Photokina 2014 – Sony first impression – FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA – some RAW samples for download
I promised to add some RAW files taken with Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Vario-Tessar T* and A7r for download. Please note, that the conditions were more than difficult, low lighting, lot of people around, no good target, possible miss focusing (I used manual focus on Sony sign in the middle of the frame) etc. But despite those problems, I think that you will be able to judge the lens performance to certain extent. Things like CA, PF, SA, Coma etc. should be visible from those samples too.
Don’t forget that at longer focal lengths, DOF changes too and thus corners might fall slightly off DOF. From my initial observation, it looks that lens performs better at wider end 16-24mm, but that is most probably due to the difference in DOF.
Bellow each image, you will find the link to download particular RAW file. Images bellow are slightly corrected in pp, mainly for exposure and white balance. There is no profile for the lens in LR 5.6 yet, so CA, vignetting etc. were not corrected. Anyway, you can open originals and see them for yourself.
16mm at f/4
Original RAW file – https://www.dropbox.com/s/oaoxucct1fw775r/Sony_FE_1635_f4_16mm.arw?dl=0
20mm (19 to be correct) f/4
Original RAW file – https://www.dropbox.com/s/w1a90jf6wlnc402/Sony_FE_1635_f4_19mm.arw?dl=0
24mm f/4
Original RAW file – https://www.dropbox.com/s/81et9kptmslfaw5/Sony_FE_1635_f4_24mm.arw?dl=0
Original RAW file – https://www.dropbox.com/s/yutz7fm0jj1mtdl/Sony_FE_1635_f4_28mm.arw?dl=0
Original RAW file – https://www.dropbox.com/s/xiqahtcllzrhiaq/Sony_FE_1635_f4_35mm.arw?dl=0
Please, do not share those files without my permission!
If you ask me, I would most probably allow you to do so, asking just to add the author and source as a reference.
When I was on the Sony stand, I borrowed also Sony Vario-Sonnar T* 16-35 mm F2,8 ZA SSM and tried to make brief comparison. Of course, having no tripod, nor proper testing subject, this comparison doesn’t have great value, but it stills show the lens performance tendency, especially in the corners and also some more pronounced aberrations.
Here are few screen shots from LR 5.6 comparing different 100% crops at 16mm
I don’t know if the cause of worse performance of SAL 16-35 Sonnar lens has something to do with a Sony A7r sensor protective glass (you can reads more about it here – http://www.verybiglobo.com/photokina-2014-zeiss-loxia-story/) or something else, but corner smearing is much more pronounced. What you might also notice, with Sal 16-35mm lens, exposure was 1 EV slower (ISO 500 vs ISO 1000) at same f-stop. Part of the reason for it lays in the LA-EA4 translucent mirror, but that should be only 1/3rd-1/2 of the EV. In a conclusion I would expect new Sony FE 16-35 f/4 OSS ZA to have good light transmission. (T)
I would appreciate if you leave your thoughts and/or comments bellow the article, or even better in the forum section.
I’d love to start that forum as an alternative place for talking about legacy lenses and Sony cameras mainly.
Please help support this page and upcomming reviews and buy through affiliate links, with no extra cost for you:
Buy on BHPhoto: Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens
Buy on Amazon: Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens
To help this page survive, your donation will be highly appreciated.
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
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.
Cheers,
Viktor
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.
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.
See:
http://store.sony.com/SNYNA_27/pimg/pSNYNA-SEL1635Z_alternate3_v786.png
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
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.
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.
Hi Martin,
I agree. It seems that lens is very good, particullary at the wider end, which for me is more important side of that zoom.
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 – http://philipbloom.net
Cheers,
Viktor