Thanks for the review Carl,I really enjoy your thorough reviews.
I kinda looked at the Sony Style Canadian site but I didnt see it,whats the angle of view of this lens?
I know the fisheye is 180 degrees on the a900,just curious.

.. stand by Houston.

Carl

of the specification sheet. :)

Carl

It will be a while before I get this lens,still deciding on this or the 70-400.

You and everybody else Mike :)

Those who have the A900 are really torn.

C

In looking at the opening images under scrutiny it is apparent that image sharpness cannot be judged properly by readers. The reason is that there is too much longitudinal information to determine where the lens is focused or on what distance it is focused. That is much more of a problem with a 2.8 aperature as the depth of field is quite narrow.
It appears that the images are focused at infinity for the comparison. Knowing that is helpful for the observer but I am not sure if that is the actual focus distance. If it is focused at infinity, then looking at the stones in the wall at the sides of the photo - as a matter of the laws of optics - will always show a sharper image at the higher F stops (greater depth of focus). When people who don't understand that view the images their conclusion has to be that this lens is a poor performer at wide open aperatures. That in truth can only be judged with a comnparison to other lenses of similar physical charasteristics.
So if you place these images here to show sharpness and clarity at one aperature vs another, the test is only valid at the point of actual focus. I assume infinity is the focus point here since the outdoor scene appears to be at best focus. But even so, I did not read where you try to make the viewing public aware of the fallacies that they would ordinarily make leading to wrong conclusions.
In addition, the central part of the screne (I assume the outdoor part is where the camera is focused) represents less that 1% of the realestate of the photo (lower percentage in 16 mm format and ~ 1/64 in the 35 mm setting) and is only a small sample for comparison.
And just as important the central area which is the only place to judge sharpness is overexposed. In order for you to get a compromise for the exposure the outdoor scene has to be overexposed (that is seen) and the indoor part underexposed and that is seen as well.
I think by using this scene without warning people, is a disservice to everyone who looks at your photos as they can only come up with the wrong conclusions. And that hurts the manufacturer's of these wonderful lens in a harsh economic way.
I believe the reviewer should at least downgrade the importance of an image being soft at maximum aperature or having vinyetting in a bright lens. That is part of the territory for those lenses and stands for all lens of similar caliber. There has never been a wide aperature lens that is at its best wide open - whether it is from Nikon, Canon, Leica or whomever.
I feel that your subject in the first set of images (the corridor and opened door) is a thoughtless choice packed with information that leads to the wrong conclusions. Images taken to show the sharpness of a lens in regards to F stop, in a longitudinal three dimensional scene, results in the average viewer making precisely wrong conclusions - as the wide aperature will always look much worse the further you come toward the camera if it is focused on infinity.
Secondly, not warning people clearly (not in the fine print in the back pages of the site or on another page) is a disservice as well, as once the wrong conclusion is made by viewers, most will leave but will have confidence that they have seen on your site that the 16-35 Zeiss is a poor performer at open aperatures. And since the wide aperatures is the primary reason for spending big bucks on this lens they will avoid it and possible the Sony platform as well. In my opinion that hurts everyone.
Let me suggest that you use a subject (as in your other photos) which are more two dimentional in this most important part of your site. I say that as these pages are the entry point to the site. In addition get a proper exposure for most of the subject so people can open the image to full size and make some valid conclusions of how F stop affects sharpness - but at where the image of the photo is in focus - not fuzzy because you are looking at an image 5 feet from the camera and it is focused to infinity at F8.
At the minimum you should at least warn people in large print next to the corridor images that the sides of these photos are completely invalid for evaluation of how F stop affects images that are out of focus.
Mal

First of all, that was quite a read. I think you could have saved yourself some time by:

1. Realizing that I am not making any technical claims to the degree that you have so stated in volume
2. Readers should know that a scene like this (assuming you are talking only about the City Counsel Hallway images) is not a technical test chart, nor is it supposed to replace one.
3. My in use impressions explanation makes no claims to testing to a scientific degree, and I have no interest in doing so.
4. You don't give readers enough credit for making their own conclusions.
5. There is no way that any review will ever cover every single aspect of image quality to the likes that will satisfy all readers.
6. Even the most technical and lab worked review are subject to criticism.

Give the readers more credit they are more intelligent than you seem to assume. If anyone is going to spend this much money on a lens, they either already know its performance characteristics, or, will read several reviews on this lens prior to making an investment into such. And by the way, my focus point is not at infinity.

And lastly, I make no claims to the degree in which you have written.

Carl

Hi Carl,
Nice meeting you. You site does a very nice job but it could be better.
I know there are a lot of sophisticated people reading your publications and reviews. But by the same token there are people who are not that knowledgeable and come to your site after doing a Google search. I am not certain that they are the majority or not, but certainly many readers are not aware of the nuances that will cause them to draw the wrong conclusions when viewing your published photos. Please understand that I am not talking about pros and long tern aficionados like you and me or the people that have a love for the physics of photography. There are a lot of people who just want to come into the digital SLR market and are stepping up from prior point and shoots etc. They go to various sites to see which system they should get into. Those are the people that will be misled. And I believe they are not insignificant nor should they be written off as unimportant. We all had to start somewhere.
In addition there are those people with hidden agendas who come to your site to look for weaknesses in the Sony-Zeiss system because they have a particular bias for another system. Then they quote the findings and their conclusions at your site to others as if it were the undeniable truth and so humiliate Sony-Zeiss.
I am not stating that your photo is a technical test chart – or at least I don’t remember saying that. However people do and will look at it to gather information on how the camera/lens combination performs in real life. Most will probably be considering the possibility (no matter how remote or not) of purchasing the item and whether it is worth the price or whether their Nikon/Canon/Pentax etc. is a better item.
Your presentation, clearly by its format, suggests that people juxtapose images at different F stops for comparisons as to how it will perform in real life. Doing that clearly implies that one should look at one photo against another, over the entirety of the image, to see what the lens does at the sides of the image as well as centrally. And there is no basis for that comparison with a longitudinal 3D image when looking at the effects of F stops. You even mention that we should reference the info by passing our cursors over the thumbnail.
As far as I am concerned, and as interesting a scene as it might be, it is a bad scene for comparative purposes under almost any situation regarding F stop comparisons.
Whether you profess or divorce yourself from purporting a scientific function to these photos is not material here as the photo series speaks for themselves – i.e. here is a set of photos for you, my public, to look at to help you see the differences in performance of the camera/lens/F stop combinations. The photo comparisons of that scene is entirely unfair as it stands on the site and is misleading if not to most people than to many people. You are not providing a beneficial service here and should at least mention a short insert CLEARLY STATING WHERE THE LENS IS FOCUSED IN ALL THOSE IN THE SERIES as well as suggest that the reader become familiar with the concept of Depth of focus and now it affects photos. In that way most of the people who are naïve about the factors may become better educated about their cameras and optics. At the same time it would be appreciated by people who are sophisticated and are aware of the pitfalls for others not yet up to a pro level, that you are trying to present the best truth while helping the community in general. That would be a service to your readers – not photos taken under ambiguous circumstances which imply wrong conclusions.
Let me clearly state that I am not talking about a review covering all aspects of a photo/image – this is only in regard to depth of focus factors and how they might affect peoples conclusions.
Think on it for a while. Perhaps a short note at the beginning of your reviews would be a good thing for everyone.
Sincerely Mal

Thanks Carl for a superlative review with all the right content. It makes me want to buy this lens now (instead of the 24-70mm). And congratulations for being probably the first English language reviewer of this lens.

Your opinions are certainly well documented, I appreciate you taking all this time to state them. My opinions are also documented.

Nice to meet you as well.

Carl

Right now I have the CZ 24-70 and the Sigma 12-24. You have stated that the weakest part of this lens is 16-24. So given the overlap of this lens with the 24-70, would it be worth giving up the Sigma in favour of this lens?

But I can say it performs better than the Sigma from 16-24mm. Just to be sure, *weakest is relative to the rest of the range and not compared to other lenses.

Carl

not from 12-16:)

yet the Sigma doesn't go from 24-35 either... grin. :)

C

Nice that finally a decent review is out.

Since few people actually own and or have used this lens there have been tons of misinformation being posted since it's release. The majority of people are making statements using photos posted on websites using their little knowledge (if any) about super wide angle zooms on a full frame camera. I know a few owners of this lens including me stopped reading/posting anything about the CZ1635 over this. I was happy to finally find your review today.

What I think might be a good future posting would be something about how to rate/review super wide angle primes/zooms on full frame cameras. Share whats important in the real world pros/cons and technical aspects.

Thanks

Hello Carl
Thank you for testing this lens and posting this review. I have just taken delivery of an A900 with the Carl Zeiss 24-70 lens. I couldn't find anyone in the UK that was even listing the 16-35. I hope that it will begin to appear, and will strongly consider purchasing it. Your review is most helpful in this process.
Trevor

Nice review Carl

Oh BTW for the next AMW lens test..we have!

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-2600mm-Definition-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B000XQH6HQ

Lol ;-)

I would love to see a comparison to the CZ 16-80.
As there are not really much reviews on the 16-35 itself on the web, I think your the one to ask^^

For ASP-C Users it is like 3000€ (16-35 + 24-70) vs. 700€ (16-80).
And of cause 450g vs. 2x 900g in weight.
Is the Image quality that much superior?

I surly check your page in the future for new reviews and hope to see a Review of 16-80 comparing to the two big Zeiss ones...

knock yourself out buddy! :)

I'd rather break a coke bottle and stick the bottom of it in front of the body and take a picture than review that lens ;)

Carl

"I would love to see a comparison to the CZ 16-80."
The 2 full frame lenses when compared to the aps-c 1680 are really different lenses so hard to compare really. Not only are they made for full frame but the F2.8 is a huge difference to the F4.5.

"I'd rather break a coke bottle and stick the bottom of it in front of the body and take a picture than review that lens ;) "
Smart man, SO TRUE!

Hello,

from my (very short so far) experience with this lens I can say that 24-70 is clearly sharper at 24-35.

also less barrel distortion, vignetting, and sharper corners.

There is a reason this lens costs more.

Carl

Thanks carl for giving us review on this lens. I am not that pro's as every body here in the forum seeing or identifying good clarity of picture. but base on your sample photos I am already satisfied in the result. Keep up the good reviews and provides us comments to enlighten somebody that are getting enterested in shifting thier camera's into DSLR.

Just found this site after buying into the Sony system. I just sold my Canon 1D mark III, 16-35, 35, 50, 85 and 135 L lenses, and replaced with the Sony and Zeiss equivalents. Most of my work is on moving platforms (maritime photography) so the capability of having some stabilisation in all of my favorite focal lengths is huge, something not offered by Canon or Nikon.
In practice I have found these lenses excellent, as good or better than their Canon counterparts. As far as comparing ia 16-35mm to a 14-24mm Nikon, who cares. There not even the same lens. Compare it to Nikons 17-35mm and it will probably rate as good or better.
As far as all the comments go on the lens here, it seems way too complicated, other than the initial straitforward review. This is a great lens, with many pros and a few cons. Way fewer than the competition, and it's stabilized on the Sony (did I mention that already).

Carl

Thank you for your review of this lens and all the images that you have posted. Your review enabled me to choose the right ultra wide-angle lens for my Sony Alpha A900. Though I read the review shortly after it appeared, I only ordered the lens about a week ago, and received it today. Below are my comments, which I trust that you won't mind including in your website comments section. Many thanks.

This is an excellent lens. I have carried out critical tests to check the evenness of illumination across the whole of the frame, using the full-frame Alpha A900 camera, and shooting a clear blue sky. At 16mm it is in fact difficult to find a place where no chimneys intrude into the edges of the view with such a wide-angle lens. However, the results are excellent, with no significant darkening of the edges and the corners, even at maximum aperture. With normal subjects, this extremely slight vignetting is not observable at all. Of course, it is rare to shoot at maximum aperture, especially outdoors on a bright, sunny day.

Chromatic aberration (colour fringeing) is also very slight. At the edge of the frame at 16mm, it is possible to observe some red/cyan fringeing of critical subjects (white bars on a black background), when viewed at 200% or higher on a large (24”) monitor. Chromatic aberrations are not reduced by changing the lens aperture. However, it is possible to eliminate this in Adobe Camera Raw 5.5 with a value of approximately -18 in the red/cyan channel under Lens Corrections. No correction is necessary for the blue/yellow channel. For most normal subjects and degrees of enlargement, this fringeing would not be noticed.

Resolution is excellent, with the weakest being at 16mm and f2.8, as is to be expected. It would of course in most circumstances be preferable to shoot between f8 and f11, where considerable improvement would be observed.

I have not yet tested for barrel/pin-cushion distortion against a brick wall or other test object, but normal architectural subjects (not shot square-on to the camera, but from normal angles in which some lines recede towards a vanishing point) do not make either type of distortion obvious. I have shot at the two extremes of 16mm and 35mm. Potential purchasers are referred to other reviews on the web.

Naturally, the normal care needed when working with any extreme wide-angle lens is advised, to avoid undesirable or unwanted distortion. For many occasions, a spirit-level may be helpful to keep the camera level (although you will require an adapter to convert Minolta/Sony’s odd flash shoe to a standard flash shoe, to mount it). The resolution of the Alpha A900 is so high that it is easy to crop off unwanted foreground afterwards, rather than tilting the camera up and getting extreme converging verticals (unless this is the effect that you are after). There is also some stretching near the left and right edges of the frame (in landscape format). This is unavoidable with any manufacturer’s lens as wide as this. As a general rule, people important to the image should not be very near the edges at the wide-angle end of the range – although this, too, can be corrected to a considerable degree in imaging software.

The lens is beautifully designed and made, and is supplied with front and rear caps, a lens shade and a soft pouch (plus instructions in various languages, etc). It sits extremely comfortably in the hand when mounted on the Sony A900 and when casually looking at it and handling it, it is virtually indistinguishable from the 24-70mm Vario-Sonnar.

For my type of photography, which includes plenty of landscapes, panoramic shots and interiors, this lens is likely to remain on the A900 most of the time as my main lens for this camera.

Recommended.

With the current $250 (or was it $200?) it made my eyes glaze over for a second. Everything I've read says this is a superb lens. Even Kurt Munger says its pretty good especially considering his lack of appreciation for the 24-70. But I don't need it, what I've got covers everything I do right now.

Hello Theresa
The price of this lens varies tremendously throughout the world. Also, in most countries there is probably the option of importing it personally (i.e., just buying it from a seller in another country). When doing this, it is necessary to factor in international currency fluctuations and local import duties and taxes. However, this may still result in substantial savings.
Unfortunately, the lens is far too new and too scarce for there to be much realistic chance of finding it at a bargain price second-hand, at least probably for a year or two.
However, you could always set up an e8ay search with an automatic e-mail whenever one comes up. ...
Trevor