Sony E 16-70mm ZA Impressions

Started 8 months ago | User reviews thread
Senior MemberPosts: 3,259
Re: non sequitur
In reply to Euell, 8 months ago

Euell wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Euell wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

Euell wrote:

dpmaxwell wrote:

Cane wrote:

Thanks for the review. The one thing though that drives me nuts, and it's not just you as I see it a lot, is when the reviewer dismisses shortcomings by saying, "it doesn't affect me for what I shoot". Well that's great and all if you are talking to yourself, but for those reading the review, what you shoot is of little concern. To rank a lens based on what you shoot is fine for you, but when you post it to the public, it makes it seem very biased.

Also, for the record, I didn't "dismiss" any shortcomings. I put the fact that the lens was f/4.0 under "Misc"; mainly because of all the whining about it not being f/2.8 by so many people. I don't think the f/4.0 is a shortcoming; others might, and that is fine. I should have just not mentioned it at all...

-- hide signature --

*Disclaimer: the above post is just my opinion. No offense was intended. Please don't freak out - I'm just some random dude on the internet.*

One of Cannon's most popular zooms is the 24-105 f4, which is equivalent in focal lengths to the Sony 16-70. Somehow those Canon users get by with f4.

Whatever somebody is satisfied with is not a prove of anything. The m43 users seem to be satisfied with a lot dimmer lenses too, who cares. You are also forgetting that Canon 24-105/4 is a full frame lens, it collects as much light as 16-70/2.7 APS-C lens. Had Sony released 16-70/2.8 in Canon body that would be a lens worthy of praise and $1G tag.

Both lenses are F4.

Seems you don't understand that F4 on FF and APS-C are two very different lenses. As I said, you need to compare it to 16-70/2.7 if you want equivalent systems.

You want faster lenses, you get bigger lenses. Small bodies ergonomically speaking don't work well with big lenses.

Do you understand that your beliefs are not the standard for the other people?

You want big fast lenses, then you don't want NEX, or at least I don't and I have a large Canon system, but the NEX's small size is handy for travel. I rarely use any aperture slower than F4, except where I am looking for very limited depth of field. Fast lenses, except the very best, are not terribly sharp at the widest apertures anyhow.

Another myth. Would you like to check Sigma 18-35/1.8 lens? It will give ANY Sony lens run for its money.

Thus, the usefulness of wide apertures is quite limited for most applications, except for those photographers who don't mind blurry pictures.

Nonsense again.

I'm glad you raised the point about the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 lens. It is, of course, not available in the e-mount format. However, it's size is instructive. Although the Sigma has only 18mm of range compared to the much broader 55mm range of the Sony-Zeiss 16-70 F4, the Sigma is understandably much much larger than the Sony-Zeiss. The length of the Sigma is about 4 3/4 inches compared to less than 3 inches for the Sony-Zeiss and the filter size is 72mm (actually remarkably small for such a fast lens) compared to the 55mm filter size for the Sony-Zeiss. but, the kicker is that the Sigma weighs close to two pounds, while the Sony-Zeiss weighs in at 10 ounces. So, the Sigma would, if available for NEX cameras, be a behemoth compared to the tiny NEX bodies and would make for a grossly unbalanced hold,

Now, the criticism of the the Sony-Zeiss as slow at f4 has been in favor of an f2.8 lens, rather than the unique super-fast Sigma. However, to get the same 16-70 range as the Sony-Zeiss f4 zoom in a well-corrected f2.8 lens would probably require a lens body at least as large and heavy as the aforesaid Sigma. Such a lens would be front-heavy and unwieldy on a tiny NEX body. That is why I argue that if you want fast zooms or telephotos, you should be looking elsewhere than NEX, and most likely a DSLR.

It's not hard to calculate that 70mm @ f/2.8 and 100mm @ f/4 both yield the effective 25mm aperture. The long end on the bright zooms determines the size. It would be reasonable to expect that 16-70/2.8 lens would have been close in size (likely shorter) and weight to the new 18-100/4 lens. Whether it's too big/heavy is a personal issue. Some people cannot tolerate anything bigger than the kit, other people carry their NEXes with a large LA-EA2 adapter and large DSLR f/2.8 lenses. The native e-mount lens would have been smaller and lighter and very welcome by the second category.

But whatever the case, the argument based on size and weight is invalid, because you are trying to tell OTHER people what they should and should not like based on YOUR preferences.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow