All test images below shot with a Sony A7s. ISO 100.
Top 16mm Bottom 35mm
From Raw file with sharpening in Photoshop.
Edge and corner comparisons above are out of camera jpgs.
A few tests to show how the Sony FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS Vario-Tessar T* Lens performs with regard to distortion and centre and corner sharpness. As you can see this is pretty impressive and somewhat different to other Sony zooms. There is some fall-off in the corners but this is minimal and processing raw images and adding some reproduction sharpening makes for a very crisp file.
In terms of how much 'correction' is going on I processed a file in Photoshop ACR (CS6) with the lens profile automatically added (It's in the latest camera raw update) and also in Rawker, my dcraw mac programme. There is some barrel distortion and colour / CA / fringing removal, but as you can see not very much at all, demonstrating that the lens is well designed and engineered.
This just confirms what I found when I took it out yesterday shooting some 'real' pictures. It shows that the Sony / Zeiss combination CAN make top class zoom lenses when they want to. Which of course begs the question, why has the 24-70mm f/4 lens received such 'mixed' reviews? (And that's being polite!!) As far as I'm concerned that doesn't particularly matter, since this 16-35mm is much more useful for me and I prefer it over the 24-70mm. But others may feel the opposite and the 24-70mm does seem to be a disappointing lens. I haven't actually used one, but a while ago a reader sent me a large number of raw files and I was somewhat surprised at how soft some of the edges were. The centre was nice and sharp, but this 16-35mm is much better at achieving sharpness across the frame, which is surprising since the wide-angle zoom is a more complex and difficult construction. Odd.
But this post is about the 16-35mm and I'm pleased to report that it is an excellent wide-angle zoom and Sony FE users have another top class performer to take advantage of those amazing sensors. It is a f/4 lens, though this is fixed and I can see the logic behind that. Because there is an a-mount f/2.8 version. (Though the adapter light loss makes that less useful than it seems) I think Sony are wanting to market their a-mount monsters as options for the FE cameras for high-end pro use and that makes sense rather than duplicating lenses for a-mount and e-mount. The f/4 versions are smaller and lighter, though the 70-200mm f/4 is still pretty chunky.
I still haven't really got a telephoto alternative, since that 70-200mm is too heavy for me to carry around and I'm still using my a-mount 85mm and Nikon Series E 100mm f/2.8. For my uses the 24-240mm would be a good option, but I've yet to see any specs. on that and I suspect it won't be light.
However, I'm 'sorted' in terms of my wide-angle needs and after the great pictures I got yesterday with the 16-35mm, I'm looking forward to using it again.
SUPPORT THIS SITE.
As a full-time photographer I make my living from selling images on Stock Photography sites. Writing this blog and doing the comparison tests takes time away from that and earns me very little. If you find what you read here of interest, then you can help me to fund the gear I buy to review, by clicking on the adsense banners, donating and / or buying your gear from the affiliate links. You don't pay any extra, I get a small commission.
Previously I was posting on the free, Blogger platform, but this site, with it's greatly increased functionality, costs me money and the more it expands, the more it will cost. If I can get THE SOUNDIMAGEPLUS BLOG economically viable, then I will be able to review a lot more gear and extend and expand those reviews. Running a blog these days that competes with the best out there requires a lot of time and effort and is close to a full-time job. This means that I'm neglecting other work to put that time in. It is my intention to turn this into a much more comprehensive review and user experience site and I can only do that if I can get it to generate more income.
This site, like much of the internet, has free content and like much of the internet is funded by advertising and donations. I realise that not everybody likes advertising, but without it many of our favourite sites would have to resort to charging for what they do. Google, Facebook and all the other social networks sites remain free because of that advertising.
There is an interesting article on the BBC website HERE, which deals with many of the issues above.