Sony 16-35mm F/28 Za Ssm Vario-sonnar T* Lens Review
reviews constitute: 57 i 2 >>
 minfansony #29668 date: Aug-23-2016 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 Tamron 28-70mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | £1,600 |
| positive: | Sharpness when stopped down Colours Zoom range |
| negative: | Distortion Flare Build OK but the rubber bits become dirty speedily Heavy vignetting wide open |
| annotate: | This lens has being my workhorse for the past 8 years and taken 1,000's of pictures from landscapes to oil refineries, overnight fourth dimension lapse outdoors. Its my go to lens, only love the colours this lens produces and the sharpness once you terminate downwards. Does have vignetting and soft edges wide open, but virtually 16mm lenses practise. Had to take the lens serviced due to the focusing band locking, but works fine at present, although autofocusing is having a few issues, non a problem with focus peaking on the A7R. Would like to invest in the Marking 2 version presently, only demand to kickoff saving. Just a shame it flares and so badly with the lord's day in shot, but yous just have to work around. |
; 36MP| op1318 #25494 date: Feb-13-2016 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: four.5 | tested on:
|
| buying: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-35 f:2.8-four Zeiss 16-80 f:iii.5-four.5 Tamron 28-75 f:2.8 |
| price paid: | 900 EUROS (used) |
| positive: | • Sharpness • Colors • Build • Overall image quality |
| negative: | • Price • Strong vignetting |
| comment: | Fist, I take to say that I did not purchase this lens before because I found information technology besides expensive for a wide bending zoom. I don't know why but I discover it easier to invest a lot of money in a telephoto lens than in a wide angle… Just since 2010, when I bought my first full frame digital SLR, I have not been happy with all the super wide bending zooms I have tested. For many years, I have been mostly relying on my old Sigma 17-35 which I plant less than satisfying. Finally, I found the Zeiss 16-35 f:2.8 in very adept condition at an attractive price, so I bought it. And I tin now say that information technology is exactly the lens I wanted. The colors are very pleasing, very natural. The build quality is nice and the lens feels well balanced on a FF trunk like the A900. I find this lens to be very sharp. I rate it four.5 but considering the extreme corners of the image remain soft from 16 to 24mm only I have to say that fifty-fifty those "soft" extreme corners are considerably sharper than with the Sigma 17-35 mentioned above. The lens suffers of some very strong vignetting but fortunately, it is easily corrected in Lightroom. I try many lenses, buy some, sell some, and I immediately know when I find the "right one" for me. A lens that makes me want to shoot, a lens that makes me want to endeavor new things. And this i is definitely a keeper! |
| glassesofwater #13218 date: Apr-iii-2015 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| buying: | I ain this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 24mm Zeiss ZM 50/two Planar Zeiss 80/ii.8 Planar (MF) |
| price paid: | ~R$iii.000 |
| positive: | Sharpness from 16-28mm Incredible build SSM focusing Zeiss colors Microcontrast |
| negative: | Sharpness @ 35mm expensive? The dust-magnet rubber used on the zoom and focus band |
| annotate: | I shoot mainly portraits - be it street photography, something forth the lines of photojournalism and concerts. To continue it simple, this kind of photography normally involves getting actually close to your subject, getting it really abrupt, while having to evidence the surround with just the correct amount of blur. This lens, imho, is the perfect tool for this kind of job. This is my go-to lens when I know I will be walking into tight places, be it a huge oversupply or exist information technology a cramped hall. It is likewise my favourite lens. Sharpness-wise, it is a cracking performer in Full Frame in the sixteen-28 range. That translates to the usual words that announced when you lot're talking about Zeiss drinking glass: "microcontrast" "3D look" "great clarity" "great contrast" "smooth transition from in focus areas to out of focus areas". You don't actually have to stop it down in this range to get groovy results. As far as my testing goes, f/4 or f/five.6 is usually more than plenty to get the corners on par with the centre. The colors are just what you would expect from Zeiss - neutral. I've elected Zeiss color rendering as my standard for photography - it is, like people put it, "clinical". It renders almost like my ZM Planar or the Zeiss eighty/2.8 Planar that I have on my Rolleiflex. For me, it doesn't get any better than this. As far as the build and my ane-year experience with information technology goes, it is built like a tank. Equally a photographer that does well-nigh of his work in the streets, I enjoy existence as hassle free as I possibly can, and so that means that I button my gear pretty difficult to some boundaries that would brand some photographers weep. This lens, while in my possession, has faced a lot of stuff, from tropical downpours, coloured dust in holi festivals and tear gas in some riots without a single hint of it wanting to fail or dust in the heart elements. I exercise know that information technology is not advertised equally existence weather sealed, simply, equally far as my experience goes, it tin can handle itself pretty well in the nigh adverse conditions even without any protection. It also has survived a 2+ meter fall on a concrete flooring in the center of headbang-charged hardcore prove when someone gave me a headbutt on my hand. The effect was a slightly bent filter band that I didn't bother to try to fix since I actually don't care most filters for my work. The only matter that I don't like about it is the prophylactic used on the focus and zoom ring, which is a PIA to clean up. This lens has baloney control on par with its other-brand equivalents. It is noticeable, just I don't actually care about it, since it is a non-concern to my work. If you are looking for a distortion free lens for applications where this is a must, you lot meliorate look elsewhere, though. Flare command is bully for a lens of this class. Simply, equally with any wide-angle lens, if you're not careful with your framing, y'all volition have some flare problems. Still, this is way better than what I'yard used with the Minolta AF 24mm. I can't recommend this lens enough. It may be expensive, but it is built to concluding, has great optical qualities and also has a great range that may have a great entreatment to people who want to bring that "I was there" experience to their pictures like me. |
| maewpa #11911 date: Jul-nineteen-2014 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: iv | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-80 (which is just not comparable) |
| cost paid: | ex. USD 1400 (new) |
| positive: | Sharpness stopped down is excellent Distortion is generally minimal and predictable if you use it correctly (I rated information technology 5, and information technology probably doesn't quite deserve that, only what A-mountain lens is improve, even primes?) Colours and dissimilarity are very pleasing Information technology feels so nice in your hands on a heavy A900, peculiarly with the silent, fast focus Zoom range is neat and at some focal lengths it is as good every bit almost A-mount primes. At all focal lengths it is at least pretty skillful compared to primes. |
| negative: | It can be soft in the corners, specially if you don't stop down enough (duh! Only it tin can exist an issue if y'all want to focus on something lesser foreground) It is heavy The focus hold push button feels tacky compared to everything else It'south expensive and if your budget is stretched and you don't often do what this lens is fabricated for, you lot'd be a fool to purchase information technology. |
| comment: | I've had this lens a few years but never write a review considering I didn't really accept annihilation to compare information technology with. Information technology was an impulse purchase to force me to shoot wide... the shop was out of the 24-seventy! I am an idiot. At first information technology was a bit disappointing, but since my photographs with it keep getting amend and improve I learned that this was mostly me and non the lens. Who knew I was technically such a poor photographer? What I can say about this lens is that information technology sometimes produces photographs that will surprise and please like no other. You lot'll retrieve "How did it do that?" The flare control is excellent (not so great if you lot want to induce flare, but it tin can be done) and I recall distortion is very well controlled indeed (over again not so bang-up if you want funky distortion). I rarely have to right much for that other than when at that place is user error or a situation forces me to shoot too close. Interiors, compages, etc. are where it shines brightest, but it does more than okay every bit a landscape lens and for groups of people. Stop information technology downward enough if you want everything abrupt,please. It'due south like shooting fish in a barrel to say whatever lens is good stopped down, but I call back you will notice that this is amend. |
| Dibok #11900 date: Jul-9-2014 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: 4.v | tested on:
|
| buying: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | ZA2470 Although 24mm on the 1635 is not all that bad, the 2470 does a better job here. This is valid for 35mm also. Both are just slightly above average fully open, but are going to exist excellent when stopped down to f5,6 Sigma 1224 |
| price paid: | 1.200 € new |
| positive: | Very good at 16mm, uniform with normal filters (77mm), low corporeality of CA, moderate vignetting, SSM AF |
| negative: | If at all - its weight (~1kg) |
| comment: | I love landscapes and architecture, so I was always in need of an ultra wide. A mandatory feature is compatibility with standard filters, every bit I similar to play with long exposures at daytime. For a long time the ZA was non available in Germany and close Europe, so I was happy when I institute a retailer having an unused demonstrator in the shelve. :-) The Zeiss is huge and heavy, simply it comes with the capability of delivering fantastic images in terms of colour rendition. Zeiss-typicall information technology has a snappy dissimilarity when stopped downwardly. CA are in near cases a non-issue. |
| Capetown #11550 date: December-twenty-2013 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 12-24 starting time Version zoom Minolta xx 2.viii prime Minolta 28-135 zoom Carl Zeiss Distagon 35 ii.eight prime number Leica R 28 2.eight prime Leica R 35 ii.eight prime |
| price paid: | 1300€ Used |
| positive: | Everything I exercise not use my prime lenses anymore! |
| negative: | Nothing: the price? I miss the Minolta colors |
| annotate: | The Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 16-35mm f2.8 ZA SSM is the best ultra-wide lens since the introduction of the Alpha organization. In fact information technology'due south also ane of just 2 full format ultra-broad zoom lenses for Sony Blastoff available today - the other one is the Sigma AF 12-24mm f3.5-5.6 EX DG HSM or the older version without HSM. The build quality of the Vario-Sonnar is very proficient based on a combination of metallic and high quality plastic parts. At 16mm it is easily among the very best lenses out in that location with an exceptionally high center quality and very good borders. The farthermost corners are skilful at f2.8 - the superlative quality setting at 16mm. Diffraction furnishings aren't noticeable till across f11. The middle quality remains great at all other focal lengths only the border and corner quality needs higher f-numbers. You should cease down to f5.half-dozen to accomplish very practiced results beyond the frame. The 35mm setting is clearly the weak spot with soft borders/corners at f2.eight. For pixelpeepers, stopping down to f/5,half dozen makes sense here. I terms of sharpness in that location are huge differences between the CZ 16-35 and the Sigma 12-24. Ok, the sigma have 122° degrees - only the corners are very very soft at all aperatures (I have iii copys over the years) and therefor there is no advantage for the sigma. Here are some information nigh my copy in case of landscape photography: With minor less quality in the edges Sharp from corner to corner The bokeh at 35mm f2.eight (remember we discuss a ultra wide lens) is very good in my opinion. |
| Jozioau #10879 engagement: Jan-28-2013 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: 5 | tested on:
|
| buying: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | CZ sixteen-80mm Vario-sonar Sigma x-20mm CZ 24-70mm Vario-sonar |
| price paid: | AU$ane,275 store demo |
| positive: | Solid build, fine eyes and coatings, constant f2.viii max aperture, quick and silent SSM focusing without lens extension. |
| negative: | Weight and price, but well counterbalanced on camera bodies full frame a99 or a900 and APSC a77ii or a700, peculiarly with VCG. |
| annotate: | Superbly crafted ultra wide angle lens, comparable in build and optical quality to its sibling the CZ 24-70mm f2.eight. Beautiful epitome quality, natural colour rendering, very sharp, quick to lock focus. Consistent with the other CZ Vario-sonar T* lenses I've used, there's an well-nigh polarizing filter 'zing' about the colours and the images are truly vibrant. Practiced flare command in outdoor sunny atmospheric condition. Slight barrel distortion noticeable on interiors shots at the 16mm end on full frame photographic camera. A good zoom range for architectural photography, besides every bit for sweeping landscapes. On an APSC body the range becomes more of a 'walkabout' 24-52mm equivalent when you need that f2.viii maximum abiding aperture in depression low-cal. A large investment but definitely a keeper. |
| godsakes #10755 date: Dec-4-2012 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sigma 12-24mm Sigma ten-20mm KM 17-35mm Min 24mm |
| cost paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpest of it'southward class Wonderful colour SSM can create not bad sunstars |
| negative: | Heavy every bit hell Cripplingly expensive Suction upshot with filter on |
| comment: | First impressions, at that place'south little uncertainty about in my mind, this is the sharpest of it'south grade, noticeably crisper than information technology'south competition, good even wide open, with decent corners simply non the sharpest lens always (probably should be rated at around 4.25 for sharpness) i.e. it's not going to match the macro lenses but then information technology's unrealistic to expect it to, as if you starting time to compare macro lenses to most UWA lenses the UWA lenses will mostly wait similar mush, the CZ yet appears well-baked. If you lot don't need the range and speed then lenses like the minolta 24mm can hold their ain against it at around f8 only at f2.eight-4.5 the CZ blows them out of the water. Colours are much nicer than the typical yellowish cast of the sigma lenses or indeed the clinical soulless colours from the tamron made lenses. If you stop down you lot tin can create astonishing looking sunstars. Great build quality but for the coin I would have liked to see weather condition sealing. Information technology's dainty that it does not extend when zooming just information technology does create a resistive suction feeling if you take a lens filter on tiptop trapping the airflow. Like most lenses of it'southward course it'due south quite weak to flare, the modern sigma ultra broad lenses like the 10-20 or 12-24 are far more flare resistant but they are unusually good (ironic given I tend to find sigma telephoto lenses more than prone to flare than the contest), the flare on the CZ is adequately typical of of it grade, lenses like the KM 17-35mm fair no improve. Every bit everyone else has mentioned this is heavy as hell and will cost you a arm and a leg. If you can live with that then go for it, if y'all want value for money don't even look at it. |
| lifeispixels #10749 appointment: Dec-3-2012 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: v | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Sony 20mm f2.8 Tokina 17mm f3.5 Tokina 19-35 f3.five-iv.5 Tokina 11-xvi f2.8 apsc Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-four.5 apsc |
| price paid: | 1600 usd mint 2 hand |
| positive: | - Abrupt across the frame - First-class colors - silent & quick focusing |
| negative: | - Very heavy - Hefty cost tag |
| comment: | I think it'due south easy to review this lens, because there is goose egg better in this class than the CZ sixteen-35 when you lot're looking for an ultra wide bending lens to utilise with Sony's full frame cameras. This is the best UWA lens period if you lot can afford its hefty cost. I give the CZ 16-35 all fives because I but compare it to the lens of the same form. It would non exist fair to compare sharpness, flare, distortion to lenses from other ranges and they're built differently and good UWAs is harder to blueprint than 24-70 or primes. This is the sharpest UWA lens I accept used. Fantabulous center sharpness and the corners volition friction match upwards stopped down. Colors are excellent and has that neutral Zeiss signature to it. The lens barrel is well fabricated but very heavy. Barrel baloney is balmy at widest bending and can be easily right in PP or camera'south built in correction if yous shoot jpegs. CA exists but information technology's mild magenta/green type that is hands removed in lightroom. I give 5 for flare because we're talking about UWA lenses and flare is usually the main problem for lenses with such wide angle. CZ 16-35 handles flare very well. You can still see some band flare and ghost bobs here and in that location when potent light sources are in the frame just it's much better controlled and looks not quite ugly than other alternatives. When presented with strong light coming directly, CZ 16-35 all the same maintains surprisingly great contrast and colors, while other lenses endure. The Tamron/Minolta 17-35 flares a LOT! Past a lot I mean the flare streak tin be and so ugly I discard the images. Contrast is reduced. The Tokina nineteen-35 suffers a lot from flare, it can be and so bad the images are blown white and destroys the contrast. The Tokina 17mm f3.v is very well resistant to flare, adept sharpness although lacks just a bit behind this CZ. The problem is slightly wavy mustache distortion which can be seen sometimes. And the way it renders colors is thicker like oil paint. The CZ gives more lifelike and neutral tone. Sony 20mm f2.viii is also an fantabulous alternative. The color rendition is closer to this CZ16-35 than others. Good sharpness beyond the frame and good resistant to flare. Slight reduction of fine micro contrast details compared to the CZ and I but observe mild distortion. The but problem is it doesn't go as wide as 16mm only if yous can live with this limitation, it'southward a proficient selection and much lighter than 16-35. In conclusion, if you're serious well-nigh landscape, photojournalism, and ready to invest for the best possible UWA currently available to alpha FF cameras. The xvi-35 CZ is the simply pick. And don't compare this to 24-70 CZ as information technology's totally unlike type and serves entirely different purposes. As Exif info from images that win Reuters' 2012 photos of the year reveals, most images are shot with 16-35 lens, followed past 70-200, while so petty is made with 24-70 which the editors seem to consider boring angles. Come across my photos with Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T sixteen-35 F2.viii ZA SSM at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/72157628204412995/ |
| a850 #9836 date: January-23-2012 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I ain this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 35/ane.4G |
| toll paid: | GBP 1200 |
| positive: | Build quality Focus speed and accuracy Very flexible focal length Constant ii.8 Awesome sunstars if y'all stop down |
| negative: | Distortion Some ghosts Vignette at 16mm |
| annotate: | I *love* this lens. Build quality is exceptional. The zoom ring is stiff but smoothen. The lens doesn't extend at all when zooming or focusing. The filter thread doesn't rotate, nor does the focus band. The focus ring is perfectly geared if you want to practise video or transmission focus on picture show cameras which don't support SSM. The whole thing is a solid metal tank. Even the lens hood is metal. I took mine across Republic of peru for a month. It went through extreme common cold (-20), directly sunlight, dusty high altitude mountains, the amazon river and rainforest, got caught in a torrential storm etc. Not a single problem ever. Every unmarried picture was sharp, focused and cute. The lens and my a850 got seriously wet for two hours in a rain storm. Even though it doesn't claim weather sealing, no issues at all. The lens is sharp and SUPER contrasty. Zeiss have done something amazing with lens coatings, because it is VERY hard to make this lens wash out and lose dissimilarity. The amount of detail it captures in a wide view is absolutely amazing, and the dissimilarity brings out a lot of texture. I find the colour balance quite cool and blueish. Especially compared to the 35/one.iv and 85/1.iv. I checked this with an X-rite colorpassport, and sure enough there is well-nigh 200K difference in white balance between the lenses. For landscapes, this is slap-up, simply not and then much for portraits - although of class you tin correct them later. 16mm is astonishing for interiors, landscapes or anything else yous want to capture. There is inevitable distortion though. 24mm is standard "wide" on full frame, and performs amazingly well with about no distortion. 35 is probably the weakest operation of this lens, with more baloney and worse corner functioning at ii.8. There is some vignette at 16mm, as you would expect. But the details are notwithstanding in that location, then it'southward easy to recover in post-process. The farthermost corners have a kinda "tearing" consequence where the subjects are distorted. This isn't really a fault of the lens, since 16mm is ultra-broad. As Kurt Munger showed, if you distortion correct the corners, the detail is notwithstanding in that location. You get crawly 18 point sunstars when stopped downwards to f16 or f22. If you shoot right into the sun, you lot volition get some multi-coloured ghosts across the image. But actually I think they wait ok - quite attractive as far as flare goes. It doesn't ruin or wash out the prototype either. With steadshot enabled, y'all can mitt-concord this lens for ages. 1/4s at 16mm is no trouble at all if you lot hold the camera notwithstanding. |
| Rno. #8226 engagement: Nov-ten-2010 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: 4.v | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I ain this lens |
| compared to: | Tam 11-18 CZ xvi-80 Sony 35/1.4 |
| price paid: | 1479 USD new, fm HK |
| positive: | Overall performance Solidity |
| negative: | weight Color rendition |
| comment: | If the weight and solidity won't impress y'all, the images will. Crisp, juicy, if a fleck cool on the WB, and no excessive baloney or flare. Unsharpness in corners tin can't be denied, but is not an event for nigh subjects. The heavy vignetting is! Very acceptable bokeh when you get information technology (similar at 35/2.8). (edited to remove the lens contact issue--it was a phantom issue) The reason why I don't requite it all fives is considering I try to keep the label and Zeiss prototype out of this and just look at information technology equally a obviously, black lens ;) Oh, and whoever complains about the price, that is something you can definitely wait from a Zeiss! Actually, I remember it is very reasonably priced for a Zeiss. If merely the functioning were in line... The finely ribbed rings are already collecting dust. Thank you, Sony! My old fingers also can't speedily distinguish them from the rest of the body. Edit: after some more exposure (no pun intended) I noticed serious flare bug, even if the sun is not within the frame. Shielding the front end element from the sun with one hand will make the divergence clear. This led to a downward-course of the flare rating. Also, horizontal baloney is significant at the 16mm stop. I tin can't really imagine any non-fisheye lens of that FL being much or even any better, merely it is what it is: distorted. Therefore only a "4". |
| K-Man #7699 date: Jul-18-2010 | |
|---|---|
| sharpness: v | tested on:
|
| buying: | I ain this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 17-35 D f ii.8-iv Sigma 10-20 EX DG 4-5.6 |
| toll paid: | 1460 USD |
| positive: | Sharpness, Flare, Colour, Silent focus, Build |
| negative: | Weight, Price |
| comment: | I paid $ 208.00 for my 17-35 D f 2.eight-four, brand new in the box. It has been a slap-up lens and I have taken many wonderful photos with it over the years,(or so I thought). So a few folks, myself peradventure included, were wunnerin' if I might demand ta' take my head examined for goin' an' spendin' sumthin' like seven times as much for a lens that seems ta' exist but near tha' same thing? Day one I was shooting sequential photos at the Skate park and there was a very noticable deviation between the Zeiss 16-35 f two.8 SSM lens and the Min 17-35 D two.8-4,(my "old" walk-about lens). Then far this lens has been worth every darn penny I paid for it. Information technology's a keeper! |
reviews found: 57 1 2 >>
Source: http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-16-35mm-F2.8-ZA-SSM-Vario-Sonnar-T%2A_review480.html
0 Response to "Sony 16-35mm F/28 Za Ssm Vario-sonnar T* Lens Review"
Postar um comentário