The lens size comparison via Camerasize.
Photoreview tested the Zeiss 16-35mm lens and writes:
Subjective assessments of test shots showed the review lens to be a good performer, delivering good centre-of-field sharpness, well-resolved detail and accurate colour rendition. Quite a lot of corner softening was found at the shorter focal lengths, probably caused by curvature of field, which is not uncommon in ultra-wide-angle lenses. Stopping down largely eliminated it.However, even at the smallest aperture settings, there was high enough resolution for the lens to be useful, which makes this lens a good choice for landscape photography.
SLRgear reviewed the Sony FE 70-200mm lens:
Optically, the lens is very good and carries many of the technical bells and whistles that an enthusiast to professional photographer demands — good image stabilization and well-built construction (though we have our doubts about the lens’s purported dust and moisture resistance). But for all other avenues, the 70-200 ƒ/4 FE lens is solid choice for Sony mirrorless shooters looking for a high performance telephoto zoom.
Mirrorlessons tested the 55mm FE lens:
I think that the 55mm paired with any of the Sony A7 cameras produces a fantastic combo and I wouldn’t renounce it even now. It was also very helpful for the last wedding I shot in Italy. The only lens I could perhaps consider to replace the 55mm is the Loxia 2/50. The quality is basically the same and I really liked my time with the two Loxia lenses when I reviewed them in November last year. But there is no question that autofocus is a nice feature to have.
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.
Sony 70-200mm FE lens store links:
USA at Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here), SonyStore (Click here).
In Europe at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, AT, NL, BE, CH, FI, SE, PT
Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 lens store links:
USA/Canada: Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonyStore US and Sonystore Canada.
Europe: Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
17 Responses
i want them all 🙂
The interesting thing about the edges at the wide end of the 16-35 is that in the real world they appear tack sharp: because there is a bit of field curvature, which on a flat chart shows up as peripheral softness. But the slight moving forward of sharpness often increases the impression of edge sharpness, rather than reducing it. In tests like Photozones they refocus for the periphery, so you see what the lens performa in it’s (topological) plane of focus..
I own them all, but only until today afternoon. This nothing to do with probs on the lenses but with re-arranging my gear. The 55 will be kept, as this is IQ wise besides the A-mount 135ZA the best lens Sony has ever made.
The 1635Z is very good indeed. A little bit disturbing is the visible sharpness drop at the corners wide open at both ends – even on a 24MP body. 20 to 24mm is excellent. I missed a little bit the Sony Zeiss typical colors. I’ll give it away because I swap to the Canon 24TSE via MB MK4 – I rarely use fl below 24mm, and for 35 I own the 35/2.8.
The 70200 was a bit “an advanced amateur must own a premium telezoom”-buy…
Don’t get me wrong. The lens is of really superb built quality, and the IQ is above average except for the long end wide open, where it is ugly soft. The 135mm is almost on par with 135 primes at this aperture – I am not kidding. Downsides for me are the (even on the A7II) in fact reliable but sometimes sluggish working AF. Weak contrast makes it nearly impossible to properly zoom. Turning of the camera AF lighting helps a bit but not much. The tripod collar made me think how long it will fit tight. Even when fully tighnened, you can twist it (in one direction easier than into the other. I’ll swap that lens because I am no millionaire and have higher need for the upcoming macro.
As said, if the complete package of the lenses would fit my shooting style, I would not even think about but keep them. All are highly desirable lenses.
The 70200 may not be able to give it full potential on an A7R (AF-speed wise and shutter-speed wise)
yeah, I hear you. if I had the money to spare I’d buy both, but for now really happy with my 35 2.8 & 55 1.8, and the 28-70 for “backup”. this system has really inspired me into getting into primes, which I appreciate more every time I use them. zooms are fine, but it’s a different experience, and a different result too
Interesting. I am in Singapore and went to try the 35mm 1.4 Zeiss and the 24-240mm zoom. I have not even tried the 70-200mm and the other larger lense they have on display at the Sony Centre at 313@Somerset. The problem I see with these lenses is these are very large, heavy, bulky which to me completely detracts from having the smallest full frame camera body on the planet which the A7 series are. It looks as if things got back to square 1… Why accepting the tradeoffs of mirorless cameras i.e. slower AF if at the end the bulkiness & weight saving only becomes marginal because of the large lenses ? I bought into the NEX-5, NEX-6 and A7R because I am a permanent traveller and the compactness and weight saving was a clear plus while getting good image quality of course.
I have the money to buy them all but the 35 1.4 and the 70-200mm are too large for me to even think carrying them around during my travels… I’ll remain with the 55 1.8 and the 35 2.8 until a good lens consistent with the system’s compactness comes around.
Regarding best lenses Sony has ever made: You clearly havent used the new Distagon FE 35/1.4.
As for Tele: The coming 90 Macro will definitely be more interesting for me too. I understand your thoughts about the 70-200.
I would happily have your FE16-35 though. 🙂
I agree regarding the Distagon. The premature praise it receives indicate that the Distagon FE35/1.4 could become the new top dog in the line up.
I don’t doubt this, since I’ve heard an interview with Zeiss that properly built Zoom lens is (at its middle focal length) just as sharp as any Prime lens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9cnEnRADDLo#t=449
Can you confirm that 135mm is the sharpest Focal Length of this FE 70-200 lens?
Even more sharp than at 70mm Focal Length?
Definetly yes. At 70/100/200mm stopping down 1 stop already significantly improves, but (at pixel-peep level) you won’t get it sharp across the fram even at f8 or f11.
At 135mm it is wide open already very good at the extreme corners. Here you are almost sharp across the frame at f5.6 and gets perfect at f8.
Looking to make the switch from Nikon to Sony and the 16-35 is my go to lens for real estate. Took along on one shoot with the Nikon as primary, but didn’t take the time for direct “on the job” comparison. Limited to exterior due to lighting issues of interiors (all off camera, multi flash/PW not Sony compatible) but was amazed how the Sony stood out on similar photos with much less post. Went across the street and setup landscape shots on 2 tripods with the Nikon 16-35 f4 on a D610 and a Sony 16-35 f4 on an a7ii side by side – similar sensors. Shot series f4, f8, f16, each at 16, 24, and 35. Each in RAW imported to Lightroom with no post done, viewing areas on screen at 100% and later exporting to jpg, again with no post, for print viewing of tightly cropped areas. Bottom line…Sony blew the Nikon out the water, way beyond what I expected. Yes there was the center sharpness trailing off to the edge but that is normal for the class of lens and expected. What was not expected was how much sharper on edge, both near and far objects, significant CA on the Nikon that was not apparent on the Sony, and more vignetteing on the Nikon. Examples 1) across lake treeline much sharper and high tension power pole could actually make out the posts on the Sony, 2) similar sharpness close in with pool, fence, and cypress tree leaves having much more detail, and 3) CA along tennis light pole and so sever with “pool rules” sign that Nikon changed the color of the letters from a uniform light blue to a shade of purple.
Errm…These review’s aren’t all that great…
I am really keen to try out Sony mirrorless…but if they keep making these mediocre lenses…i won’t bother
Now who said that the zeiss 55mm is big? 🙂
All these lens suck big time!
You people don’t understand anything about photography!
The only one worth is the FE 35/1.4!
Said Digilloyd! LOL 😀
I’m also fortunately in the position to own most of the FE Sony-zeiss lens range.
My opinion differs with yours DirkB. I don’t necessarily agree that the 70-200 is merely above average. By any professional zoom standards it’s a fabulous optic. Likewise the 16-35. The 24-70 is fine, but not as good in my humble opinion as the Canon/Nikon equivalents.
In real world shooting conditions outside of mfd immatest charts the 70-200 performs great.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/sony-fe-70-200-f4-g-oss-lens-review-part-2/
At the long end I definitely would not call it ugly soft – I’ve gotten great results with it and seen great results from others with the lens at the long end wide open. What I have observed is that I can get more detailed results form this lens on the A7ii than the A7r which is somewhat backed up by Viktor’s review. Possibly to do with shutter shock interfering with the OIS in the lens. It will be interested to see how this lens performs on the A7rII
Could Someone give me some advice. I just bought the A7s just videos and cannot decide on a good AF lens for Video. I have the whole canon L series Line up including the 24-70LII among many Carl Zeiss Contax Yashica lens for Video in Manual Focus. BUT, I would really like a good mid range zoom WITH autofocus for face detection for simple fashion videos. They do not need to be razor sharp. The 16-35 EF OSS seems like it get’s the best reviews, I would prefer the 24-70 but the Reviews are really bad for this lens for the price. the 16-35 is a little wide for my usage and I would be on the 35mm end most of the time and or in APSC crop mode in order to get the reach I would need. Anybody have any good suggestions? The Prime Zeiss are nice but do not have IS which would be nice as I will be mainly using this run around.. Appreciate any suggestions..
sorry for the late reply, but I basically agree – at least the 70-200 is too big for my taste.
however, since writing this, I’ve picked up the 16-35 and I have to say, for what it does, it’s a decent size & price…especially when compared to the 55f1.8, than which it’s slightly longer, wider and heavier, it’s not so bad