Image courtesy: Photozone
Our severe German reviewer and friend Klaus from Photozone (Click here) tested the Zeiss FE 16-35mm lens:
It is capable of delivering sharp results at medium apertures. In fact it’s pretty much excellent around the 20mm mark especially considering the 36mp sensor of the test camera. The weakest spot is at 35mm where the corners could be better at f/4 and f/5.6 but beyond they are just fine actually.
Typical for most Sony-made lenses the build quality is impressive. The tightly assembled, weather-sealed metal body feels reassuring and it’s simply a joy to use it out there. While AF speed isn’t really an important value proposition on such a lens, it is decent although not outstanding.
16-35mm Zeiss FE lens store links:
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.
122 Responses
the AF speed will definitely improve upon the release of new cameras in 2015-16.
Can’t wait. I can’t believe the speed and frame rate couldn’t be greatly improved with the a7ii. Disappointing, but not deal breaking.
… Not perfect price either. There s a big gap between 18-105g and this one. Why?
Because they’re completely different lenses for different sized sensors. Just a wild stab in the dark.
But a6000 has more megapixel and cheap lens why this so expensive? Make no sensor!
The 18-105mm G is 27-157.5mm equivalent and is for APS-C only.
The 16-35mm is a FF ultra wide zoom.
They can’t be compared, and neither can the price.
You are maybe pro but not at all pragmatic… Paying 1300 euro for a average result on FF is bling bling because on APS-C it costs the 3rd. On FF camera I request Canon quality for that scale of prices
You still don’t understand, do you?
This is not an “average” lens… It has an excellent built quality and good performance.
A bit too expensive, certainly, but there is not equivalent lens for APS-C e-mount. It would be a 11-22mm f/2.8 OSS.
LOL! That’s like comparing apples & giraffes…
Go easy… He’s obviously a newbie.
I am not new I am old and have shoot much with iphone for 40 year! Make big gap crazy impossible not understanding I can get two iphone 6 for this price!
There was already an iPhone 40 years ago??? ….. And how old are you??? 60 at least??? LOL
Then, if you shoot with iphone, why bother about sony lenses price?
I m a newbie and your bling bling pro;)
I am not comparing apple computers with giraffe but sony e-mount with sony e-mount what is so funny it is the same lens but crazy price!
The closest equivalent APS-C e-mount lens to the 16-35 is the 10-18mm f/4 and it cost more than the 18-105 you mentioned.
That makes the difference between you and me…. I don’t compare apples with giraffes but I compare the level of quality of a apple amongst apples with the the level of quality of a giraffe amongst giraffes. Therefore you can conclude one worth more than the other ones
In this case, then, you’re comparing Granny Smith to Macintosh. They may both be apples, but they’re completely different kinds. You can’t compare full frame to cropped sensor glass no matter what stat it is.
Let’s see, how should we say that an item is a dog for the price without actually saying it?
Why not it for yourself, or would you prefer to simple mis-interpret what is written for you?
“Poor performer”. Like yourself.
Idiotic comment.
If Sony could design lenses like Fuji has for their X-Series cameras, the A7 Series would be a great system. However, sadly, that isn’t happening.
A 21mm optically as exceptional as Fuji’s XF 14mm f/2.8R would sell very well and be a great addition to the A7 series.
A 35mm f/1.4 less than double the size of the XF 35mm f/1.4R, with similar optical performance (or better), would be a great addition as well – far better than the one recently announced, which is shockingly large.
Sony designs great sensors and Fuji designs great lenses. Combine the two and you have an exceptional system.
dont forget that Fuji lenses are apsc, Sony FF. Furthermore, Fuji’s best resolving sensor is 16mpix, its not so hard to shine on it. Just wondering how would those lenses perform on a 36mpix beast 😉
16mpix crop sensor is about the same pixel density as a 36 full frame
you obviously didn’t understand….
I obviously did, I just don’t think he realises that 16mpixels on a crop camera taxes the glass the same as 36mpixels on a full frame camera. The density of pixels is the same
Rubbish, on a crop yer using the center of the image circle, it’s alway the edges/corners that suffer on a full-frame camera.
whos talking about pixel density?…Im talking about resolution
Density and resolution in this context are the same.
Mpix = mega pixels.
16 mega pixels crop = same density of pixels or resolution as 36 mega pixels on a full frame. The glass does not have to resolve more because although there are more pixels, they are spread across a larger sensor, therefore the density is the same.
“Just wondering how would those lenses perform on a 36mpix beast”
You are forgetting that full frame is a larger sensor, so 36 mega pixels on a full frame is really no different to 16 mega pixels on a crop (excluding corner performance etc).
If the crop sensor were full frame, the math would be 16 x 1.6 x 1.6 = 40.96mpix. Some crop sensors are 1.5, so 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36.
It would really help if you weren’t illiterate
Hilarious….
wait…. you weren’t kidding?
Ya forgetin’ about the edges Booby.
you’re joking right? check the same scene comparison of XF 10-24 and FE 16-35 to see the huge difference. not to mention XF35 vs FE55. There is NO “exceptional” APS-C lens when compared to FF lenses.
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2011/objectif-sony-vario-tessar-t-fe-16-15-mm-f-4-za-oss-flash-test-8.html
http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2037/objectif-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-10-24mm-f4-r-ois-flash-test-8.html
Where is this idea about “exceptional” Fuji lenses coming from, I wonder? What Fuji did right is to have a comprehensive lens lineup and concentrate on higher quality lenses. That’s it. Nothing that exceptional about their lenses.
Spoken like someone who hasn’t used either system.
Funi’s have much smaller sensors, requiring less glass. The Sony lenses that work only on APSC are also quite small, and many quite good (like the SEL35 and SEL50).
d has a point. I own Fuji and Sony. The Fuji primes (especially the 14mm and the 35mm IMO) together with the Fuji sensor deliver excellent results. It might be true that designing lenses for APS-C is easier, etc but that doesn’t take away they deliver. The 55mm/f1.8 is a very good lens but a bit too clinical for my own personal taste. YMMV.
I would like to see some example on which you would show me the “clinicalnes” of the 55. Or did you just read this “55 is clinical” on Steve Huffs web? Let me guess, you never even held the 55 in your hand 😉
I own the 55mm/f1.8 and the 35mm/f2.8. The 35mm is a good performer but not a very good one. The 55mm is a very good performer but not a brilliant one. I won’t be buying the 35mm/f1.4 because it is too heavy and for the time being I am holding off on the 28mm as well because I am not convinced yet… BTW, you do realize that Steve Huff is just about the greatest Sony fanboy on the whole Internet, don’t you?
If, for you, “the 55mm is a very good performer but not a brilliant one”, I certainly do not understand how you can agree with d’s point about Fuji’s lenses being “exceptional”, unless you are speaking merely of subjective rendering qualities.
I shoot the 55mm on an A7s. Perhaps it is that. I have already read quite a few times that it is more impressive on the higher resolution bodies. Can’t confirm or deny that. Just out of curiosity, I took a look on the above-mentioned Photozone website. 6 of the Fuji lenses get a “Highly recommended” rating and that is because they are really good. Fuji does not just have a comprehensive lens lineup, they also have an excellent lens lineup.
I can only agree that they have some excellent lenses, but hardly all of them are great and most are not significantly (if at all) better than competing ones from other brands, all things considered. I am certainly not trying to put them down, but they seem to be a bit overhyped. And they do come with their price, size and weight. As an example, I certainly don’t see what is so amazing about their 35mm 1.4.
Steve is a fanboy of Leica, Olympus and Sony (in FF for using Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss lenses).
If only Fuji could design a “non-sharpness-robbing-sensor” to compliment their excellent glass…….. no system is without its flaws.
Considering Klaus has a proven bias against Sony this is actually fairly good´.
He has an extreme bias against Olympus and Panasonic.
I have an olympus printer an it sucks so I think he must be right! My panasonic kitchen mixer also broke so I don’t like panasonic or olympus. I had a bias setting on my technics cassette player, it never broke, does technics make camera?
what are you talking about, These reviews might be the fairest on the web. If a Ssony lens is good, they will say it..just check the reviews of A mount 81/1.5, 135/1.8, 135 STF…
Might be fairest on the web, but still there is some bias. Just read his conclusions on Sony lenses, versus some other brands. Obviously, it is normal to be biased, so that doesn’t take away much from his very good work.
I hope see Sigma AF 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM, more cheap and with more quality
Meh. 1300.00 dollar anchor- PASS.
The world can not get on with their day knowing that you’re going to pass.
Well you obviously didn’t get on with your day…as you took the time to reply.
Low-life imbecile!
And you could not leave without explaining he had to comment and even call him a low-life
Lol now I comment and don’t remember doing it;)…
This is probably my favorite of the three Sony lenses. Solid performer all around. Can’t wait to really put it through its paces this spring.
I ve been around for close to 40 years as a Pro and I hate zooms always have but sometimes you just have to at least one to do a gig. I have had almost every system made both in 35mm and medium format. This lens is far better than one thinks. From 28mm wider it will be very hard to beat. So the review is pretty much on par and yes 20-24 is outstanding but try to find a zoom very good at the widest end is a search in futility this one is the exception. I tested this against a Canon 17mm TSE which is rated very high and it was actually better in the corners and even against is even higher rated Canon 24TSE II it was damn close to it. Very unusually for a wide zoom to perform this well on the wide side. I have a very good copy of it and it has become a stable mate on my A7r. You should enjoy shooting it.
Agreed, its a very competent zoom.
Completely agree. It show up around the same time as winter but the lens has performed doing interior shots. Only a week or so for the snow to melt and get this thing outside!
Bundle up and take it out now! I love this lens and it’s rarely left my camera since I bought it.
Of course it’s not perfect, it’s neither L or ED :).
Mediocre optical slow zooms with hige size, DSLR competitor my …..
What rubbish. It’s better than the Canon 16-35L Mkll.
Delusion.
The 16-35L Mkll looks worse with the 5D3’s 22mp sensor. Sorry to burst ya bubble!
Nope. Own both. The Sony plows the canon. It’s really not even much of a game.
Is this english?
Yes
Is that your best reply?
Ok I know this post isn’t about the Sony A6000, but after 3 years of following SonyAlphaRumors, i finally bought a camera- the Sony Alpha 6000 itself. Admin and others, if there are any good guide for tips and tricks to bring out the best of the camera, please link me to it- really appreciate it 🙂 thanks
Visit dyxum.com, you’ll find it more helpful for practical advice.
Even though he can be wonky at times, Gary Fong has an hour long free version of his tips and tricks.
No worries, you will sell it in 6 months, remember me.
Don’t bother mate, you’ll be selling it in months.
I happen to find photozone’s reviews very reliable, one of the very few I actually pay attention to. Their findings were spot on with mine when it came to A-mount system and seem to be in check with the E-mount. I keep debating whether to sell my seldom used A-mount 16-35 2.8 CZ for this one as I almost never bring it on trips with me due to size/weight anymore. The resolution seems to be noticeably higher on the E-mount, so I just might go for it.
The FE mount is a better lens overall. One stop slower but no need for the adpter which makes it nice. I would go for it.
Btw totally agree on photozone. They are usually dead on with my testing
Photozone is great,certainly one of the best lens reviewers, but if you compare conclusions and rating between brands, you will see some issues. I think that is what people are talking about.
I will wait until i see what the Tamron 15-30 can deliver.
The Tamron is by all accounts a brilliant lens if you can stomach its huge size and lack of filters option.
This lens is a bit bigger and slightly slower. Possibly a tad less wide too. The Tamron is more like 16mm than 15mm.
another overpriced lens crap from sony. tamron 15-30 is so much better AND cheaper.
How much better and cheaper?
Like Sigma 35mm art.
Well, that was one answer I wasn’t expecting and it isn’t much of an answer.
How’s it for run & gun video? Is it stabilized? Does the Tamron get corrected for C/A and distortion in the HD capture like the FE 16-35/4? See, this stuff just got a little more complicated didn’t it.
it’s the same for run & gun since it has similar size and weight. yes it’s stabilized. correction is meaningless since it should be done in post. and it has a LOT les C/A and distortion than the FE crap. No it’s not complicated at all. FE is overpriced an underperforming, Tamron is cheaper and better. sorry fanboy you lost.
Not on a-mount. And if you buy canon you can forget about af…
you can also buy a turd. how is that relevant in any way?
>correction is meaningless since it should be done in post<
How will you correct for lens distortion in post on your timeline ten? I won't hold my breath for your reply!!!
Buffoon, how you going to screw an ND on the Tamron when shooting motion!
Great I have 6 different ND filters and polarizers that I need to use. Will they all work on the Tamron 15-30 or does the Tamron not allow you to take filters ?
Cause this lens can use filters and is directly compatible unlike that Tamron.
Admin you are apparently one teenage stupid cun1. Stop deleting my messages it’s not like mother’s pu$$y was made by Sony.
The softness around 35mm isn’t a big deal since it’s mainly a ultra wide zoom for landscape !!! just bring a 35/2.8ZA with you!
Well, there’s the thing – why they didn’t make a 16-24, smaller and cheaper.
or like the legendary 11-24mm L
Legendary price too.
Legendary weight, no filter options and lotsa flare. But its lovely for speciality stuff.
It has rear filters does it not?
Gel?
No, but i know Lee, possibly hitech, make a special mount for it.
Come on Sony…give us a 10-24mm Zeiss FE.
I was thinking more in the lines of the 14-24 Nikon and 11-16 Tokina.
Because a) likely 24mm will a bit rubbish and b) these types of lenses are not just used for landscapes, for PJ and event work going to 35mm or more is quite desirable even if it isn’t prime good corner to corner.
Arguments can be made for both cases, I just prefer the idea of a smaller, lighter and somewhat cheaper lens, rather than some more zoom, when, most probably, if you are shooting events, you already own something like a 24-70. There are enough 16-35 lenses out there, why make the same stuff all over again.
As someone who does I wouldn’t normally use a 24-70mm, it’s a no man’s land lens for me, I would normally shoot a 16-35mm and 70-200mm, preferably on two bodies. 16-24mm would mean I would have to use a 24-70mm as well or another lens, meaning more lens swapping. Yes there are lots of 16-35mm lenses, but not for FE and there is a good reason reason this range is popular.
@MdB As I said, arguments can be made for both. Of course, there is a reason why the range is popular. There is also a reason why people would want a smaller and cheaper lens or a different FL than what most companies out there provide. You find it versatile, I find it cumbersome.
The thing is any new manufacturer needs to take care of the hygine lenses. i.e. lenses that are very common across all other mature camera systems.
This means the trio of a 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm and three major primes – 24mm, 35mm and 85mm. Other than that a super zoom and a reasonably fast zoom like a 24-105mm.
So whats missing is a 24mm prime which may be substituted with the 28mm f2 prime for the time being at least. The 24-105mm f4 is also missing. as well as a 85mm prime.
Once these lenses are there in the line up Sony can experiment a bit to come up with some up with some unique lenses that will attract users to the system. Maybe something like a modern STF lens or a super fast lens or some compact prime lenses
So what you’re saying is…once Sony pumps these lenses out…they can pull the plug on A mount and start transitioning over all the specialty lenses.
Same as my reply to MdB, there are two sides. Sure, it does make sense to recreate all the “common” FLs, if you want to compete in the most direct and traditional way. But one can also try something else and compete by being different, which I personally thought was Sony’s initial idea. Apparently, it isn’t.
Also, what we consider “common” is rather random. As an example, is the trio that you are describing really more useful than a 28mm, 40mm. 75mm? Or a 16-24mm, 24-85mm, 100-200mm? It depends on the audience. And the audience you are describing has plenty of choices.
See if somebody from Canon or Nikon who wants to shift to Sony he would want similar lenses to what he was using.
The amount of new photographers who would want to build a system (i.e. buy more than just the kit lens) will be few. So Sony needs quite a few people from Canon/Nikon to shift over to them.
So if he had to choose a 28mm f2 over his 24mm f1.4 or a 40mm f2 over a 35mm f1.4 he would be less inclined to switch as he would have to relearn the focal length.
One other camera company makes odd focal lengths and that is Pentax. And they are pretty much a small bit player.
I too decided against getting a Pentax system as I found their lenses too slow with pretty odd focal lengths.
According to photozone, corners at 35mm are almost as good so no need to bring the prime really.
Agreed, I have it plus the FE 35/2.8, the prime is bullet-proof @ f/8 though.
The whole system is not perfect 🙂 it is Sanyo FFS
2017 this site will be ……………..
come on Canon
Nothing comes close to the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR ED AFS ……. LLLLLLLOOOOOOOOLLLLLLL
You made a compromise when you bought a Sony mirrorless camera why stop there ?
Buy poor performing lenses to match. You wouldn’t put Pirelli’s on a Yugo would you ?
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
With the upcoming Canon EOS MP1 and ME1 around the corner, is there a future for Sony in the mirrorless market? Canon is really leapfrogging all competitors technologically with these amazing cameras. I give Sony one year, then it’s the end for them.
And the end of this site as well 🙂
i want this lens !
Lets just say Full Frame mirrorless has made making lenses more difficult as the extreme angle of light required to hit the sensor in such a short flange distance. What I noticed is that edge performance in even the best e-mount lens tends to suffer a bit…Is my observation correct?
No, the 55 Sonnar has perfectly fine corner performance, and going by the MTFs the 90mm and 35mm f1.4 are awesome too. The 35 f2.8 is very good too.
Lol, Steve Huff likes the lens. Turns out, he is a big fan of ghosting, lel.
http://huffparanormal.com/
As usual for Sony “Zeiss”, underwhelming and overpriced.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff?start=2
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is
Nikon and Canon lenses that are from this class also gets 3.5 star optical quality. So, it’s quite similar or even better than competing lenses from other (DSLR) brands. Why do you whine and complain so much?