A bit earlier than expected SAR readers are now receiving their preorders from Amazon US (Click here), BHphoto (Click here) and European Sony Stores (estimated shipping date was Sept 22). Check these direct preorder links if you want to grab the lens:
USA/Canada: Amazon, SonyStore, BHphoto, Adorama and Sony Canada.
Europe: Sony DE, Sony UK, Sony ES, Sony SE, Sony AT, Sony IT, Sony NL, Sony BE, Sony FI, Sony CH.
–
There are now dozens of image samples on Flickr (Click here), a videoreview by a SAR reader on youtube. Image samples on Systemkameraforum. And a first review has been posted by the Korean site Naver.com (google translation here). In short this is their pro and cons list:
pros:
-Very good optical performance
-OSS
-Splendid color rendering
Cons:
-boring (a bit of sarcasm maybe)
-Vignetting at 70mm but disappears at f8.0
– at 16mm the quality in the edges is a bit weak.
70 Responses
Looks nice indeed. Will probably get one as a convenience lens once I covered everything else.
I have this lens , this lens is at least as good as my Panasonic 12-35mmf2.8 or Nikon 24-70f2.8 or my Sony Zeiss 24-70mmf2.8ZA SSM.
I consider them all identical in both optical and build quality.
people tend to think the heavier the lens the better built but it is not always so.
The 16-70mm f4 E mount lens is an amazingly well made and small lens, very universal and convenient.
all that being said, honestly, I think the new E 16-70mm f4 is a bit sharper throughout its range than the A mount 24-70mm f2.8 and Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G.
derek, what about distortion and corner performance on the wide end?
Real connoisseurs always check corner sharpness wide open at the wide end. Not…
I seem to be very important to you.
We have similar issues. At least he hasn’t copied your name.
There was already someone who did that.
Wankers
well, mine is okay but i wouldn’t exactly call it great.
@16mm the corners are only okay
@35mm you have to stop down for acceptable corners
especially above 50mm it is weaker than a Sony 50/1.8 and much weaker than a sigma 60/2.8
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1241824/2
Thanks for that! Not stellar, but it does look ok.
“not stellar”… LOL that’d be wasted on you kid. Here is a tip: get a prime, stick it on your camera and go out shooting. Do not remove it for a year. Learn flash photography, giving it another year. Then you will *start* to see what really matters. Here is another tip: *not* the corners.
What a tosser you are. Try learning photography with your kit, rather than criticising the “corners”. Not stellar… LOL
Wow, people, you do have issues! And on top of that you are not even trying to make sense, lol.
Great comparison! Strange to see that in the midframe (closer) shots the 18-55 is much sharper than the 16-70. Not too impressed with the corner shots of the 16-70 either.
Philip
Thanks for your in-depth initial test for the 16-70mm lens. I agree with Vlad and Weakling: not very sharp, especially when comparing this $1000 lens to the 18-55mm kit lens (~$150).
I see you really needed to stop it down to f9 or higher to get any kind of significant sharpness. On the plus side, it looks like better color saturation. But that’s not enough to justify the steep price for this lens IMO.
It looks pretty good to me. A touch behind the primes in either the corners or mid-frame or both but up to 50mm it seems pretty decent. Past that the center holds up but the edges don’t (which is probably fine wide open for portraits and the like).
Making an F4 lens is rather easier than an F2.8 combined with designing for a smaller sensor being easier your comparisons seem a bit optimistic.I also have the 12-35mm and it is not in the same league image quality or build quality as the other lenses mentioned.Especially if you look at it without its software corrections.
Wow, thanks. F4 is a bit slow, but the range is really good so I’d definitely consider it.
I could not edit, I did not say the conclusion part.it seldom flare ,amount and look of CA at wide end is well corrected and distortion is acceptable, over all ,the 16-70mmf4 is a real bargain considering its amazing optical and mechanical quality. imho it is the best E mount lens to date.
It would sound dumb, but who you’d compare it to Sony’s 16-50?
How’s distortion @ 16mm uncorrected is it same almost fish eye + crazy vignetting or a real deal wide angle?
Thx
Ok, Google translation the Korean review didn’t help my comprehension any better:
“Hair catches one good one, overall contrast than the Sonnar fall, but Depiction seems to lead the Sonnar I’d like a little more.
For the evaluation of the overall image softer or thicker, not be described as sharp and flowerbed.
Words that describe a good sharp Not funny bad words is a picture Plainly quality good. “
Very in-depth.
Vignetting at the tele end? Does that make sense?
Nice! When can we get some “A Mount” rumors?
+1. Nothing E-mount excites me in any way shape or form. All I see is image quality compromises one after another….
Yes I understand that others needs are different to mine, but E-mount won’t excite me til I see top quality, fast, AF lenses & a camera with an ergonomic layout not too far off the a99…. at which point E-mount has very little to offer over the A-mount…
1000 euro for this not so superb lens… i’ll pass.
From the samples, contrast and flare control seems good but I expected the lens to be sharper wide open.
Results seem good stopped down but using the lens only at f5.6 or slower will seriously limit its versatility which kind of defeats the purpose of a universal zoom. The OSS is probably its saving grace. Imo they optimized too much for size.
Cons:
-boring (a bit of sarcasm maybe)
-Vignetting at 70mm but disappears at f8.0
– at 16mm the quality in the edges is a bit weak.
– 1000 Euro 😉
At 1000 euro, ONLY the price MUST be in Cons
Agreed. From what I have seen it has the quality of a £200 lens not near £1000….
Havent had firsthand experience of this lens but vs the 16-80
+ better build quality
+ constant aperture
+ smaller physical size
– less reach
— worse image quality
Double minus for worse image quality (only speculative til someone compares the two side by side) but this is the biggie for any lens!!!! & I only paid £300 for the 16-80 new.
Only if you’re a cheap ba5tard with pretentions. A 24-70/2.8 from any the big guys is over $2000. Meanwhile the 18-55 is incredibly underrated if you’re on a budget.
Btw it s not because other big guys make it at $2000, yours at 1000 euro might be less good ;)… nothing about being cheap pretender ;)…
if you ‘d purchase a FF nex at 2000-2500 euro ( yes i can dream on) would you want the seller tells you that your lens will be lacking 😉
Btw Tamron SP 24-70 mm f/2,8 DiVC USD is about 800 euro and not 2000$
It’s an F4 for half frame sensors for pete’s sake, if you add a focal extender then it’s a mere constant F5.6(or F6.3? not quite sure) for FF, and for this insane price it doesn’t even come with a metal hood. Sony’s got an attitude problem releasing something like this at this price. If they want to price this lens as a premium product, then apart from premium specs and premium IQ, which is already missing from this lens, they should at least include premium accessories with it, a metal hood and cap, and a sheepskin carrying bag. Right now all its got is a premium logo and premium price.
Of course M43s have their fair share of rip-offs, some less worthy of their price than even this lens.
It doesn’t say much for the future of e-mount zooms if this is the best to be expected at that price point… It’ll be interesting to see how the 18-105 compares, given the price.
Sigma please make emount zoom!
Any zoom scaled for a Nex body will inevitably involve compromises. We may see a scene change if the ILC series sells well, in which case there may be less reason for Sony to keep the size size and weight of e-mount glass down… That’s why I see a and e mount bodies coexisting in the same ecosystem – some people are happy with hefty glass, and others prefer to travel light.
IMO not all zooms have to be “scaled” for the system, for example the M43 faction’s got a 70-200/4 stuck together with a x0.25 focal reducer, it’s a full FF DSLR sized lens but for the M43 format. The price is outrageous knowing what it is, but at least they’ve got something.
Sorry， it’s a x0.5 reducer…
As written on the lens, it’s for E-mount, right? I wonder if Zeiss/Sony are planning on an A-mount version, although I`d be more interested in the Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS. Do those lenses also have SSM?
Hm, very good? Not really.. check Phillips post with 100% crops. I think for 1000 EUR its a bit .. lacking.
it looks like its turning out to be a pretty decent lens at a pretty decent price! i’d say its worth it
people seem to be forgetting how much compromising on build must be done on kit lenses to get them to be the price that they are, decent optics usually costs a decent amount. people are always unrealistic with expectations! i’d say for $1000 this lens delivers quite a bit, especially in terms of sat and decent sharpness 😀
the images that are out there do not suggest that this lens is “optically very good”. Looks rather average. Which would be fine if the price would be lower. But i am not looking for another cheap mediocre lens.
“optically very good” usually implies “higher prices” 😛
To tell the truth I am not really impressed at all. The lens is not bad but for 1000. I could get a 50mm 1.8 19mm 2.8 35mm 1.8 and still have almost 300.00 left. I could always stop those primes down to f4 anyway. I guess in the end its just not for me but am just saying. Or maybe I just need to see someone use this lens that knows how to make it shine.
I happen to have a pile of E Mount primes: SEL24z, SEL35 and SEL50 (and 10-18 & 55-210 zooms) and while the 16-70z may be lacking in peak sharpness behind the primes them I like my 16-70 a lot. The zoom vs. prime situation is no different if you go to Canon for example; very inexpensive primes (<$200) beat the $2000 L Zooms in certain areas. I pile of primes is no replacement for zoom for as a walkaround/general purpose lens.
Aside from the obvious "Swiss army knife" benefits of zoom there is a lot to like in the 16-70z
– overall build quality/feel is stellar. On par with my Zeiss Zf.2 Makro Planar 50/2 and way above Canon L glass I have
– MF handling is as good as there is for E mount fly by wire, much nicer to MF than SEL35/50 (not to mention 55-210 which is terrible to MF). I'd say even better than SEL24z
– focus motor is fast, I'd say it focuses noticeably faster than SEL50 when there is enough light for CDAF in my Nex-7 to work
– the Zeiss characteristics are there. Very nice color rendition, supernice bokeh (I'd say this has Touit 32 beat handily), defocus gradient to give that Zeiss 3D-pop
Please, well designed zooms are on par with primes or beat primes, like the 70-180/2.8 for Leica R.
You also might miss the shot while your changing between them.
@Philip Reeve – thank you for the test. To me there seems to be a classic “not everythin in focus” error in the grass pics. When you look at the corner pictures of the shots taken in infinity focus then the corner sharpness og the Zeiss is every bit as good as the Sigma prime – heck the contrast even seems better. Make sure to do the test en infinity focus for the most reliable test result – or else the tests can mess up with your head 😉
Rumors spread quick here and people are champions at jumping to conclusion here. What I have seen of this lens so far is stellar performance.
The test is at infinity focus (if you accept 300m as infinity)
I included the grass(which is maybe 30-40m from the camera) to show that the kit lens shows inward field curvature.
I checked focus twice for every picture taken with the Zeiss.
Ok…but why is there not consistency in your 28mm tests? The grass ‘close ups’ pics are to me “out of focus” unsharp and on the landscape pictures compared to both the 19mm and 28mm lenses the Zeiss 16-70 gives the most pleasing result and sharpness is right up there.
Something is not right on the grass close ups, how can you be 30-40m away, shooting 28 or 19mm and get that kind of magnification even at 100% crop?? Seems more like 10-15m to me and here you can easily get too shallow depth of field…
…unless a lens shows significant field curvature, whic the SEL1855 does.
@Philipp
First of all – thanks for the test. Highly appreciated.
A question to that – have you checked your lens for possible centering defect?
I’ve had issues with my 50/1.8 and with my 1018/4 and received replacement in both cases.
I do not know what people expect . Look at the size !!! How small it is , just little bit bigger then 24 f1.8 . This is zoom . I hope to see G class quality in 18-105 f4 .
Given its price and the Zeiss name on it, I expected to be a bit sharper. I’ll still probably buy it though.
Received mine yesterday – just in time for my 2w vacation in the mountains. 🙂
Then I am waiting for feedback after two weeks 🙂
As if “sharpness” would change the quality of your pics…
The technical qualities of a lens are the foundation for great photographs, so yes, for $1000, great sharpness should be part of the package.
Of course it will. They will be sharper.
People expect, at the very least, IQ akin to the Fuji XF 1855. In fact I don’t think it unreasonable to expect BETTER IQ considering it costs $300 more and is slower on the wide end, and has no aperture ring or OIS on/odd switch.
BTW I don’t feel this lens is really all that “small”. We are starting to get into the point where the size benefit of the NEX bodies is being lost. The very compact 1650 PZ, roundly criticized by many people, is actually an engineering marvel that has no real competition, and provides 80% of the IQ of the Zeiss, at 1/3 or less the price.
Hmm, not available on Sony.fr ?? Not that I’d want to buy one at 1000€ a pop though ! It think it’s probably a good deal ahead of the 18-55 (which is far from hard to beat, lol) but the price difference is a bit ludicrous. I’ll stick with mt black 18-55, MF zooms or LA-EA2 and 16-50 2.8 SSM for now 😉
(sorry for being late)
Well, I don’t know.. people, you are picky!
This small zoom is on par with the best primes in the whole range, with better contrast overall. It’s good even wide open, when primes are stopped down already. It’s just plain awesome!
I refer to Philip’s work, obviously. And, yes, thanks, Philip for the great resource! Well done.
First of all .
Philips 16-70 sample suffers from decentering. I have the 16-70 and the 10-18 both have the same optical performance including corner performance. That is a lot better than it appears on Philips tests vs The Sigma 60mm. The corner tree shots are out of focus…
Like the 10-18, the lens performs very good @f8,f11.
Worths every penny imho.
Sour grapes …..fact is this is the best zoom lens for the system to date. From photos I have seen it is on par with other 1000 Euro/USD lenses. If you do not want to shell the cache ok, don’t’the blame the lens for it
By the way my order place the day after release on amazon has not shipped nor I have confirm of date. Amazon site too still shows 22nd of September….
The lense should be released today according to Amozon but has been postponed to Oct 17th in stead of early release.
Boring and soft corners at 16mm? These are the exact reasons why I want to upgrade from SEL 1650 to the Zeiss at the expense of that much $$ and the extra bulk/weight. With all these sacrifices I expect a day and night difference in IQ. Anything short of that would be disappointing. Now with the delayed release I just canceled my Amazon order and will wait and see till customer/professional reviews come out.
If the 16-70 is “great” this makes my nikkor 18-200 vr is spectacular. But if I just spent $1000 on glass I would be trying to fit the square peg into round hole as well.