While not a perfect controlled study, last night I had the FE16-35/4 out along with the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 and 15/2.8. While I realize the compositions are not exactly the same, it appears that the FE16-35 holds up quite well against the primes . . . enough so that I start to think the unthinkable . . . whether I need to keep the primes!
Dec 25, 2014 at 06:50 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
rji2goleez wrote:
While not a perfect controlled study, last night I had the FE16-35/4 out along with the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 and 15/2.8. While I realize the compositions are not exactly the same, it appears that the FE16-35 holds up quite well against the primes . . . enough so that I start to think the unthinkable . . . whether I need to keep the primes!
Bob, I do really like the 16-35 f/4 shots, but I can see that that just a tiny bit better performance from the primes. Before I paid attention to the fact you were shooting the zoom and the primes (and thinking you were just shooting the zoom) I preferred the 2nd and 4th one. I think it is particularly in the excellent control of coma, where the primes give you that just a bit extra in these shots.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Bob, I do really like the 16-35 f/4 shots, but I can see that that just a tiny bit better performance from the primes. Before I paid attention to the fact you were shooting the zoom and the primes (and thinking you were just shooting the zoom) I preferred the 2nd and 4th one. I think it is particularly in the excellent control of coma, where the primes give you that just a bit extra in these shots.
I agree with you but I start to wonder if the difference is worth the investment. Sure, pixel peeping should go in favor of the prime and I wouldn't expect a different outcome but the difference seems small.
Bob, thanks for the comparison. But you didn't expect to see that much difference, if any at those aperture settings from those lenses, did you?
Probably not. Certainly, this was not meant to be conclusive test but a comparison using settings I typically use when shooting wide, on a tripod and at night. Wide open, I would expect a bigger difference possibly.
Last night, I also took out the FE70-200/4 and captured some Minneapolis skyline shots looking down the Mississippi River. It was the first time using this lens on a tripod.
Bob,your pictures show minor,if any,differences between the 16-35/4 and the mighty two i.e. 21/2.8 and 15/2.8.From now on choosing between them will be more complicated
The difference is quite visible in the starburst of the lights. Somehow, those generated by the Zeiss 15mm are more clearly defined. Not that it matters much but quite noticeable even in the small web sized images. BTW, I noticed that character of starburst rendition in the Sony 24-70mm f/4 lens, as well.
I like Bob's shots, but they are at f10, probably not a great aperture to compare lenses at and the scene doesn't contain a lot of fine details. I see more distortion in the wide end of the zoom which is only at 18mm. Big difference in AOV to the 15mm. Starbursts are nicer with the primes too.
Thanks for all your comments. I'll work on finding something with more detail. I wanted to first focus on a typical subject that I actually shoot at the settings I usually shoot them. I was interested in seeing the difference in star patterns at smaller apertures since the FE16-35/4 shows small star patterns already when WO. Also, the zoom displays a different star pattern than the Distagons, one I rather like where each 'star point' comes in pairs.
)
