9/29/09
I’ve finally completed the Sony Carl Zeiss 16-35mm F/2.8 SSM ZA review. It’s a long one, and I’m including a little more information, with slightly larger image crops. The super expensive CZ 16-35mm F/2.8 turned in a very good performance. If you’re a rich amateur, go ahead and buy it. If you need to justify the cost some how to your wife, or may have trouble parting with two grand, you might want to hold off for a couple of weeks while I work on a comparison review between that lens, the Minolta AF 17-35mm F/3.5 G, and the Konica Minolta AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4. I shelved the idea last month, but now I’m interested in the comparison review again. I may be able to save you a substantial amount of money depending on what lens characteristics are important to you, and how you’ll most likely use the lens.
Since many people are likely to ask, I’d say the Minolta AF 17-35mm G lens has slightly less distortion than the CZ 16-35mm using a full frame camera. I’ve also noticed some other interesting tidbits, which is why I’m now going to do the comparison review.
 |
| click for review |