I have been trying to figure out based on various tests which lens has the best IQ. I got both so I figured I'd take a few test shots. After it's all set and done, the Canon has slightly better IQ in my eyes and with my copies. Both lenses are by far the weakest at 35mm.
However, you will get excellent shots with either. Plus the sony is a lot smaller/lighter once you account for the metabones adapter. Plus the AF, even on my A7R, is worlds better. Since I also have both the 17 and 24 TSEs, I am leaning toward keeping the Sony.
Anyway, about the test:
- Sony A7R @ ISO 100
- I set the white balance the same on both - the Sony comes out of the camera cooler
- I tried to set the exposure the same. The Sony exposes about 1/3 stop darker in AV mode
- No other adjustments
- All shots at f8. I used 14.4x zoom to manually AF.
- Tripod w/ 10 sec counter.
Nice comparison, thanks. Surprising the Canon comes in sharper than the Sony at 16mm considering it's mounted on an adapter that is known to have corner sharpness issues at the wide end. I wonder if the Canon would fare even better vs the Sony on a native mount.
I came to the same conclusion when I compared the two. The center sharpness of the Sony is really good though. However, both had to concede to the Canon 11-24mm lens .
Adam, it is ironic that you mentioned that. Although the center performance is approximately the same, but the corner performance of the 16-35mm lens on a Canon body turned out to be even better. Let me put it this way, the sharpness is more evenly distributed across the frame rather than just saying "better". The same goes for my Zeiss 15mm ZE that I already sold. However, I fully realize that the comparison was done using two different bodies, having two different MP counts. So, it is more relative rather than absolute.
dgdg wrote:
Looks pretty even across the board unless you have your nose up to the image.
David
I agree 100%. Both of these lenses are excellent.
After some more thought, I'll probably keep the Canon and sell the Sony. While the size/AF advantage is there, my other landscape oriented lenses are Canon. If I keep the Sony, I need a second L-bracket. Additionally, I'll probably always bring a metabones adapter which significantly reduces the size advantage of the Sony. I don't need AF at 16mm.
snapsy wrote:
Nice comparison, thanks. Surprising the Canon comes in sharper than the Sony at 16mm considering it's mounted on an adapter that is known to have corner sharpness issues at the wide end. I wonder if the Canon would fare even better vs the Sony on a native mount.
The adapter won't have consistent corner sharpness issues; optically it's just a tube. The question mark is around small differences in alignment which will vary from unit to unit and may - or may not - affect the corners or some corner.
snapsy wrote:
Nice comparison, thanks. Surprising the Canon comes in sharper than the Sony at 16mm considering it's mounted on an adapter that is known to have corner sharpness issues at the wide end. I wonder if the Canon would fare even better vs the Sony on a native mount.
The adapter won't have consistent corner sharpness issues; optically it's just a tube. The question mark is around small differences in alignment which will vary from unit to unit and may - or may not - affect the corners or some corner.
DavidBM wrote:
The adapter won't have consistent corner sharpness issues; optically it's just a tube. The question mark is around small differences in alignment which will vary from unit to unit and may - or may not - affect the corners or some corner.
Agreed, but with most copies showing some level of alignment issues the net result is the same.
DavidBM wrote:
The adapter won't have consistent corner sharpness issues; optically it's just a tube. The question mark is around small differences in alignment which will vary from unit to unit and may - or may not - affect the corners or some corner.
You will be surprised how much of a role the thickness of the adapter would play a role in the final result. To a certain degree, the effect is similar to that of modification of the stack thickness on the A7 series. The corners would be more effected than the center.
It might be a strange issue to raise but which do you prefer for photographic impact, of the kind one might hope to see in images within the typical use cases of such lenses? This would be paramount in my book, particularly given the even steven nature of 'sharpness' testing results presented here. Other apertures would help too, f5.6 and f11.
FYI - I bought this adapter second hand. Supposedly it was the best out of 3 at a store. It has the lining on the inside and is a version III. I don't notice any decentering on this particular bracket.
Philip, I choice f8 as for landscapes I'm not likely to go too far below that (i.e. 5.6). Perhaps at 16mm but I had to be pretty carefully at 24mm and 35mm to get everything into focus at f8. At f11+, the results will be more muted as defraction sets in. When trying to take these shots, I definitely began to appreciate the tilt more on my 24mm TSE than I did before.
I should also say I love MFing on the A7R... so easy with the depth of field always showing and the LCD bright.
I've been using my 16-35 f4 for a few months and every time I use it it's better and better. One thing I have noticed is that 32mm, 25mm 21mm at 18mm are very sweet spots on this lens. I agree that the test should also be done at F8.
Schlotkins wrote:
I agree 100%. Both of these lenses are excellent.
After some more thought, I'll probably keep the Canon and sell the Sony. While the size/AF advantage is there, my other landscape oriented lenses are Canon. If I keep the Sony, I need a second L-bracket. Additionally, I'll probably always bring a metabones adapter which significantly reduces the size advantage of the Sony. I don't need AF at 16mm.
Chris
I hear you. I only have one native Sony, a practical walk around 35mm FE lens. It's nice for family snapshots and times when I'm not planning to take other photos. Otherwise, I use my Canon lenses.
To me It appears to me that the Canon is the best all around performer and that the only thing holding it back are the Canon bodies used for testing its sharpness.
So I decided to go ahead and buy the FE 16-35. Sharpness is very impressive at the wide end, but we all knew that, so I was more interested in checking out the lens at 35 mm myself. I would say it is a touch soft at 35 mm @ f/4.0 even at the center, but it is nice and sharp already at f/5.0, so I'll just have to make a mental note of that. In other words I don't need to close it down a full stop (at f/5.6) in order to get it sharp at 35 mm. Good enough for me.
I hope that is in line with what is expected by the lens.
In the event that I should ever pick up the Sony body, it's nice to see how much diff there is (and isn't) between the Canon vs. Sony. In other words, I won't feel compelled to switch lenses to the Sony.
The comment made about "even sharpness" across the frame reminds me a bit of comparing the wide Oly's vs. Nikons (particularly the OM 28/2.8 vs. AIS 28/2.8 vs. C/Y 28/2.8). The choices a mfr makes in terms of where to "distribute" the sharpness can range from centric favoring (Nikon) vs. entire frame favoring (Oly) ...which inherently reduces the appearance of sharpness in the center when directly compared to a centric favoring lens.
Seeing the Sony with some slight advantage in Zone A, about even in Zone B, and slightly less in Zone C ... suggests that Sony has give a slight favor towards the center, but not so much that Zone C is a bust. The Canon, otoh gets Zone C, but not at a huge reduction in Zone A either.
I could likely live with either the Canon or the Sony (pref to across the frame distribution of Canon). Although, I do still choose between the Oly vs. the Nikon depending on whether I'm shooting full frame scene (Oly) or centric subject (Nikon) images. However, the diff between the Oly vs. Nikon is much greater than the diff between the comps presented here.
Stoffer wrote:
So I decided to go ahead and buy the FE 16-35. Sharpness is very impressive at the wide end, but we all knew that, so I was more interested in checking out the lens at 35 mm myself. I would say it is a touch soft at 35 mm @ f/4.0 even at the center, but it is nice and sharp already at f/5.0, so I'll just have to make a mental note of that. In other words I don't need to close it down a full stop (at f/5.6) in order to get it sharp at 35 mm. Good enough for me.
I hope that is in line with what is expected by the lens. ...Show more →
Nils, I used my Sony FE 16-35mm a lot during a recent extended trip. The performance throughout the zoom range is better than I anticipated. A few times, I used it at 35mm end at wide open and it did perform splendidly. Please note that mine is a second copy that Sony replaced for me. The first one had some serious decentering issues that Sony didn't bother to fix. It was that bad. The second copy is awesome. What I am trying to say is there is a copy-to-copy variation and as long as you get a good copy, it will deliver.
I have used my FE 16-35 on a couple extended trips and have been very pleased with the results. I've used it both for street photos and landscapes, printed some to 24x36 and am pleased with the prints. I don't notice any softness in my prints.
When not carrying my big TS-E lenses and Lee filters, I am making life simpler by shooting with one lens and it's the FE 16-35/4 and a variable ND filter. I just got back from Puerto Vallarta and here is a picture I took at the beach right by the hotel. (At 17mm f/10).
It does not approach the TS-E lenses IQ regarding vignetting, distortion and CA control but it's a zoom lens with few compromises.
. 
