta MD lenses? Which ones ? Would you mind sharing your impressions?
The mirror-less users plan of world domination crushed by reality. Bummer.
Gloating over the defeat of an imaginary foe?
This is what I’m waiting for! My 13 A-mount lens want this so bad! Tried the A7 and it sucked! My hands started to cramp!
Sure, it’s just that the Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 needs an update to fix the terrible corners….
You must have read that in a magazine. Obviously you don’t own one. It performs better than Canon’s model and the previous Minolta model, and it’s performance is consistent with a 16-35mm f/2.8.
So I’d rather have a lens that is a full stop better
I have the canon 16-35L II and let me tell ya…performing better, is a pretty low bar…
I like the idea of mirrorless, but with the size that I am, hence the size of my hands, the smallness of the current crop of mirroless cameras forbids me from enjoying the use of them. My hands require the professionally sized full framed camera body size… without exception.
Wobble wobble squeaker mount is meant for feminine/ladyboy hands.
Hulk testicle small, must try to be annoying so people think Hulk big and funny.
Can’t argue with that. I’m using all manual Rokkor lenses mostly with the A7. To which I’d state the match is perfect. I can use bigger lenses…300mm F4 or my 135mm 1.8. It’s far from impossible, but for pro work- pass. It’s only generation 1- options will expand with FE mount- it’s inevitable.
http://store.sony.com/vertical-grip-for-a7-and-a7r-zid27-VGC1EM/cat-27-catid-All-Cameras-Alpha-NEX-Accessories
The a7 vertical grip is trash design. Shutter release is pressed by palm of right hand, so it must always be turned on and off. Terrible ergonomics with controls that cannot be reached without taking finger off of release. Can’t reach thumb over far enough to spin control dial or adjust AF points. The design is a sick joke.
Works fine for me, perhaps your hands are designed wrong?
“Professionally sized”. Now we’ve used that pro denomination for everything.
Same price get Toky 17, Mino 20, Mino 35. Faster, smaller, prime quality, distance scales, and end stops at focus range. With a99 get stabilized and better balance than any of these. Plus, vintage value rises faster than new price dropping fast. Next week this Sony lens will be 30% discount.
Even without the DSLR style, the smaller primes would balance better on a7 with adapter.
You could use old rangefinder lenses, they’re a bit more pricey, but smaller and keeps your A7-system compact. It still wouldn’t take up as much space in your luggage as 16-35 and you would have much better image quality.
I think a bit more pricey is an understatement. The only usable one i’ve found in the sub 20 mm range is the Leica WATE.
it could be smaller without that EVF bump
I can’t understand the score, since looking at the individual measurement curves, the Zeiss shows a weird behaviour: stopping down at focal lengths from 20mm on produces worse corners than wide open. What could be the reason for that behaviour? In terms of sharpness (not e.th. of course) the Nikon 18-35G adapted gives much better results; it’s not as wide, but price/performance ratio is really great and it’s only 385g.
I wonder how much that is due to field curvature and whether the focussing was done in the centre or separately for each point measured in the frame.
If you see tests, where the sharpness of the Zeiss/Sony FE 16-35 is less than the (manually focused) comparison candidates, ask the reviewer, if he also focused the FE 16-35 manually! It IS sharp but I saw several pictures giving a different impression and I am quite sure that the cause was a wrong focus setting.
Do you have an article up about the 16-35? I would like to read what you think about it.
I went to your site and found it. Thanks. For anyone else looking its http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=171:adorable-uwas-zeiss-leica-voigtlander-olympus&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
Very nice test on your site! Contrary to DXO it doesn’t show corner degradation at larger f-stops and focal lengths. Seems to be a nice lens indeed!
On DXO the sony A7R needs to be compared to the Nikon D800, not the D810 since tthe D810 doesn’t have a low pass filter.
The A7r doesn’t have one, too, as far as I know.
The A7R doesn’t have an AA or low pass filter either.
4/16-35 is a huge lens!
i’ll use my 3.5-4.5 18-35 nikkor (same size), wich is as good as the 4/16-35 with an adapter – for half the price (600,- vs 1300,- €)
I’ve been waiting for this lens since the A7 came out so I could change my system for the sake of portability.
now I know I’ll never change. the lens is overpriced performs subpair and it’s huge.
no way I’m gonna pay a lot more for such a small improvement in size and weight while losing performance. it’s a big no.
I got my 16-35 yesterday and was able to test it a little:
Compared to the Sony/Zeiss 35/2.8 @ 5: The zoom has more detail in the center, in edges the prime is a little better.
Compared to the Nikon AF24/2.8 D: The 16-35 is much better all over. (The Nikon is quite good, tested at SLR gear.)
I prefer to look at detail over sharpness as it also has to do with the very important micro contrast.
The A7r/16-35 is a 1kg combo and feels great to hold and handle. Easier to hold steadily.
OSS works well: 2 – 3 steps improvement.
Got a 21% discount which makes me even happier with this lens -)
Next comparison will be with the 16-70 OSS on my A6000.
I recently spent a day where I had the a7 in my hand most of the time.
Because of the ergonomics of the grip, you have to grip it with your fingers all the time and this means it was actually more tiring to hold than carrying an a900 all day which just perfectly fits in my hand
Not sure about Nikon or Canon grips on their SLRs, but in my opinion the a900 grip makes up for the size and weight and I’m hoping we’ll get an a7 replacement with better ergonomics next time to take advantage of the smaller size
This Zeiss 16-35 is a HUGE lens, almost the size of Canon 16-35. I wonder how it will compare size-wise to upcoming Oly 7-14 2.8.
Sony really need IBIS to reduce the size of these lenses, otherwise the size advantage the a7 gives is pretty much negleted by its cumberstone native lenses (not counting Loxia), not taking intomaccount its horrible ergonomics.
For a landscape lens like this, they really couldn’t comprimise with image quality, especially in the periphery. Optimizing for size would not be ideal here.
It only goes to f4. Who cares!