Photoclubalpha

Are there any believers or doubters out there regarding the Zeiss 16-35mm? I am thinking of picking one up. I presently have the 24-70 and 135 for my A900. Any other suggestions in a good wide angle zoom?.

Respectfully

Gaetan Dery

http://www.photostudiodery.com

Gaetan01 wrote:Are there any believers or doubters out there regarding the Zeiss 16-35mm? I am thinking of picking one up. I presently have the 24-70 and 135 for my A900. Any other suggestions in a good wide angle zoom?.

Respectfully

Gaetan Dery

http://www.photostudiodery.com

I would not doubt for a second. I have it and it is a wonderful lens. Extreme corners at 16mm are soft at full opening, clear up nicely by f5.6 and are no problem at all at f8. You can read up on what others who actually use the lens think about it on several other fora too, e.g. on GetDPI. Also check out http://www.kurtmunger.com/index.html

Cheers, Bob.

Gaetan01 wrote:Are there any believers or doubters out there regarding the Zeiss 16-35mm? I am thinking of picking one up. I presently have the 24-70 and 135 for my A900. Any other suggestions in a good wide angle zoom?.

Respectfully

Gaetan Dery

http://www.photostudiodery.com

I haven't heard of a negative view on that lens.
And welcome to the forum.
Awesome shots you have on your gallery.

Hi Gaetan, sorry I can't help on the lens, although as the Doc says you don't hear anything bad about it. I just wanted to say welcome to the forum, and wow you have some beautiful images on your site! I particularly liked the Southwest galley. Being brought up on "cowboy" movies I thought that all of the US looked like this, and was dissapointed when I discovered it didn't . I love the shots where the snow contrasts with the desert.

I hope you'll be able to hang out at the forum, it's a pretty friendly place . How did you get in to the A900? Where you using MF and then moved to dslr?

It's a very good lens but, as commented, I found the fully open performance not that much better than my older 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Konica Minolta D, and the geometry similarly in need of correction. I tested a pre-production 16-35mm alongside the 17-35mm and in response to 'warm and fuzzy' the answer is that the 16-35mm is colder and not so fuzzy - the 17-35mm has a distinct warm cast compared to the Zeiss, which is very neutral in colour. The Zeiss is definitely higher in contrast and sharper centrally.

However, it's also £1,300 and much bigger and heavier than my 17-35mm which cost only £149.50 new in a dealer closeout sale after KM shut down.

The real benefit of the 16-35mm is much better focusing at focal lengths from 20-35mm, where it is a true f/2.8 and uses the f/2.8 central sensor. The 17-35mm is only f/2.8 at 17-20mm, and the central f/2.8 sensor is switched off the moment you move away from 17mm in practice.

David

[quote="Birma"]I hope you'll be able to hang out at the forum, it's a pretty friendly place . How did you get in to the A900? Where you using MF and then moved to dslr?[/quote

Birma. I was looking for a replacement for my D200 and couldn't make up my mind. Was almost ready to get the D3 then someone asked me to take a look at the Alpha 900. No looking back after I put a Zeiss lens on it and looked at the result. I also shoot MF with a Hassy 503CW and use film backs as well as a digital back. Quality is still, imho,a tad better with the MF Hassy and its Zeiss lens. But dollar value today, Alpha 900 has to be way up there. Now if they can just have shooting to two CF card capabilities and weatherproof the body then it would beat even Nikon and Canon's top of the line. (imho)

Cheers

Gaetan Dery

http://www.photostudiodery.com