FE 16-35mm f4 UW zoom

Started Feb 18, 2014 | Discussions
Keit ll Veteran Member • Posts: 4,200
Re: FE 16-35mm f4 UW zoom

123Mike wrote:

rponiarski wrote:

123Mike wrote:

As for OSS... I'm starting to think it's a little bit overrated. I use bursting a lot to achieve better shots. So, burst a lot. The A6000 does 11 fps bursting. That's very high. Combine that with software that lets you quickly lift out the sharp ones and discard the blurry ones, and bursting becomes your friend. OSS might screw up at time too, so, you'll reduce that. Although mind you, the in lens OSS might be a *lot* better than the IBIS of the SLTs which is where I'm coming from.

For some of us, OSS is a necessity. One thing I miss from my old E-M5 is the IBIS. I personally need as much stability as possible due to having idiopathic familial tremors, one reason that I still use the 28-70mm kit lens. I hope the 24-70mm Zeiss is a bit better, but the OSS is a big plus for me.

That's in-lens OSS, which is more of a sure thing. IBIS "super steady shot" or whatever the heck it's called, I found always kind of iffy. It's like it's there, but like it's not there also. I kind of maybe is doing something perhaps, kind of thing...

Have you actually used IBIS on any camera ? I don't recognise your description ! I find IBIS on my A900 to be very effective &  a godsend in low light when I want to use low ISOs & low shutter speeds.

abortabort Senior Member • Posts: 1,734
Re: FE 16-35mm f4 UW zoom

Keit ll wrote:

123Mike wrote:

rponiarski wrote:

123Mike wrote:

As for OSS... I'm starting to think it's a little bit overrated. I use bursting a lot to achieve better shots. So, burst a lot. The A6000 does 11 fps bursting. That's very high. Combine that with software that lets you quickly lift out the sharp ones and discard the blurry ones, and bursting becomes your friend. OSS might screw up at time too, so, you'll reduce that. Although mind you, the in lens OSS might be a *lot* better than the IBIS of the SLTs which is where I'm coming from.

For some of us, OSS is a necessity. One thing I miss from my old E-M5 is the IBIS. I personally need as much stability as possible due to having idiopathic familial tremors, one reason that I still use the 28-70mm kit lens. I hope the 24-70mm Zeiss is a bit better, but the OSS is a big plus for me.

That's in-lens OSS, which is more of a sure thing. IBIS "super steady shot" or whatever the heck it's called, I found always kind of iffy. It's like it's there, but like it's not there also. I kind of maybe is doing something perhaps, kind of thing...

Have you actually used IBIS on any camera ? I don't recognise your description ! I find IBIS on my A900 to be very effective & a godsend in low light when I want to use low ISOs & low shutter speeds.

I think it is a feedback thing. Sony's IBIS is quite effective, but you didn't 'see' it doing anything as such, it just does it's thing and does it pretty well. I think this is one of the main reasons that a) everyone RAVES about Olympus 5-axis because they can now 'see' it working (their older system was more like the Sony's). b) why in the DSLR only days why people though OIS was more effective. c) why people think the Olympus 5-axis is better than the Panasonic implementation in the GX7.

 abortabort's gear list:abortabort's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm X100S Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Leica M8 Nikon D700 +54 more
blue_skies
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,305
Re: FE 16-35mm f4 UW zoom

Donny out of Element here wrote:

is rumored to be announced in a month or so. I was wondering if I can start using FE lenses on APS-C body (A6000), so that in future (when I go FF) I will have FF lenses ready to go.

I was wondering to use that 16-35 f4 as my main zoom actually, since it will be 24-50mm (in APS-C) on my A6000 - which is the focal range I use most often (mostly 24-35mm in APS-C).

So my question is how big this zoom may be or how small? I was hoping for OSS, but it won't have it probably? Do I need it on that FL anyway? I also hope this time Zeiss will make sharp zoom across the frame, not like FE24-70, where 24-28 range is soft on edges and corners.

If you go mirrorless, consider the Leica WATE (Wide Angle Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm f/4)

and it's price: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/461971-USA/Leica_11642_Tri_Elmar_M_16_18_21mm_f_4_Asph.html

It is small and wide.

The Leica MATE gets cheaper (about half the price of a used WATE) and smaller, but it 28-50mm

So, f/4 WA to MA zooms can be made 'small'. For a mirrorless camera, the omission of the mirror box (leica style) is obvious a big benefit to lens design. I just hope that Leica prices are just that ..

I have a 24-40/3.5 SLR manual zoom lens, and it is big and heavy (it is for SLR camera). Optical it is actually rather decent on the A7, but I would not consider this as a preferred walk-around lens.

I can see why Sony built e.g. the FE28-70/3.5-5.6 - it is so much lighter!

If you go APS-C size, then 16-35/4.0 (24-70) becomes a lot smaller - even the 16-70/4.0 lens is not that enormeous.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony Alpha a7 II Sony Alpha a7R II +35 more
NumberOne Veteran Member • Posts: 3,547
Re: FE 16-35mm f4 UW zoom

Donny out of Element here wrote:

is rumored to be announced in a month or so. I was wondering if I can start using FE lenses on APS-C body (A6000), so that in future (when I go FF) I will have FF lenses ready to go.

Sorry to spoil the party, but AFAIK, nobody knows if the announced ultra-wide zoom will be a 16-35mm...

Officially, Sony says it will be ultra-wide and F4 - the rest is guessing & speculation...

I was wondering to use that 16-35 f4 as my main zoom actually, since it will be 24-50mm (in APS-C) on my A6000 - which is the focal range I use most often (mostly 24-35mm in APS-C).

So my question is how big this zoom may be or how small? I was hoping for OSS, but it won't have it probably? Do I need it on that FL anyway? I also hope this time Zeiss will make sharp zoom across the frame, not like FE24-70, where 24-28 range is soft on edges and corners.

Again, we don't know its focal length range and if stabilization is included, so once more "pure wondering", I guess...

Having said this, it's more a less safe to predict the lens to be smaller than the FE 24-70 F4 OSS sibling...

Hope this is of any help...

Best regards,
Pedro

 NumberOne's gear list:NumberOne's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Sony FE 35mm F2.8 Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +13 more
RonFrank
RonFrank Senior Member • Posts: 2,130
Re: FE 16-35mm f4 UW zoom

abortabort wrote:

Nah it will be smaller than the 17-40mm. Look at the 24-70mm OSS FE vs Canon 24-70mm f4 IS L as a guide to the size difference.

There are many things that go into the size/weight of a lens. If you compare the Sony 24-70mm f4 to the Canon 24-70mm f4 you discover the Canon is a bit thicker, a bit shorter, and a bit heaver.

Canon 24-70mm f4L IS USM * 3.28 x 3.66" * 1.32lbs * 77mm front

Sony 24-70mm f4 * 2.87 x 3.72 * 15.17oz * 67mm front

The Canon has a bigger front element, and more glass involved (15/12 vs 12/10).  It would be interesting to compare these lenses side by side.  Canon retails for $1499 vs $1298 Sony.  These lenses are more alike than not, but obviously the Sony is designed to be as light and small as possible where the Canon is likely performance driven vs weight.  Still when the rubber hits the road the lenses are 4oz difference in weight, and .4 inches wider Canon and .07 inches longer Sony.

When your running around in the woods does the few oz weight difference make a big difference?  Sony can not make their lenses physically smaller as there is the whole bothersome physics thing.  Basically these two systems are more alike than different.  You may save a few ozs of weight on the body, but size wise the lenses are comparable.  In fact Canon/Nikon could build a lighter lens. A Canon Rebel DSLR is 18.2 oz and a A7 is 14.6oz.  A FF Canon is 1.9 lbs so close to a lbs heavier.

Manufactures of DSLRs could work hard on making their cameras light but I do not see that happening.  But imagine how long it will take NikCan to make a mirrorless camera.... not more than a year or two. Nikon already has a kickarse mirrorless focus, they both have a ton of lenses.... interesting times we live in.

 RonFrank's gear list:RonFrank's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D200 Nikon D300S Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads