Great Zeiss 16-35 f4 copies DO exist

[dcisive]

And apparently I was blessed with one. All across the internet for well over a year I've seen this lens heavily maligned over and over and the virtues of the primes extolled daily. I'm typically a Prime lover don't get me wrong, but when it comes to very wide angle I have to say I now prefer the flexibility of switching from 16mm all the way to 35mm without a lens change if needed. The versatility is unmistakable. I do highly respect however, those of you who prefer a 15mm Voigtlander or a 18mm f2.8 Batis or 21mm Loxia. No doubt about it they are superb lenses. But I don't feel in decent light they would do much better than what I'm about to illustrate when seeking maximum depth of field which is what I'm personally looking for in an ultra wide. Here are 2 samples, the first being 16mm at f8 and the 2nd 35mm at f5.6. Keeing in mind that there are few folks that don't slam this lens for it's performance at 35mm, which in my case it is kicking butt. Oh well......so much for sample regularity I guess. I would encourage you to click on the full sized image link for the REAL story. It is pretty impressive if I do say so.

 

The full sized image is at http://www.pbase.com/traveler/image/163377015/original

 

 

The full sized image is at http://www.pbase.com/traveler/image/163377013/original

[lo9rd]

I don't know where you are seeing this lens slated, I found it mostly to be good to very good reviews for it. It's the 24-70/4 that gets the hugely mixed reactions!

My 16-35/4 was ace, I just didn't use the focal length much so I sold it.

[dclark2171]

I've seen quite a few posts on various forums about the copy to copy variation of the 16-35 when it was released. I purchased one about a month ago and mine is spot on and just as sharp as my Canon calibrated 16-35. I also picked up a Sony 10-18 mm to use for some Real Estate photo jobs that we do (much smaller file size in crop mode) and it's a winner as well. 

[christer]

.....up a Sony 10-18 mm to use for some Real Estate photo jobs that we do (much smaller file size in crop mode) .........

 

 

I am not sure why you need the crop. On my A7R2 the image size for jpegs can be set to 42 or 18 or 11 MB. Depending on the amount of detail in the picture, the actual sizes can often be half of that. 

 

YMMV, camera Model, not Mileage.

[holmes4]

I have both the 16-35 and 24-70 and they are both great. Maybe I got lucky?

[ACG]

my copy is stellar. Unfortunately my copy of the 24-70 f4 is at the other end of the celestial spectrum!!!!

[Mathias]

Love my 16-35/4 and never heard of any bad reviews. The only weakness is 35mm f/4 at minimum focus distance (definitely not what it was made for), where it get's a little soft - though the bokeh is actually surprisingly good...

Anyway, I mostly shoot it between 16-28 for landscapes and love it.

 

I'm wondering when the 16-35/2.8GM comes up, how much better it will really be... The additional speed would be great, but I'm afraid it will be just as huge, heavy and expensive as the 24-70GM.

[josemalonso]

I can vote for the 16-35, too. Had one for a little while that was excellent on the A7.

[christer]

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog

 

Lots of facts in the 20th June post.

 

16-35 f/4 is  highly recommended by lensrentals.

[poloriton]

This FE16-35 on A7RII makes me happy as ever I have been with my previous wide-angle zoom  :

https://www.flickr.com/photos/poloriton/sets/72157659182159543