Sony 16-35 f2.8 is disappointing. Here is a comparison to 24-105

jarcoll · May 19, 2022

I did another test. MF, tripod, focus the center.

The centre zone and right zone are soft but not too bad.

The lower left corner is horrible at f4, At f13, it looks better.

For $2200, it should be better.

jarcoll · May 19, 2022

Sigma f2.8 is nice, but I need to use circular polarizer filter.

blue_skies · May 19, 2022

jarcoll said:
I did another test. MF, tripod, focus the center.

The centre zone and right zone are soft but not too bad.

The lower left corner is horrible at f4, At f13, it looks better.

For $2200, it should be better.

Try to do an 'upside down' camera shot as well. If the softness remains in the same place, it is a lens property, likely field curvature, or misalignment with the focal plane, although the second lens (24-105) seems much lens sensitive.

Still, this is not the best way to check the lens. I would start with a flat surface, e.g. a wall, and start from there. It is good to test the two lenses side by side, and over different apertures. Still, shoot several shots, I have noticed that even then 'pixel' level sharpness can vary.

Here is a discussion about the lens softness and copy variation. I thought it was well controlled for the GM series, but you could have a bad copy. Find a way to prove this first, the scene that you are using may be somewhat misleading.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1693045

In the article they also link to Roger Cicala's test results:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/08/sony-fe-16-35mm-f2-8-gm-sharpness-tests/

If it is curvature related, then yes, a bit disappointing. Also, the 24-105 shots seem a tad brighter - was the sun behind clouds earlier perhaps?

--
Cheers,
Henry

The Lamentable Lens · May 20, 2022

People are still going to criticize your test methodology, because this is DPReview. But you've now done two comparisons, one shooting the way you typically shoot, and another shooting the way others argued was the proper way to compare the lenses. In both scenarios, the 16-35 GM failed to perform to your standards.

That makes this an easy call -- send it back.

Just keep in mind that it could be the result of sample variation, so you may want to exchange it for another copy and give it another try. Maybe you'll be happy, and, if not, then at least you'll know this wasn't the lens for you.

4Photos · May 20, 2022

The Lamentable Lens said:
People are still going to criticize your test methodology, because this is DPReview. But you've now done two comparisons, one shooting the way you typically shoot, and another shooting the way others argued was the proper way to compare the lenses. In both scenarios, the 16-35 GM failed to perform to your standards.

That makes this an easy call -- send it back.

Just keep in mind that it could be the result of sample variation, so you may want to exchange it for another copy and give it another try. Maybe you'll be happy, and, if not, then at least you'll know this wasn't the lens for you.

100% agree - the testing is not the problem here. The lens is.

Jb502 · May 20, 2022

OP seems to not know the difference between metering mode, and focus point. So that makes me question his tests.

Michael W00d · May 20, 2022

For what it’s worth I conducted a similar comparison a while ago between the Sony 24-105 and the Sony 16-35/f4. This was to check claims that the latter is soft at the corners at around 30mm.

The result was that slight corner softness of the 16-35 was seen at f/4 but had gone by f/8. Nevertheless the softness, while visible at 100%, was unnoticeable at normal print sizes. Otherwise both lenses had a similar degree of very good sharpness throughout the frames.

So, as far as your tests are concerned, I think the relative degree of softness displayed in the 16-35/f2.8 lens’ images may indicate a potential lens defect.

blue_skies · May 20, 2022

Just noticed this one

Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM E-Mount Zoom Lens | SAMPLE IMAGES

Loading…

havecamerawilltravel.com

Michael W00d · May 21, 2022

I must say that several of the images don’t look particularly sharp. However a dose of Topaz Sharpen A1 would probably work wonders. Many of course were taken under low light conditions and exhibit noise.

If you want to consider tests of the lens there is none more apposite than this one:

Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM ( SEL1635GM ) - Review / Test Report (opticallimits.com).

Unfortunately the test images are not all that useful despite being of huge size. They are basically of natural scenes and one has no idea where the point of focus was located. It's a pity that no cityscape or architectural shots were included.

pollup · May 21, 2022

The Lamentable Lens said:
People are still going to criticize your test methodology, because this is DPReview. But you've now done two comparisons, one shooting the way you typically shoot, and another shooting the way others argued was the proper way to compare the lenses.

But he still did it wrong ... He's focusing in the center, and then looking at the corners where objects are not on the same plane of focus.

Unfortunately both tests are flawed so we can't really tell if there's anything wrong with the lens.

The Lamentable Lens said:
In both scenarios, the 16-35 GM failed to perform to your standards.

That makes this an easy call -- send it back.

Just keep in mind that it could be the result of sample variation, so you may want to exchange it for another copy and give it another try. Maybe you'll be happy, and, if not, then at least you'll know this wasn't the lens for you.

Tristimulus · May 21, 2022

pollup said:
The Lamentable Lens said:

People are still going to criticize your test methodology, because this is DPReview. But you've now done two comparisons, one shooting the way you typically shoot, and another shooting the way others argued was the proper way to compare the lenses.

Click to expand...

But he still did it wrong ... He's focusing in the center, and then looking at the corners where objects are not on the same plane of focus.

That is a correct test procedure - if you test for field curvature.

pollup said:
Unfortunately both tests are flawed so we can't really tell if there's anything wrong with the lens.

Seems like the test procedure used has some slack. But one lens has softer corners than the other one. Within spec or not - who knows?

pollup said:
pollup said:

In both scenarios, the 16-35 GM failed to perform to your standards.

That makes this an easy call -- send it back.

Just keep in mind that it could be the result of sample variation, so you may want to exchange it for another copy and give it another try. Maybe you'll be happy, and, if not, then at least you'll know this wasn't the lens for you.

Click to expand...

ahaslett · May 21, 2022

Tristimulus said:
pollup said:

The Lamentable Lens said:

People are still going to criticize your test methodology, because this is DPReview. But you've now done two comparisons, one shooting the way you typically shoot, and another shooting the way others argued was the proper way to compare the lenses.

Click to expand...

But he still did it wrong ... He's focusing in the center, and then looking at the corners where objects are not on the same plane of focus.

Click to expand...

That is a correct test procedure - if you test for field curvature.

Tristimulus said:

Unfortunately both tests are flawed so we can't really tell if there's anything wrong with the lens.

Click to expand...

Seems like the test procedure used has some slack. But one lens has softer corners than the other one. Within spec or not - who knows?

Tristimulus said:

Tristimulus said:

In both scenarios, the 16-35 GM failed to perform to your standards.

That makes this an easy call -- send it back.

Just keep in mind that it could be the result of sample variation, so you may want to exchange it for another copy and give it another try. Maybe you'll be happy, and, if not, then at least you'll know this wasn't the lens for you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have the impression there is a fair bit of copy variation on the 16-35 GM. Look at the Optical Limits reviews of the Sony and the Tamron 17-28/2.8.

I think my copy of the Tamron has slightly worse edges than the review copy.

This copy of the Sony is bad enough that I would return it.

Andrew

ActionPhotoPassion · May 21, 2022

pollup said:
The Lamentable Lens said:

People are still going to criticize your test methodology, because this is DPReview. But you've now done two comparisons, one shooting the way you typically shoot, and another shooting the way others argued was the proper way to compare the lenses.

Click to expand...

But he still did it wrong ... He's focusing in the center, and then looking at the corners where objects are not on the same plane of focus.

Unfortunately both tests are flawed so we can't really tell if there's anything wrong with the lens.

pollup said:

In both scenarios, the 16-35 GM failed to perform to your standards.

That makes this an easy call -- send it back.

Just keep in mind that it could be the result of sample variation, so you may want to exchange it for another copy and give it another try. Maybe you'll be happy, and, if not, then at least you'll know this wasn't the lens for you.

Click to expand...

As I said I wouldn't consider the test flawed. Sure it's not a brick wall, but it's a realistic in-situation use case. And moreover it was shot on a tripod not handheld which pleads even less in favor of the 16-35 IMO.

But ok or not in the methodology, it's THE use case for OP. That is reflecting his day to day workflow and expectation. So for him, this lens is clearly not the tool to go.

4Photos · May 22, 2022

ActionPhotoPassion said:
pollup said:

The Lamentable Lens said:

People are still going to criticize your test methodology, because this is DPReview. But you've now done two comparisons, one shooting the way you typically shoot, and another shooting the way others argued was the proper way to compare the lenses.

Click to expand...

But he still did it wrong ... He's focusing in the center, and then looking at the corners where objects are not on the same plane of focus.

Unfortunately both tests are flawed so we can't really tell if there's anything wrong with the lens.

ActionPhotoPassion said:

In both scenarios, the 16-35 GM failed to perform to your standards.

That makes this an easy call -- send it back.

Just keep in mind that it could be the result of sample variation, so you may want to exchange it for another copy and give it another try. Maybe you'll be happy, and, if not, then at least you'll know this wasn't the lens for you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As I said I wouldn't consider the test flawed. Sure it's not a brick wall, but it's a realistic in-situation use case. And moreover it was shot on a tripod not handheld which pleads even less in favor of the 16-35 IMO.

But ok or not in the methodology, it's THE use case for OP. That is reflecting his day to day workflow and expectation. So for him, this lens is clearly not the tool to go.

Exactly! Especially since the OP was perfectly able to achieve sharp results with his other lens! One can criticise testing procedures forever, but if it doesn't work in practice in the field, that's a pretty solid result.

PWPhotography · May 22, 2022

As others suggested you might have a lemon copy. My copy seems fine including at 35mm side. I did such test a while ago.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63901212

Nevertheless I keep any eye on the new 16-35 PZ. I read it's sharper at 35mm side but mostly it's much lighter. I usually carry two camera bodies and multiple lenses into trips so total size/weight reduction is appealing. In addition I also now have FE 14mm/1.8 for UWA and fast aperture (so useful indoor hand-held) which is sharp even at f1.8 wide open, therefore the f2.8 from a such zoom might not that important to me anymore.

mujana · May 22, 2022

PWPhotography said:
As others suggested you might have a lemon copy. My copy seems fine including at 35mm side. I did such test a while ago.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63901212

Nevertheless I keep any eye on the new 16-35 PZ. I read it's sharper at 35mm side but mostly it's much lighter. I usually carry two camera bodies and multiple lenses into trips so total size/weight reduction is appealing. In addition I also now have FE 14mm/1.8 for UWA and fast aperture (so useful indoor hand-held) which is sharp even at f1.8 wide open, therefore the f2.8 from a such zoom might not that important to me anymore.

PWPhotography · May 22, 2022

mujana said:
PWPhotography said:

As others suggested you might have a lemon copy. My copy seems fine including at 35mm side. I did such test a while ago.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63901212

Nevertheless I keep any eye on the new 16-35 PZ. I read it's sharper at 35mm side but mostly it's much lighter. I usually carry two camera bodies and multiple lenses into trips so total size/weight reduction is appealing. In addition I also now have FE 14mm/1.8 for UWA and fast aperture (so useful indoor hand-held) which is sharp even at f1.8 wide open, therefore the f2.8 from a such zoom might not that important to me anymore.

Click to expand...

I guess I must be lucky as well. Very happy with my 16-35 and I certainly don’t want to change it for any other lens any time soon. I don’t find it too heavy.

As said my copy seems fine. Here are four full-size samples @35mm. Most of them not taken at f2.8 wide open purposely as I use it mainly in landscape/cityscape type, usually stop down.

full-size @f2.8 wide open

full size, hand-held

full size

Certainly not soft by any standard. Maybe the new PZ is a bit sharper at 35mm side but hardly can tell at f5.6 or beyond I guess that I usually will use in landscape/cityscape. The new PZ would be more appealing if it's in 14-30mm (instead of 16-35) that would complement my Tamron FE 28-75 G2 better on two cameras I usually mount respectively. Also not a fan of PZ zooming in still photos. I only carry one between 14 GM and 16-35 GM into trips. Agreed its weight doesn't bother me much. I carried 14 GM in Portugal and Switzerland (lots photos to be processed) trips but going to carry 16-35 GM (or 16-35 PZ if ever posses) in already paid Antarctic cruise trip in December as zoom FL versatility is much needed there. Nevertheless this 16-35 GM served me very well in many trips that I used lots as you can see in my Flickr albums.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

dronahill · May 23, 2022

The Lamentable Lens said:
People are still going to criticize your test methodology, because this is DPReview. But you've now done two comparisons, one shooting the way you typically shoot, and another shooting the way others argued was the proper way to compare the lenses. In both scenarios, the 16-35 GM failed to perform to your standards.

That makes this an easy call -- send it back.

Just keep in mind that it could be the result of sample variation, so you may want to exchange it for another copy and give it another try. Maybe you'll be happy, and, if not, then at least you'll know this wasn't the lens for you.

Yep, send it back. It's not perfectly methodology, but so what? If a lens isn't giving you the results you need or expect - send it back.

I'd be really careful saying this is an issue with the 16-35 GM, however. It's a very heavily tested and reviewed lens and the vast majority of people have praised its corner-to-corner sharpness, even wide open. I own the lens myself, and while I don't own the 24-105, I do own a 24-70 and various primes between 35 and 85 (including some very high-rated ones). In such company, the 16-35 GM has always struck me as a very sharp lens indeed. Most likely, you've just got a defective/damaged copy.

BrentSchumer · May 23, 2022

Jacques Cornell said:
Edge softness is part of the reason why, to complement my 24-105/4 at the wide end, I chose a Samyang 18/2.8 instead of a UWA zoom. I didn't really need the zoom function - I just wanted a substantially wider FL than my 24-105 provided, and 18mm was the right FL for me. The 18/2.8 is much smaller and lighter, and way cheaper ($300), while still being pretty sharp even at the edges when stopped down to f5.6, which is how I'd use it in any case for DoF reasons.

For folks who don't shoot a lot of UWA but sometimes want a UWA option, the Samyang 18/2.8 makes a good option that doesn't max out the credit card.

The Tamron 20mm F2.8 is also a great option that can be picked up even cheaper. I went with the Tammy over the Sammy to reuse filters.

JohnNEX · May 23, 2022

Yes, the test is not ideal, but the lens looks faulty to me.

Brick walls are really the best thing for this kind of test. Given you are testing at 35mm you should be able to find something with a flat plane that fills the frame.

Sony 16-35 f2.8 is disappointing. Here is a comparison to 24-105

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts