It's January. Where is the 16-35mm?

[jbtaylor]

Anybody (David)used this lens yet? What about image quality? Feel? Weight? Any information at all would be appreciated.

[InTheSky]

PMA 2009 i think

[Dr. Harout]

Don't forget that Sony is the best ... in keeping us waiting.

[pakodominguez]

here:
http://www.adorama.com/ISO163528Z.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2 on stock last time I asked for...

[jbtaylor]

Thanks folks. I am coveting this lens something awlful. Help me Doc, it may be an addiction.

[David Kilpatrick]

I used a prototype, and on the basis of that, stopped coveting it. It is marginally better in the corners than the 17-35mm D (same type of softness, but only in the extreme corners where the 17-35mm extends more into the frame) and unlike the 14-24mm Nikkor which has a pure barrel distortion at 14mm, the 16-35mm Sony is like the Canon 16-35mm and has a moustache-type compound distortion at 16mm (so does the 17-35mm D, and the 20mm f2.. If the 16-35mm f2.8 had offered perfect geometry, or a pure distortion easily corrected without needing a lens geometry map, I would be interested.

But as it is, the combination of cost, size and weight, complexity of distortion and there still being a need to stop down to f8 or f11 to completely tidy up the extreme corners means I will probably never even try the 16-35mm again. I decide to get a 12-24mm Sigma to test, and found this lens transformed by the Alpha 900. I've used the 12-24mm on many cameras, and I have never had a performance like the A900 produces. So I bought the Sigma last month. In practice it replaces my 17-35mm. The 12-24mm Sigma, at 14mm, is fully capable of matching the Nikon 14-24mm if both lenses are used at f8.

David

[bfitzgerald]

I saw a few shots from DK on this pre production lens.

Just a simple comment, the shots didn't look good at all..but is it fair to comment on a non production lens?

[jbtaylor]

Thanks for the comments David. My dilemma is as follows:
I currently use the a700. The lenses I use are the Tamron 14mm 2.8, Sigma 18-50mm 2.8, 85mm 1.4 ZA, 135mm 1.8 ZA. The Sigma is five to six years old and is showing signs of wear. I figured this was the lens that would need upgrade. I figured that the 16-35ZA would provide the upgrade and keep me positioned for a full frame camera in the near to mid-term future. Not sure if it needs to be the a900 or a model yet to be developed.
The 16-35 or reasonable substitute would be the walk-around lens and also serve as the golf course photography lens that I absolutely must have. Now I wonder about my whole strategy. Do I keep the Sigma? What other wide to mid angle lens might be usable? Do I even need to think about and upgrade to full frame strategy?
Maybe this post belongs in another discussion forum.

[David Kilpatrick]

I think that when a prorotype lens displays good centering and AF performance, and no apparent optical issues, it's reasonable to draw conclusions about design aims - and geometry is the one thing I would not expect to see change between a pre-production model and final run. Far more likely that mount components would be changed; by the time they have got to this level of pre-production, the lens elements have all been manufactured anyway and are just waiting to be assembled. Some shimming might be adjusted, so might zoom and focus cam paths, but on the whole the performance at 16mm (the only aspect which concerns me in such a lens) would be determined by the Zeiss design. And that design would include the geometry, illumination and permissible corner fall-off.

I would not buy the 16-35mm as a general lens for the A700 though its performance will be exceptional on that camera. It would be like walking round with your 135mm f/1.8 on the camera all day. It's a very large lens. You already own a 14mm f2.8 which does the primary job of the 16-35mm, to secure accurate f2.8-sensor focus at a very wide angle. The 14mm on the A700 is equal to 21mm, a real classic focal length - one of my favourites. If your Sigma is really 5-6 years old then it's the oldest one on the planet, as far as I can remember the design was first shown at photokina 2004 and didn't become available until early the following year. It had very poor compatibility with the Dynax 7D, due to focus errors. If yours focuses well on the A700, keep it going - maybe get it serviced. Wait to see what comes. That mythical 24-105mm f4 Sony may yet appear for full frame and be a far better general purposes lens than any other choice.

David

[jbtaylor]

You are right on the dates. I did buy the lens in early 2005. It just seems like 5 years ago.
Good advice and reassuring as well. Saving the $1,700 seems more attractive now.

[FramerDave]

Hail Doctor David.
I trust you are not just saying that to help jbtaylor?
If I have the 24-70ZA, am I better off getting the SAL 16mm or 20mm f2.8?

[David Kilpatrick]

If you already own a 24-70mm - first of all, the 16-35mm is exactly the same size. So you will be used to that. And the same filter thread. Also, 20mm down from 24-70mm is not all that much of a step. 16-35mm f2.8 makes sense but you do end up duplicating the 24-35mm range. Only for A900 though. For the A700, I would get an 11-18mm instead without any doubt. Far more useful than only going down to 16mm, you can do that with a 16-105mm or a 16-80mm, but the 11-18mm makes a decent pair with the 24-70mm (again, same filter thread), small gap in the range but far more useful wide angle on the A700.

I believe that the A900 will go back up in price to almost its original RRP shortly.

David

[PhotoTraveler]

If sony would just bring out some new high quality primes in the 14 through 21mm range, this problem would be fixed.

I just can't see carrying a 16-35 and a 24-70. Lets hope they get the house in order come PMA.

[gpr2020]

The CZ 1635 is already in Hong Kong and in China where several of us have already got it.