Sony 16-35mm F/4 OSS Review

Sony SEL1635Z Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS  Real world images (click for larger and exif)

Sony Zeiss FE 16-35mm F/4 OSS Review:

Sony shooters now have a wealth of wide angle options but the Sony 16-35mm F/4 was the first wide angle lens introduced in the system.   Wide angle lenses pair wonderfully with Sony full frame mirrorless cameras.  While many people complain that Sony full frame lenses are no smaller than dSLR lenses, there is a real size difference when it comes to wide angle.   Thus, wide angle shooters can enjoy a smaller camera body and a smaller lens when shooting Sony compared to dSLRs.

Canon and Nikon both have 16-35mm F/4 lenses that are bigger but also significantly cheaper.   The Canon EF 16-35mm F/4 IS USM lens weighs in at 615 grams and is currently priced at $999 (regular $1099).   Meanwhile, the Nikon 16-35mm F/4 is priced the same as the Canon and weighs in at 680 grams.  In comparison, the Sony 16-35mm F/4 comes in at a light weight of only 518 grams but has a heftier regular price of $1350.

As you’ll likely find in this review, the weight savings does not equate with giving up any image quality.   The weight savings comes from taking advantage of the smaller flange distance in the Sony mirrorless camera.  Given this advantage, I truly believe every Sony full frame shooter should own a wide angle lens, whether the Sony 16-35mm F/4, Sony 12-24mm F/4 G (reviewed here), or Sony 16-35mm F/2.8.

The focal range of 16mm to 35mm is a truly useful range, covering a wide range of landscape and people-shooting opportunities.

Body and Handling

In the photos above, I compare the Sony 16-35mm F/4 with the Sony 12-24mm F/4.   As I mentioned, it’s a fairly lightweight lens.  It is smaller than the 12-24 except when the barrel is extended.

You should ignore the Zeiss badge. This is a Sony lens but they have a licensing agreement with Zeiss that allows them to put the badge on some of their higher end lenses.  Lately, they have preferred to label their high end lenses as “G” or “GM.”   In theory, Zeiss may have contributed to the design of the lens but I’m of the belief that it’s nothing more than licensing the name.

The Sony 16-35mm F/4 is solidly built with a metal construction and weather sealing.   Unlike many of Sony’s more recent lenses, including the 12-24mm, there are no switches or buttons.   Especially as the lens is equipped with OSS (optical steady shot), I would have appreciated a switch to turn on and off SteadyShot instead of having to dive into camera menus.  Similarly, there is no focus hold button which is helpful when doing people shooting (and re-assigning the button to eye-AF).

It may have just been my copy, but I had trouble twisting on and off the hood, it was just a bit too tight.

Unlike the 12-24mm F/4, the Sony 16-35mm F/4 can use standard filters.  I used 72mm ICE ND filters to shoot some waterfalls as I discussed here.

Focus is entirely silent.  Manual focus is “by wire” and the lens focus and zoom rings have nice grooves for feel.  Autofocus speed is adequate.

Image Quality

The Sony 16-35mm F/4 is $350 more than the competing Canon and Nikon lenses, although it is the cheapest Sony wide angle zoom lens.   Let’s take a look at the image quality….

Vignetting

At the widest angle of 16mm, vignetting is pretty severe wide open but I have seen Sony zoom lenses that are even worse.   It gradually improves upon stopping down.   When used as open aperture, you need to be aware of vignette correct potentially increasing noise in the corners.  The vignette is far less severe at the telephoto end of 35mm:

Flare – Back lighting – Chromatic Aberration/Purple Fringing

In situations of harsh backlighting or strong light just outside the frame, the Sony 16-35mm F/4 is a mixed bag.   Flare isn’t a major issue and I didn’t see any CA or color fringing.   On the downside, there is a clear loss of contrast.  You can see the effect of the contrast loss in the below real world image:

Backlit loss of contrast

Distortion

As shown above, at the widest angle of 16mm there is significant barrel distortion.   This is correctable with a lightroom profile but note that the correction will stretch the edges thereby reducing sharpness.   At 35mm, there is mild pincushion distortion:

Sharpness

Let’s start with centers at the widest angle, 16m:

16mm center crops from a closer focus distance:

16mm border crops from F4 to F8:

And the far corners at 16mm:

As you pixel peep, you see the center and borders are fair wide open at F4 but become tack sharp at F5.6.  The corners are a tad soft wide open but not un-usable in real world situations.   By F8, the corners reach a good level of sharpness.

Examining 24mm centers:

The borders at 24mm:

And finally the corners at 24mm:

24mm is pretty strong on the Sony 16-35mm F/4.  The center and border are quite strong wide open and tack sharp at F/5.6.  The extreme corner is noticeably softer wide open but sharpens up nicely at F/5.6 even if not quite tack sharp.  Even by F8, we start to see some diffraction softening.

Moving to the long end of 35mm, centers first:

35mm borders:

And finally the extreme corners at 35mm:

Things aren’t quite so great at 35mm but still not bad.   Wide open at F4, the entire frame is just a bit soft.  The centers and borders become acceptably sharp at F5.6.  The extreme corners never get really sharp, but they are acceptably sharp at F8.

In real world use, these are overall excellent results.   I’ve seen sharper lenses from Sony but you get very useful sharpness throughout the focal and aperture range.   Typically shooting between F5.6 and F8, you will get sharp images across the frame that will survive large prints and pixel peeping.

Overall:

I can only describe the Sony 16-35mm F/4 as a very solid performer.   There are really no glaring weaknesses.  At 16mm, there is fairly severe distortion and vignette but it is mostly correctable and not unusual on a wide angle lens.   There can be some ghosting and contrast loss with severe back lighting.   Sharpness is very good across the frame, even if there are sharper lenses.

Overall, I prefer the Sony 12-24mm F/4, which I find has a better build quality (focus hold button, MF/AF switch), and is slightly sharper across the frame.   But it is also $350 more expensive, it doesn’t accept standard filters, and it misses the 24mm to 35mm range.  As a result, the Sony 12-24 is more a specialty lens for those who like the artistic capabilities of extreme wide angle.  16mm to 35mm is a more useful standard range for many shooters.  For those who want the best quality and faster aperture, there is the much more expensive Sony 16-35mm F/2.8 GM.

For many shooters who don’t want to pay the premium for 2.8 aperture and who prefer the usefulness of the 16-35mm range (plus ability to use standard filters), this should be the lens of choice.  It’s a bit overpriced compared to the competing systems but I suspect it is a better performer.

The Sony 16-35mm F/4 OSS earns a very solid….

Rating (1-10):  Score: 7

(About my scoring:  9-10 is a superb lens which could have a place in the bag of almost every photographer.   6-8:  recommended with caveats.   3-5:  A compromised lens that may still be suitable for some shooters and situations.  1-2:  Just stick to your phone camera)

You can help support this site (at no additional cost to yourself) by using these links to make your purchase from Amazon:

Sony 16-35mm F/4

Sony 16-35mm F/4 with filters and cleaning cloth

Sony 16-35mm F/4 (international version, no US warranty)

I hope to eventually review every Sony FE lens.  I’m almost half-way there as this is my tenth eSony branded FE lens review.  To make sure you see all my posts and reviews, please follow me on twitter using the button on the top right and/or subscribe to notifications.

Thank you.