{"id":749,"date":"2017-05-03T08:29:36","date_gmt":"2017-05-03T07:29:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/?p=749"},"modified":"2024-04-21T14:28:49","modified_gmt":"2024-04-21T13:28:49","slug":"sony-fe-16-35mm-f4-za-t-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/sony-fe-16-35mm-f4-za-t-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Long-Term Review: Sony FE 16-35mm f4 ZA OSS T*"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"SEL1635z-4\"<\/a>
\n<\/a>In-Depth Review of the Sony FE 16-35mm f4 ZA OSS T* <\/strong>based on two years of experience and\u00a0<\/strong>technical analysis. Many full resolution images included.
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

Sample Images<\/h1>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Specifications<\/h1>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Diameter<\/td>\n78 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Length<\/td>\n98.5 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filter Thread<\/td>\n72 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Weight<\/td>\n518\u00a0g<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Max. Magnification<\/td>\n0.19<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Close Focusing Distance from the sensor<\/td>\n28 cm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Number of aperture blades<\/td>\n7 (circular)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Elements\/ Groups<\/td>\n12\/10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/address>\n
Price: $1348\u00a0at\u00a0Amazon.com <\/a>|\u00a0B&H photo<\/a>\u00a0or cheaper at ebay.com<\/a>, 1195\u20ac at Amazon.de<\/a>\u00a0<\/a>(affiliate links).<\/em>
\n<\/p>\n

Disclosure<\/h1>\n

In 2015 Sony loaned me a copy free of charge for three weeks. Shortly after that I bought another copy\u00a0from Amazon and still use it a lot.<\/p>\n

Built Quality<\/h1>\n

\"SEL1635z-3\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This Sony FE 16-35mm f\/4 ZA OSS T*\u00a0is built well and feels quite solid.<\/p>\n

The outer barrel is made from metal<\/strong>, as is is the filter thread.
\nThe inner barrel is made from plastics and shows no play.<\/p>\n

The zoom-ring<\/strong> allows for very precise zooming with a very even resistance and zero play.
\nThe focusing-ring<\/strong> has a smooth feel to it and it has zero play as well.
\nBoth rings are made from textured metal which easily gathers dirt, but it is easy to clean as well.<\/p>\n

The lens hood<\/strong> is rather heavy and has a nice feel to<\/strong> it, it needs a healthy amount of force to remove it.<\/p>\n

Unlike L-lenses from Canon the lens has no gasket<\/strong> around the lens mount<\/strong>, so weather resistance will be limited.<\/p>\n

\"SEL1635z-2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Autofocus<\/h1>\n

I use a Sony Alpha 7 and a7ii,\u00a0results will differ with other E-mount cameras.<\/p>\n

In a normal\u00a0environment<\/strong> the SEL1635f4\u00a0focuses very quick and precise<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In a darker environment<\/strong>, like a normally lit room at night (f\/4, 1\/50 Sek., ISO 3200) the AF<\/strong> is slower but still usable<\/strong> for people photography.<\/p>\n

If it gets even darker it takes more than one second until the lens is focused but it still locks focus.<\/p>\n

After two years the AF\u00a0has proven it’s reliability to my in about any scenario from weddings over environmental\u00a0portraits to landscape and I found it very reliable. Whenever there was a limitation the camera was the limiting factor.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Manual Focus<\/h1>\n

As mentioned before, the focusing ring feels nice\u00a0nice<\/strong>, what I don\u2019t like<\/strong> too much is the focus by wire implementation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

One\u00a0problem here is that it matters how fast you turn the focusing ring<\/strong>, \u00a0if I turn it by 20\u00a0degrees very fast the focus changes from 28cm to infinity. If I turn it slowly\u00a0it takes more than 360 degrees (one full turn) to change focus from the close focusing distance to infinity.
\nIn theory this sounds like a great idea because focusing\u00a0should be\u00a0either super precise or very quick, depending on what you need. But so far I have failed to get to a point were my\u00a0I am able to use this subconciously<\/strong>, and I have used manual focus with this lens and the FE 2\/28<\/a> a lot.<\/p>\n

The other problem is that\u00a0there is a small lag<\/strong> between the moment when you turn the focusing ring and when the lens reacts.<\/p>\n

I am used to manual lenses where the focusing ring is coupled directly to the focusing helicoid and I\u00a0am faster and as precise with\u00a0them. So manual focus works okay but it isn\u2019t very enjoyable <\/strong>(says a hardcore manual lens user<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Size,Weight and Handling<\/h1>\n

Compared to CaNikon’s 4\/16-35 lenses the lens is quite a bit smaller and lighter. None the less at over 500 grams and with a length of nearly 10 centimeters it is still a substantial lens<\/strong>. It also has a very wide diameter of 78mm. My smaller bag normally fit’s three lenses but I can only fit one other lens into it if I use the Sony.<\/p>\n

I find the lens to be not very well balanced<\/strong> on my<\/strong>\u00a0Sony Alpha 7<\/strong>, it is a bit front heavy and I feel a constant need to support it with my other hand. I usually have an L-bracket<\/strong>\u00a0 <\/a>attached to my a7 and with that the lens is quite well balanced<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The FE 4\/16-35\u00a0is shortest when zoomed to 35mm and it extends by about 15mm when zoomed to 16mm. It\u00a0does not extend when focused, nor does the front of the lens rotate.<\/p>\n

\"16mm35mm\"<\/a>
16mm left, 35mm right<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Image Stabilizer<\/h1>\n

The leans features an image stabilizer. I tested the efficiency at 28mm<\/strong> and found \u00a0that it made a difference of about 3\u00a0stops.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I found the stabilizer very useful\u00a0for my photography, it gave me more creative freedom in situations were I couldn’t bring a tripod or\u00a0I could leave the tripod at home. \u00a0Take this picture for example:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Flow\"<\/a>
17mm | f\/8 | 0.4s<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Even though I had no tripod with me the stabilizer allowed me to expose long enough for the water to blur quite nicely plus it would have been hard to set up a tripod in this place. I should mention, that this is the best from 5 images and it is not as sharp as it would have been had I used a tripod.<\/p>\n

Here is another example with the same shutter speed of 0.4s but at 32mm. \u00a0I think it wouldn’t have been significantly sharper if I had used a tripod.<\/p>\n

\"Sony<\/a><\/p>\n

32mm | 0.4s | handheld<\/p>\n

Optical performance<\/h1>\n<\/address>\n

Sharpness<\/strong><\/h3>\n

16mm<\/strong>
\n\"Sony_FE_16-35mm_f4_ZA_16mm\"<\/a><\/p>\n

From f\/4<\/strong> the SEL1635f4z\u00a0shows an excellent performance<\/strong> in the center and midframe area<\/strong> while the corners are a bit hazy<\/strong>.
\nStopped down to f\/8<\/strong>\u00a0the corners<\/strong> are good to very good\u00a0<\/strong>but some astigmatism remains.<\/p>\n

Field curvature is quite pronounced<\/strong>: When the lens is focused at infinity, details in the corners will be sharpest at a distance of 3 or 4 meters.<\/p>\n

20mm<\/strong>\"Sony_FE_16-35mm_f4_ZA_20mm\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Very similar to 16mm: Great in the center corners are good and benefit from stopping down to f\/8.<\/p>\n

28mm<\/strong>\"Sony_FE_16-35mm_f4_ZA_28mm\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Again: Very similar to 16mm: Great in the center corners are good and benefit from stopping down to f\/8.<\/p>\n

35mm<\/strong>
\n\"Sony_FE_16-35mm_f4_ZA_35mm\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I think the corner sharpness at f\/4 is a little lower than at other focal lengths but by\u00a0f\/8 they are very good. The center and midframe region is excellent from f\/4.<\/p>\n

All in all this is a very good performance with excellent sharpness in the center from f\/4 at any focal lengths and very good across the frame sharpness at f\/8.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vignetting<\/h3>\n

At 16mm quite noticeable at f\/4, better by f\/5.6 and more or less gone by f\/8. \u00a0The more you zoom in, the less pronounced it will be.<\/p>\n

Distortion<\/h3>\n

The SEL1635z shows a noticeable amount of barrel distortion at 16mm<\/a>,\u00a0which\u00a0is nearly gone by 20mm<\/a>.\u00a0It then changes to moderate (sample at 28mm<\/a>) pincushion distortion which is most extreme at 35mm<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This needs to be corrected for architecture photography but for most subjects it is a no-issue.<\/p>\n

Flare resistance and sun-stars<\/h1>\n

The flare resistance differs a lot with focal lenght and position of of the light source in the frame.<\/p>\n

Sometimes it produces no flares with a bright light source in the image:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Sometimes some ghosting but very little veiling flare are visible:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\" \"\"<\/p>\n

But I also lost a few images because of flare issues in rather demanding scenarios:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"
Shadows lifted by more than two stops<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The\u00a0Sony FE 16-35mm f4 has unusual sun-stars. Other lenses with 7\u00a0aperture blades show 14-pointed sun-stars but the Sony shows 28-pointed sun-stars. If you like them will depend on taste<\/a>, personally I prefer 10-pointed sun-stars but still like the Sony’s sun-stars. Bastian and Yannik both disagree with me on this topic.<\/p>\n

\"DSC05079\"<\/a>
no flares and a very nice sun star in this image (the reflection above the sun is caused by the sensor, not the lens)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Bokeh<\/strong><\/p>\n

The amount of background blur you can get out of theFE 4\/16-35 is \u00a0of course limited by it’s moderate speed and short focal length. The bokeh is on the nervous side and I found it to be some times detrimental to the image.<\/p>\n

\"DSC05567\"<\/a>
35mm | f\/4<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Compared to other lenses<\/h1>\n

The FE 3.5-5.6\/28-70<\/strong> and FE 4\/24-70 ZA<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0will perform similar in the center but the FE 4\/16-35\u00a0has better corners, especially at 24mm.<\/p>\n

The FE 2\/28<\/a><\/strong> has less field curvature\u00a0so flat scenes will have \u00a0sharper corners but more three dimensional scenes will \u00a0have a little sharper corners with the SEL1635f4. It see a very small advantage for the 2\/28 but both are very good at f\/8 and I would base my decision more on size, price, versatility and the image stabilizer.
\nIf money is less of and issue and your focus is on landscapes or architecture I would probably prefer the 16-35 because it is more versatile and the image stabilizer is quite handy.<\/p>\n

I also compared it to my Canon FD 2.8\/20<\/strong><\/a>: The SEL1635z has a higher contrast at wider apertures and still leads at f\/8 and f\/11. \u00a0Stopped down to f\/8 and especially f\/11\u00a0sharpness is very similar, the FD even has a little advantage in the corners. Flare resistance is no contest: The Canon is pretty bad and the Sony quite good.<\/p>\n

Zeiss Loxia 2.8\/21<\/a>:\u00a0<\/strong>The Loxia is very sharp across the frame from f\/2.8 and remains sharper off axis. It is also a stop faster than the Sony and has better flare resistance. I am still debating with myself whether I should replace my Sony with the Loxia because I would certainly prefer the handling and would welcome the sun-stars but so far the flexibility of the Sony wins.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
pros<\/strong><\/p>\n
    \n
  • Very good sharpness across the frame and zoom range.<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Very versatile<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Effective image stabilizer<\/span><\/li>\n
  • Very good built quality<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
average<\/strong><\/p>\n
    \n
  • Inconsistent Flare Resistance<\/li>\n
  • Strong distortion<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n
cons<\/strong><\/p>\n