Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
Fred, looking at your photo takes me away from the windy, cold rainy day I see outside my deck to a world of warm, humid tropical breezes. Exactly the type of emotion a great photo generates. Really nice !.
AGeoJO wrote:
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....Show more →
Hi Joshua.... Yep so far it looks to be an awesome lens and it handles just great on my new a7rII.
I just checked the dxo test of the lens, and their measurements for MPix (level of detail) agrees with my finding of it being a bit soft at 35mm and f/4.0:
... so I wont stress out about whether I have a bum copy of it or not. My copy looks plenty sharp at 28 mm wide open, and I have a FE 35mm f/1.4 to cover the 35 mm, so I'm golden. As you might have guessed by now, the EF 11-24L project is put on hold.
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
Such an awesome shot, Fred. I just love that light. Looking forward to enjoying this lens for sure.
I agree - if you have the means or are just using sony, I would just use the FE 16-35. Unless going for absolutely IQ with a prime, it's going to give you great results in a small package. Now, if only the 24-70 was as good ... sigh.
Thanks for the nice comments guys!
I have tested my FE 16-35/4 and it is very good from f/5.6 until f/8 (16-28mm).
There is a noticeable degradation of micro-contrast at f/11 but it gives good resolution center to corner throughout the entire zoom range.
For landscapes, I try to keep my aperture opening from f/5.6 to f/10 whenever possible and focus stack if needed.
At 35mm, I found that f/8-11 is the best aperture range for the extreme corners and at that setting, I get similar results when compared to the lower FL range.
Best,
Fred
I was all set to get the Sony 16-35 f/4 until I started seeing it compared directly to the Batis 25mm and the difference is not subtle. Yes, we are talking zooms vs. primes of course. I just can't go for the zoom after seeing the difference.
I own the Canon 16-35 f/4 and I find it to be very sharp corner to corner and from what I can see sharper than the Sony. I'd be willing to bet a Canon 16-35 f/4 on a 5DSR would be much sharper than a Sony 16-35 on a A7R II.
I recently found a post comparing a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II on a Canon 5DSR and a Sony A7RII. I thought the differences would be subtle or hard to detect. I was very wrong. The Sony looked downright blurry in comparison.
I also did a little math/educated guessing using the DXO mark scores that are already published.
I anticipate the P-MP score of the Canon 5DSR/16-35 combo to be roughly 34MP. I anticipate the Sony on a A7RII using a Sony 16-35 FE lens to come in around 18-19 P-MP.
The fact is you are just going to get a lot more resolution using the Canon combo than the Sony combo.
Of course the Sony has many other advantages but sheer resolution is not one of them.
Moroni wrote:
I recently found a post comparing a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II on a Canon 5DSR and a Sony A7RII. I thought the differences would be subtle or hard to detect. I was very wrong. The Sony looked downright blurry in comparison.
Brian, were you comparing the exact same lens, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark II on the 5DsR and Sony A7r II and you came to that conclusion? Or were you comparing the results of that Canon lens on the 5Ds R with those of the Sony 24-70mm f/4 on the A7r II? I have been using that Canon lens on the Sony A7r II and I am truly impressed with the results.
AGeoJO wrote:
Brian, were you comparing the exact same lens, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 Mark II on the 5DsR and Sony A7r II and you came to that conclusion? Or were you comparing the results of that Canon lens on the 5Ds R with those of the Sony 24-70mm f/4 on the A7r II? I have been using that Canon lens on the Sony A7r II and I am truly impressed with the results.
I'll see if I can find the post. Yes, it was the exact same lens on both bodies.
-Brian
Aug 23, 2015 at 02:52 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Moroni wrote:
I also did a little math/educated guessing using the DXO mark scores that are already published.
I anticipate the P-MP score of the Canon 5DSR/16-35 combo to be roughly 34MP. I anticipate the Sony on a A7RII using a Sony 16-35 FE lens to come in around 18-19 P-MP.
The fact is you are just going to get a lot more resolution using the Canon combo than the Sony combo.
Of course the Sony has many other advantages but sheer resolution is not one of them.
-Brian
Of course the Canon combo is going to have more resolution. The sensor has a bit more resolution and the lens has a bit more resolution. I won't hazard a guess what they will be at DXO, but I couldn't care less. I won't use a wide angle shooting things 3 feet a way (which is about what they do in there test) and the P-MP measure, IMO, isn't very useful even if they tested it at a reasonable distance. Still you are right that the Canon combo will have more resolution.
The Sony combo will have more dynamic range, however, which will matter to some folks. It will also be quite a bit smaller, which will also matter to some folks. So there are good choices and both systems will be quite nice.
I attached a side by side comparison of a few crops from the images. All I did was open the RAWs, turned the noise and sharpening to zero, and resized the 5DSR image. Obviously the lightening, framing, etc. is not identical but I think its a valid comparison overall. Not perfect or ideal of course.
As you can see the amount of detail the Canon/Canon combo produces is very noticeable compared to the Sony. I was thinking the differences would be much smaller especially considering the only variable is the sensor and adapter. Perhaps the adapter is the issue? Regardless, I personally would not be happy using the 24-70 Canon lens on the Sony.
IMO, the difference is not subtle. This image combined with a few examples led to my decision to not use Canon lens on the Sony A7R II. I think the adapter is affecting IQ more than most realize.
Moroni wrote:
I also did a little math/educated guessing using the DXO mark scores that are already published.
I anticipate the P-MP score of the Canon 5DSR/16-35 combo to be roughly 34MP. I anticipate the Sony on a A7RII using a Sony 16-35 FE lens to come in around 18-19 P-MP.
The fact is you are just going to get a lot more resolution using the Canon combo than the Sony combo.
Of course the Sony has many other advantages but sheer resolution is not one of them.
-Brian
That would be something to see! I haven't seen many wide angles hit the 20s on DXO. in fact, I think I've only seen one. Probably just the nature of wides. Personally, I don't think your predictions will hold. The numbers will be lower, much lower in the case of the Canon combos.
16-35FE appeals to those who don't want to adapt lenses. I know there are sharper lenses, but this lens provides a great combo of convenience and performance.
Aug 23, 2015 at 07:34 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I attached a side by side comparison of a few crops from the images. All I did was open the RAWs, turned the noise and sharpening to zero, and resized the 5DSR image. Obviously the lightening, framing, etc. is not identical but I think its a valid comparison overall. Not perfect or ideal of course.
As you can see the amount of detail the Canon/Canon combo produces is very noticeable compared to the Sony. I was thinking the differences would be much smaller especially considering the only variable is the sensor and adapter. Perhaps the adapter is the issue? Regardless, I personally would not be happy using the 24-70 Canon lens on the Sony.
IMO, the difference is not subtle. This image combined with a few examples led to my decision to not use Canon lens on the Sony A7R II. I think the adapter is affecting IQ more than most realize.
Why are the exposures so different in these tests? Did they explain? The first two the Sony is more exposed by quite a bit and the second two the Canon is quite a bit more exposed. Did they say what adapter was used? My own view is making a decision from any one test, unless it is with your own gear, is probably not collecting enough information. There are just too many things that can't be held constant with such a test, but YMMV.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the nice comments guys!
I have tested my FE 16-35/4 and it is very good from f/5.6 until f/8 (16-28mm).
There is a noticeable degradation of micro-contrast at f/11 but it gives good resolution center to corner throughout the entire zoom range.
For landscapes, I try to keep my aperture opening from f/5.6 to f/10 whenever possible and focus stack if needed.
At 35mm, I found that f/8-11 is the best aperture range for the extreme corners and at that setting, I get similar results when compared to the lower FL range.
Best,
Fred
Is it a keeper Fred? I just ordered this lens as part of my new kit and hoping I made the right decision
Dan Bellyk wrote:
Is it a keeper Fred? I just ordered this lens as part of my new kit and hoping I made the right decision
It's definitely a keeper. I already knew it had decent IQ from 16-24mm because of the tests I did against my TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm primes. It does not quite match the extreme edges but it's not much behind and that is of course expectable. I'm comparing it against the best prime lenses out there...
35mm seems a little weak on the edges "wide open" but for those interested, I just tested the FE 16-35/4 against the FE 35/2.8 prime @35mm. The prime has excellent optical quality from f/5.6 until f/8. (center and corner) The zoom came very close at f/5.6 and both are pretty much equal at f/8 and beyond. (from center to extreme edges)
I was surprised to see the zoom performance at 35mm being neck to neck to the prime at infinity focus at smaller apertures.
I would not hesitate to shoot with the zoom at 35mm instead of the prime for landscape photography from f/8 to f/11.
I was surprised that the FE 24-70/4 IQ was so inferior when compared to the 16-35/4. I hope Sony has a replacement soon or perhaps a f/2.8 version.
I just purchased the small CV 15 f/4.5 III and will test it against the FE 16-35/4 as well.
