Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 OSS ZA
#1
Quite good albeit not flawless

http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff...s1635f4oss

 

#2
It's the best(?) WA zoom you can buy it seems like and you give it a 3?

Maybe it's time to adjust the scale for whats achievable for the lens type (no WA zoom IS sharp in the corners).

 

But this confirms my findings; it's a stunner.

#3
Ok, let's make it 3.5pts then. However, the performance at 35mm f/4 is not that hot.

#4
Quote:Ok, let's make it 3.5pts then. However, the performance at 35mm f/4 is not that hot.
I wonder how 16-35 became a standard that Canon/Nikon/Sony etc have to stick to.

As people buying these lenses probably also have a 24-70, designing smaller ranges like 16-28 should be acceptable and easier.
#5
Quote:Quite good albeit not flawless

http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff...s1635f4oss
You forgot to put it on the home page?
#6
Quote: 

It's the best(?) WA zoom you can buy it seems like and you give it a 3?
Canon 16-35/4 and Nikon 14-24 beat it, and Klaus + sony OIS = bad times for centering =)  This lens seems to have been an exception to that.

#7
So according to Klaus it looks like this zoom at it's best "easily exceeds the potential of the 36MP sensor"

And so it looks on the charts.

 

But according to DXO it provides, at it's best, 16 PMP - perceptual megapixels, their own made up measure. Which they take to be very good for a lens like this.

 

Now maybe 16PMP is the most you can hope for on a 36 real mp sensor: except that the Zony 55 1.8 peaks at what looks like a massively higher 28 (I think) PMP.  So it seems like there's a lot more potential on the 36MP sensor.

 

So what's going on? I'm confused....

#8
Quote:So according to Klaus it looks like this zoom at it's best "easily exceeds the potential of the 36MP sensor"

And so it looks on the charts.

 

But according to DXO it provides, at it's best, 16 PMP - perceptual megapixels, their own made up measure. Which they take to be very good for a lens like this.

 

Now maybe 16PMP is the most you can hope for on a 36 real mp sensor: except that the Zony 55 1.8 peaks at what looks like a massively higher 28 (I think) PMP.  So it seems like there's a lot more potential on the 36MP sensor.

 

So what's going on? I'm confused....
 DXOmark seem to have established themselves as the "benchmark" for camera and lens ratings, personally I don't see their logic is sufficiently complete, especially when it comes to sensor ratings, they attach too much  importance to colour depth rating which to me seems one of the least important ratings out there. Dynamic range is an obviously important parameter as is ISO noise, but absolutely "no" account is taken for image resolution so their overall score seems strangely weighted.

   The Pentax K5 gets a higher overall score than the K3 because a slight drop in DR and a tiny drop in image noise, but looking at images the K3 outshines easily the K5 in terms of IQ. 

 Many people have scratched their heads trying to make sense of DXO scores and I'm one of them.
Dave's clichés
#9
Quote:So according to Klaus it looks like this zoom at it's best "easily exceeds the potential of the 36MP sensor"

And so it looks on the charts.

 

But according to DXO it provides, at it's best, 16 PMP - perceptual megapixels, their own made up measure. Which they take to be very good for a lens like this.

 

Now maybe 16PMP is the most you can hope for on a 36 real mp sensor: except that the Zony 55 1.8 peaks at what looks like a massively higher 28 (I think) PMP.  So it seems like there's a lot more potential on the 36MP sensor.

 

So what's going on? I'm confused....
DXO is what is going on. For fun, take a look at the Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L USM and Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II "tests" from DXO. Prepare to get confused even more!
#10
Quote:I wonder how 16-35 became a standard that Canon/Nikon/Sony etc have to stick to.

As people buying these lenses probably also have a 24-70, designing smaller ranges like 16-28 should be acceptable and easier.
I would not buy the 24-70 (especially since, as every review site would reveal, the FE one is rather mediocre) - I would only get the 16-35, the 55 and the 70-200. Just as I have on the Canon (only that there I have the 2.8 versions, and their 55 is a 50 instead) - I even gave away my 24-85. Maybe I shouldn't have, but I didn't use it enough anyways. YMMV.

By the way... the review seems to miss the build quality rating... and the Highly Recommended badge.  :angry:  :blink:  Big Grin

On a side note... a month's downtimes between reviews (or small stacks thereof) seem to have become a pattern. More surprisingly, Lenstip has been silent for almost a month as well - only yesterday they got their first review since January 26th. A bad time to be a lens review junkie. Big Grin

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)