Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 vs Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 5,086
Re: Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 vs Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

samtheman2014 wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

samtheman2014 wrote:

This test by the Northrup's seems to support what most here are saying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elMiEjlE_Bk

This lens is also known has QC issue. There are copy variances. Maybe he got a bad copy?

Looks like quite a few folk got a "bad copy" and most seem to have the same issues soft edges at the wide end and softer in general at the long end. Lensrentals who test multiple lenses suggest that

""Overall, both from an MTF and a copy-to-copy variation standpoint, the Sony FE lens is as good as, and sometimes better than, the Canon and Nikon offerings.""

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/06/sony-fe-16-35-f4-sony-fe-24-70mm-f4-zoom-mtf-and-variance/

Anyone did a comparison between EF 16-35L/4.0 IS and FE 16-35/2.8 GM side by side? The weight is similar (615g vs 680g) or actually GM is lighter as you need add the adapter together with Canon lens. I have seen IR samples and very impressed, and much needed f2.8 in low light. Therefore I plan to move by sometime next year.

I found adapted lenses AF good under not bad ambient light but not in low light, I mean real dim light. When I tested in stop-down AF with aperture at F22 to target a doll football player in a dark corner inside the bookshelf, A7r II had no problem to lock focus with FE 70-200G/4.0 OSS at F22 (with exposure max at 30") but even A9 with adapted EF 24-70L/2.8 II basically unable to lock on at F22. Plus in case you want to shoot fast action in AF-C tracking, adapted lens is not good.

You need high performance AF to shoot fast action at 16mm?

You never know

https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-fe-16-35mm-f2-8-gm-review/

I have seen many hockey photos from Nikon 14-24/2.8 in the past such as this one

https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/157884121/m%3D900/v2?webp=true&sig=1b957c9ee1be7e65dce850d2773ea2247a309f5861014c5cffa3030cf9436a8c

WA or even UWA lenses are being used in sport photos.

No argument about the use, but whether 'native' really has a decisive advantage (particularly at those FLs) is debatable.

For many highly demanding pros, the answer is a clear yes. The same reasons you can argue why they need super-tele lenses.

Also, with a UWA, it can be faster to simply set the distance on the lens' distance scale - at least on those lenses which actually have a distance scale..

In fast action you don't have time to manually adjust focus or you will miss shots.

For me however, I am not a pro to shoot in sports. But I can see GM version has clear advantages - one-stop faster in low light, AF faster in low light and optically is also better from what I have seen so far especially if need wide open. And total weight including adapter needed for Canon is actually not heavier. Similar reason why some Canikon shooters purchased respective 16-35 f2.8 lens. It's expensive, true, therefore I am waiting a bit as not in my top priority. But as I said from my perspective, adapting lens is only a temporary solution and will move to all native FE lenses in two years I guess.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow