Sony 16-35 against the Canon?

[Adrien Le Falher]

Hi,

I'm about to buy a sony a7rII, and I do a lot of wide angle shots. The sony 16-35 seems to be an obvious choice, however I'm after the best quality there is, and I've read mixed reviews about the 16-35 (weird distortion at 16, bad performance at 35...). The Canon 16-35 II seems to be great, especially in one point that matters to me and almost nobody mentions: very high, localized contrast. 

 

For example, when you're inside some place dark and you're shooting the room with the windows during a very bright day. On most lenses, the light creates a halo around the windows. On the canon, not so. Can anyone tell me how the sony behaves on this specific test? 

My reference review for the canon 16-35 : https://youtu.be/7F8cjnmvNG0?t=4m47s

[Broncos_CA]

Hey, if you want a non-native lens, go ahead and buy the canon. If you want to use adapters go ahead and buy the canon. If you want a plastic lens, go ahead and buy the canon. If you want rubber on your lens, yep, go ahead and buy the canon. If your really going to buy the A7Rll, then of course the 16-35 is an obvious choice! But I cant take your question seriously, it reads too much like a canon add...

[jaclarkaus]

Don't think the Canon is plastic. The 16-35 II is a 2.8 lens, and I think mine is really good, probably better than the sony, better IS on the f4 (a good 4 stops) but heavier and by the time I add an adapter ... not why I bought the sony in the first place.

 

The Sony is fine, and is not bad at 35, just not as good as some of the others. Like the 24-70, it is heavy and expensive for a small camera, but does work fine.

 

The alternative is to use primes, the 35 2.8 is good and the Voigtlander 15 III very good, and will soon be in Sony mount.

[Golem]

Great lenses are unnecessary.

 

Bad lenses suck.

 

Don't buy great lenses but

don't buy bad lenses.

 

`

[Adrien Le Falher]

I'm actually talking about the 16-35 f4, I got it wrong with the II. 

I'm not buying the sony for its size or weight, I'm buying it for its picture quality. I do fine art photography and regularly travel miles with 4x5 equipment so size and weight is mostly irrelevant to me. I'm just asking about the IQ here.

[tiltshift]

** near meaningless opinion incoming **

 

I dont have the sony nor have I ever even shot it but i too have read the reviews. and while I think it is a perfectly good lens (aka some flaws but not to the point you couldn't get results with it)  there was not enough of a wow factor to get me to switch from my already purchased canon lenses (11-24L and 16-35 2.8L II) sure the 16-35II has its own set of issues and the new 16-35 f4L is overall "better" for some uses again not so much that I am left in the dust with my 16-35II. I feel the same with the Sony. pick one that you can get a good deal on and invest the rest into more lighting equipment or renovating a studio or... 

 

I like what others have said. specifically Golem. I think that having the best lenses is irrelevant because at a certain threshold it is not reflected in the results (to a point where the shot goes from wonderful master piece to garbage. if the emotion is captured and other technical elements are good then a little loss of sharpness or slightly more CA or .... will not make a huge difference in the outcome.

 

if you are specifically looking at how lenses transition in high contrast and like the Canon sounds like that is the one you have to have. I am sure it is a great lens!

[PHIL RUDIN]

I use the Sony FE 16-35 zoom underwater which adds a degree of difficulty due to the added optical glass port and an issue called virtual image. I think the lens is quite good with great sharpness into the corners.

 

I have attached two tests where the testing methods being used are the same for both lenses and the results seen about the same. I am sure that other tests may have the opposite results but these tests both come from respected sites.

 

I have used both lenses and both are decent choices. 

 

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-STAR-16-35mm-F4-ZA-OSS-on-Sony-A7R-versus-EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III__1467_917_220_436

 

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/897-zeiss1635f4oss?start=2

 

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d

[oneand0]

I don't know about the Canon 16-35mm. But I just sold my 21mm Ziess Distagon, and then purchased the 16-35mm FE, knowing some day I would shoot with a future Sony Prime FE that was comparable to my 21mm. Let's just say when I compared the Ziess 21mm to the 16-35mm FE @ 21mm, it did better in the corners than my Ziess at 5.6. I was in awe! That lens is sharp!

 

Maybe I had a bad 21mm copy, but I doubt it, because that lens blew my 17-40mm out of the water.