Steve Spencer Online Upload & Sell: On
|
kosmoskatten wrote:
I would venture to guess that the WATE does perform slightly differently on the A7/r/s.
If it performs best on the A7s I would not consider it since I am not happy with a 12MP camera for my own use. If I had both the A7r and the A7s I would not want to restrict such a useful lens to the lowest resolution option.
Also, the price difference is not insignificant - it is rather HUGE. There is a chance that the FE 16-35 will perform better, especially at wider apertures, and that they will be equal at stopped down. For a native lens that has AF, optical stabilization and equal performance - or even better - for a considerably lesser price tag seems a no brainer to me. The form factor of the WATE is excellent but no matter how you swing it you are paying a whole lot of money for a smaller lens that might not even be better. You could get the A7r AND the FE 16-35 lens and even have money left to buy an A7s... ...that is the price difference we are talking here.
Judging by the samples so far from the FE lens it does seem to be excellent even at wide apertures and a viable work horse for the A7 series. Even at that size.
Close focus on the FE is 28cm / 0.28m vs 50cm / 0.5m on the WATE, or 11 inches vs 20 inches. Maybe no too important for some but quite a difference there too.
Let's not forget that in that larger form factor the FE also goes to 35mm. Between 21 and 35mm there is a whole lot of useful range and the option would be to crop the WATE if we are comparing lens against lens for practical use and that would throw away even more resolution of course.
I could not imagine being in such a hurry that I would have to shell out five large ones for a lens that might be surpassed on my platform for a so much less it would be painful.
I would not even consider purchasing the WATE unless I also had an M240 or any other recent M camera, a lens that does double duty on several platforms is much easier to justify. I love (except the price tag) the WATE but even if they were equal performers on the A7 series I can't see myself parting with both one arm and one leg for it.
If I did that I would really need that OIS... ...Show more →
When I look at Rich's position, however, he already has the Contax Zeiss C/Y mount 21 f/2.8. There is very little question that is an excellent lens (and he finds it so), but he wants to move away from it because he finds it too large. Well the FE mount 16-35 f/4 is actually a larger lens. So, in this case, I don't see how the new Sony/Zeiss zoom makes sense. Even if it turns out to be excellent, it seems very likely that Rich will also find the lens too large. We all have different tolerances for size vs. performance, but I am betting if someone isn't happy with the Zeiss C/Y 21 f/2.8 because it is too large and it performance wasn't good enough to make up for the size, then they won't find the performance of the FE 16-35 to be good enough to make up for its size either.
Reasonable people can certainly disagree about that, however, and I can see why kosmoskatten would like the new zoom. What he says is very sensible. My own guess, and it is only a guess at this point, is that the WATE will be only a small amount better than the FE zoom, but I think it will still hold an attraction to some because what we do know is that the FE zoom will be three times the size of the WATE. So, if you want something smaller then the WATE is the only thing for now. I do have hope that Zeiss will come out with a 18 f/4 and/or a 21 f/2.8 Loxia, which ought to be close to the WATE in size (the ZM version are very close in size), at least equal in performance, and much less expensive in price. I see these lenses as a good potential alternative for Rich, but they haven't even been announced yet and likely would not be available for well over a year. So for now if you want very good performance, ultra wide angle and smaller than the C/Y Zeiss 21, then the WATE is the way to go, and I think you will be waiting quite awhile if you wait.
|