Recommendation for alternative to Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8

Here is the master of the 15 (not a landscaper) over at Fred Miranda

Phil Reese said:

I'm very disappointed with the sharpness from my Zeiss 16-35 from 28mm to 35mm, and if you use zooms you'll know most of the time you use them at their extremes. There's nothing wrong with 16mm (in fact the lens is great there!), but given that my wrist wants to use this at 35, I'm considering replacing it.

I figure that given about $1000 resale price on it, I can afford to replace it with two primes: a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, and something else wide. The best two lens options I've seen are the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8, and the Laowa/Venus 15mm f/4 macro.

I would lean in favor of the Laowa for the really neat macro opportunities, but reviewers say the lens is not sharp in the corners, especially on full frame. That's unfortunate for a landscape lens.

The Samyang reviews indicate a serious dust problem that is noticeable when stopping down. Also not good for landscapes.

Do any of you have experience with either lens, and/or would you recommend anything else wide?

Click to expand...

Sorry Phil, didn't get a chance to respond on the other thread so thought I'd reply here. I was eyeing the Samyang as well; the dust problem you brought up sounds annoying. I read the same thing on the Laowa, so I'll probably move past that one too.

There is the old Sony 20mm, not g but full frame lens - and assuming you pick up the 24mm& 35mm A mount primes too, to replicate a little bit of that spread (that's what I'm doing). Based on the dxomark measurements it looks like you'd have to stick to f8 for the best sharpness across the lens (click the field map link). It's hard to tell how it would do with a 42mp sensor though. I should point out that many of those dxomark E-mount lens scores soared through the roof when they re-tested on the A7RII recently. Wondering how the existing a mount glass would fare.

I have e-mailed Zeiss asking if they are planning on releasing any new, fast wide angle primes for A mount or making some Otus or Batis style lenses for Sony A. There answer was basically no:

Phil Reese said:

Phil Reese said:

Thanks for your inquiry.
BATIS lenses are exclusively developed for E-mount cameras. They cannot be used on SLR A-mount cameras, this would require completely new optical and mechanical designs.
We do not plan to offer OTUS lenses in A-mount within the next future. There are still many interesting Sony/Zeiss A-mount lenses offered by Sony.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'll be watching this thread closely though. Others probably have better insight.

No worries man! Thanks for the info from Zeiss; bit of a bummer though. My guess is that will change if they see a lot of momentum with the A-mount after the A99 II is released, but it would still be a couple years before we'd see one of those available for purchase.

steelhead3 said:

Here is the master of the 15 (not a landscaper) over at Fred Miranda

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1452090?b=2

Click to expand...

Thanks I'll check that out. Honestly I make my money with Portraiture, but it would be fun to get better at landscapes. I could see a 14mm useful for a few cool wedding party shots, or a super wide macro creating some neat ring shots. I also have done a few real estate shoots and wouldn't mind doing more of that.

steelhead3 said:

Here is the master of the 15 (not a landscaper) over at Fred Miranda

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1452090?b=2

Click to expand...

Holy cow - those first few shots are fantastic! How does he get those critters SO close to his lens? It seems like diffraction isn't a big issue with the lens, and while none of those show corner-to-corner sharpness, the one with the leaf extending out the bottom of the frame looks promising.

Look for his past threads...lots of creepy crawlies.

If money and AF are not an issue, I think for best performance you should get a 21, 25 or 15mm Zeiss lens in Nikon mount and do a Leitax conversion. I did this with 28mm Zf.2. The leitax conversion is easy to do and is reversible if you decide to sell the lens.

Tamron 15-30 ?

Trevor_S said:

Tamron 15-30 ?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083964-REG/tamron_sp_15_30mm_f_2_8_di.html

Click to expand...

Yep. And Minolta 17-35G. KM or Tamron 17-35. Tokina 17/3.5 prime. User reviews found at Dyxum Lens Database.

Phil Reese said:

I'm very disappointed with the sharpness from my Zeiss 16-35 from 28mm to 35mm, and if you use zooms you'll know most of the time you use them at their extremes. There's nothing wrong with 16mm (in fact the lens is great there!), but given that my wrist wants to use this at 35, I'm considering replacing it.

I figure that given about $1000 resale price on it, I can afford to replace it with two primes: a Sigma 35mm f/1.4, and something else wide. The best two lens options I've seen are the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8, and the Laowa/Venus 15mm f/4 macro.

I would lean in favor of the Laowa for the really neat macro opportunities, but reviewers say the lens is not sharp in the corners, especially on full frame. That's unfortunate for a landscape lens.

The Samyang reviews indicate a serious dust problem that is noticeable when stopping down. Also not good for landscapes.

Do any of you have experience with either lens, and/or would you recommend anything else wide?

Click to expand...

So you dont like 28-35mm on the 16-35mm lens....
And you dont mind switching lenses(since you are considering 2 lenses to replace the 16-35mm)
And you own a 24-70mm lens.

Why dont you just use the 24-70mm lens, and switch to the 16-35mm when you want side angle? Or just use the 24-70mm lens and buy the 14/15mm for times when you want ultra wide.

tqlla said:

So you dont like 28-35mm on the 16-35mm lens....
And you dont mind switching lenses(since you are considering 2 lenses to replace the 16-35mm)
And you own a 24-70mm lens.

Why dont you just use the 24-70mm lens, and switch to the 16-35mm when you want side angle? Or just use the 24-70mm lens and buy the 14/15mm for times when you want ultra wide.

Click to expand...

To be a little clearer, I primarily shoot weddings (paid), but landscapes are a fun hobby. I do mount my 16-35 on one body sometimes during a wedding, but I find myself tempted to use it at 35mm, and the results are disappointing whenever I do. Because of that I want to remove the temptation to be lazy (zoom to 35mm) and instead zoom with my feet. I also want a 35mm f/1.4 for low-light reception work, so that purchasing decision is already made.

What it comes down to is what one lens would I get to give me something wider than 24mm? I'm looking at the 14/15mm area for this reason, and I'd prefer a prime. Thanks for the feedback.

Trevor_S said:

Tamron 15-30 ?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083964-REG/tamron_sp_15_30mm_f_2_8_di.html

Click to expand...

I originally considered both the Tamron and the Sony when I bought the 16-35 and decided against the Tamron because in my landscape work I make heavy use of CPL and ND filters, and Tamron's lens doesn't take filiters.

Of course, the Rokinon doesn't take filters either, but being so cheap I feel I could be more forgiving than I could of a thousand dollar + lens.

Do you use the Tamron and like it?

Arize said:

If money and AF are not an issue, I think for best performance you should get a 21, 25 or 15mm Zeiss lens in Nikon mount and do a Leitax conversion. I did this with 28mm Zf.2. The leitax conversion is easy to do and is reversible if you decide to sell the lens.

Click to expand...

I hadn't considered adapting another lens - I had no idea it was that easy! That's tempting, but at this point I don't think I can justify it for a lens that would be mostly used for hobby work.

Phil Reese said:

Trevor_S said:

Tamron 15-30 ?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083964-REG/tamron_sp_15_30mm_f_2_8_di.html

Click to expand...

I originally considered both the Tamron and the Sony when I bought the 16-35 and decided against the Tamron because in my landscape work I make heavy use of CPL and ND filters, and Tamron's lens doesn't take filiters.

Click to expand...

there are at least two aftermarket options for using nd filters on the tamron 15-30, but it's a bit pricey.

not sure about the cpl filter situation, but given that the 15-30 lens has some of the best pq on the market, i would have gone with that regardless of the cpl situation.

Phil Reese said:

Of course, the Rokinon doesn't take filters either, but being so cheap I feel I could be more forgiving than I could of a thousand dollar + lens.

Click to expand...

the q.c. on those korean lenses is abysmal, i would pass on it.

Arize said:

If money and AF are not an issue, I think for best performance you should get a 21, 25 or 15mm Zeiss lens in Nikon mount and do a Leitax conversion. I did this with 28mm Zf.2. The leitax conversion is easy to do and is reversible if you decide to sell the lens.

Click to expand...

Wow thanks for this info, I didn't realize this was an option either. I might be eyeing that 15mm Milvus leitax conversion for A mount.

Can the same conversion be used for Otus?

DR05 said:

Arize said:

If money and AF are not an issue, I think for best performance you should get a 21, 25 or 15mm Zeiss lens in Nikon mount and do a Leitax conversion. I did this with 28mm Zf.2. The leitax conversion is easy to do and is reversible if you decide to sell the lens.

Click to expand...

Wow thanks for this info, I didn't realize this was an option either. I might be eyeing that 15mm Milvus leitax conversion for A mount.

Can the same conversion be used for Otus?

Click to expand...

Don't know about the Otus but the owner of Leitax is pretty responsive to email. So would check with him.

Phil Reese said:

Phil Reese said:

So you dont like 28-35mm on the 16-35mm lens....
And you dont mind switching lenses(since you are considering 2 lenses to replace the 16-35mm)
And you own a 24-70mm lens.

Why dont you just use the 24-70mm lens, and switch to the 16-35mm when you want side angle? Or just use the 24-70mm lens and buy the 14/15mm for times when you want ultra wide.

Click to expand...

To be a little clearer, I primarily shoot weddings (paid), but landscapes are a fun hobby. I do mount my 16-35 on one body sometimes during a wedding, but I find myself tempted to use it at 35mm, and the results are disappointing whenever I do. Because of that I want to remove the temptation to be lazy (zoom to 35mm) and instead zoom with my feet. I also want a 35mm f/1.4 for low-light reception work, so that purchasing decision is already made.

Click to expand...

A word of warning with the Sigma Art 35/1.4... AF is SLOW in low light and from about 6ft and further inaccurate. Whenever I use the Sigma, I use MF because it is faster and more reliable even when I MF at F/1.4. Other than that, the lens is fantastic. I now use the a7s with 55/1.8. This combo is very nice. Fast AF and amazing IQ. The 24-70/2.8 is in my opinion a much better lens at 35mm for weddings than the Sigma 35/1.4. Reason being that the AF is faster and more reliable. The Sigma's IQ is not that much better than the 24-70 @ 35mm. I feel like the 24-70 is an amazing lens at 35-55. For wedding use, it is very good throughout. Yes, the primes (the good ones) are sharper, but no one will notice unless you point it out

Phil Reese said:

What it comes down to is what one lens would I get to give me something wider than 24mm? I'm looking at the 14/15mm area for this reason, and I'd prefer a prime. Thanks for the feedback.

Click to expand...

I am personally looking for this as well. It seems like reviews say that the Tamron 15-30/2.8 is a superb lens. I have my eye on that one myself, but have to control my GAS