3D-Kraft (Click here) made the very first serious wide angle lens comparison between the new Zeiss 16-35mm FE lens and those other lenses:
- Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-W 21mm f/3.5
- Voigtlander Ultron 21mm f/1.8 ASPH
- Leica Wide Angle Tri Elmar (WATE) 16-21mm f/4 ASPH
- Leica Super Elmar 21mm f/3.4 ASPH
And at the end on the Sony A7r the new Zeiss even outperforms the [shoplink 30684 ebay]$5,200 Leica Tri Elmar[/shoplink]! Of course note that the A7r is not really M-mount lens wide angle friendly. But it’s good to know the Zeiss 16-35mm FE is that good! 3D-Kraft writes:
At open aperture, the Sony/Zeiss FE 16-35 beats all other lenses and at 16mm it performs best. It delivers high and consistent performance across the whole focal length range only getting a bit weaker at the long end (35mm). It has the least vignetting and the good results at open aperture together with the optical stabilization make it a winner also for videos at low light.
New 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.
0 Responses
Biased reviews with flawed methodology obviously, and even if the review had any kind of scientific merit, which it does not, all these lenses would still be far inferior to the sheer awesomeness of Canon lenses, pure unadulterated bliss. But nice try. You Sony fanboys constantly bragging about DR and such, everyone knows DR is irrelevant. And IBIS. IBIS is also irrelevant. And functional focus peaking, zoom, and zebras. Those are irrelevant too.
And no one uses 4K, pfff, no one has 4K TVs!!!
I was actually taking you post seriously until the remark about dynamic range being irrelevant. That statement disqualifies the entire post, making you just another troll with sensor and IBIS envy. Get a life or a new camera, whichever you find easier.
Add lens envy to that list. LOL
You must have no sense of humor whatsoever. Learn a bit about sarcasm. It will do you lots of good in life!
The pot calling the kettle black? Lighten up Stan, it’s you who lacks a sense of humor.
To be fair there is no real indication “Real Rap” (lol) is a troll. Maybe you are trolling too? That would be like third level of trollception. Things are getting out of hand!
Dynamic range is overrated,graduated filter and golden hour are the things.
Frankly, I don’t understand what problem you have with the shadows.
Sincerely yours
Velvia 50
4K televisions are a popular item this shopping season, and there are already several sources for 4K streaming. Stop living in the past.
Televisions rot your brain. Get out of the house!
You’re speaking from experience I see. 🙂
I have a 4k TV, and I have a Sony 16-35mm FE.
The Kraft review was a bad one. The Sony lens is sharp wide open at 16mm, then goes soft as you increase your focal length. The Photographyblog review reflects my experience with this lens:
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_vario_tessar_t_fe_16_35mm_f4_za_oss_review/
J
BS.
What specifically are you claiming is BS?
Your lack of experience as a troll makes you even more obvious than neuroanatomist, perhaps you’re one in the same.
What are you trying to say?
I like how you used “scientific merit” to substantiate your claims. You sound like that kid on the block that had the coolest bike (or in your particular case, a penny-farthing) but then the neighbor’s kid got a go-kart. Canon lenses are not even part of this review and your speculative whining won’t make them any more relevant. I can’t blame you though; it must be nerve-racking watching Sony position themselves to dominate the consumer/prosumer photography industry after 10 good years on the scene while canon has been around since about 1940.
he is just a troll from the canon camp
You are a sad boy, aren’t you? Plus, relax and throw away that dictionary, nobody will take you seriously for using longer words.
for a moment there i actually thought you were serious…. who’s the fanboy….
How about the “real” Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 – the best wide angle on the market IMO.
I’ve heard some say Nikon’s 14-24 is even better, though I have neither and hope that it’s the Zeiss that’s actually better.
The Sony-Zeiss is a great piece of glass no doubt. The lenses selection for the test looks totally random to me though… 🙂
Probably that’s just the lenses he had available? This comparison makes still more sense than using some SLR lenses (especially Nikon) that noone really would consider to buy for their A7 cameras (if you don’t also own the DSLR that the lens is made for).
Hm… Mr Hackbarth has a pretty impressive collection of lenses 🙂 Here he compares the Zeiss 15mm with the Nikon 14-24 and the Samyang 14mm: http://3d-kraft.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D127:uwa-comparison%26catid%3D40:camerasandlenses%26Itemid%3D2
It would be really, _really_ interesting to see the Sony-Zeiss @ 16mm compared to the Zeiss and the Nikon, especially closer to corners @ f4.
Well.. That nikon..it goes to 14…those 2mm can really help sometimes. But the Sony’s pretty great. No real complaints yet
The Zeiss is better.
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D127:uwa-comparison%26catid%3D40:camerasandlenses%26Itemid%3D2
Hmm, my comment vanished. The Zeiss is better.
I’m not so sure, especially when stopped down to 4.0. In terms of sharpness the 14-24 is slightly better from what I’ve seen, but it is heavier and goes only to 24mm.
Sharpness isn’t the only a metric for a lens. In the centre the Zeiss is sharper wide open and as sharp stopped down. The Nikon seems to have better borders stopped down. The Zeiss has less CA, handles flare better and has less distortion. It also looks like the 14-24 might start losing ground with newer high res sensors.
the nikon 14-24 is DA lens. Best and sharpest there is. But there are drawbacks, lack of filter threads… I dont care about nikon though, i have ordered the 16-35 FE for my A7
Well, Nikon F to NEX adapter is cheap.. so.. heheehe..
I Have no doubt the 16-35 is going to be the best performer for the a7 series. But if you’re holding size at a premium, the WATE does have some benefit even you dont mind the price or flatfield correction. But it really is hard to get over the price.
I have one. its the best lens I’ve seen from Sony yet. (Haven’t played with the 50). Sharp, great color, plays nice with the r’s AF. Really happy so far..
Hmm, best lens. Admin should make a poll for the best Sony lens. That’d be fun, I think Pentax forums did something like this recently.
It’s always interesting to see what people like!
Would that be best Sony lens or your fav on the A7’s? Or both?
Best Sony lens. Too many lenses that can be put on the a7, it’ll become a mess.
Good point. I’d be interested to see how the primes, ranked against zooms, as far as people who are using them feel.
“best” in what? not size and weight for sure.
Definately going to get this lens. Now Andrea, please get some information on the A9 that it is going on.
The fair comparison is WATE on Leica vs. SEL on A7R
My thought exactly.
thats a test I would like to see. It seems like there is added som correction to the sony lens, so if you correct the WATE for vignetting and CA, I believe it would come out as good or better – also at 16mm. Anyway, well done Sony.
With the downscaling of the Sony file, they would be pretty close.
ah, so that’s what they have been up to. i have been wodnering their lack of update of late. but good test! worth the wait.
i wish they can add Zeiss 15mm ZE/ZF and/or nikon 14-24mm since these are both very popular for A7r users.
Actually, all lenses are poor, with zeiss the best. I am surprized that ultron is not usable at all without postprocessing.
Interesting test, the outcome is as expected: no small wide angles on A7. Maybe the next version comes with a wider mount…
really? wider mount? -.- ofc it will use the exactly same mount.
Is he tripping? I was scratching my head at the conclusions, having scanned the comparisons on the page – to my eyes the WATE is clearly superior, especially in the corners, at all FLs and apertures, apart from slightly stronger vignetting – this can be trivially fixed in LR, blurry, smudged corners can’t? To be honest, I often find myself preferring a little vignetting (or even adding it) to focus the viewer on the interesting parts of the shot, instead of the far corners.
The WATE had considerably sharper corners and less distortion to my eyes. Do I think it’s worth the extra ££ over the 16-35 on an A7 body, unless you already own it? Heck no. By the time you’re stopped down, the corners on the 16-35 are acceptably sharp, and who the hell closely examines a corner in a real, well-taken photo anyway? I prefer the slightly higher centre contrast of the Zeiss out of the can, though, but again, such things are trivial to adjust in post.
One issue here is that because the test was carried out in low-contrast conditions, the pretty severe CA (and not just in the corners, but all over the frame) of the Zeiss isn’t mentioned, iirc the WATE is relatively immune to that.
how dows it compare to the nikon 14-24m 2.8?
Check the review at 3dkraft.
says nothing about nikon.
for the price, better wait for the tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC.
There was a review of the Nikon 14-24mm (compared to the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2 earlier here:
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127&catid=40&Itemid=2
Or, you can buy the Samyang. There’s another review on the 3dkraft site. Not posting the link, because when I do, my comments tend to disappear.
tell me more about how the samyang autofocus works -.- also where’s the zoom? anyway my comments get deleted a lot too.
still waiting for a better comparasion review.
really, who cares about overpriced only for rich leica or comparing a zoom with a prime.
just compare it with real lens like the nikon 16-35mm f4 vr or 14-24mm or similar from other brands.
Ah, I assumed we were comparing everything. Anyway, it is clear that the lens will not disappoint.
IMO, the Leica WATE looks better. The center performance of the Sony looks slightly sharper, but the corners of the Leica look way better if you get rid of the vignetting (easily in Lightroom).
I think small primes are the way to go with the A7. I’ll be picking up the newer version of the voigtlander 15mm when it comes out in February. Supposedly they took the Sony cameras into consideration when redesigning it. Fingers crossed.
I would exchange some upper focal length for some more ultra wide capabilities. 14-24 as the nikom would be better, the aperture could stay as f4 in order to keep it small. Then you could have the 24-70, 28-70 or even the two primes between the UWA zoom and the 70-200. That would make sense to me.
Absolutely. That lens should’ve been 16-24 and half the weight and size.