My review of the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f4 G Power Zoom! Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f4G at B&H: bhpho.to/3CZcNLi / WEX UK: tidd.ly/3L2mD1J Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop Gordon’s retro gear channel: th-cam.com/users/dinobytes Lost photos? I recover mine with: www.dpbolvw.net/click-100568658-13808570?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stellarinfo.com%2Fphoto-recovery-software.php Equipment used for producing my videos Sony A6400: amzn.to/3hul53c Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): bhpho.to/3HiafJL 00:00 - intro and alternatives 01:16 - design and controls 04:12 - Power Zoom in practice - and why? 07:27 - PZ 16-35mm focusing vs 16-35mm ZA 08:15 - PZ 16-35mm distortion vs 16-35mm ZA 09:17 - PZ 16-35mm sharpness vs 16-35mm ZA 12:54 - PZ 16-35mm portraits vs 16-35mm ZA 13:45 - PZ 16-35mm bokeh vs 16-35mm ZA 14:47 - PZ 16-35mm video 14:56 - PZ 16-35mm video focusing vs 16-35mm ZA 15:32 - PZ 16-35mm video face tracking 16:02 - PZ 16-35mm vlogging 17:12 - PZ 16-35mm breathing vs 16-35mm ZA 18:16 - PZ 16-35mm verdict and sample images Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Excellent video as always. Thank you. Watched a lot of your videos over the years and I feel ashamed that I never left a comment. Thank you again for your hard work.
Great review. Interesting lens variant. You can't say that Sony isn't trying new things. As a photographer, I think I'm with you that I prefer mechanical zooms, but I can live with a power zoom if it improves the weather sealing and reduces size and weight. I really like the addition of the aperture rings on this generation of Sony lenses. I wonder if Sony has a 24-70 refresh coming similar to this, smaller, sharper, with PZ and direct aperture adjustment?
If power zoom can make future zoom lenses light and compact, I'm all in for it. I know people like mechnical linkage, nobody is complaining about digital zoom ring now.
excellent product, great news, I like the fact that the lens doesn’t extend and that it’s small and light, a well worth trade off against the slower zoom, especially on a wide angle lens…..
As a stills-only photographer, I totally agree about the preference for a mechanical zoom. It would be good if Sony could bring out a mechanical only version of the lens, otherwise I'll be keeping my Zeiss.
i purchased this lens and it's amazing! i pair it with my sigma 70-200 2.8 sport. if i can only bring 1 lens (no room in the bag for more), i use my sony 28-105 f/4.
Awesome review. This lens would be great for video. Having image stabilization (OSS) in the lens would have been great. Hopefully Sony upgrades their Sony 24-70 F4 or the 24-105 F4 to PZ version with a smaller body in the near future.
I know this is old..but I wonder with the release of the Dynamic Active mode with ZV-E1 if sony is going to keep pushing in-camera Gyro Stabilization hard in future bodies. I came from the GH5 and this mode is just vastly superior to anything even Panasonic IBIS could do for video at least for the wide range, I think it still struggles in tele.
I would love to see a review or even comparison shots comparing this lens, the older 16-35F4 and the Canon 16-35 F4L, I am swapping over to the A7R4 and have a bunch of EF lenses including the awesome 16-35mm F4L and it performs great but it would be awesome to see if either of the Sony options are better!! Keep up the great work!!
According to many reviews this lens has serious barrel distortion at the wider focal lengths. Much more serious barrel distortion than the previous Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 OSS lens. Barrel distortion is very common among wide and ultra wide lenses. It is very expensive to be corrected optically and that increases the size and weight of the lens. Of course this barrel distortion is fixed digitally inside the camera with jpeg files or video files. A similar situation is the Nikon Z mount NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S lens or the Sony FE 24mm f/2.8 G etc. It is a common trick with many lens manufacturers to avoid correcting optically the geometric distortion (barrel or pincushion). They use less lens elements and keep the size, the weigh and above all the price at low levels. That is good for kit lenses but a more expensive lens for serious use must be optical good no matter how much advanced the digital correction technology is.
size and weight and range of lenses (esp wide), AF, highly customized modes are just a few reasons I've started migrating to Sony. nice work. I'd not worry about power zoom vs manual rotate to zoom. For events./candids - faster aperture and manual zoom ice likely needed though. depends on needs. Thank you
It will be interesting to compare 16-35 ZA vs 16-35 GM vs 16-35 PZ vs 16-35 C (T3.1) only in the video test 🤔 to assess how much difference there is in color reproduction and sharpness.
Great review video. I got my Sony Zeiss ZA version for a hair under USD$440 so very happy to stick with the OSS lens as I'm not a big video shooter. Less than half the price of the PZ version. If I do more video in a material way in the future the PZ might be a great upgrade. I can get by with f4 at night walking around moderately well-lit city streets at ISO 800 or 1600 which is fine for my purposes.
My distortion test was at their closest focusing distance, so a little different for each lens. BUT I have compared the landscape views from the same location and focused at 'infinity', and the PZ lens (after corrections) is fractionally wider. Hardly anything in it, but it is a tad wider than the Zeiss.
Hi, from the sunny Gold Coast, Australia. At the 8:59 mark of your video when you change between the PZ to ZA distortion test shots, there seems to be significant difference in the FOV of both lenses. Did you move the tripod closer to the test chart with the ZA lens? Or is there actually a significant difference between the FOV at 16mm on both of these lenses? Thanks in advance!
Great review. On the chart, it looks like the PZ lens is a lot wider than the ZA at 16mm. It would be interesting to measure the actual focal length, maybe it's 15.xx.
Thanks. Just ordered one and looking forward to field testing. I have many fast primes and a GM 16-35 f2.8, but really like low mass and compact size for travel. If subbed against the GM in a travel pack it permits packing a fast prime too, so more flexible and a lot to like. I'm just getting into video so think it's video credentials and gimbal friendly approach a 'no brainer'. I may sell my GM wide zoom if it doesn't come out very often going forward. Also given mk ii re-works on 70-200 and 24-70 GM (trinity zooms) it can't be that long now before Sony update the wife GM zoom in mk Ii guise - perhaps smaller, lighter, sharper? Who knows - another reason to sell on my GM zoom soon maybe.
Gordon, great review! Was there any noticeable decrease of the battery while using the pz lens due to the motors pull power to move the zoom? I have a the Sony A7c and this lens would be great from compact travel but not at the cost of the need to care multiple batteries.
Good question and no, it didn't have any perceptible reduction in the battery life in my tests. Obviously it's going to consume more than a mechanical lens, but it's not significant.
still using the trusty Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f2.8 D on the original A7, and looking for something to update. Although the Nikkor lens is still my favorite, it is over 20 years old. I would admit it even got beaten by sharpness againt the Sony kit lens 28-70mm. As I already need to stop down to gain sharpness, it seems both f4 lenses are good enough for me, especially the older Sony Zeiss. a used one with less than half the price of faster Sony GM. even with OSS. although already ordered a newer body, it might be even better to see if lens OSS can work with IBIS
I would have preferred if they were a bit more ambitious on the wide end; at 14mm on the wide end I would have considered leaving my 12mm at home rather than having to carry two lenses.
you shows only one side, we need to see backlight and flare tests, also we need to see low light performance, noise level, as it more software corrected and likely have crippled dynamic range, comparing to zeiss
Yep, it's a review of the G, but I always try to compare a new product against a relevant rival or the previous version to see what the upgrades mean in practice. For me that's the real value in a review.
Well I'm about to purchase a used Ziess for 400 bucks! and all my glass is 2.8 so I truly want the 16-35 GMii but I don't have ii grand so I'm about to purchase this Ziess I hope it's sharper than my 14mm Samyang AF 2.8@@cameralabs
Thank you for another great review! It looks like exactly the lens I was waiting for, except for the power zoom, though I think I can live with that. Before that the only really lightweight ultra-wide zoom was Tamron 17-28/2.8, but its field curvature and even smaller focal range made it a not so compelling option.
I've read people's comments on the power zoom, but it is there when you need it. I use it on my 18-105 f4 PZ aps-c zoom and it is fun to use. I find it easier to zoom than turning a ring. Push up a little and it slowly zooms. Push up further and the zooming speeds up. Same as when zooming the other direction. The fact the barrel does not extend is another benefit you will appreciate. I despise those designs where the barrel moves in and out, all that work and moving parts. I had a 70-300 lens and that zooming was a bitch. Point lens up and zooming can be very hard. Point down and the barrel may start creeping down. We are living in the year 2022 and we need to see better zoom lens designs. Lens like the 70-200 F2.8 and 4.0, along with the 200-600 zoom have internal zooming and it is a breeze to use. You appreciate the advanced features eventually, it's a matter of getting used to it. It's like moving from a stick shift car to one with an auto transmission.
Great review However struggling to see benefits in changing from my excellent CZ and spending at least 700£ more for arguably a minuscule improvement in static photography However if we’re in the market today for a new 16-35 would pick Sony pz 16-35
I bet the lack of breathing and being parfocal is because zoom and focus is electronically coupled and moved to remove it. I wish it was 2.8 tho, Im spoiled by the 20 1.8
Did you apply the lens corrections for the 16-35 PZ before doing the comparison. I noticed that my copy has very heavy left side vignetting and blur in the left corners that are cropped when the lens corrections are applied.
Thanks for the great review Gordon! I read somewhere that PZ 16-35 always resets to 16mm at power on even when it was at a different focal length when the camera powers off. Do you notice this in your lens as well?
No, on the A7r IV I tested it on, it remembered the focal length at power off and started up at the same length. I should have mentioned this in the video. I bet there's an option for it somewhere on some models.
Is this lens wider than the older Zeiss? From the test chart for distortion it looked wider. I was disappointed by the focal length, hoping for something more like Nikon's 14-30mm. But if it's actually wider than 16mm I might consider it.
thank you for the review I'm actually considering which lens to buy for where I live, a brand new copy of the old f4 cost 815 usd, the new f4 at 1312 usd and the g master at 1681 usd I'm not professional so in wondering if I should go for the pz for the size and better optics or the old f4? or shall I jump directly to the 2.8 gmaster with the price difference between the 3
Hello, did you notice any focus jump/focus pulsating when you close up to the subject with autofocus on with this lens (PZ 16-35mm F4 G)? Mine seems to have the issue when I use gimbal to go in closer to the subject's face, it seems to have that zoom pump, but it is actually the focus going error for a very fast milliseconds (or looks like focusing the back of the subject in mine), and then slowly focus back to the subject, and it is quite frequent. Or sometimes it would just make that whole scene to have the shaking stutter effect for a millisecond, I had even set the focus shift sensitivity to the lowest, and it still does the same thing. For the body I'm currently using A7S3. Attached here is an example (not my video, but a clip I manage to found online which has the same issue as mine), look at the table at the bottom area and you'll understand what I meant: th-cam.com/video/DqZnYqg3zRA/w-d-xo.html Much appreciated for your replies, thank you.
Sadly not all AF systems are capable of perfect focus pulls, and you can get varied results not just on the body, but the AF area, AF response and speed, and even lighting and the subject itself. I'd experiment with different settings to see if you can improve it, but again, it's not unusual to find when you're looking for it.
@@cameralabs I am thinking of updating the body firmware to 3.01 to see if this would get fixed as I am still on 2.11, however I'm concerned of the other issues that may arise after updating
Right now I'm looking for my new camerasystem. Coming from a DSLR I would find it very helpful to have some comparisons for the most popular lenses of the systems. In paticular, could you tell me whether the Nikon 14-30 z or the new Sony 16-35 PZ is optically better? For standardzooms Nikon seems to be ahead on the other hand there are several third party options in the Sony system. Since light UWA lenses (for landscape) are important to me this could be a deciding factor.
@@cameralabs I don't think I'm in the position to commission you to do anything, but it would be awesome if you could do it :D. P.S.: Thanks for your work, I always enjoy the videos!
Nice review and comparison - the older Zeiss has such a nice color rendition, it never disappointed in the time I had it. But Sony has really shown a technological leap, using the focus motors for the zoom. It seems that the new PZ could work as a landscape lens and not just as a video, though the compatibility with the newer bodies seems to say it is really aimed at video use. The absence of focus breathing is really welcomed.
@@cameralabs That is all the more impressive! Sharp, compact, and feature packed - the idea of flying it on a drone never occurred, but the flexibility of Bluetooth zooming is really interesting, though I have a Mavic for that. Thank you for the response, the a7riv is one of my primary bodies, the bigger GM tends to live on it.
Similar sharpness, but nicer rendering from the two you mention, plus less distortion to correct, although in practice I don't think that held back the new lens.
@@cameralabs i apologize for asking for clarification, english is not my first language, you’re saying that the sharpness is similar but that rendering from the ones i mentioned is better ? What do you mean by rendering ? Thanks
@@Lucamitm you are correct about sharpness which is similar on all three. The difference is how much they blur the background and how nice that looks. The f2.8 and f1.8 models can have more blurring than the f4.
In what way? It works well, has the IBIS in the body, and becomes a 24-50ish range - quite nice but the 16-55 2.8 makes more sense unless you want the power zoom and or will use it on full-frame at some point
@@cameralabs Thanks. I am thinking that the new 16-35 PZ has a faster focusing speed especially when you use it on video. You are right that it makes more sense when you have up to 2.8 aperture and up to 55mm which will make it more useful in many situations. Thanks again.
You mean the actual light throughput vs the old one? My outdoor exposures were the same, so if it was, then they would be brighter images. Trouble is, there's already so much vignetting correction going on that there's artificial brightening taking place. It would be really hard to actually nail down any differences.
@@cameralabs Perhaps its the coating? Can't lenses with the same F stop have different actual light throughput? I've noticed that with the same settings in manual the 16-35 f4 PZ images were brighter than Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4 OSS
@@Luke-vg7ut are these on your own lenses, or someone else's samples? You'd really need to shoot in RAW and turn off everything to compare. It's not unusual for one lens to be a tad brighter or dimmer than another even at the same quoted f-number. Similarly focal lengths can vary too.
@@cameralabs I have an a7s3 and the eyecup of the camera sometimes bumps into the gimbal arm at low (close to the ground) angles, if the lens is heavy and long enough to make the camera have to be balanced further back on the arm. I just assumed you had the gimbal since you use it at 7:00 in the video.
Great review, as always! I like that Sony makes so much use of the power zoom technology, especially for video. Have you experimented with the clear image zoom option? I have a pz 18-105 and I find it intreaguing to have an extend zoom range with regular controls. I wonder if this full frame lens can take full advantage of the high resolution sensors of the a7r's to keep the video resolution in this mode.
Yes I have and I mention it in the video! You can come close to seamlessly transition between optical and clear image zoom so long as you have the power zoom set to one of its slowest options, like setting 3.
Oh, I missed that line about the transition. Interesting, so it only works on slow transitions. I'm actually more interested on the actual degradation of image quality, in theory the digital zoom should keep up the 4k resolution up to factor of 2 on my a7r2, but there is little detail what the digital zoom actually does and how it affects image quality.
@@martingernss3486 I wanted to do a more detailed example showing this, but ran out of time. I'll try to add an example to my review at cameralabs.com in the future, but yes, the speed is important.
The barrel distortion... Reminds me of my Sony SEL 16-50mm. Uncorrected raw files look like a fish eye lense. Vignetting as well. The aperture for this high price is a real disappointment imho. Somehow I'm glad I don't need such wide angle lenses very often.
To be fair, most new wide lenses share similar distortion and all employ corrections to compensate. The bottom line is how does this affect the final quality, and as you saw in my tests, it out-performed the Zeiss lens in the corners even though the Zeiss had less distortion to correct. And in terms of price, it's similar to or cheaper than similar ranges on other mirrorless systems. Believe me, it's a World apart from the 16-50 which I also have and is one of my least favourite lenses of all time.
This should have been the 24-105mm mk2. Or the 24-105mm mk1!!! Why didn’t that lens got a PowerZoom back then??? It was clearly the full-frame version of the PZ 18-105mm for APS-C! And why only 16-35mm? That is such a low-ball range. Better stick with a prime like 24mm or something… Oh, Sony, when will you get it? You’re almost perfect but somehow always almost… Full-frame and APS-C. Same story. They release the 6600, as an 6500 mk2, and I say: finally I can upgrade. But, wait a minute: no flash… anymore. Why? Who decided that WITHOUT ASKING US??? Do you know how useful it can be, when you don’t have one with you, separately…??? Same sensor, same processor, same shitty 30p 4k crop. That’s why I still stick with my 6300. Sony: “We’re good at ‘almost’ and we have no idea what our clients want from us - never “…
@@cameralabs I would buy it, if I had a full-frame, but not but 1500 for an f.4, 16-35... Yeah... not my department. Haha. Not saying I would not buy it, but Sony must be on mushrooms right now, or something. That is all. P.S. Bought my 18-105mm PZ, for APS-C, for 140 Euros, in a local and respected camera shop from Germany. I bargained it down from 180, cause it had some scratches. Used. BUT, I love that lens... and I think I will be staying with APS-C for a longer while. Not that I do not respect MFT or Full-Frame, but Full-Frame seems to have jumped on the hype wagon and companies are using this make money and overprice items, on top of that. It would be a dream if Sony makes a 18-105 mk2, for APS-C, with OSS and f.4, I do not care, just bit sharper and... yeah. Thanks for replying! Means a lot, in this big channel world, where nobody answers anything anymore :) Have a great weekend, Mr. Laing!
Sony's stubborn refusal to include OSS compared to their prior models (that cost 1/2 the amount no less, at the G level) is constantly forgiven by reviewers like this. Almost the entire Cinema Line lacks IBIS, and this is a declared video lens. If customers finally speak up (lobbied reviewers too), they MIGHT finally stop cheaping out.
I criticised it for not having OSS in the review and showed what a vlogging clip looked like for video without IBIS. So how am I not presenting the facts here, and when does my fat 'lobbying' cheque from Sony arrive as there's no sign of it yet? Sony has also put IBIS in every full-frame Alpha since the A7 II in 2014, so it's been a standard part of their full-frame system for almost 8 years. As such it shouldn't come as a surprise to not see it on many full-frame lenses in the general purpose range. I agree it's not on many APSC models, including my own A6400.
@@cameralabs Sorry I missed that (having relied upon your chapter headings that make no mention); your explanation of its absence, though, is the generalized rationale that Sony and its minions have used to justify removing the feature recently, but the Cinema Lina (CineAlta) is all-in for full-frame, lacking IBIS (excepting the motherless child FX3), and this lens was specifically marketed for video use: Sony's grace period is over and their radical price inflation in recent years can more than cover the pennies that it takes at the factory to restore OSS as a standard lens feature. OSS has no impact on size and cost; MFT and RF are great examples, at almost all focal lengths.
Joey, I've been a professional journalist, reviewing tech products and cameras for over 30 years. In each and every time, the product is loaned to me for test and then returned afterwards with no payment on either side. They're also normally tested under NDA before launch, so there's no way for anyone to own them at that time. Not owning them also allows me to be completely objective, whereas once you've invested your own money in a product, you tend to be more defensive about it, not to mention generally biased towards one system, as that's what you use. I get to test all of them independently. That's my job. It's important to understand where each reviewer / TH-camr is coming from. Are they being paid by the manufacturer? Are they influencers of ambassadors of a particular brand? Are they personally invested in a particular system. Or are they independent journalists?
Being able to zoom out to 35mm is a game changer though, can even be used as a portrait lens at that focal length. 28mm isn’t long enough for me. If you happen to have a canon EF adapter already, check out the tamron 17-35 f2.8-f4, it’s way more versatile, optically great, can go 2.8 at the wide end, and dirt cheap by comparison… heck even including the price of the adapter it’s cheap
@@zacharypump5910 as a side-note, it's interesting you use the term 'zoom-out' to refer to a longer focal length. I'm the opposite, zooming into longer focal lengths or out to wider ones. I think that's a more accepted use in the industry, although I have come across the opposite sometimes when an actual lens barrel extends as you zoom, in which case some people refer to it extending as zooming-out.
@@zacharypump5910 I already have focal lengths 28mm all the way to 600mm covered by other lenses. I'm looking for a wide angle lens more for it's wide view capabilities. And now I'm leaning more towards the new sigma 16-28 f2.8
Why is it disappointing? Smaller and lighter than any in its class and excellent image quality too. The only downside for some will be the slightly detached feeling of the motorised zoom, but that in turn is partly responsible for the smaller size.
My review of the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f4 G Power Zoom!
Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f4G at B&H: bhpho.to/3CZcNLi / WEX UK: tidd.ly/3L2mD1J
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Gordon’s retro gear channel: th-cam.com/users/dinobytes
Lost photos? I recover mine with: www.dpbolvw.net/click-100568658-13808570?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stellarinfo.com%2Fphoto-recovery-software.php
Equipment used for producing my videos
Sony A6400: amzn.to/3hul53c
Sony e 24mm f1.8: amzn.to/2TqWNzk
Rode NT USB mic: amzn.to/3AdHcUp
Rode Wireless Go II mic: amzn.to/3xkCvGo
Rode Lavalier Go mic: amzn.to/3ygzzKY
Godox UL150 light: amzn.to/2VpVbXE
Godox QR-P70 softbox: amzn.to/3yQfGdF
MacBook Pro 14in (16GB / 1TB): bhpho.to/3HiafJL
00:00 - intro and alternatives
01:16 - design and controls
04:12 - Power Zoom in practice - and why?
07:27 - PZ 16-35mm focusing vs 16-35mm ZA
08:15 - PZ 16-35mm distortion vs 16-35mm ZA
09:17 - PZ 16-35mm sharpness vs 16-35mm ZA
12:54 - PZ 16-35mm portraits vs 16-35mm ZA
13:45 - PZ 16-35mm bokeh vs 16-35mm ZA
14:47 - PZ 16-35mm video
14:56 - PZ 16-35mm video focusing vs 16-35mm ZA
15:32 - PZ 16-35mm video face tracking
16:02 - PZ 16-35mm vlogging
17:12 - PZ 16-35mm breathing vs 16-35mm ZA
18:16 - PZ 16-35mm verdict and sample images
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Excellent video as always. Thank you. Watched a lot of your videos over the years and I feel ashamed that I never left a comment. Thank you again for your hard work.
Thanks for watching so many!
Great review. Interesting lens variant. You can't say that Sony isn't trying new things. As a photographer, I think I'm with you that I prefer mechanical zooms, but I can live with a power zoom if it improves the weather sealing and reduces size and weight. I really like the addition of the aperture rings on this generation of Sony lenses. I wonder if Sony has a 24-70 refresh coming similar to this, smaller, sharper, with PZ and direct aperture adjustment?
If power zoom can make future zoom lenses light and compact, I'm all in for it. I know people like mechnical linkage, nobody is complaining about digital zoom ring now.
excellent product, great news, I like the fact that the lens doesn’t extend and that it’s small and light, a well worth trade off against the slower zoom, especially on a wide angle lens…..
As a stills-only photographer, I totally agree about the preference for a mechanical zoom. It would be good if Sony could bring out a mechanical only version of the lens, otherwise I'll be keeping my Zeiss.
A mechanical version would be bigger and heavier, but I do prefer the engagement,
i purchased this lens and it's amazing! i pair it with my sigma 70-200 2.8 sport. if i can only bring 1 lens (no room in the bag for more), i use my sony 28-105 f/4.
Awesome review. This lens would be great for video. Having image stabilization (OSS) in the lens would have been great. Hopefully Sony upgrades their Sony 24-70 F4 or the 24-105 F4 to PZ version with a smaller body in the near future.
OSS is the only thing preventing me from buying this lens. Would love to have a
I know this is old..but I wonder with the release of the Dynamic Active mode with ZV-E1 if sony is going to keep pushing in-camera Gyro Stabilization hard in future bodies. I came from the GH5 and this mode is just vastly superior to anything even Panasonic IBIS could do for video at least for the wide range, I think it still struggles in tele.
I would love to see a review or even comparison shots comparing this lens, the older 16-35F4 and the Canon 16-35 F4L, I am swapping over to the A7R4 and have a bunch of EF lenses including the awesome 16-35mm F4L and it performs great but it would be awesome to see if either of the Sony options are better!! Keep up the great work!!
I use the MC11 adapter...
I'm curious how does it compare to RF 14-35 f4
According to many reviews this lens has serious barrel distortion at the wider focal lengths. Much more serious barrel distortion than the previous Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 OSS lens. Barrel distortion is very common among wide and ultra wide lenses. It is very expensive to be corrected optically and that increases the size and weight of the lens.
Of course this barrel distortion is fixed digitally inside the camera with jpeg files or video files.
A similar situation is the Nikon Z mount NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S lens or the Sony FE 24mm f/2.8 G etc.
It is a common trick with many lens manufacturers to avoid correcting optically the geometric distortion (barrel or pincushion). They use less lens elements and keep the size, the weigh and above all the price at low levels.
That is good for kit lenses but a more expensive lens for serious use must be optical good no matter how much advanced the digital correction technology is.
size and weight and range of lenses (esp wide), AF, highly customized modes are just a few reasons I've started migrating to Sony. nice work. I'd not worry about power zoom vs manual rotate to zoom. For events./candids - faster aperture and manual zoom ice likely needed though. depends on needs. Thank you
It will be interesting to compare 16-35 ZA vs 16-35 GM vs 16-35 PZ vs 16-35 C (T3.1) only in the video test 🤔 to assess how much difference there is in color reproduction and sharpness.
Great review video. I got my Sony Zeiss ZA version for a hair under USD$440 so very happy to stick with the OSS lens as I'm not a big video shooter. Less than half the price of the PZ version. If I do more video in a material way in the future the PZ might be a great upgrade. I can get by with f4 at night walking around moderately well-lit city streets at ISO 800 or 1600 which is fine for my purposes.
The PZ one looks much wider at 16mm than the ZA one, I'd like to see a comparison with other 14 or 15mm lenses.
NVM, I think it might be the breathing of the ZA lens.
My distortion test was at their closest focusing distance, so a little different for each lens. BUT I have compared the landscape views from the same location and focused at 'infinity', and the PZ lens (after corrections) is fractionally wider. Hardly anything in it, but it is a tad wider than the Zeiss.
I own this lens, for what I do it’s an awesome lens. The light weight is refreshing.
Hi, from the sunny Gold Coast, Australia. At the 8:59 mark of your video when you change between the PZ to ZA distortion test shots, there seems to be significant difference in the FOV of both lenses. Did you move the tripod closer to the test chart with the ZA lens? Or is there actually a significant difference between the FOV at 16mm on both of these lenses? Thanks in advance!
2:30 every gimbal user knew this was a big problem my friend!
Great review. On the chart, it looks like the PZ lens is a lot wider than the ZA at 16mm. It would be interesting to measure the actual focal length, maybe it's 15.xx.
Thanks. Just ordered one and looking forward to field testing.
I have many fast primes and a GM 16-35 f2.8, but really like low mass and compact size for travel. If subbed against the GM in a travel pack it permits packing a fast prime too, so more flexible and a lot to like. I'm just getting into video so think it's video credentials and gimbal friendly approach a 'no brainer'. I may sell my GM wide zoom if it doesn't come out very often going forward. Also given mk ii re-works on 70-200 and 24-70 GM (trinity zooms) it can't be that long now before Sony update the wife GM zoom in mk Ii guise - perhaps smaller, lighter, sharper? Who knows - another reason to sell on my GM zoom soon maybe.
15:44 made me chuckle.
Thank you for wonderful review . This really really helps me
Glad to help!
Gordon, great review! Was there any noticeable decrease of the battery while using the pz lens due to the motors pull power to move the zoom?
I have a the Sony A7c and this lens would be great from compact travel but not at the cost of the need to care multiple batteries.
Good question and no, it didn't have any perceptible reduction in the battery life in my tests. Obviously it's going to consume more than a mechanical lens, but it's not significant.
still using the trusty Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f2.8 D on the original A7, and looking for something to update. Although the Nikkor lens is still my favorite, it is over 20 years old. I would admit it even got beaten by sharpness againt the Sony kit lens 28-70mm. As I already need to stop down to gain sharpness, it seems both f4 lenses are good enough for me, especially the older Sony Zeiss. a used one with less than half the price of faster Sony GM. even with OSS. although already ordered a newer body, it might be even better to see if lens OSS can work with IBIS
Superb review as usual Gordon, thanks! The new PZ looks quite a bit wider, even when corrected looking at those distortion tests you showed.
Love my Tamron 17-28 but I still purchased this lens :)
I would have preferred if they were a bit more ambitious on the wide end; at 14mm on the wide end I would have considered leaving my 12mm at home rather than having to carry two lenses.
you shows only one side, we need to see backlight and flare tests, also we need to see low light performance, noise level, as it more software corrected and likely have crippled dynamic range, comparing to zeiss
would have wanted to see oss comparison to the pz at 16:30
This video should of been called, why the 16-35mm G is better than the Zeiss. I came here for Zeiss info and left knowing about the G!
Yep, it's a review of the G, but I always try to compare a new product against a relevant rival or the previous version to see what the upgrades mean in practice. For me that's the real value in a review.
Well I'm about to purchase a used Ziess for 400 bucks! and all my glass is 2.8 so I truly want the 16-35 GMii but I don't have ii grand so I'm about to purchase this Ziess I hope it's sharper than my 14mm Samyang AF 2.8@@cameralabs
Thank you for another great review! It looks like exactly the lens I was waiting for, except for the power zoom, though I think I can live with that. Before that the only really lightweight ultra-wide zoom was Tamron 17-28/2.8, but its field curvature and even smaller focal range made it a not so compelling option.
I hear ya - the power zoom bit can be a bit odd for stills photographers, but as I mentioned, it does bring benefits in size and sealing.
I've read people's comments on the power zoom, but it is there when you need it. I use it on my 18-105 f4 PZ aps-c zoom and it is fun to use. I find it easier to zoom than turning a ring. Push up a little and it slowly zooms. Push up further and the zooming speeds up. Same as when zooming the other direction. The fact the barrel does not extend is another benefit you will appreciate. I despise those designs where the barrel moves in and out, all that work and moving parts. I had a 70-300 lens and that zooming was a bitch. Point lens up and zooming can be very hard. Point down and the barrel may start creeping down. We are living in the year 2022 and we need to see better zoom lens designs. Lens like the 70-200 F2.8 and 4.0, along with the 200-600 zoom have internal zooming and it is a breeze to use. You appreciate the advanced features eventually, it's a matter of getting used to it. It's like moving from a stick shift car to one with an auto transmission.
Great review
However struggling to see benefits in changing from my excellent CZ and spending at least 700£ more for arguably a minuscule improvement in static photography
However if we’re in the market today for a new 16-35 would pick Sony pz 16-35
I bet the lack of breathing and being parfocal is because zoom and focus is electronically coupled and moved to remove it. I wish it was 2.8 tho, Im spoiled by the 20 1.8
The Sony 16-35 mm would be a great gimbal lens for my FX6 👌 but no ibis in cam and lens 🤔
Did you apply the lens corrections for the 16-35 PZ before doing the comparison. I noticed that my copy has very heavy left side vignetting and blur in the left corners that are cropped when the lens corrections are applied.
Is the AZ a bit warmer in colour?
Looks like we’ll see a lot more dolly zoom shots in people videos. It’s built for it.
Thanks for the great review Gordon! I read somewhere that PZ 16-35 always resets to 16mm at power on even when it was at a different focal length when the camera powers off. Do you notice this in your lens as well?
No, on the A7r IV I tested it on, it remembered the focal length at power off and started up at the same length. I should have mentioned this in the video. I bet there's an option for it somewhere on some models.
Is this lens wider than the older Zeiss? From the test chart for distortion it looked wider.
I was disappointed by the focal length, hoping for something more like Nikon's 14-30mm. But if it's actually wider than 16mm I might consider it.
I want a 28-135 (28-200 would be even better) pz full frame lens that is compact and lightweight, not the old huge and expensive 28-135mm style.
thank you for the review
I'm actually considering which lens to buy
for where I live, a brand new copy of the old f4 cost 815 usd, the new f4 at 1312 usd and the g master at 1681 usd
I'm not professional so in wondering if I should go for the pz for the size and better optics or the old f4? or shall I jump directly to the 2.8 gmaster with the price difference between the 3
Hello, did you notice any focus jump/focus pulsating when you close up to the subject with autofocus on with this lens (PZ 16-35mm F4 G)?
Mine seems to have the issue when I use gimbal to go in closer to the subject's face, it seems to have that zoom pump, but it is actually the focus going error for a very fast milliseconds (or looks like focusing the back of the subject in mine), and then slowly focus back to the subject, and it is quite frequent. Or sometimes it would just make that whole scene to have the shaking stutter effect for a millisecond, I had even set the focus shift sensitivity to the lowest, and it still does the same thing. For the body I'm currently using A7S3.
Attached here is an example (not my video, but a clip I manage to found online which has the same issue as mine), look at the table at the bottom area and you'll understand what I meant:
th-cam.com/video/DqZnYqg3zRA/w-d-xo.html
Much appreciated for your replies, thank you.
Sadly not all AF systems are capable of perfect focus pulls, and you can get varied results not just on the body, but the AF area, AF response and speed, and even lighting and the subject itself. I'd experiment with different settings to see if you can improve it, but again, it's not unusual to find when you're looking for it.
@@cameralabs thanks for your reply,
to clarify, you meant to say that this is normal for the body/lens as well ?
@@lunaglunaglunag I don't think I tested this lens on that body, but I have seen similar behaviour with all lenses and bodies in some situations.
@@cameralabs I am thinking of updating the body firmware to 3.01 to see if this would get fixed as I am still on 2.11, however I'm concerned of the other issues that may arise after updating
@@lunaglunaglunag just google the update and check forums to see if anyone's reported issues
Thank you for the review. We need a 'zoom to apsc' feature to further extend the zoom range.
(can't help but would want to compare results (renderings) with those of my DG DN 14-24MM)
Right now I'm looking for my new camerasystem. Coming from a DSLR I would find it very helpful to have some comparisons for the most popular lenses of the systems. In paticular, could you tell me whether the Nikon 14-30 z or the new Sony 16-35 PZ is optically better? For standardzooms Nikon seems to be ahead on the other hand there are several third party options in the Sony system. Since light UWA lenses (for landscape) are important to me this could be a deciding factor.
Are you commissioning me to make a comparison?
@@cameralabs I don't think I'm in the position to commission you to do anything, but it would be awesome if you could do it :D.
P.S.: Thanks for your work, I always enjoy the videos!
awesome review
Thanks!
Whats the name of your gimbal in the last scene? Thank you Gordon.
That's one of the Zhiyun Cranes as I recall
Will the power zoom use up more of the camera battery when compared to using a lens with a mechanical zoom?
Yes, but I believe it will be a tiny amount
Nice, this helped
Fantastic review, Gordon. Thank you!
You're welcome!
hi - thanks alot. you do look like Sting alot :) what gimble are you using?
That was a Zhiyun Crane, but can't remember the model - it was a friends.
@@cameralabs yeh it’s the m3. Looked it up.. ty buddy.
The sound of zooming, how audible is it? Is zooming silent? Thanks.
It's essentially silent. I should have mentioned that in the review.
Avrei visto più utile il 20-70 f4 con AF motorizzato eno il 16-35 f4. Nelle riprese video a 16 mm la distorsione non è aggiustabile come in foto.
Thanks Gordon for a great review
Im a Real estate photographer, can i go for zeiss lens or this G lens! ( Not G master)
Choose it based on my comparison and your budget based on the pricing in your region.
i wonder how much more range you can get when u switch to super 35 mode
Well, you'd multiple the range by 1.5x, so you'd get around 50mm at the long end.
Good review!
Did you request the zeiss lens or is it your copy of the lens?
This is the newer version go for it
It's a sample provided by Sony.
Excellent review Gordon!
Thanyou!
Nice review and comparison - the older Zeiss has such a nice color rendition, it never disappointed in the time I had it. But Sony has really shown a technological leap, using the focus motors for the zoom. It seems that the new PZ could work as a landscape lens and not just as a video, though the compatibility with the newer bodies seems to say it is really aimed at video use. The absence of focus breathing is really welcomed.
Weeeell, I spent most of my time with it mounted on an A7r IV which is a few years old now... I liked it!
@@cameralabs That is all the more impressive! Sharp, compact, and feature packed - the idea of flying it on a drone never occurred, but the flexibility of Bluetooth zooming is really interesting, though I have a Mavic for that. Thank you for the response, the a7riv is one of my primary bodies, the bigger GM tends to live on it.
Excellent and totally comprehensive review.
Thanks!
Great review, really like this compact lens.
Does the lens remember the focal length? Or does it always start at 16 or 35mm if I turn on the camera?
It remembered on the body I used for testing
Really high- quality channel, thank you !
Thanks!
How would you compare image quality vs the sony gm 16-35 f2.8 or sony 35mm f1.8 ? Thanks
Similar sharpness, but nicer rendering from the two you mention, plus less distortion to correct, although in practice I don't think that held back the new lens.
@@cameralabs i apologize for asking for clarification, english is not my first language, you’re saying that the sharpness is similar but that rendering from the ones i mentioned is better ? What do you mean by rendering ? Thanks
@@Lucamitm you are correct about sharpness which is similar on all three. The difference is how much they blur the background and how nice that looks. The f2.8 and f1.8 models can have more blurring than the f4.
Another fascinating review. I don’t use Sony cameras myself but still found this interesting, in case I ever switch to Sony cameras.
Hi Gordon, is the Sony PZ parfocal ?
Not sure, sorry
What do you think of the performance of this lens using A6500?
In what way? It works well, has the IBIS in the body, and becomes a 24-50ish range - quite nice but the 16-55 2.8 makes more sense unless you want the power zoom and or will use it on full-frame at some point
@@cameralabs Thanks. I am thinking that the new 16-35 PZ has a faster focusing speed especially when you use it on video. You are right that it makes more sense when you have up to 2.8 aperture and up to 55mm which will make it more useful in many situations. Thanks again.
哇哦~惊艳到了
Gordan, did you notice that the new lens is a bit brighter?
You mean the actual light throughput vs the old one? My outdoor exposures were the same, so if it was, then they would be brighter images. Trouble is, there's already so much vignetting correction going on that there's artificial brightening taking place. It would be really hard to actually nail down any differences.
@@cameralabs Perhaps its the coating? Can't lenses with the same F stop have different actual light throughput? I've noticed that with the same settings in manual the 16-35 f4 PZ images were brighter than Sony Zeiss 16-35 f4 OSS
@@Luke-vg7ut are these on your own lenses, or someone else's samples? You'd really need to shoot in RAW and turn off everything to compare. It's not unusual for one lens to be a tad brighter or dimmer than another even at the same quoted f-number. Similarly focal lengths can vary too.
@@cameralabs These are on my own lenses shooting video as I'm primarily a video shooter. I can try taking some raw images and report back.
How do you control the Power Zoom from afar? Does it come with a remote?
You can do it via the phone remote app
@@cameralabs No wonder I can't do it... The A7RII's wireless anything is worthless.
@@dwightlooi I think it only remotely works on Alpha cameras which have the zoom lever on them, which is a small number.
Man, it's like Sony is catering specifically to my needs haha
I think they mentioned you in the briefing...
You do such nice work. Thanks.
You're welcome!
Excellent review and amazing lens
Thanks El Deane, glad you had a chance to watch it!
Does the gimbal clear the eye cup when its on the crane m3?
Which eye cup? I don't know anyway as I dont have that gimbal
@@cameralabs I have an a7s3 and the eyecup of the camera sometimes bumps into the gimbal arm at low (close to the ground) angles, if the lens is heavy and long enough to make the camera have to be balanced further back on the arm. I just assumed you had the gimbal since you use it at 7:00 in the video.
@@kelsier8079 ah yes, I'd forgotten, that was b-roll from my colleague Ben Harvey, I could ask him for you.
@@cameralabs that would be great. thanks!
Best review. No bullshit. Thank you
That's what I aim for, thanks!
Tried it and just can't stand the Power-Zoom operation.
It's certainly divisive, and I see both pros and cons to it.
But can’t you also use the ring to zoom?
so is this compatiable with a7iii?
Yes it should be
i bet the Aztec's thought they said things right too. now look
what's your point? That non-Americans will become extinct because we pronounce Zed not Zee?
Great review, as always! I like that Sony makes so much use of the power zoom technology, especially for video. Have you experimented with the clear image zoom option? I have a pz 18-105 and I find it intreaguing to have an extend zoom range with regular controls. I wonder if this full frame lens can take full advantage of the high resolution sensors of the a7r's to keep the video resolution in this mode.
Yes I have and I mention it in the video! You can come close to seamlessly transition between optical and clear image zoom so long as you have the power zoom set to one of its slowest options, like setting 3.
Oh, I missed that line about the transition. Interesting, so it only works on slow transitions.
I'm actually more interested on the actual degradation of image quality, in theory the digital zoom should keep up the 4k resolution up to factor of 2 on my a7r2, but there is little detail what the digital zoom actually does and how it affects image quality.
@@martingernss3486 I wanted to do a more detailed example showing this, but ran out of time. I'll try to add an example to my review at cameralabs.com in the future, but yes, the speed is important.
The barrel distortion... Reminds me of my Sony SEL 16-50mm. Uncorrected raw files look like a fish eye lense. Vignetting as well. The aperture for this high price is a real disappointment imho. Somehow I'm glad I don't need such wide angle lenses very often.
To be fair, most new wide lenses share similar distortion and all employ corrections to compensate. The bottom line is how does this affect the final quality, and as you saw in my tests, it out-performed the Zeiss lens in the corners even though the Zeiss had less distortion to correct. And in terms of price, it's similar to or cheaper than similar ranges on other mirrorless systems. Believe me, it's a World apart from the 16-50 which I also have and is one of my least favourite lenses of all time.
Is it parfocal?
According to Gerald Undone, it is parfocal
Этот объектив для меня!!!!!
Good review
Thanks!
This should have been the 24-105mm mk2.
Or the 24-105mm mk1!!!
Why didn’t that lens got a PowerZoom back then???
It was clearly the full-frame version of the PZ 18-105mm for APS-C!
And why only 16-35mm? That is such a low-ball range. Better stick with a prime like 24mm or something…
Oh, Sony, when will you get it?
You’re almost perfect but somehow always almost…
Full-frame and APS-C. Same story.
They release the 6600, as an 6500 mk2, and I say: finally I can upgrade.
But, wait a minute: no flash… anymore.
Why? Who decided that WITHOUT ASKING US???
Do you know how useful it can be, when you don’t have one with you, separately…???
Same sensor, same processor, same shitty 30p 4k crop.
That’s why I still stick with my 6300.
Sony: “We’re good at ‘almost’ and we have no idea what our clients want from us - never “…
I agree it would make more sense in a general range but if this is received well, I'd expect them to make one.
@@cameralabs I would buy it, if I had a full-frame, but not but 1500 for an f.4, 16-35...
Yeah... not my department.
Haha.
Not saying I would not buy it, but Sony must be on mushrooms right now, or something.
That is all.
P.S. Bought my 18-105mm PZ, for APS-C, for 140 Euros, in a local and respected camera shop from Germany.
I bargained it down from 180, cause it had some scratches.
Used.
BUT, I love that lens... and I think I will be staying with APS-C for a longer while.
Not that I do not respect MFT or Full-Frame, but Full-Frame seems to have jumped on the hype wagon and companies are using this make money and overprice items, on top of that.
It would be a dream if Sony makes a 18-105 mk2, for APS-C, with OSS and f.4, I do not care, just bit sharper and... yeah.
Thanks for replying!
Means a lot, in this big channel world, where nobody answers anything anymore :)
Have a great weekend, Mr. Laing!
Sony's stubborn refusal to include OSS compared to their prior models (that cost 1/2 the amount no less, at the G level) is constantly forgiven by reviewers like this. Almost the entire Cinema Line lacks IBIS, and this is a declared video lens. If customers finally speak up (lobbied reviewers too), they MIGHT finally stop cheaping out.
I criticised it for not having OSS in the review and showed what a vlogging clip looked like for video without IBIS. So how am I not presenting the facts here, and when does my fat 'lobbying' cheque from Sony arrive as there's no sign of it yet? Sony has also put IBIS in every full-frame Alpha since the A7 II in 2014, so it's been a standard part of their full-frame system for almost 8 years. As such it shouldn't come as a surprise to not see it on many full-frame lenses in the general purpose range. I agree it's not on many APSC models, including my own A6400.
@@cameralabs Sorry I missed that (having relied upon your chapter headings that make no mention); your explanation of its absence, though, is the generalized rationale that Sony and its minions have used to justify removing the feature recently, but the Cinema Lina (CineAlta) is all-in for full-frame, lacking IBIS (excepting the motherless child FX3), and this lens was specifically marketed for video use: Sony's grace period is over and their radical price inflation in recent years can more than cover the pennies that it takes at the factory to restore OSS as a standard lens feature. OSS has no impact on size and cost; MFT and RF are great examples, at almost all focal lengths.
So you're reviewing a lens that isn't even yours???? lol
Joey, I've been a professional journalist, reviewing tech products and cameras for over 30 years. In each and every time, the product is loaned to me for test and then returned afterwards with no payment on either side. They're also normally tested under NDA before launch, so there's no way for anyone to own them at that time. Not owning them also allows me to be completely objective, whereas once you've invested your own money in a product, you tend to be more defensive about it, not to mention generally biased towards one system, as that's what you use. I get to test all of them independently. That's my job. It's important to understand where each reviewer / TH-camr is coming from. Are they being paid by the manufacturer? Are they influencers of ambassadors of a particular brand? Are they personally invested in a particular system. Or are they independent journalists?
Power zoom, F4, price - no thanks. Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 seems like a much better option.
The 17-28 2.8 is a good choice, but with different pros and cons.
Being able to zoom out to 35mm is a game changer though, can even be used as a portrait lens at that focal length. 28mm isn’t long enough for me. If you happen to have a canon EF adapter already, check out the tamron 17-35 f2.8-f4, it’s way more versatile, optically great, can go 2.8 at the wide end, and dirt cheap by comparison… heck even including the price of the adapter it’s cheap
@@zacharypump5910 as a side-note, it's interesting you use the term 'zoom-out' to refer to a longer focal length. I'm the opposite, zooming into longer focal lengths or out to wider ones. I think that's a more accepted use in the industry, although I have come across the opposite sometimes when an actual lens barrel extends as you zoom, in which case some people refer to it extending as zooming-out.
@@zacharypump5910 I already have focal lengths 28mm all the way to 600mm covered by other lenses. I'm looking for a wide angle lens more for it's wide view capabilities. And now I'm leaning more towards the new sigma 16-28 f2.8
@@cameralabs As I consider it more, I think you're right, zooming out shouldn't mean toward the longer end of the range :)
This lens is disappointing. Great review though.
Why is it disappointing? Smaller and lighter than any in its class and excellent image quality too. The only downside for some will be the slightly detached feeling of the motorised zoom, but that in turn is partly responsible for the smaller size.
@@cameralabs Agreed. This lens is amazing. Most people dont grasp why its so good.
man your "vlogging" sample of you walking and not saying one word is a bit creepy!