Lensrentals tested FE 4/16-35mm and FE 4/24-70mm

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by addieleman, Jun 21, 2016.

  1. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    Just saw the heads-up on dpreview:

    Lensrentals test

    I've had a total of 6 4/24-70mm lenses on my camera until I was happy enough with one of them. In hindsight some of those might have been OK and I suppose I was also misled by the erratic focussing of that lens on the A7; it behaves way better on the A7R2, same story for the FE 4/16-35mm. Also, it took some time before it dawned on me that OSS interferes with edge sharpness, randomly. Of course my quick-and-dirty tests are a far cry from the methodical and thorough tests at Lensrentals. Oddly enough, the FE 4/70-200mm's focussing always is spot-on on the A7, irrespective of size of flexible spot, Live View settings, whatever.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 3
  2. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    May 10, 2013
    Yannis Marigo
    Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
    Nothing to complain with my 16-35 at 35 but I should maybe use the FDn 35/2 more frequently for 35mm photos. This one is crisply sharp.
  3. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    I saw this article. It's a good read. I like that he is transparent about how difficult it is to scientifically test these new Sony lenses because of the focus systems and distortion. He even says the difficulty makes it hard to like these lens. But in the end he is fair. The bottom line is that in a comprehensive scientific test these Sony lenses are just as good as their Canikon counterparts in MTF and copy variation. In the case of the 16-35, the Sony actually measures better from 16-24; the area you care about when buying a UWA.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Aug 22, 2012
    Nothing but pleased with my 16-35. It is a touch softer at 35mm than the other lengths, but nothing I would complain about, particularly as I use 35mm on this lens for environmental portraiture, which doesn't benefit from perfect sharpness anyway.

    To be honest, all of my FE lenses have been outstanding. So have my APS-C 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 primes, as well as my 18-200 LE (though it is a hunty lens). The 1st generation Sigma twins (19 and 30/2.8) were fantastic too. The only lens I didn't care for from Sony E was the 16/2.8. Maybe I am just less choosy than other people, or got quite lucky. But I do have the tendency to view complaints about Sony lenses with a heavy dose of salt.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  5. TedG954

    TedG954 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Nov 29, 2014
    South Florida and NE Ohio
    Ted Gersdorf
    This photo was taken with the Sony FE24-70/4 on my A7II. I have read some complaints about the FE24-70/4, but the problems must run differently from lens to lens. My copy has been excellent. The second photo is 250% close up of the top rings on the monuments tower. When you can read the words from this distance, at 24mm, I don't think there's much to complain about. And cudos for the A7II's auto focus too. 7-16-16 CLE-RNC   7sm.jpg 7-16-16 CLE-RNC   7.1sm.jpg
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2016
  6. bargainguy

    bargainguy TalkEmount Regular

    Jun 29, 2016
    Disclaimer: I don't own the 16-35 or the 24-70. But Roger's conclusions are eerily similar to Nasim Mansurov's testing in the following article, although Roger is apparently testing more samples of each. In a somewhat shocking statement, Nasim states you generally get better performance out of the cheaper 28-70 OSS than the 24-70.


    DYNOBOB TalkEmount Regular

    Feb 9, 2016
    Cincinnati, OH
    Saying the 28-70 is better than the 24-70 makes no sense to me. I've had two copies of the 28-70 and they were both very soft 20% in from either side. The center 60% was not bad. If that was the only lens for an A7 I'd have gotten rid of it. My 24-70 is clearly better in sharpness across the frame and color reproduction. While not a superstar, it made me happy I bought the A7. My 16-35 is clearly better than the 24-70 at 28mm.

    • Like Like x 1
  8. southy

    southy TalkEmount Veteran Subscribing Member

    Feb 5, 2014
    That was also my experience with the 28-70, middle was good but things quickly went bad from there with both sides, not just the corners, total mush. The 24-70 is a vast improvement in all areas. Yes deep corners are less than perfect at 24mm but given I have a habit of cropping to 16x9 for wide shots the corners are usually cropped off anyway.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    Resolution graphs don't tell the whole story. I too have ditched the 28-70 for the 24-70. The 28-70 frustrated the hell out of me with its grayish, dull pictures, to say nothing about decentering, it's one of those lenses that disappoints me often when I see the results. I can live with the imperfections of my present 24-70 copy because it gives me punchy and colorful pictures, in the overlapping range I switch to the 16-35 if corner sharpness is important.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2016
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.