17-35mm G version or 16-35mm Carl Zeiss

[classiccameras]

I very much appreciate every ones points of view and information.
David, in your opinion then what would be a good upgrade both optically and build quality to the standard 18-55 kit lens?
Would a Zeiss 16-50 [I've seen a couple second hand] be my best bet.
Many thanks

[Birma]

Hi Classic Cameras. There has been a recent thread on upgrading from the 18-55 kit here (For APS-C frame cameras) [url]http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... t=7371/url] which may be useful.

[classiccameras]

Thanks birma

I should have looked at the other threads before diving in head first with questions that are already answered on other threads.
I'm very tempted towards the Tamron 17-50.

[Birma]

You're welcome Classiccameras

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 seems to be a firm favourite here. I've enjoyed mine for some time. Some years back I can remember forum wars on DPR between supporters of the Tamron and supporters of a similar Sigma lens (17-70/2.8 I think) but I've heard less around here about the Sigma. As I said on the other thread I haven't regretted using the CZ 16-80 in place of the Tamron but the higher price, lower build quality, and not having f/2.8 are enough to persuade others to stick with the Tamron.

[shooter]

Having sold my 17-35mm D after getting the A77 and stopping using the A900 much, I have just found another at a fair price (very few go for as low as I paid new for my last one) which I plan to use with the A99. I have been used the Sigma 12-24mm, but I need to change lenses too often. The 17-35mm D is much better than its price would ever indicate, and for my purposes it's better than the 16-35mm, weight and insured value when travelling, value in rough conditions.

They do vary so it's a risk, I may get a good one, I may get an ordinary one.

David

David I've been considering keeping the KM 17-35 for just the reasons you state. I don't consider the money I can get for it enough and for use in wet or dusty conditions or when I don't want a heavy kit to carry around

[shooter]

Having sold my 17-35mm D after getting the A77 and stopping using the A900 much, I have just found another at a fair price (very few go for as low as I paid new for my last one) which I plan to use with the A99. I have been used the Sigma 12-24mm, but I need to change lenses too often. The 17-35mm D is much better than its price would ever indicate, and for my purposes it's better than the 16-35mm, weight and insured value when travelling, value in rough conditions.

They do vary so it's a risk, I may get a good one, I may get an ordinary one.

David

Just remembered when I bought my KM 17-35 and 28-70 I was among the first owners and even supplied some images for photoworld when you reviewed these lenses. They have served me well.

[classiccameras]

As David pointed out, you will get different performances from the KM 17-35 depending on what format its attached to, FF or APS-C. The latter probably has the edge.

On the subject of KM lenses, I also have a quite rare Minolta 24-85 which I use most of the time. Its a great lens with very good resolution and super Minolta colours.
Of course there will be better lenses than this but it was a steal at my local dealer. I'm now looking at the KM 24-105 but still doing the review checks before I try and find one. Suggestiona and thoughts are always welcome.
Pete

[David Kilpatrick]

I sold my 24-105mm - too much CA, and by the time you've corrected the distortion at 24mm, it's not as much a 24mm as the 24-85mm. I bought a 28-105mm and 24-85mm when I started using the A900 with the 24-105mm, which I had been using on the A700 for a year as a general lens, and realised how bad it was. I kept the 24-85mm and still use it on the A99. It's one of the best lenses I have and the only real limitation is the overall zoom range. The 28-105mm was equally good but I like to have 24mm available.

David

[bfitzgerald]

The only problem I had with the 24-85mm was the weaker performance (haze effect, very low contrast) at the tele end (above 50mm) it's not really usable at f4.5, it's ok at f5.6 and improves stopped down even more.

Last time I tried a 24-105mm I did not notice issues tele end. 24-85 is probably the better bet on full frame, for crop bodies the 24-105mm is likely more useful overall. Bit of a shame Sony have not updated their range to add a more affordable 24- something.

The 17-35mm is quite good comparing it to the 19-35mm I had it's better at the wide end and can focus closer. At 17mm it's satisfactory stopped right down (considering the UWA here) Though the 19-35mm wasn't that bad either (at this price point). If you're after tack sharp corners for an UWA on full frame I think you'll have to look at a 20mm prime. Not used the 16-35mm CZ so cannot say

[agorabasta]

Barry, the experience you get with the APS bodies using the FF lenses may be twisted.

Consider the following - all that extra light the FF lens delivers has to spread in the mirror chamber somehow, and if the lens is not adequately telecentric, that light spread shines onto many more parts of the chamber. So you get that contrast degradation you're speaking of. Even the very best kind of zoom designs, like those 28-75 f/2.8 of various brands, do show contrast degradation on APS, and mostly at the tele end.
Then that old 24-105 really didn't produce much of real CA, even on the APS; but it produced loads of PF (non-symmetric into the corners) often appearing like CA; all that due to poor telecentricity. And that lens is least telecentric at the wide end, and that's why you don't see contrast degradation at the tele end - the worst of that degradation is there at the wide end.

P.S. FF lenses really do benefit from tighter/longer hoods if used on APS. Lack of such accessories is quite lamentable...

[classiccameras]

Is this why its recommended to disable the 'first curtain' shutter' on SLT APS cameras when using KM lenses?
Peter

[agorabasta]

Is this why its recommended to disable the 'first curtain' shutter' on SLT APS cameras when using KM lenses?

Nope.
That's due to too slow aperture blades movement. They are late to close, and you get an overexposed part in the lower part of the image.

[classiccameras]

Thanks David, that's cleared it up for me, I'm learning more and more with these posts, so thank you every one.
Pete

[agorabasta]

Thanks David, that's cleared it up for me, I'm learning more and more with these posts, so thank you every one.
Pete

You're quite welcome, Peter, but me no David

Anyway, our thanks should go to David for providing a space free of mud-slinging to the point of being suitable for normal human conversations, especially as such places become too rare too fast...

[classiccameras]

Oops, sorry viceroy and David for mixing you up.
This has been a very friendly, interesting and infomative thread, and its a new learning curve for me.