Photokina 2014 – Sony first impression – FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA – some RAW samples for download

You may also like...

17 Responses

  1. Everett says:

    THX for the brief review of the 16-35 f4. I was reluctant to buy the f2.8 version until the f4 arrives. Having 2.8 is nice but not at the expense if smearing. Also the OSS doesn’t work on A7 series of bodies.

    A comparisons of the 70-200 f2.8 vs f4 would be nice too.

    Everett Woo

    • Pete says:

      Hi Everett, why doesn’t the OSS work on the A7, that lens is made for the A7 FF series, could you explain?

      • Hi Pete,
        I am not sure if Everett will see your question, so let me answer instead. He was talking about Sal 16-35 ZA f/2.8 which is kens made in A mount for Sony transluscent (and previously DSLR) cameras such as A99, A77 etc. Those cameras have stabilized sensors and thus don’t need stabilized lenses. Everett said that putting SAL 16-36/2.8 ZA on Sony A7, with LA-EA 3 or LA-EA4 will result in lack of image stabilization. New Sony FE 16-35/4 has OSS and thus stabilization will work on any Sony E mount camera, including A7/r/s of course.

  2. Thanks for comment Woo. I am working on FE 70-200 f/4 review but comparing it with 70-200 /2.8 L II from Canon. I don’t have Sony version 🙁 First part of the review is on te blog already.

  3. Robert says:

    Looking at the MTF charts in the official catalogue of Sony, it should not surprise that the FE 16-35 performs better at the wider end.


    • Hi Robert and thx for the comment. It is definetly possible what Sony shows in their theoretical MTF figures, but as I wrote, my results differ most probably because of the DOF differences. It is also good to know that mtf figures are related to certain focus distance and with zoom lens that distance might vary too. Optical results at other focus distances than peak one, might be significantly different. When you judge Imatest based results e.g. you should know that they usually refer to close to minimum focus distance (because charts are rather small) and in a real life, lens can behave and perform quite differently.Theoretical charts are always related to callibrated focus distance where the lens has best performance. But almost never that distance is mentioned in the test.

      In this case, it seems that reality will go well with theory 🙂

      Regards, Viktor

  4. Tom says:

    It does indeed look a bit better than some feared, based on the MTFs. I the corners tighten up further at f5.6-f8, they will have a very popular lens here that may go some way to restore faith in Sony’s ability to produce zooms worth their salt on the A7R. I tested a bunch of legacy lenses on my site and, while some were very good, you cannot beat a native lens for flexibility and ease of use.

    • Thanks for the comment Tom. I agree about flexibility and ease of use of the native lenses, but I also like the aberration derivate character of the old ones, depending on the purpose. But WA and UWA older legacy lenses are usually far behind their modern versions, and because they are often used for landscape photography, where technical perfection is part of the game (not always of course), there were a big hole in Sony FE setup. FE 1635/4 so far seems to be very good and I am looking forward to make a proper field test.

  5. Martin says:

    Thanks for the RAWs. I must say, I am actually quite impressed…. to my eye there’s not a whole load of distortion, decent detail across the frame, and the centre half looks pretty sharp (mostly talking about the 19mm image I just looked at).

    Food for thought.

  6. shin mzinger says:

    hi Viktor have a question.
    I’m not a geek lens but I can notice the quality of that glass and my question is, would you recommend this lens to pair my sony nex fs 100? I do some weddings and quinceaneras and pretty much shooting at night, I just want to take advantage of the camera and a good…. good lense.

    • Hi Shin,
      It is always hard to advice someone not knowing better his/her needs. From my initial impression on Photokina, I would say that FE 16-35 is rather designed as a landscape still camera lens, than video lens. One of its drawbacks is relatively slow aperture for night video, the other would be focus by wire. Don’t get me wrong, I expect it (I am waiting for my copy, but it seems that in Europe, we will have to wait a bit longer) to be very good optically, especially on the wide side. For video though, I would probably look also elsewhere, before you make final decision. If you want AF, there are not many zoom options – probably only those f/2.8 A-mount options, including 16-35/2.8 ZA or similar Tamron, Sigma offers (to cover wide end and have better speed), but LA-EA4 will eat some of the light, so it’s really though decision. If you don’t need AF, there are more third party and legacy options via adapter.
      You might also try to ask some more video oriented guys – such as Philip Blooms –

  1. September 20, 2014

    […] VeryBigLobo is so kind to share the first RAW file 16-35mm samples freely for download. He also made a quick comparison with the A-mount 16-35mm and says the A-mount lens performed worse and has more smearing on corners. But take such conclusion with a grain of salt. You need proper time and location to make a fair comparison. […]

  2. September 21, 2014

    […] verybiglobo added the first impression in Sony FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA , by tested on Photokina 2014. […]

  3. September 21, 2014

    […] Re: Sony 16-35mm f4 FE samples RAW Files – look pretty good given the shooting conditions, even at F4 Photokina 2014 – Sony first impression – FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA – some RAW samples fo… […]

  4. October 7, 2014

    […] Sample shots with a Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Vario-Tessar T* and Sony A7r, with original RAW files for download.  […]

  5. June 14, 2015

    […] were among first reviewers to post full res samples from Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Vario-Tessar T* lens announced just before Photokina […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.