[shoplink 35017 ebay]
[/shoplink]
The German friends from Photozone tested the [shoplink 35017 ebay]16-70mm E-mount Zeiss lens[/shoplink] and the conclusion is very negative:
Sony/Zeiss did many things right – range, build quality, image stabilization but optical quality is not part of the list. Yes, the center quality is outstanding but the corners are often mediocre or even dismal.
It is worth to mention AGAIN that we also send the lens to the Sony service in order to let them verify that our sample was within specs – TWICE and we let them know who we are and that there’ll be a review. So we have to take their word.
SAR thoughts: Overall Sony really needs to take care of the APS-C E-mount customers again. They launched the very successful NEX system and then suddenly changed name and stopped to make lenses for the system. I understand the FE system is popular and needs a lot of new lenses. But if I would be on charge at Sony I would also release a Sony APS-C E-mount lens roadmap with a few nice primes and zooms. This would really help to create confidence around the system. The A6000 is such a great camera it’s pity you are let down by the limited lens range!
268 Responses
This site is very negative about this lens as it needs software corrections, but when you look at other lenses from Panasonic or Olympus, that are worse then the Sony/Zeiss they praise them a lot more.
I do agree that the price of this lens is to high, but it is not as bad as photozone makes it look….
This lens is very bad at all apertures indeed. Panasonic and Olympus lenses, especially the pricier ones are extremely sharp (even wide open), there can be no comparison here.
photozone.de makes one of the best lens reviews out there.
Completely agree, one of the biggest mistakes Sony ever made was to not bake in RAW corrections for lenses so ‘review’ sites could praise them on how great they are based on corrected data. Oly, Panasonic and Fuji do this and get heaped on praise where every pixel peeper notes the distortion in Sony lenses.
@Admin, I don’t think you have to come at the defense of E mount customers after a bad review. The lens isn’t all that and that’s that. Some people will still find use for it and wil still appreciate what it can do for them (thinking of E mount video users, like FS700, FS100, FS7, etc) to whom the AF and OSS and constant aperture are a plus.
It’s fine, you know, to have less than perfect deliveries in a product line.
I think he does.
He should be applauded for having the courage to step up on behalf of his base.
The bottom line – do you want Sony to make better cameras with higher IQ ?
Then stop attacking those that point out the faults of the Sony system (lossy RAW, sensor glass astigmatism, and shutter shock) and help support that these improvements are implemented in future cameras and (dying hope) in previously released models.
Hiding your head in the sand or calling “troll!” doesn’t help anyone.
SAR sees the light – if Sony continually innovates with ineptitude people will walk away.
That’s not good business for anyone.
True. I can only follow your example to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Admin is trying to dampen the bad review when there is no need to do so.
Also, lossy RAW is not a fault. The fault is not to have the choice of lossless RAW.
You are the more attacking individual here. You are hardly a contributor. If anything, you’d be best fit to be described as the Glenn Beck turned O’Reiley of commentators at SAR.
Do you want better IQ from Sony or not ?
I already have excellent quality from Sony:
NEX 7 -24mm 1.8/35mm 1.8/50mm 1.8
RX1
RX100
AX100
I work with these.
I don’t know what you want, but if it isn’t happening in this neck of the woods, then go somewhere else. Your wallet votes harder than your shouting.
You’re operating at a level of about 50% or less of the best gear.
Yes, the upcoming 16bit. Not the subpar 14bit you crave Anton!
“sensor glass astigmatism”
This myth again. Last time you claimed it was because of thick sensor glass, the fact is that Nikon and Canon both use similar thickness (for example 2.0 mm on the 6D, 1.85mm on the A7), Olympus and Panasonic almost twice the thickness.
MacHead in the Sand.
Not a myth. Cold hard documented fact.
Read Roger Cicala, Lloyd Chambers on sensor glass and then check Kolarivision
I did and guess who came with those “cold hard documented facts” that I stated in my post above?
Roger Cicala. Confirmed by Brian Caldwell.
Back to your drawing table.
all E-mount lenses are designed with sensor glass thickness taken into account, so there is no way how other sensor might improve sharpness
I agree with you , and I did already walk away to Olympus E-M5II with many better lenses.
Sony should really consider entering into an agreement with Sony and/or Tamron. Full co-operation on design and integrating into the system, and a “no compete” period for any lenses they release for the system in exchange for them agreeing to make a decent amount of lenses for (F)E mount.
I know Sony, like anyone else would, wants the entire thing to themselves, but the camera market is at the start of a pretty big period of change, and being in the right place at the right time with as complete of a system as you can manage is far more important than going it alone. A large market share and 70% of the lens sales is worth so much more than a smaller market share with 95% of the lens sales. Especially when Canon and Nikon finally put their full weight behind mirrorless.
One bad lens review and we are calling for a partnership with another company?
Sony already partners with Zeiss.
Let me list lenses that are class leading products:
A mount 24mm f2 (even praised by Photozone)
A mount 16-35mm
A mount 135mm
E 24mm 1.8
FE 55mm 1.8
FE 35mm 1.4
RX1 Sonnar
RX100m3 vario sonnar
RX10 vario sonnar
AX100 vario sonnar
And that would be not mentioning other great Sony G lenses for A mount and the nice OSS’d 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 for E mount (optically great and with IS for excellent video) And let’s not forget the great kit lens that came with the a77 (16-50 2.8) which was neither a G nor a Z.
Sony is technically spanking new for FE/E mount and they can’t cater everything for everyone and you’d be mistaken to think that Sony will drop Zeiss as a partner because the blue badge increases the margins while, fortunately, also delivering top class products.
Sony already partners with Tamron and a number of their lenses are rebadged Tamron lenses, in fact there are more Tamron lenses in Sony’s range than Zeiss designed lenses.
Sony should enter into an agreement with Sony? Eh?
Sony already has agreements with Tamron, Cosina and Zeiss. They also have shareholdings in both Tamron and Cosina. Always good to do a bit of research before posting.
Quite a bit of difference between reviews
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1638/cat/83
What are supposed to be test results are dramatically different. I guess this may be due to sample variation since there are happy people with this lens and I certainly have seen stunning images from it. I also have seen quite damning reports from users at the same time so…..
May be Sony need to put their act together and act on sample variation issues. It seems the APS-C line up is heavily plagued by sample variation. I recall similar reviews from the 50/1.8 and 24/1.8 too..
Anyway I am happy with the 16-50 kit on A6000 and am not even considering this bulkier offering for a kit lens.
I was quite shocked by the differences compared to the SLRGear test results too. Where Photozone shows corner resolution to be practically non existent at some focal lengths, SLRGear shows it to be good to excellent, even wide open.
Whatever the case, the minimum conclusion would still be, that:
A) quality consistency is still a problem
B) the Sony center can’t spot a dog when it’s staring them in the face
@ Katsu Nakamura below:
my bad, fixed
? Photozone vs Photozone ?
C). Different methodologies, different people and different expectations
What I’m seeing at slrgear.com is similar results: low sharpness in the corners—even at f8.
2 to 3 (or even 4) blur units on a 24MP APS-C sensor (2 key elements for their tests too) isn’t low sharpness.
dark blue means very sharp and the purple means unbelievably sharp. Light blue means slightly soft. Even at f4 the lens is rated as excellent sharpness across the zoom range and across the frame.
You can look at primes even and they often have light blue corners Still meaning they are very goid
I think the wide response from all related sites would make Photozone to repeat the same test with a different sample this time..
Where do they get the correct sample from? AFAIK photozone.de buys the lenses form store and tests them like I would buy a lens and use it……
Sony need to fix consistency. If this lens can be any better all samples should be better.
Low cost = low quality control.
Buy an Otus or be willing to quantitatively test (IMATEST) several copies to find one you’re happy with.
Except the 16-70 mm f/4 isn’t exactly a low cost lens. It’s a $1000 lens.
The OTUS 85 has some of the ugliest Bokeh of all the 85’s, onion rings with those fries Anton. Go buy the Panasonic 42.5 if you want a quality “onion free” Bokeh, you should know this by now Anton.
agreed with the finding. Yes i have this lens.
Photozone obviously has a bad copy
e16-70 @70mm F4 corner, PZ evaluation: 1182
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/sony16-70f4ze/VFA/zsony16-70f40vfa070f40ul_nex7.jpg
panasonic 12-35@35mm F2.8 corner, PZ evaluation: 2592
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/panasonic12-35f28x/ypanasonic12-35f28vfa035f28ul_gx1.jpg
olympus 12-40@40mm F2.8 corner, PZ evaluation: 2525
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zsamples/olympus12-40f28m/VFA/yolympus12-40f28vfa040f28ul_gx1.jpg
Zeiss: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1638
Panasonic: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1518/cat/69
Maybe Photozone.de had a bad copy but this lens is not talk sharp at any aperture and focal length combinations.
You can see from their image samples, it’s bad even at f/8 on the borders and very bad on the corners: http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss?start=2
SLRgear’s test seems to indicate that their copy has at least one element that is tilting during zoom (the optical center is shifting). My personal copy seems to be miscentered a bit, but doesn’t display that same shift, it’s just consistently softer on one side than the other.
You are right about miscentering but even so at f/8-f/11 this lens does not reach center-border uniformity. For a 1000$ lens this is unacceptable imo.
What a shame; it’s such a pretty lens for the A6000. I hope for their sake they re-release the lens with new optics.
100% agree with SAR thoughts 😉
I had the lens and it was a little underwhelming in the corners, so I kept my 18-200 which is close enough. I think the APS-C e-mount lens lineup is quite ok with the 24, 35 and 50, and my beloved 10-18 and 18-200.
Averege sample of Z16-70 have monstrous centering defect. Sometimes up to half of the image doesn’t have any allusion of sharpeness. So, Photozona’s tested sample even better, then averege buyers should be expected to.
Good samples seems to have no difference with Photozona’s sample, just check out the review by Kurt Munger and compare his crops to Klaus’photos at the end of photozona’s article: http://kurtmunger.com/sony_zeiss_16_70mm_f_4id354.html
So, people, why did you protect this crappy zoom, when Nex’s system have marvelous optics, like primes (except, maybe, 16mm pancake), 70-200 G and 10-18 f/4? Zeiss brand doesn’t make the optics good.
I don’t know why the Admin continally harps on lens availability for the APS-C E mount cameras. Between the 10-18, 18-105 and 70-200 FE lens, you can have a decent kit. Yes, you can have a wider variety of lenses to choose from, but I bet most people will not buy more than three different lenses for their system. You can take good pictures from the kit above. The 35 and 50 1.8 lenses are not bad either. The 20mm 2.8 is pretty good, better than the 16mm. I’d like Sony to provide a consistently good 16-70mm non Zeiss lens (which I do find overpriced). And a longer zoom for the E mount. Perhaps a 16-70 G mated with the often discussed but so far imaginary A7000.
People tend to be too negative about the APS-C E mount system. It’s not bad as it is and while it can get better, it’s certainly more than serviceable.
You have to compare it with the Fuji X lens line. That’s what Sony should do!
Sony do that for FE, why create a ‘premium’ range of APS-C lenses?
Because quite a few of us bought into the E-mount system to get DSLR quality in a much lighter and more compact package. I still want high quality, but if I have to use FE lenses for that, the advantages I was going for are seriously limited…
I think that if the A7000 is an APS-C model and it has built in image stabilization, it will be a winner. It can use a compact 16-70 G lens though (of good quality). I don’t want to compare what other camera makers have (although it’s a useful exercise, at times). I want to use the system for the kind of pictures that I want to take. Sony allows me to do that, so I am pretty happy. Can it be better? Yes. Is it terrible? Not even close.
Fuji don’t have a full frame mirrorless system, though, so they have to release lenses that can compete with FF, such as the 50-140 f/2.8 and the 56mm f/1.2. Guess what? They aren’t really much cheaper than FF equivalents.
Sony have FF mirrorless, so there is less of a need to compete directly with Fuji at APS-C level.
The two companies are taking different approaches to get to the same place.
You don’t have to. You can, but you don’t have to. In any case, I certainly wouldn’t like them to follow Fuji in making big, heavy and expensive lenses.
The 16 is only good with the adapters. Fisheye and ultrawide.
Stupid Germans! This lens was designed for curved sensors :-)! That is what happens when Zeiss lenses are not made by Zeiss, I suppose. People should get a Leica or Contax mount adapter and get some vintage prime glass.
Performance figures aside.
What the hell are those things in the small pool on the first sample picture on the right (16mm f/8 1/500). Are those small turtles? Why are they in the improvised pool that hangs on a bunch of rocks, far away from the sea?
If I were Sony I’d drop APS-C entirely. What’s the point? Back in the film days virtually no one used sub 35mm cameras… unless you were a spy. Now that the technology as advanced and prices are so close it’s time to just let APC-C go. (helmet now on)
Yeah, I’m sure closing off their sub-$1200 market and the primary source of conversions to the FE system would be a great idea.
If it hadn’t been for the NEX-5, I’d have a D750 sitting next to me right now instead of an A7 II.
And you would’ve been happier too! I had a nex 5, then a nex 7, and back to nikon! WooHoo!
I wasn’t referring to Sony’s consumer point and shoots, just their DSLRs. As for E-Mount, if you’ve followed my posts you’d know I have no use for it either. It’s just confused the market and forced people into an entirely new system for very little reason other than Sony’s own profits. As a long time Konica-Minolta/Sony user I have many thousands invested in A-Mount and see virtually nothing in E-Mount, so far, that would convince me to change. None of the advantages currently being promoted would convince me, and the two most quoted, size and weight, I actually consider disadvantages for my work.
M43 is the new 35mm. Quality is so high these days. General photography doesn’t need FF and most people could benefit monetarily from resisting the desire to scratch that itch. Would you not consider the potential for smaller formats to crowd out overpriced FF options? The better these cameras get the more consumers lean toward smaller formats. Why go upstream if in the end…all the good stuff ends up downstream. Catch my drift?
For pixel peeping difference is mild, for looking at photos rather than pixels the difference is massive. I just sold my E-M1 for this reason and extra size is NOT required, nor cost, for better quality.
You have to quantify what you mean by “looking at photos.” I shoot them both as well.
How would one benefit monetarily by going M43. Did you see their pricing?
I assume you are referring to their higher end OMD models. Based on the performance of the camera itself- outside of IQ- I find them modestly priced. That’s before you consider build quality, etc. Maybe that value proposition is changing with FE options dropping in cost- but that would only apply to bodies. Lens pricing is all over the place but you don’t have to sacrifice speed at any price point. 25mm and 45mm 1.8 I consider a bargain for their overall performance. It really depends on what you want and what you value. If you appeal to their higher end “Pro” equipment- yes, it’s a bit pricey but the build quality is top notch before we even consider the IQ.
Oly is know for doing frequent sales as well. The bargains are simply fantastic and IMO do not erode the perceived value of their products. If only Sony provided the same user experience as Olympus- that would be something. Just opinion, but I find Olympus much better than sony when you consider the overall mirror less package.
You just spoke about high quality and how we don’t need FF, now we are discussing “outside of IQ”? On one side you say the quality is high, on the other how cheap it is. Unfortunately, that is not the case for M43. Sure, an a7r with the FE55 will cost more, but then nothing in M43 will measure up in terms of overall IQ. Heck, I can see a difference between my NEX-7 and the E-M5. And when we throw in the Sony APS-C line, it really starts to look rather not so special. Sure, they have more lenses, but I certainly don’t see how they are cheaper and better.
What’s wrong with the build quality of the a6000 or the a7, by the way?
I was trying to draw attention to the high build quality of the Olympus cameras. I find the IQ to be excellent even when pixel peeping and holds up well when comparing to- say- A7.
Idk. Admittedly, the EM-1 and EM-5 are very tough cameras, but whatever I’ve used from Sony has been very reliable.
I also find the IQ of the 16MP sensor to be great, but it simply is no comparison to a higher res file with significantly wider dynamic range; at least for my usage and my way of seeing. I would actually agree to a big extent – M43 really have an outstanding system, excellent cameras and lenses. And if we compare solely to the FE system, sure, it does look cheaper, but I’d argue that is simply because Sony released the more expensive lenses earlier. When looking at Fuji, Samsung or Sony as APS-C, m43 really isn’t a cheap system, as long as we are talking of getting good IQ.
reviews of this lens have been contradictory since it came out so you want to make sure you have a good one. there’s no new insight to get from this…
“They launched the very successful NEX system …”
I would question this assumption if I were you. I frankly don’t think the NEX system has been such a cash cow for Sony. We all know camera sales in general are going down the drain, especially at the ‘bottom’ end of the market, where the big volume is for the manufacturers. I would love some more decently priced lenses for my a6000, but at this point I’m not holding my breath, and I won’t spend a penny on E Mount glass until I see a sign of life from APS-C E Mount.
Well, Sony is the leading company in Japan in the mirrorless market.
If this is not being “very successful” for you, I don’t know what else is!
Is this before or after FE came around the corner? The CIPA numbers speak for themselves.
Well, the last report, that has been posted here few months ago.
The CIPA numbers do not specify per brand, so in this regard they do not speak for themselves.
The only numbers available tell us that Sony had about 25% of the mirrorless market and now between 30% and 40%.
The NEX 6 topped the mirrorless Amazon charts for quite some time, before the FE cameras came to life and the 5N was quite popular too.
I agree with you that Sony have been relatively successful, but the point is that camera sales in general are plummeting, while mirrorless sales have been flat for years, despite hyped-up predictions to the contrary. Sony have been able to hold their own in a crumbling market, but my guess is that, in all likelihood, the NEX system has not been “very successful” like we would use that term for booming brands such as Google, Facebook or Apple.
But perhaps you’ve been able to take a peak at Sony’s P&L.
The E system (previously NEX too) has been successful for showing both growing sales and growing revenues in a relatively flat (mirrorless) market.
Not sure what’s up for debate here.
I’m not sure either: A 25-50% increase in market share in a crowded market with low and stagnant volume is still nothing to write home about, and definitely NOT “very successful”. Is it just a coincidence APS-C E has been all but abandoned by Sony?
I wonder whether you actually realize what you just wrote. They (along with Fujifilm) have been the only imaging company making any progress in sales volume and revenues in the ILC business. The fact that they have been able to do that in a stagnating market, actually adds to the credits here.
Second, the “all but abanonded APS-C E-mount” mantra again, cute and still makes me laugh. The A6000 is their most succesful ILC to date. Last time I checked a quite fresh camera, as is the just released firmware and new lens adapters. Just because they temporarily shifted focus to where it’s needed most in the E mount, doesn’t make the APS-C mount anywhere near abandoned by any means. According to that logic, there are a lot of “all but abandoned” APS-C mounts out there.
Props to those who first created this FUD tough, it sure has gotten its share of gullible followers.
So units shipped are up for them, but what about margins? Do you think they make a ton of money on that A6000 at $548 retail? And yeah, they’ve been doing relatively well these past few years, since the A7 series was introduced: higher prices, higher margins, and higher margins on those fancy Zeiss lenses as well.
Sony are not alone in this: Nikon are doing the exact same thing, which is trying to milk their user base by tempting them to upgrade to full frame. It’s a desperate attempt to stay afloat in an age where most of the ‘photographers’ shoot with their iPhone. Stick your head in the sand if you want, but I’m not spending a penny on E Mount until Sony give it some TLC. And I say this as someone who loves his A6000.
“NEX” was never that successful.
Only after A7 and A6000 Sony became popular.
Before then, when people said mirrorless, they were talking about Panasonic and Olympus.
Nonsense.
So, you are saying that if Sony had never changed the name NEX to A, they wouldn’t be the leader in Japan?
I must have a good copy because I think it’s a great lens. Maybe a bit overpriced just because it’s for apsc, but the build and after on it are great. The optics on mine are nice too.
Maybe I am the second one with a good one. Same evaluation: great lens.
Bougth it during a short strong price drop phase and I am really happy with it.
Me too. I am very happy with the lens, sharp with nice colors an this certain Zeiss-Pop. I cannot complain. For me the perfect travel-lens.
@Admin Thank you for taking a stand on Image Quality on behalf of the Sony base. You quite possibly have the highest influence outside of Sony in helping to drive better IQ at Sony.
Keep up the good work. It is of benefit to all Sony users.
Sharpness is seriously at the bottom of the list of most important optical attributes.
With who ?
It’s the # 1 deciding factor for a lens purchase.
In practice, it’s not as important as composition but that can’t be bought.
With modern lenses.
Saw review of this lens when it was pretty fresh and it said pretty much same (except decentering was much lower). Its usable somewhere around f8-f11. Much like previous 16-80, which is about same cr*p as this one, only for APS-C dSLRs. I wouldnt be suprised if design was very similar..
Finally the truth !!!!!! it’s about time that every convince Sony to bring more APS-C stuff, not everyone need FF !!!
I get the feeling that the amount of A7 series success to Sony by supprise. Overall its been doing very well for them.
The FF E-mount system is the home run that Sony has been wanting for years. E mount is also doing very well for Sony’s Pro video fleet.
Im starting to think that Sony is saying:
“OK…we are not doing well finicially and have limited $$ for new products. Lets invest everything we can into our home run hitter”
A Mount and SLT is “OK” but even a big Sony fanboy like me has been avoiding SLT like the plague. I just cant stand the pelicle mirror concept. However, I love the A7s and I’m investing into FF E mount now heavily.
I dunno…I think Sony just knows they haveca hit and are throwing all their resources into driving that hit forward. They think they can squeeze allot more $$ out of it in the future.
I dont blame them really. I think a pro A9 would be a giant success.
oh dear, how could it be… and the A-mount 16-50/2.8 has as good build quality, nice SSM drive, great optical quality confirmed by tests, is one step faster and also cheaper. why don’t you use this one instead?
The A-Mount 16-80 is also better 😉
When review sites bother to test lenses on something other than the notoriously-difficult-to-please NEX-7 then I will bother to take notice. Try some of the ‘fabulous’ other mirrorless glass on a 24MP not very well optimised sensor from 4 years ago and make a direct comparison… can’t? Then don’t make claims based on ONLY testing on this one camera.
SAL1650 kicked butt on NEX7… So yours is not really a valid complaint
My point exactly, the NEX-7 had the A77 sensor and when used like an A77 with A-Mount lenses works very well, it does NOT however work well with short registration distance lenses, like those being tested. This is a poor design of the NEX-7, but every lens they test suffers the consequences.
To be fair, Photozone did use the A6000 in this case.
You may be right, however other than a picture it doesn’t explicitly state that to be the case, rather it states NEX-7. But I could be wrong.
Edit: it seems I was wrong.
“In our disbelieve we send the lens to the local Sony service TWICE and they confirmed that it is within their factory specs. Since readers have been criticizing us for having used the Sony NEX 7 in the past, we also switched to the A6000 this time just to make sure that it is not the camera.”
They obviously got a bad lens. But this sentence is very telling: “we let them know who we are and that there’ll be a review.” Why do I think there is more to the story about Sony telling them to p*ss off than this? We already know they have had numerous returns of Sony lenses and always complaining incessantly about Sony Australia CS. Perhaps the problem isn’t with the QC parameters per se?
No, it’s in their lens testing, which tests the lens and body combo and it is the body letting them down.
They said they tested on an A6000 though
It seems I was wrong, it is listed under NEX-7.
“we let them know who we are and that there’ll be a review.”
too many self-titled experts and wannabe bloggers in the www. sorry that sony didnt treat them as special as they think they are.
I have lost too much respect for Photozone through the years. Their mentality is from a lost past. I stopped reading their reviews after they told the whole world with the SEL 1650 review.
I don’t own the E 16-70, but have tried it and know from friends it is an extremely nice lens. To get this compact of course their will be extra distortion and vignetting, but this can be corrected digitally without noticeable performance hit.
Admin, why should Sony look at Fuji?! (Btw Sony lenses are in general being tested on a sensor with 50% more resolution than Fuji) Sony lenses generally have much more pleasent bokeh and do you have evidence stating their lenses are better? All lenses are compromises, it is a matter of what compromise you can live it.
Correct me if I’m wrong:
You lost respect to Photozone because they’re criticizing lenses from your (I imagine) favourite system.
You’re not mad at Sony for making 2 really poor zooms for E-mount, but you don’t tolerate unfavourable reviews…
Simple fact is: poor corner sharpness from both lenses has been pointed out in many tests, but I’ve also seen acceptable results. This means Sony must have very low QC standards for sharpness.
Another simple fact is: photozone’s test is mainly quantitative, so the importance of bokeh in final score is marginal. Sharpness and distortion are high on the list and both are clearly not the strongest points of Sony E-mount lineup.
Photozone has condemned many more expensive lenses in the past – Canon 50/1.2L is a good example and Canon fans are mature enough to accept this. Grow up.
BTW: resolving power is a linear property, so 24 vs 16 Mpx means 23% more resolution, not 50%.
There are 36Mp cameras too. Also, to point out what he probably meant: when same web-site praises a poor kit zoom and condemns another (for same E-mount and from same company) one gets reasonable doubts about web-sites results. And yes, I am mad at Sony making a not perfect lens (if such exists) but not the 16-70 – which is quite good.
BTW looking at the 70mm f4 wide open and presumably worst performance on full screen and 100% zoom – I see a very strong performing lens.
As I said: I’ve seen both decent and poor results in tests, so the variance is obviously quite high.
As for “poor kit zooms” – SEL1650PZ is currently easily the worst “kit zoom” available. And you must remember that Photozone scores are made in relation to price (i.e. expectations).
Compare to the new canon 18-55 STM:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis?start=1
New Nikon 18-55 VRII sharpness is in Canon’s league at wide angle, but it has some serious issues around 35mm (possibly a result of idiotic collapsible design).
And it’s not like making a good pancake zooms with 24-x FF equivalence is impossible (Panasonic 12-32, Samsung (!) 16-50 are both a lot better).
As for the SEL1670… the only real advantage of this lens is that there is no alternative for E-mount. But this is still a $1000 lens with mediocre (random…) performance and no weather sealing*. At this price we should compare it to lenses like the Canon 24-70/4 (sad…).
*) I admit sealing this lens might not seem sensible, as there is not a single sealed body in the E-mount system. Still, I would expect a $1000 lens to work at least for a decade, so maybe we’ll see the rumored a7000 by 2025… 😛
Are Sony lenses still made in Thailand? If so, I see where that QC comes from.
QC has really little to do with location of a factory.
It’s all about the selection process.
Some third party lenses are famous for big differences between samples. If you want to sell a product cheaper, you’ll have to lower the acceptance threshold. That is: the manufacturing can be less precise or you don’t throw as many away.
You know… I’m sure even a Zeiss Otus turns out to be poor from time to time. But Zeiss checks every single lens to be sure that one of the most popular photo gear testing websites won’t randomly get a rubbish sample. ;]
BTW: This is also one of the nice things about Photozone. They buy or borrow tested gear themselves. They might not have as many tests as some other websites, but they’re not working with samples chosen by the manufacturer. And look what happens…
Anyway, I’m looking forward to DxO results (I’m quite sure they’ll show them very soon).
I know about the selection but I don’t think it works that way, I think they match different parts that work better together.
Besides the manufacturing itself determines how much sample variation you get, wherever there’s human interference there’s human error, then it depends on who you get to do your job.
If you really want APS-C lenses, I see no reason to buy anything but Sigma’s awesome mirrorless aps-c Art lineup.
What about zooms? E-mount lacks something like a 16-50mm f2.8 or a 100-400mm.
Sigma Art lineup doesn’t have OSS either (I assume you’re talking about 19, 30, 60mm f2.8 primes)
Sony makes bad zooms (for their mirrorless). I don’t know what to say. Even the 24-70FE is garbage for the price. The 70-200FE is decent compared to the Canon 70-200/4, but not better. Their WA zoom is good, a real bright spot. And the 28-135 is good, but a bit soft, only really meant for videography.
I’m pretty disillusioned with Sony and can’t see investing in a full set of their lenses. The 55FE is still an amazing lens, and it can’t be repeated enough (flat field, beautiful bokeh, neutral, sharp, etc). And the 28-135FE is amazing if you need it. (Those are the two I own, and I have no need for any others,
This is just hilarious. I’d love to see someone with A6000, lugging around a lens the size of SAL1650. It will look exactly like this: http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/730-sony1650f28
And besides the minor issue of looking like a dork, there’s the uncomfortable camera grip for handholding such a lens and the whole setup being too front heavy.
I’ve got this lens on my A65, and at times, i wished I had A77. The whole E-Mount doesn’t come even close to the way any of these handle. A7II is a step in right direction for Sony.
“But if I would be on charge at Sony I would also release a Sony APS-C E-mount lens roadmap with a few nice primes and zooms”
..and A-mount and lots of new FE lenses and…
Well, their production capability seems to be limited, and there are lots of E lenses for APS-C around. Plus all FE lenses work perfectly on APS E-mount lenses. I don’t see a huge need for new APS-C e-mount lenses right now.
I guess I, for once, can consider myself lycky with my copy of the 16-70. It seems pretty sharp, except at extremes in the corners.
But I agree that the price is too high. And if the copy photozone.de tested is within specs, then Sony may have too wide tolerences, og maybe only measure at center.
I do not understand the criticism towards Sony about the APS-C e-mount line up. My Sony 2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D has superb IQ. Aswel as my Sony nFD 50mm 1.4. Ok, maybe the AF feels a bit manual, and OSS is based on dropping your heartbeat rate, but still. Furthermore they have plenty of top notch quality lenses, like their 16-50 and 55-210. Beautiful in-focus bokeh.
LOL the Sony Series-1 70-210/3.5 is a gem too!
I tried to look at a few of the sample pictures, but after one it seems to not work. That one was not focussed on the main object, though, so not much help!
It is to be noted that Zeiss do seem to concentrate on getting the centre nice and sharp, even if that is to the detriment of the corners. Personally, I refer that policy although I understand why it’s not to everyone’s taste.
The APS-C Sony/Zeiss E24 F1.8 ZA is arguably the best quality Sony APS-C E-mount lens. The FF Sony/Zeiss FE 35 F2.8 ZA is significantly sharper, smaller and lower priced. And yes, FF F2.8 is equivalent to APS-C F1.8 regarding both DOF and exposure. Just put a FF sensor in a “NEX” body and I won’t miss APS-C sensors or lenses.
For the price of the 24/1.8E, you could get all three Sigma Art E primes. And they’re better.
And slower.
I’ve entered the E-mount system only after the sigmas were tested and were found to be very good (19-average, 30-very good and the most useful, 60- amazing).
I’ll upgrade to the A7000, but When it comes to lenses, I simply don’t trust Sony.
My possible move to FE system may occur only after 3rd parties Lens companies will enter the system with very good offers that will bring a noticeable improvement over the APS-C E-mount
Sorry SONY, try harder (-;
sony 50 1.8 and 35 1.8 are quite good. The 35 1.8 is similar in design to the FE 55 1.8 – which is a highly rated lens. So not all Sony lenses are dogs.
“Similar in design” has nothing to do with actual performance lol, even the same design with alignment problems could ruin the whole thing, how could you rely on how the design looks for hints on performance lol
Is the 35 a bad performer by reviewers? No, it’s quite good actually, so design or whatnot, I have no expertise in, however from reading the interview by the 55 1.8 designer, he goes on to the mention the similarities in the lens design between the 55 and 35 1.8. It seems pretty safe to assume that the same brand and same lens design team can create 2 similar spec’d lenses to the same standard. What are you not getting?
The “same design team” had gone unmentioned. Sure if you have the same team, similar design, budget and time put aside results would be similar.
According to Photozone, the 35/1.8 is very nice up to F/2.2 but not wide open and the 50/1.8 is less impressive and they had centering issues…
The FE 55/1.8 is an amazing lens, but it’s too slow for the price and it’s price range is over the top for APS-C cameras.
What we really need here is a healthy competition from 3rd parties companies to offer better optics in a faster or slower and smaller formulas.
But photozone tests are crap! They praise m43 lenses and hate Sony lenses. The 16-70 is almost as good as the oly 17mm f1.8 prime, only the corners are worse. But the Oly gets 3 stars for optical and the Sony gets 1.5 stars. Not realy fair is it?
Their findings, actually correlates quite nicely with other testing sites like Slrgear and Lenstip .
In this case, their findings for the 16-70 are completely different from those at SLRGear, where corner sharpness was rated good/very good/excellent, where as at Photozone it was the lowest I have ever seen.
Yup, the 16-70 isn’t a bad lens at all. In any case, I’m happy with it. I also generally like Photozone. I think that they are wrong about the 16-70mm, thought. They are right about the price being too high. But the quality isn’t that bad.
And Dada, there are decent lenses from Sony. 24mm, 35mm and 50mm 1.8 are all good. I had a Nikon 50mm 1.8, which I sold and eventually I’ll get the 50mm from Sony. I already got the 24mm and 35mm ones. And as you know, the Sigmas are excellent, and you can mount a shit ton of lenses from different mounts if you don’t need AF. One of my favourite lenses is my Samyang 16mm f/2. Super sharp.
Well, I actually find Photozone to be one of the best reviewers out there, but at the same time there is clear bias against Sony. Not a huge deal, but it is there. Also, the guy is extremely picky. Just look how many five star lenses there are.
I have all of the lenses you mentioned. The SEL50 is pretty much as sharp as the FE55 from f4. It also has great bokeh. Where the FE55 really shines is how well corrected it is wide open. But that’s it. As usual, you pay a lot for that last little improvement.
I would say the 50 1.8 is quite good, better than say the Canon 50 1.8/Nikon 50 1.8 varieties. Not much more expensive, silent AF and IS. Don’t see why it’s not considered a good lens.
So I own this lens and have tested it and was happy with the results. After reading this I did a quick retest just to check and make sure and I am not experiencing this bad performance at all. I agree that they have a bad copy. Now I am not a Sony nor Sony/Zeiss fan boy either as I know what a bad lens Sony can produce looks like as I own the SAL1680Z Sony Zeiss badged POS. This lens is worse than most kit lenses I have seen and it is this lens that taught me to do my own testing on a lens and to send it back if not satisfied with it. I try and set my expectation though based on what the lens is and how as such it will typically perform.
I took some quick shots of my target and cropped down to the one dollar bill I like to use as my sharpness indicator. I find the printed lines of these when new to be a great view of lens sharpness and I have this one offset from center lower right.
Here are the shots, notice the 70mm one starts to soften some.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96135416@N06/sets/72157651196115657/
Also if you want some REALLY great information on lenses and testing from people that will test hundreds of copies of the same lens over and over check out the blog over at Lens Rentals. I am not affiliated at all but I do love reading that blog and have learned so much from it.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog
Very interesting review. I have Zeiss lenses specifically designed for Sony A7 line of cameras and some for Sony A6000.. Who is judging my images are creative directors from ad-agencies and let me tell you I have not “seen” complain but otherwise. My images go on bus-shelter store posters etc.
I can say, that I am pretty satisfied with line of lenses I have for my Sony cams.
Mind you that I compare my images with those I have previously created with Canon.
I wonder what these guys been doing … Interesting thing is also, that nowadays everyone proclaim him self as test site for lens testing. I do not remember anything like that from 60/70/80/90’s people where more interested in image quality in aspect of artistic merits when images are NOT about “aperture” something which nowadays photographers I am afraid do not understand.
Optics really haven’t gone that far, a Cooke from the 30s may compare favorably with some lens from the 80s stopping down only one stop. Making lenses before was like making mechanical watches, maybe even more expensive and complex, now it’s like making an oven, maybe even cheaper and simpler. Back then it was always aiming for the best, nowadays you deliberately make “adjustments” for marketing purposes. The market comes first. With a simpler mind you could make better lenses. An old lens especially German may not be much worse than a modern one and the color would almost certainly be better.
You are right on money. What I have not mention is, that I am using also some very fine Leica M lenses which I rent for job. Image quality on Sony 36mp chip is amazing.
Never less in old days just what , 15 years back I was shooting with Sinar 4×5 and mainly 8×10. Optics? Finest! Custom made by Rodenstock and Schneider.There is NO DG cam which can mach it in image quality full-stop.
Printed images on Cactus in size 9×42 feet where breath taking. No wonder that I was making 10-15’s per shot !
In now a days just like you say mass production is quantity and price. Just like stoves or refrigerators … unless you move in to art section which is totally different ball game. In this section of photography market, 8×10 and 11×14 film dominate.
Is this really a surprise after the terrible performance of the Zeiss 24-70 FE?
If you’re a prime shooter I can see using Sony E/FE, but Sony can’t cook a standard range zoom lens to save their life.
Samsung is much more interesting at this point.
Sorry Dude but you’r funny …
First, the 24-70 is a really good lens. Not the best in class but still quite good. Samsung is a joke, their TV’s suck, Appliances suck, and their camera’s and lenses suck.
Some of their products are cool though. Literally…
S6 Edge is cool enough:0
quality/price ratio, again.
Samsung are losing share in the mobile phone market and I haven’t managed to gain any traction in the camera market despite heavy investing for several years now.
They should have stayed in TV and vacuum cleaner business.
They should regain some lost ground with the two S6s, they’ve converted me from Sony with the S6 Edge anyways(all specs are better than the entire competition and the looks are amazing),besides they’ve never invested much in marketing with their cameras, I’ve never seen Samsung camera ads (unlike their phone ads which are all over the place), I even occasionally see Sony’s ads, who’s bleeding cash like hell and just turned one quarter’s profit.
The 24-70mm is ok. Certainly not as bad as people make out, but to say Samsung TV’s suck is just plain wrong. Samsung make some of the best TV’s available right now.
sony always seem to have problems with proprietary connections
I wasn’t lucky with my CZ 16-80 for A700 until I got it serviced and calibrated. Now I know it’s the best multi purpose zoom ever made for APS-C camera, sharp from corner to corner. I’ve expected the newer 16-70 for A-mount will be similar quality, however it is simply impossible when we get to know this has only 55 mm thread instead of 62 mm of SAL-1680ZA which yet had quite a lot of corner shadowing…
You are looking at the wrong lens in A-Mount. Take a look at SAL1650, which has a constant F2.8. It is an excellent piece of glass, good enough to stand in line, if not replace that Zeiss altogether.
SAL1650 has a 72mm front filter thread,
Yet another joke from Sony Zeiss after FE 24-70 lol
Yeah, the FE 24-70 is a total joke, I’ve been using one for 3 months now and I laugh at everyone who calls it garbage.
While it’s not a bad lens per se, it certainly is garbage for the price. It’s far too close to the performance of the kit lens to justify the money Sony is charging. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone that could spot a difference between the kit lens and the Zeiss.
And those same people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference with a Zeiss or an L-lens.
What you are getting for the price is Zeiss coatings and build quality that offer and colours that are unique to these lenses and what people pay for – and again, if you can’t tell the difference, you probably don’t need it.
Even when you look through these “reviews”, these lenses aren’t soft in the corners and bad at the extreme focal lengths, but if you pixel peep you’ll see that there are lenses that do better in the corners and wide/long ends than others. That doesn’t make a lens garbage. People make a big deal out of specs and resolution graphs and distortion (which is easily corrected) and DxOMark scores, but you neither take pictures with the extreme corners nor do the ‘best specs’ matter – the images matter.
The 24-70/4 and 16-70/4, you pay a bit of a premium on them, and it’s up to you to decide if you want that but you are still getting a well performing lens for the price that even in terms of sharpness, stands up well with it’s competition.
I get the distinct impression that a lot of people moaning about the 16-70/4 and 24-70/4 haven’t actually used either.
Exactly. I wish I could like your statement twice.
You guys are right! A zoom is a zoom, and I think that this one does a good enough job. I have primes for when I can take my time, and most of the time, I’ll end up using the primes. But the zoom is useful.
That’s obvious. Most importantly though, I think not many people double focal lengths with different quality lenses or sit and do a comparison by themselves. When you do that, you quickly realize how small the differences we are talking about are.
For the price, f4 max. aperture which should make the lens perform extremely well compared to f2.8 lenses (and the Zeiss name it has) it really is a joke.
Actually, this lens came before the FE 24-70mm. Also, have you used either of them?
I don’t, so are many. That’s what the good review site for. Not many people can afford every single lens available on the market.
So you are calling this lens, and the 24-70/4, a joke without trying or using either of them?
Data and number never lie and has no bias. The real sheep here is the fanboys who can’t deal with the truth.
ahahaha… nice try. Just keep believing other people’s opinions and regurgitating them without any experience of your own.
Have a great day!
I can see that you are pretty good at spinning fact into your advantage, Sony should hire you for PR position. Data collected from repeatable and carefully controlled process is not an opinion, even 6th grade know this.
Wow a zoom lens that doesn’t perform best at the extreme ends of the range and lens. Stunning.
Premium prices command premium performance and nothing less. Send Sony a message and don’t buy this lens. This should apply to ALL lens manufactures (OEM and third party), each has produced some duds.
This is still the biggest factor holding Sony back… It is/was the case with A-mount, same with E-mount.
With A-mount, Sony adopted a few great Minolta lenses as well as developed a few great lenses of their own, and then took the attitude of, “ok.. system is complete enough… don’t need to do any more.” So where Nikon and Canon keep introducing new designs, new focal lengths (See Canon’s new outstanding 11-24, and Nikon’s super low weight 300/4 as examples), Sony’s response is that, “hey, we got great lenses covering the basics, you don’t really need the others.”
With E-mount… No matter how GREAT the cameras might be… Very few of the lenses are worth any excitement. The A6000 might just be the best APS-C camera body on the market, but with very few lenses worth getting excited about. For the A7 series.. There may be 3 or 4 fantastic lenses, but their best “normal zoom” — 24-70/4 — is mediocre at best. So okay, they have a fantastic 55/1.8, very very good 16-35 and 70-200/4, and likely an excellent 35/1.4. And if and when they do finish covering the basics with lenses of varying quality, will they continue expanding the lineup, or take the A-mount route “ok, we covered the basics, we are done now.”
A-mount and E-mount… For most purposes, their bodies are good as anybody’s… but unless and until they get a whole lot more serious about lenses (beyond a handful of very good FE lenses), many enthusiasts, professionals and prosumers will be slower to adopt.
As usual Adam Brown, total BS. Get a life.
this lens is on the market for a long time now. people, dont act like its was introduced yesterday.
typical drama queens talk on sar again!
I agree that the lens is over priced but man, I rather like mine. I use it on an A6000 and its performance seems on par with the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS I use on my 5D2 and 5D3 and the Nikon 24-120 I use on my D800e and D810. For me it’s a perfectly fine mid range walk around zoom that should be significantly less expensive ($800 max) but you can find them refurbed for decent prices.
The 24-105/f4L Canon lens isn’t really all that great either. It’s a good kit lens for someone starting out, but when you get down to serious work, it just doesn’t deliver.
Yes, this lens isn’t ideal for landscape
Yes, the corners can be soft especially wide open
Yes, edge sharpness isn’t the best
BUT
Center sharpness is very good, for general purposes, travel photos, can’t complain
Good zoom range from 16-70, sure 105 would be even better, but I like having the 16mm vs 18mm
AF is pretty fast and silent
Build and balance go great with the a6000, just a joy to use.
So, take the negatives for what they are and work around them when you’re serious about the output. It’s possible.
The photozone sample gallery doesn’t shoot to the lens’ sweet spot, either he’s shooting everything at f/4 or he’s wide at f/8.0
In a real world usage, the lens is best at 5.6 from 16-50 and 8.0 at 70 and most all zooms will suffer at the long end.
So this is a lens to enjoy.
The picture of the Sydney Opera House was taken at FL=70mm and f/8. It’s sharp in the center but noticeably soft along both the right and left edges. I was debating whether to buy this lens for my A6K, when I came across a nice review of it by Ron Martinsen, who gave it a glowing review. However, it appeared to me his copy of the lens was sharp in the center, very good along the left side of the frame, but unacceptably soft along the right edge, and so I passed on this lens. My skepticism is confirmed by this new review.
I have to agree the lense is overprized…. you kind of expect higher quality for that kind of money.
overall it’s for a nice lense size wise and range and f4.
I got it half price so I am ok with it as a travel zoom. For serious work stick with prime.
I have been saying that for some time – and I have gotten a lots of angry users scolding me for even suggesting that the price is a bit high – they seem perfectly happy
I alway’s have said that the Sony Emount APS-C need a F2.8 constant zoom, I still don’t see it, while other brands like Fuji has made such a lens, why not Sony, to me the marketing section of Sony has placed to much attention to FF camera’s and lenses where a F2.8 is less needed, so IF Sony don’t come up with new advanced lenses and Emount APS-C camera, for me and many others who don’t need FF it’s goodbye Sony, Olympus / Fuji here we come !!!
Maybe they worry too much about the weight wienies that will cry about how bulky the lens is. It’s crazy how such a stupid thing like that can trump performance. If they want to win over CaNikon people, they will need to produce high performance, fast, zoom lenses that match the greatness of the Sony bodies. Primes are nice, but sometimes you just want a quick zoom to frame the shot on the fly.
Bye then. If you shoot APS-C, it’s better to go with a manufacturer like Fujifilm who are committed to APS-C solely. Nikon’s APS-C line-up isn’t exactly great either. APS-C will always be a poor relation if the manufacturer does FF too.
If I want APSC mirrorless, I will go NX1.
If you want smaller camera, you can get NX500.
Samsung lens specs are really astonishing.
Unfortunately there are no 3rd party manufacturers at all and the lens mount does not fit to FF, because the outer diameter is too small. If I hadn’t already Sony gear and if I did not want to step up FF, I would definitely step in with Samsung.
F2.8 Zoom?
You know that it will be big & heavy.
A Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is 430 grams, an Sony 18-105mm f/4 is 427 grams, oh no, 3 grams more, how will anybody be able to hold such a heavy lens?
One is 3x time zoom and the other is 6x time zoom.
So you are comparing apples and oranges.
IF the 18-105 are in F2.8 constant zoom, it will be huge.
You want that big lens, please go to Fuji.
and you know that Olympus use smaller M43 sensor,
F2.8 on M43 is similar to F4 on APSC.
Just put a FF body and F2.8 lens beside it, !!!!!!!!
A FF would have an equivalent F5.6…
F2.8 lens for a FF camera would be that much larger. Just look at the SAL2470 as a reference for the size of a 2.8 zoom
http://camerasize.com/compact/#520.448,377.56,ha,t
I agree that it would be nice to see a 24-70mm F2.8 from Sony for APS-C – but anytime I mention it folks just scream at me for even bringing it up – yes the Fuji one is a bit large – but Samsung also has one – yes we know that lenses for APS-C will be larger then for M43 – but is that a reason not to make one ??? I think the A6000/A7000 can support it – the A6000 has a nice grip – but of course a 70-200mm F2.8 for the A7 might be a bit heavy for that small body so I expect we will never see it – just the F4
but seems like 99.9% of folks out there are more than happy with the current lens selection for the A6000/NEX line – so who am I to mention that a 24-70mm F2.8 would be nice –
Well, if you don’t care about the size, why not use the SAL16-50 2.8?
does it not require an adapter? it is not a E mount
Adapted lenses have slow AF. Even LAEA-4 is just suboptimal
You have a rather loose definition of scream, though I agree with you about the bizarre trolling culture digital photography has become. I know I’m not the first to tell you a7+Zeiss 2470 2.8 gives you what you want.
is not the Zeiss FE a 24-70mm F4.0 ?
If sony wants to sell me anything more; it will have to be APSC not FF
Dont believe or read photozone if you have sony cam…
they just do a joke
😀
I see around $650 for a new one on the Chinese market, warranty not included of course but who cares, I think the price at this point is fine for something like this unless it really really sucks.
Anton’s aproximation…
I should review all my life and my work knowing I only did half as well.
Anton loves trolling. Don’t you know the golden rule? Don’t feed the troll. 🙂
His problem is that he doesn’t realize, that noone here pays attention to his ramblings. He is after being at the top of the charts so much, that he doesn’t care about other brands usability issues, which are primary reasons why most of us stay with Sony gear.
I don’t know. Quite frankly, I don’t care.
I was making a comment to Admin about what I thought was a dampening effort on a bad review (which contradicts another review – as I just learned from another commenter) by asking Sony to take care of APS-C users again. Anton jumped in saying I was trolling people that pointed Sony’s flaws.
I’ve had a few people thank me and signal their intention to shift to something other than Sony, some of them have already made the purchase. Fuji, Nikon and Canon among their choices.
Troll or not, i’ve been in doubt about buying the new improved A7r that’ll like come due to the fact that i often has to work harder on the Sony files due to RAW-compression that often shows up as soon as one begins tweaking the RAWs and really getting into editing colors etc.
It’s a pity that Sony sucks at software. They should just make the whole camera Android-compatible and rootable and let dev’s set whatever system settings they like (and also due to Android — actually be able to package and share this as apps).
I have to laugh at all these “I’m leaving X camera brand for Y camera..blah, blah” stuff.
On Sony sites you hear: “Im leaving Sony and moving to Canon”
On Canon sites you read “I’m tired of Canon, I’m switching to Sony”
Hardcore camera guys are NEVER fully content. It really us funny when you start reading all the different fanboy sites!
Im a hardcore E mount guy, not just because of the A7s but also on the video side…Sony FS700 and new FS7
E Mount benifits from BOTH worlds driving it very nicely.
>Hardcore camera guys are NEVER fully content<
Yes, there's a subset of "gear-hounds" that have little in common with photographers.
Read what Lloyd says about the Fuji first Anton, you really need to pay more attention here!
I doubt this Anton Berlin ever used anything other than a P&S or a mobile phone camera.
You’re probably right. https://sonyvnikon.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/dove-on-roof.jpg
Ah, you rarely leave the living room I see………
Looks like a shot taken with the Nikon P900
+1
This was exactly my first thought as well, the new P900, 83x optical zoom 🙂
If a P900 can do that, I’d buy it in a heartbeat.
Anton Berlin
Your photographic skills blow me away. I now have so much respect of you since posting one of your exhibit pieces.
Just out of curiosity, is the pigeon attached to that cable or is it just an artistic touch adding to the quality of the photo?
It’s hard to photograph a moving object so I skewer the pigeon first with a cable. This practice might be hurting my portrait sales for women and children
Only one way to shut up Anton. Post your portfolio.
Absolutely Katsu!
I’d like to see your photos too.
Buy me a drink first at least sweety. LOL
Actually, it’s worse than I thought. About 33%. Nice Truth you’re living.
What do you do for a living? I’m guessing its not photography, reading your numerous comments here, you appear to be a little clueless on this subject!
Who really is “Anton Berlin”?
This is the answer. His real name is Max Berlin and he lives in San Antonio, Texas (USA).
sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/about/
en.gravatar.com/maxberlin88
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/max-berlin/8a/1a3/a0
http://www.facebook.com/max.berlin.503
Could not agree more – I love the A6000 as it fixed many issues like the horrible old NEX menu system etc. and yes the 35mm and 50mm etc are nice – but I feel sony could do better in supporting the APS-C mount system –
but anytime I bring up more lenses – people scream at me and say they are just so so happy with the lens selection – I just beg to differ – for instance there is no 24-70mm F2.8 or 70-200mm F2.8 – ( Fuji has it – Samsung has it and of course M43 has it ) –
I better not say anything negative as some of the Sony Fans will scream at me – but I am glad that someone has the cuts to mention that not all the Zeiss glass has not been perfect and price is always high –
Troll. Antonlover.
first of all I have no idea of who this Anton is – but I expected this – seems it is not allowed to say anything but glory glory about Sony products – Sony just makes perfect cameras and perfect lenses at absolutely the perfect price – no one dare say otherwise – and yes I have loads of Sony gear – but I also have loads of M43 gear and some Fuji gear and Nikon DSLR gear – and interestingly they are not perfect – but nice to be called a Troll for agreeing that I would like to see more lenses for E mount and that some of the E mount glass is not perfect – nice – hope you feel better – thanks
I agree, it’s a concern that there aren’t any 2.8 zoom lenses and I don’t see it happening, ever. They have the A-mount to lean on for the 2.8 and they have the FF FE to step up to. It looks as if Fuji and Samsung are the only ones who’ll have it for the APS-C sensor. Or Canon with adapter on the EOS M Mark ? It’s too bad.
Sony already has those lens in A-mount.
Sony told you many times that, they have only “1” system, called Alpha System.
While, there are many lens still missing, why make lens with same spec?
The only complaint is Sony should improve their adapter.
But I am sure they are working on it, & I guess new adapter will come with A9.
Yes, plenty of lenses for my compact, lightweight a6000. I just need to add a $250 adapter and use big heavy lenses made for other cameras. This apparently makes perfect sense to many posters on this forum.
$250 lens adaptor? Novoflex adaptors sure are purdy, but there’s no need to blow that kind of dough on a dumb metal tube. That would be dumber than the adaptor.
I use $10-$20 Rainbow Imaging and $40 Fotodiox lens adaptors for my Nikon AI-S, Pentax SMC Takumar, Olympus OM and Voigtländer (M and L mount) lenses with my M4/3 cameras. I’ll do the same when I get an A7-series body…
Or maybe you mean the Sony adaptor for their A-mount lenses. 😉
An adaptor that requires me to guess at the f-stop isn’t a satisfactory solution. Or even a good ‘workaround’.
Agreed. it makes little or no sense not to know what aperture you’re using.
I only adapt manual lenses with real aperture rings, so for me the point is moot.
Agree with you. Sony seems to have forgotten it has an APS-C lens line up for mirrorless. I can understand not having a 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f2.8 for FE mount since the size will be huge but I feel for APS-C at least there is no compelling reason not to have some f2.8 lenses when Fuji and Samsung (both APS-C camera systems) have them.
hahaha like anyone is actually using Samsung
You will be surprised with the amount of attention the new NX1 is garnering.
Samsung already has a better lens line up than Sony. All they need to do is promote it more.
They killed Sony in the TV market already when people would joke about them so we shouldn’t take them too lightly.
meanwhile the d5500 is almost as small as a6000 with a decent grip and can mount the Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART that offers four times more image quality than any sony emounts… and the 18-140 has edge to edge… for 250$
Nikon D5500 and A6000 are a similar size? Really.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#535.360,580,gd,f
did I say almost? A6 is much smaller granted by 1-2cm, yet u can see when you add a lens on the a6 that they all reach similar length by centimeters again, both of them well smaller than an a7. Then put your hand on the grip and lets play who gets more stable at 200mm on kit lenses.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#535.90,580.321,579.392,572.103,ha,t
Still doesn’t make up the fact that both caNikon have decent affordable crop lenses + epic sigma ARTs and Sony still has ways to go on short flange optics.
The Sigma 18-35 1.8 Art is an amazing lens. However, it is large. The Nikon D5500+18-35 combination is only about an inch shorter than the a6000+70-200f/4 combination. I believe the point of the Sony system is to prioritize convenience and portability over other factors such as sharpness. I switched from Nikon (both FX and DX) knowing that the image quality wouldn’t be as high, which is an acceptable tradeoff for the many people like myself who are content to show photos on LCD screens and who seldom make large prints.
I have the 16-70 on my A6000. It’s a lot like my aging Canon 24-105 f/4 L, so no real complaints. I got a great deal anyway. I despise the 16-50 that is over-rated.
Sony has not done enough development in lens because my Olympus 12-40 and Fujinon 18-55 are optically superior and no sensor can fix that.
It’s not about Sony lenses. Photozone have a long tradition of screwing up lens reviews. Are they still testing their lenses on a Nex-c3 or have they moved up to a camera from this decade?
After spending 1000+ euros on the SAL24mm 2.0 I will never buy a Zeiss lens again. I’ve been looking other revered glasses from Zeiss too, like the Otus etc. They all have the same planarity problem, and they call them aspherical design! In any case I don’t see the issue of the lack of sony E-mount lenses. These cameras (A6000, NEX7, etc) are just good to travel light with small good primes (leica?). If you are looking into a 70-200 2.8 with fast autofocus then you need to buy (and carry) canon or nikon. Simple as it is.
The Otus lenses are perfectly plane.
Federico, which Otus you own? the 55 1,4 and the 85 1,4, sony mount that I have tested are not. They both have a wide sagittal and tangential astigmatic area in the lower-left mid frame.
So, you have tested/owned the Otus 55 and 85mm lenses in Sony mount? Nice try, but no banana. Go troll somewhere else.
Apologies, they were canon and metabones adapted to A7r. I didn’t own them they were Sony’s. Confirm the planarity problem otherwise I would own them by now. Instead I went to buy Leica. No autofocus, but as I said if ur a sports shooter you need the tools designed for that and these cameras are certainly not for many reasons. They are good though for a number of jobs, like portraits, but not if you get one of the eyes blurred because of the lack of planarity. Maybe you have a different experience with the Otus and I’m happy for you, but so many times I read opinions that seem to me more based on makers advertisement than on real use of the equipment. I just feel sorry for those readers who take these opinions for facts and end up wasting their money.
There are a number of serious people that don’t trust adapters because they add another ‘sample variation’ element to the game. This matters most the shorter the focal length (and naturally the faster the lens) as the DOF in the image plane gets smaller as it gets larger in the subject plane the smaller the focal length gets. Lloyd Chambers had bad Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 samples (and/or bad Nikon D3x cameras) which here attributed to imperfect alignment of lens mounts on the lens and/or camera and it took several tries with new or corrected lenses and cameras to finally get a perfect match. And that was without adaptors.
This is why the problem of perfect parallel alignment is much less important for TC as they tend to get used only for focal lengths of 200 mm and up.
Of course, if your problem was due to imperfect parallelism of all mount surfaces, then you should be able to see a slightly tilted plane of sharpness in your images.
El Aura you are right and I’m aware of that. However when I test a lens for my own use/purchase I tend to chose those that better fit my setup rather than those that could ‘potentially’ produce a good image. If you make a living out of photography you have no time to ship equipment back and forth because a brand new lens requires “calibration” (if so the design is wrong). There are so many reasons for this. In a first place for modern digital cameras the optical projects tend to be less ‘camera-independent’ than what they used to be in the film era. Especially for fast wide-angles the relationship between their exit pupil and the thickness of their native camera sensor stack is crucial. So when you adapt a third party lens you should always look at its exit pupil value, if it is too much back-positioned (toward the sensor) it will be likely to have astigmatism problems, especially in the corners. Now the Otus have a rather tele centric design (typical of DSRL lenses) and they shouldn’t have this sort of problem. Instead (rather than a parallelism problem producing a tilted plane of sharpness) they have isolated blurred areas due to astigmatism. And to be honest it shows even in the MTF circulated by Zeiss. The only reasons I can see for it are that
1) 18mm in the case of the E-mount cameras is too short a flange focal distance and requires costy, unlikely to be used, high-DI glasses (hence the curved sensor)
2) Zeiss seems to ignore that even those who buy a 500-bucks camera today are sophisticated customers. They seem to care only about big productions that spend several zeroes in cinema lenses. When was the last innovation in optics by Zeiss? 1960’s? Maybe…
Low budget imposed by Sony? Maybe…
At the end of the game if my pictures are blurred I don’t care about the brand name of the lens they are taken with. I’m not paid for what I use, but for what I produce. At least Leica cares to make a (horrible) camera which’s firmware corrects the weakness of some designs. Take the acclaimed Summicron 28 2.0 asph. It is a total crap if not used on a Leica Camera.
Again an exit pupil problem.
I managed to bore myself already, can’t think of the others 🙂
Have a good one.
Well, try buying a genuine Zeiss next time. The SAL24F20Z is a Sony lens, developed and built by Sony, with some, undisclosed involvement from Zeiss. (Hint: Zeiss lenses come in white boxes with blue foam padding.)
To me a genuine Zeiss lens is one that brings money to them when it is sold.
Sony should have figured out how to work the optics to ensure edge to edge performance like m43 or dSLR systems today before actually launching a system instead of jamming technology in a small box and have lens manufacturers figure out how to solve the short flange issue… As a consequence, the FE 35 1.4 is a reconverted dSLR lens for the e-mount and is hugeeeee.
First off if you crave edge to edge performance then yes the Sony system isn’t for you.
Me ? I bought into it cause I like the colours I get from Sony and frankly I care too hoots for edge to edge performance. I have yet to see any of my photos spoiled due to soft corners. Plenty of ruined photos due to shake, poor overall sharpness due to using soft lenses and some due to flare and PF but none due to soft corners.
And saying the FE 35mm f1.4 is a reconverted DSLR lens is one of the silliest comments I have seen so far. Do you even know how different a DSLR lens has be be compared to a mirrorless lens ? You can’t simply ‘re-convert’ a DSLR lens for mirrorless.
If you are referring to the Samyang lenses then please note there is a nice big hollow tube to make up the flange to mount difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera.
Haha. APS-C e mount users are suffering from lack of confidence in the system due to not having a lens road map?? A-mount users scoff at your lack of faith/delusion.
Spending 750 bucks on a lens, that just extends a bit the old sel1855, I got for 75 bucks more with the kit. A little more focal range on both ends, a little more aperture, a little more sharpness in the center – does not sound like being worth 10 times the price.
Honestly if you are happy with an 18-55mm lens thats good. I however find the range too limiting for my needs and even though my 16-105mm lens isn’t terribly sharper than the 18-55mm I am happy with it as the 16mm itself is a focal length I shoot at very often.
If I read other reviews of the lens I see that it performs better on the Sony A6000 even though it has a 24 MP sensor like the NEX7.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-e-16-70mm-f-4-za-oss-t–review-24059
At the end of the day the color and contrast of this lens and central sharpness is far more important to me than corner softness.
I am yet to see any photo terribly ruined by soft corners.
Indeed I am kind of happy with my 1855. I have the big fat SEL18200 (version 1), too if I want take videos or just go outside without idea what to shoot.
For indoors, the 1855 has a very suitable range – and I have the SEL16f28.
But I would trade the 1855 vs the SELP1650 – even knowing the 1855 is optical superior. The 1650 makes the camera just pocketable – thats cool.
I think, the biggest problem of having good quality and reasonable priced Sony E-Mount lenses at all is the fact, that almost no 3rd party manufacturer has the tech to produce such lenses.
Canon could do that with their STM technology – but I doubt they will make Sony stuff.
I think just that conventional USM-like motors (Sigma calls it HSM) are not suitable for fast AF with OSPDAF or contrast-AF: To understand what I mean, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho0hOhRSuHk
50 “em em” lens with a “led” screw – Making screws out of lead? That can’t be good. Funny the voice-over guy wasn’t coached on all the terms.
Had this lens. Not happy with it. Rather switch between the 24 and 50/ 55 primes
No surprise there. The Zeiss variable zooms have always been poor and mediocre. Just look at the amount 16-80 or emount 24-70 Zeiss. If you want a real Zeiss, then get a non Sony Zeiss as Sony Zeiss are only Zeiss in name, not actual performance.
Well, the Sony/Zeiss FE55/1.8 is one of the best lenses ever made, also there is the S/Z FE 35/2.8 and the S/Z FE 16-35/4 and the S/Z E 24/1.8. All excellent lenses, worthy of the Zeiss badge.
I’d say that the S/Z lenses är just as good as the “true” Zeiss lenses: some are great, others are…not that good, considering the price.
except the a-mount 24-70, that lens is pretty awesome
Oh well. It’s not that bad, if you got it for a good price. In any case, I can see a good difference between the 16-70 and the super crappy 16-50, and it’s also better than 18-55. Yeah, it could be sharper, but honestly, if you want to have sharpness all over, just use a prime, not a zoom. In any case, I’m happy with mine (that I got for like 500$ instead of 1000$, because I look for good deals on eBay), it does the job, it’s easy to carry, it feels good, the colors are nice, it has a useful range. When I need to take the sharpest picture I can possibly take, I use my primes. That simple.
Honestly the kit lens is all most people ever need who aren’t too concerned with IQ.
I would buy the 16-70mm f4 if I could get it for $500 or so as I see value in its 16mm focal length and its central sharpness.
I have never ever felt bad about corner sharpness ever as I feel most photos should have nothing sharp in the corners.
Central sharpness does matter to me and I see it tack sharp wide open except at 70mm where I would stop down to f5.6 for some additional sharpness if I really wanted it.
I don’t want to change to another system. Sony has/had something good going on in their APSC range of cameras. But any system needs improvements and Sony doesn’t seem to doing in right in the lens department.
Been complaining for sometime and many in this forum seem to be only nterested in the A7 or the FE mounts range, glad that this article came out.
Yes wholeheartedly agree with you. Sony seems to have forgotten it has a pretty successful APS-C camera system as well that it needs to support and grow.
They are only focusing on FE mount cameras and lenses now it seems.
Don’t feel too bad – a lot of the FE lenses are also overpriced for the IQ too.
Interesting conclusion if you read the review of the comparable lenses like the Pentax SMC DA 17-70mm f/4 AL or the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM. These lenses where qualified as decent zooms.
If you look at the charts you notice that they achieve comparable (or even lower) boarder sharpness but the Sony shows an incredible central sharpness. Due to that one might of course notice a more noticeable falloff in sharpness from the center to the boarders, but if you measure the boarder sharpness it is comparable to other candidates in this zoom range.
Vignetting or chromatic aberration is comparable too.
The only point I can agree to is the price. Although you get superior central sharpness, a for my taste better bokeh and better colors (I love the Zeiss colors), the price is too high. I guess this is a result of the non-existent competition for the e-mount since there are no Tamron or Sigma alternatives.
The price rating is OK but the performance rating NOT
Klaus is always rating Sony a little bit more rigorous than other brands.
However he is mostly concluding from technical point of view including partially a price rating.
The 1670Z was released at 999,- €, but did not answer the users expectation.
I have been using it on my previous NEX7. Even on pure holiday images which were not intended for larger prints than 5×7″ (for larger ones I used my primes), in specific scenes the sharpness falloff was very visible and thereby disturbing.
Built quality is very good, and it is really nice to use, but it leaves a lot to desire from IQ point of view.
The fact that the serial number is printed on a tiny sticker that gets loose after a while not to mention.
So I think his rating is tough but fair.
Kurt Munger also got mediocre results from this lens.
Seeing that there seems to exist better samples of this lens, too (although still not top class at the sides/corners) maybe we have a problem with batch quality control or differing factories. Or that some specific review samples are hand checked by Sony (in contrast both Kurt and Klaus get their lenses directly from retailers, IIRC).
Anyway, the future is full frame, so Sony shouldn’t care about this. Just slap an adapter on the 16-50/2.8 and use that instead. 😉
Bad quality control could mean decentered elements, with some corners bad. If ALL corners are bad, it is by design.
Sony overprices their “Zeiss” lenses? Duhh. No shit, Sherlock. Obviously, every single one. See “Sony Zeiss” on the barrel? You can be assured its MSRP is 3-4 times more than it should be worth. After all, they work on Gillette business model, everybody knows that, if you don’t – look it up.
It’s a great camera and photos.
Check PhotoZone Website: http://photozone24.com/
Check PhotoZone Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/photozone24