Reading mode: Light Dark

Is your Zeiss 16-35mm f4 that good?

Go to last post
G

gary payne

Senior Member
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
302
Location
MN, US
Thinking about rejoining FF and examining the wide angle alternatives since the A7iii is so compact and capable. The question for me is whether to get a zoom or a couple of primes in the zoom range.

I really hate the thought of carrying any of the FF wide zooms around but looking at Photozone's tests (using the 36mp A7r) of the Zeiss 16-35mm f4 it's hard not to be impressed. It tied or even bested the tiny (and therefore lovable) Zeiss 35mm f2.8 in max center resolution at 35mm and exceeded its own 35mm resolution figures by a significant margin at every one of its wider settings down to 8mm.

Veteran Ken Rockwell claimed the 35mm f2.8 prime was sharper than any zoom but there are reports of bad copies of that tiny prime and I've seen those claims regarding its Imaging Resource test so maybe the Photozone copy was also less than perfect. Yet the users of the prime are overwhelmingly loyal to it. So its confusing.

Some of you undoubtedly have both lenses. Any thoughts? Thanks for any input. gp
 
Yes.
 
I ordered one yesterday, so will report back. I've read reports of poor quality control... time will tell.
 
I have owned these 16-35 in this sequence - FE 16-35 G, EF 16-35L/4.0 IS and FE 16-35/2.8 GM (now).

Both Sony FE zoom lenses are very sharp at 16mm side, slightly sharper (at least GM version) than Canon version at 16mm side. At 35mm side, Canon and GM versions (they tired at 35mm side) are clearly sharper especially at edges than G version. In my own test FE 16-35 GM @35mm is as sharp as FE 35/2.8 ZA even at F2.8 from center to edges.

Sony FE 16-35mm f2.8 GM Optical Limits Review

http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1038-sony1635f28gm : Not what I was expecting. I thought this lens was widely applauded by most (if not all) reviewers??? Den
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

Overall GM version is the best - one stop faster than f/4 version and not even heavier/bigger than EF 16-35L/4.0 IS + adapter.
 
Last edited:
Mine wasn't that's why it was sold. mine was very similar to my old Nikon 16-35 F4 VR in both sharpness and distortion. i went back to primes and later picked up a Canon 16-35 F4L IS which in my opinion is much better lens and only costs $999, so I never look back.
 
Dan_168 said:
Mine wasn't that's why it was sold. mine was very similar to my old Nikon 16-35 F4 VR in both sharpness and distortion. i went back to primes and later picked up a Canon 16-35 F4L IS which in my opinion is much better lens and only costs $999, so I never look back.
Click to expand...
I did not have a chance to test FE 16-35 G vs EF 16-35L side by side. But as I said @16mm side Sony version may actually a bit sharper while Canon version is clearly sharper @35mm side. I have many photos from FE 16-35G and I am quite happy in its sharpness and contrast overall. Then I sold Sony and bought Canon (refurbished+15% off deal) was mainly I thought will still own two systems then. Nevertheless after I settled down to Sony exclusively I switched to the best 16-35 in my opinion (and according to some other tests) 16-35 GM. Sure Canon 16-35L/2.8 III is also excellent but (much) bigger and heavier and not really better in optical performance.

BTW, here is side by side between FE 16-35 GM and EF 16-35L/4.0 IS that shows GM version is noticeably sharper @16mm side. But Canon version at 35mm is very good, slightly sharper @f4.0 than GM @2.8 but then tired @f4.0 and beyond.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61000932

Even at 35mm, as others said once stop down FE 16-35 G is still very good, such as these samples at full size or 100% cropped on A7 II or A7r (last one).

FE 16-35G/4.0 OSS

FE 16-35G/4.0 OSS

FE 16-35G/4.0 OSS

FE 16-35G/4.0 OSS

FE 16-35G/4.0 OSS

FE 16-35G/4.0 OSS

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
I own this lens, it was the first lens I purchased for my Sony, and I find it very sharp at the 16mm range. It is a little softer at 35mm but not to the extent that I don't love the lens. I would recommend to anyone!! Tom
 
I have extensively shot the FE 16-35mm f4, adapted Canon 16-35mm f4 and, now, the GM 16-35mm f2.8 on the A7RII/III.

The FE lens is great from 16-28mm and weaker as you head to 35mm. Under certain circumstances the edges can be a little weak, although you would need to pixel-peep to see it.

The Canon lens is a bit sharper, overall (particularly at 35mm), but bulky with the adapter.

Clearly, my best results have been from the GM version, although you can’t go wrong with any of these lenses.

I am currently vacationing in Europe and finding that the f2.8, combined with IBIS, is yielding sharp low-ISO indoor shots that I couldn’t reliably obtain with my f4 lenses. I’ve only had to drag my 35mm f1.4 out of my bag a couple times (I stitch 35mm shots to obtain a wider angle).

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com
 
Last edited:
gary payne said:
The question for me is whether to get a zoom or a couple of primes in the zoom range.

Veteran Ken Rockwell claimed the 35mm f2.8 prime was sharper than any zoom but there are reports of bad copies of that tiny prime and I've seen those claims regarding its Imaging Resource test so maybe the Photozone copy was also less than perfect. Yet the users of the prime are overwhelmingly loyal to it. So its confusing.

Some of you undoubtedly have both lenses. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I can speak to the 2,8/35. It has been a stellar lens for me.

66ddc11f062548d498cec06ca0b04dec.jpg

5d6681032f2149398b4d8a875abd9604.jpg

224c45f4b7654f3786ae5bb2c9221abf.jpg

21e1562a3b5f4bb0870744a8458bf9e5.jpg

cce252ff6f4f4451970702fe293a2ec3.jpg

16c2865ba67e4a69aa4d916f8d987387.jpg

820113875b834e9cbe6a0723e8f3a0d6.jpg

d7e0e1395df64e95b4b03b23e3d2a4e6.jpg
gary payne said:
Thanks for any input. gp
Click to expand...
You are welcome. May I suggest you rent the lens and test for yourself!

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net
 
Last edited:
Mine definitely is.
 
If you think about WA primes... get the 1635GM!

It costs about the same as 2 good primes and should be compareable to the 35/2.8. You need 3 primes for that range - they will be bigger and heavier.

The 1635Z is great for landscape! Contrast, colours & sharpness up to 28mm are better as most zooms. But you still will want some faster primes...
 
Had a great copy of the 16-35mm f4 and regretfully sold it. I missed it and a year later bought another which was not a good copy at all. At least compared to my first copy. Returned/ exchanged it for another and this copy is fantastic. Even tact sharp at 35mm wide open. However my 35mm 2.8 prime still does a better job and I love the size. One thing for sure I would sell my 35mm 2.8 before getting rid of this copy of the 16-35mm F4. Only because I felt I was playing Russian Roulette trying to land on a good copy. Zooms have their purpose as primes do and I enjoy both.
 
Last edited:
richj20 said:
I can speak to the 2,8/35. It has been a stellar lens for me.

May I suggest you rent the lens and test for yourself!

- Richard
Click to expand...
d9608c5221f54d1e92964e3d4736b383.jpg

Have to agree. Love mine. Those lights are probably 6 metres from the cam, not too shabby for a 35mm. Note the smooth transition {almost polarised) look to the sky.
There's more to comparing these two lenses than sharpness.

--
Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?
 
Last edited:
Jeff2013 said:
I have extensively shot the FE 16-35mm f4, adapted Canon 16-35mm f4 and, now, the GM 16-35mm f2.8 on the A7RII/III.

The FE lens is great from 16-28mm and weaker as you head to 35mm. Under certain circumstances the edges can be a little weak, although you would need to pixel-peep to see it.

The Canon lens is a bit sharper, overall (particularly at 35mm), but bulky with the adapter.

Clearly, my best results have been from the GM version, although you can’t go wrong with any of these lenses.

I am currently vacationing in Europe and finding that the f2.8, combined with IBIS, is yielding sharp low-ISO indoor shots that I couldn’t reliably obtain with my f4 lenses. I’ve only had to drag my 35mm f1.4 out of my bag a couple times (I stitch 35mm shots to obtain a wider angle).
Click to expand...
I completely agree. If could afford, FE 16-35 GM is simply the best, period. It's not even bigger and heavier than EF 16-35L/4.0 IS+adapter that I used to own but one stop faster and noticeably better at 16mm side.

Shanghai with FE 16-35 GM

Shanghai with FE 16-35 GM

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for great responses. I'm currently a little behind the times with a Panasonic G85 and the Pana 7-14mm f4 from the M4/3 tribe. It's really a sweet LITTLE combo and has become my favorite street walkaround gear but technology marches on and I'm obsessed with photography.

If there was a similar FF medium fast ultra wide prime (about 9mm +/-) that I could pair up with the Sony 35mm f2.8 I'd probably go that route for portability and less intimidating presence. But I don't see anything in the Sony lense line up that is small and affordable in the ultrawide prime zone.
 
The Voigtlander lenses might be worth considering. The just-launched 21/3.5 weighs just over 200g. This and the Zony or Samyang 35/2.8 would be a very discreet and very light FF wideangle setup. The 21 isn’t on the market yet but wary samples from Japan suggest good performance. The CV 15/4.5 is supposed to be quite good if you get a good copy, in case you want wider angle. There’s of course the Batis 18 too.
 
I first got this lens as it has oss for my a7r.

I first tried the GM with the a7r and without ibis, the zony is far superior on the a7r in low light despite missing one stop.

I use the a9 with lenses without oss and the zony in on my a7r 50% of the time beside manual focus legacy ones.

If you have a first gen , any oss will be far superior in low light than any gm.
 
Jeff2013 said:
I have extensively shot the FE 16-35mm f4,

The FE lens is great from 16-28mm and weaker as you head to 35mm. Under certain circumstances the edges can be a little weak, although you would need to pixel-peep to see it.
Click to expand...
Same is mine. At 35 mm edges are softish even at f/8, so I avoid using these FLs.
 
I use my 1635Z on a a7M3 and so at least this camera is no resolution benchmark, but in comparison what I had before (latest Nikon 18-35 AF-S, 16-35 4.0 AF-S) there is no question that the Zony performs much better than the Nikon equivalents.

I mainly use this lens for 4K video but also do some shoots from time to time. I also wouldn´t say that 35mm is that weak with this lens. Sure, there are sharper lenses like my 50 1.4Z but boys, this is a wideangle zoom and I´m really impressed and happy with the results. Color and contrast is also really (!!) nice, as also the build quality that I like. I was also happy with my very first copy where I changed so much Sony lenses before because of copy variation. Maybe I only had good luck with it, the construction seems quite good.
 
In a word: YES. It has everything you want from a Zeiss, color, pop, microcontrast. It may be that on benchtesting and with pixelpeeping the 35 end is less sharp than the 16 end, but I cannot see this with my copy, even when blowing up 100%. Moreover it is beautifully built and not too heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top