Zeiss 16-35mm FE gets DxOmarked: Best f/4.0 wide angle zoom on market.
- Thread starter Jon_D
- Start date
Interesting that in their three metrics the Nikon beats the Zeiss on each, but the Zeiss manages to outscore the Nikon by one on the final scores. No wonder people moan about DxO.
Upvote
0
I think the canon lens is probably the best of the 3 lenses compared. The Sony a7r and zeiss lens combo is about the same pmpix as the canon 16-35 on a 5diii. The canon has lower CA as well. If you were to measure the canon lens on the a7r it would likely have significantly higher sharpness (perceptual mpix)
Upvote
0
+1privatebydesign said:
I find it absolutely incredible that they continue to publish this rubbish ...
Upvote
0
I love the way people get mad about a thread from SonyAlpha Rumors. What do you expect ? DxO has well rated a Sony lens, they make their headlines with it. If DxO had best rated the Canon lens the same headline would be on CR.
Aside from that, before you start the classic ranting about DxO, you could at least read the full review. I find it quite balanced and finally reflecting the reality, the 3 lenses perform about the same, with slight differences.
Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS: sharp but higher than expected CA
"Sharpness is good across the field even at maximum aperture but there’s some field curvature/astigmatism that’s more noticeable at the long focal lengths causing some image degradation.
Distortion is little higher than expected, not so much at the shorter focal lengths but at the longer-end, where the lens has noticeable pincushion distortion from around 24mm onwards. Vignetting and transmission are similar to rivals but considering the optical design (and liberal use of ED glass) chromatic aberration is higher than we would expect of a lens from Zeiss. Chromatic aberration is most noticeable at 16mm, not only in the corners but as a donut-shaped ring in the center of the field but there are also some traces still at 28mm."
Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS vs Canon EF 16-35mm f4 ISUSM vs Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f4G ED VR
"Although the Zeiss has higher levels of CA across the field as a whole, the Nikkor has quite heavy fringing in the corners and more noticeable barrel distortion.
Sharpness isn’t as uniform as the Zeiss either, and particularly at 35mm where it’s restricted to the centers. The new Canon performs well but it’ quite obvious the sensor of the Canon EOS 5D Mk III holds the performance back a little resulting in the lower overall DxOMark score (remember the score is based on the lens and sensor together). It has generally good uniformity (there’s some field curvature at longer focal lengths) and has very well controlled lateral chromatic aberration – by far the best of three even with the less demanding sensor. However, on balance the Sony is ranked just ahead but it’s not the clear win given the price."
Conclusion
"Sony isn’t the only manufacturer with an eye on budding moviemakers. The addition of stabilization to this ultra-wide zoom was crucial, not only to appeal to that group (in addition to stills photographers) but also to compete with rivals. Both Nikon and Canon already offer a similar lens. While the new Sony Zeiss offering is likely to be popular, it isn’t that much smaller or lighter than those rival models made for DSLRs. Given that it’s more expensive and that is doesn’t convincingly outperform them either is a pity, but hardly unexpected. Lenses like this are a balance of compromises and overall the Sony isn’t likely to disappoint."
I don't understand the all the nervousness here, all the lens perform similarly, they even agree that the Canon is probably the best, but handicapped since their test relies on a SENSOR / LENS combination (36Mpx for Sony Nikon, 24Mpx for Canon). I just see it as a good news that Sony owners can as well access a good WA zoom. What's the problem here ?
DxO never said the Sony lens is crushing everything else, SonyAlpha Rumors did. Actually they seem to have expected slightly better results, considering the use of special glass and the retail price.
Aside from that, before you start the classic ranting about DxO, you could at least read the full review. I find it quite balanced and finally reflecting the reality, the 3 lenses perform about the same, with slight differences.
Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS: sharp but higher than expected CA
"Sharpness is good across the field even at maximum aperture but there’s some field curvature/astigmatism that’s more noticeable at the long focal lengths causing some image degradation.
Distortion is little higher than expected, not so much at the shorter focal lengths but at the longer-end, where the lens has noticeable pincushion distortion from around 24mm onwards. Vignetting and transmission are similar to rivals but considering the optical design (and liberal use of ED glass) chromatic aberration is higher than we would expect of a lens from Zeiss. Chromatic aberration is most noticeable at 16mm, not only in the corners but as a donut-shaped ring in the center of the field but there are also some traces still at 28mm."
Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS vs Canon EF 16-35mm f4 ISUSM vs Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f4G ED VR
"Although the Zeiss has higher levels of CA across the field as a whole, the Nikkor has quite heavy fringing in the corners and more noticeable barrel distortion.
Sharpness isn’t as uniform as the Zeiss either, and particularly at 35mm where it’s restricted to the centers. The new Canon performs well but it’ quite obvious the sensor of the Canon EOS 5D Mk III holds the performance back a little resulting in the lower overall DxOMark score (remember the score is based on the lens and sensor together). It has generally good uniformity (there’s some field curvature at longer focal lengths) and has very well controlled lateral chromatic aberration – by far the best of three even with the less demanding sensor. However, on balance the Sony is ranked just ahead but it’s not the clear win given the price."
Conclusion
"Sony isn’t the only manufacturer with an eye on budding moviemakers. The addition of stabilization to this ultra-wide zoom was crucial, not only to appeal to that group (in addition to stills photographers) but also to compete with rivals. Both Nikon and Canon already offer a similar lens. While the new Sony Zeiss offering is likely to be popular, it isn’t that much smaller or lighter than those rival models made for DSLRs. Given that it’s more expensive and that is doesn’t convincingly outperform them either is a pity, but hardly unexpected. Lenses like this are a balance of compromises and overall the Sony isn’t likely to disappoint."
I don't understand the all the nervousness here, all the lens perform similarly, they even agree that the Canon is probably the best, but handicapped since their test relies on a SENSOR / LENS combination (36Mpx for Sony Nikon, 24Mpx for Canon). I just see it as a good news that Sony owners can as well access a good WA zoom. What's the problem here ?
DxO never said the Sony lens is crushing everything else, SonyAlpha Rumors did. Actually they seem to have expected slightly better results, considering the use of special glass and the retail price.
Upvote
0
Symmar,
Nobody here said anybody is crushing anybody, and we haven't gone off on a rant, what we, I, pointed out was the absurdity of a testing company that gives an overall single score based on a proprietary formula from three metrics; one lens, it doesn't matter which, outscores another on all three metrics, yet it then gets a lower overall score. Include the fact that they use different sensors with vastly different MP counts for the resolution and don't normalise for that, or use a realised/potential percentage makes the entire thing a complete mockery.
Nobody here said anybody is crushing anybody, and we haven't gone off on a rant, what we, I, pointed out was the absurdity of a testing company that gives an overall single score based on a proprietary formula from three metrics; one lens, it doesn't matter which, outscores another on all three metrics, yet it then gets a lower overall score. Include the fact that they use different sensors with vastly different MP counts for the resolution and don't normalise for that, or use a realised/potential percentage makes the entire thing a complete mockery.
Upvote
0
Looking at the measurements, the Canon seems to be the best lens, it is just held back by being measured on the lower resolution 5DIII. Personally I find it a bit disappointing since I would probably preferred the smaller and unadapted Sony lens on my A7R but now I think I'll just stick with my Canon lens.
Upvote
0
I am VERY happy with my Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS.
I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II ....and then I was so happy with the AF and IQ I even sold my treasured Zeiss 21mm f/2.8.
DxO..DxSchmo... The Canon is a great lens at a reasonable price. 8)
....and I am NOT a Canon fanbois....
I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8L II ....and then I was so happy with the AF and IQ I even sold my treasured Zeiss 21mm f/2.8.
DxO..DxSchmo... The Canon is a great lens at a reasonable price. 8)
....and I am NOT a Canon fanbois....
Upvote
0
A more valid comparison would be to test them on the same Sony mirrorless body after assuring that none of the adapters used were defective.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
Noboby said the Canon is not a great lens, it's likely the best of all 3, and I will probably get one in a near future.
However I am not sure I get your point about the A7r combo :
Canon 5D3 (905g) +16-35 L IS (615g) + 2 LP-E6 (about 150g) = 1715g
Sony A7r (407g) + 16-35 ZA (518g) + let's say 5 NP-FW50 batteries, to make it balanced (215g) = 1140g
When you go for landscape / travelling, it's very likely you carry at least a small backpack, so carry 3 more batteries is not really an issue (except for the cost) since the Sony batteries are about half the weight of the Canon ones. On the other hand 575g total weight less is not subjective when hiking / travelling. IMHO, for landscape / travel / architecture (and I am NOT saying for sports, birding, weddings or whatever else), the Sony combo wins, especially when you take in account the sensor low ISO capabilities (although for travel some might not want the extra resolution).
Upvote
0
symmar22 said:
Well, I think it is OK when better = heavier and more expensive.
What's wrong with adapting Canon EF 16-35/4L IS on Sony A7r?
Battery life is like Canon 1 : 3 Sony, and for a landscaping trip you may end up with 10 or 12 NP-FW50, because battery life in landscape photography is not about the number of shots you take, but the amount of time you are waiting for the right moment and unlike DSLR you can't even work on the composition with your A7r being turned off or in standby mode like most DSLRs are most of the time.
Upvote
0
symmar22 said:
My point was: A7r + FE 16-35mm f4 OS = light weight package with a full pocket of spare batteries. A dream come true for many landscape shooters & travelers.
BTW. I don't need to carry 2nd battery for my 5D III or 1DX when I'm out shooting landscape.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
Nothing is wrong with adapting an EF 16-35mm if you are a Canon user, have already the lenses and want the sensor characteristics of the Sony A7r. But in real life most users would buy the lenses from the manufacturer of their camera. It might be the case for the "advanced photographer", ready to mix and match lenses and bodies through adapters, but it is unlikely to be what most people do.
I assume the standard user would buy a Canon camera to use Canon lenses, and Sony camera to use Sony / Zeiss lenses. Nothing wrong with either method, it's just very unlikely that someone buying a camera system for the first time would bother to buy a Metabone adapter ($400) to mount a lens that won't behave exactly as the original brand would, to maybe get 10% better optics.
If someone want to go into the Sony system, it makes sense to buy Sony lenses, if you go into the Canon system it makes sense to buy Canon lenses for general use. So for Sony users, I suppose it is a good news to have an excellent wide angle zoom available, as it is for us, Canon users to finally have the 16-35 f4 IS that will replace without regrets the previous ones.
Upvote
0
symmar22 said:
Makes sense. However, for most big canon L glass collection owners it is easier and more reasonable to use an adapter, than buying a whole second system + longer flange distance has its IQ advantages too. When/if I give up waiting for canon FF mirrorless, then I will definitely get some nice fast manual primes and adapters for A7r or the next best thing.
I'm not a professional and I don't have those back problems caused by 10+ years of heavy gear lifting. Which may be one of the reasons why I don't buy this crazy "compact system camera" propaganda, that is supposed to replace a proper FF camera. Sony A7 series may be my last hope
.
Upvote
0
ecka said:Makes sense. However, for most big canon L glass collection owners it is easier and more reasonable to use an adapter, than buying a whole second system + longer flange distance has its IQ advantages too. When/if I give up waiting for canon FF mirrorless, then I will definitely get some nice fast manual primes and adapters for A7r or the next best thing.
I'm not a professional and I don't have those back problems caused by 10+ years of heavy gear lifting. Which may be one of the reasons why I don't buy this crazy "compact system camera" propaganda, that is supposed to replace a proper FF camera. Sony A7 series may be my last hope
I fully agree here, it's probably what I'll do as well. In my case I am looking for more resolution and DR at low ISOs, since I use a tripod all the time, so the A7r with Metabones might do the job, despite it's limitations (low battery capacity and shutter vibration among other). It's mainly for architecture with TS-E lenses so it 'll do the job. I am considering it as well for underwater photography, where (small) size is better since the weight and bulk of the housing is directly related, plus I could re-use my old Nikonos 15mm f2.8. Underwater photography is one case were the Sony 16-35mm is excellent news.
For everything else, I would have preferred a Canon solution, but I am bit tired of waiting, and my 5D2s are getting old.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
And you can't just do the composition and turn off the Sony while waiting for the right moment? Actually I find myself using liveview when doing landscapes on Canon and the battery life of even the 1DX in live view is just as bad as the Sony.
Upvote
0
