CZ 16-80

I have often considered getting this lens but have always been concerned about the build problems this lens has had. I would like to hear if the problems this lens has had are now fixed or do new copies of the lens still have the same problems that have always been its weak point. From what I have read opticaly it is very good so I am again thinking of selling some minolta lenses to buy this lens.

I always thought the "build problem" issue was overblown. It's a nice lens; maybe not as solid as you'd like for the price, but the way I figure it, you're getting midrange build and paying for high end optics. It's my most-used lens and I've never had a problem with it.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Please see this recent thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=38320210

Craig

Thanks for that, I often thought that maybe the problems were blown out of proportion a bit

Thanks Craig, I missed that thread, given the description of the box would wonder if it was old stock, either way still cause for concern

Mine is very good. Never has any problem some mentioned here on the board. I can't go back to the SAL1855 kit lens.

I go back and forth on the IQ. It's good with adequate light, but not so good in low light and also I think the colors tend to be overrated for the Z lenses. The wide end is pretty good without too much distortion on the edges and corners. Overall, I have been very satisfied with my copy, but I have also contemplated selling in lieu of an 18-250/270 super zoom as a walk around lens.

Some of the issues I have encountered:

1) Terrible lens creep

2) Manual focus is sometimes hard to activate

I would say this is a good lens but a bit overrated and overpriced. jmhos

I agree with Dennis, it too is my go to/favorite lens. I now have the lens for 2 years, i do not have any complaints over its build quality...

i like its weight and balance with my a700 and optically plus the range, i do not think there is any lens better in the alpha mount.

--
http://litratista.zenfolio.com/

I've had the lens for about 3 years and as everyone will testify it works well and makes an excellent kit lens.

I've never suffered from lens creep or focusing problems but where the lens falls down is in build quality.

It's not that the lens is bad it's just that at that price point you expect a smooth mechanism and solid build.

The CZ feels cheap and as it's an old design I can't help wondering if there's a better alternative out there.

I've been wondering about the CZ 16-80 myself recently. I've been offered one second hand for about 400GBP. I don't know its history or age but the dealer is a friend and he tells me it was brought in by one of his regulars, along with an a900 and some other bits and pieces (note the a900 is full frame and this lens is not!). I live some way away from my friends shop so haven't had a chance to play with that copy yet but I know its not boxed which is a little off putting - it does have the original lens caps and hood. The problem is I too read the various reviews and was surprised how this classic 'Zeiss' lens wasn't universally praised - many mentioned having to get multiple copies to get a good one, that build quality wasn't up to 'Zeiss' standards etc. Image quality normally was described as very good / very sharp though. Also, I've recently purchased the sony 18-250 superzoom and was quite pleasantly surprised at the image quality of that zoom on my a55. When I asked my dealer friend his opinion on 'what I would gain' over the 16-80, image quality wise his opinion was 'probably, not much really' - however he's mainly a canon user so not familiar with shooting with either lens. Anyone out there who actually owns both the CZ and the superzoom want to back that up / refute it? I'm tempted by the CZ but at the moment fell I'd only be buying it for the satisfaction of having a big blue Z on the side of my lens.
S.

I've got some slight zoom creep with mine - luckily no other problems. I've had it for 4 years. I would buy it again. It replaced 2 well regarded Minolta lenses (24-105d and 28-75d), and it was no contest in the IQ department.

Most definitely there should have been better quality control on this lens when it was first introduced. This lens gave Sony significant bragging riights; how could they have possibly not made 100% certain it was perfect? However, I personally don't want my primary walkabout lens to weigh 2lbs and cost $1,500, either. It's a plus for me to have cz optical quality in a lens I can actually walk around with all day.

It is a shame it didn't have the build quality of the 16-105 - you rarely, if ever, hear anyone complaining about such problems with that lens.

The other major complaint over build quality is heavy vignetting, if you shoot wide open at 16mm. I'm mostly shooting outdoor landscapes while hiking, so that's not been a problem for me - but just something to be aware of.

markymark101 said:

It is a shame it didn't have the build quality of the 16-105 - you rarely, if ever, hear anyone complaining about such problems with that lens.

The other major complaint over build quality is heavy vignetting, if you shoot wide open at 16mm. I'm mostly shooting outdoor landscapes while hiking, so that's not been a problem for me - but just something to be aware of.

Click to expand...

I totally agree, I'm glad I kept my 16-105 after getting the 16-80 which is waiting for a new focus tube, back ordered from Sony. With good light and f/7.1-f/8 my copy of the 16-105 is very close to the CZ. The CZ is sharper in the corners and produces better contrast and colors in less than ideal lighting.

It does have zoom creep but so do almost all zooms as far as I know if you carry them with the lens pointing down.

Optics are stellar.

Would not hesitate for a second to buy it again as for me it is the perfect walk around focal length.

It does occasionally have an issue under certain light/background conditions acquiring focus at the short end - most often when using a polarizer.
--
tom power

Craigski said:

Please see this recent thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=38320210

Craig

Click to expand...

Craig,

I called Adorama and explained the problems with the creep noise when zooming. This lens also gave some purple fringing as you can see in the pictures I posted. I suppose I received a bad copy.

Adorama told me I can send it back and get a full refund which I did.

All lenses are tested on my A55

On the other hand I own the Sony 18-250 regarding sharpness and color you can’t compare the 2 the Zeiss is in another league.

Don’t get me wrong the Sony 18-250 is a decent lens and fun to use of the long zoom capabilities.

I own a Sony 50mm F1.4 as well which is sharp I compared both lenses on 50mm, I have to admit that the Zeiss is still sharper, not by much, still I can easily see the difference on my monitor.

In a nutshell I bought another one; hopefully this one will not have the creep or fringing. The reason is optical the Zeiss is just outstanding. (BTW – My wife has expensive zoom L lenses from Canon not one is that sharp)

Thank you,
Roland

I've had the CZ16-80 for over three years now and it is still my primary "go-to" lens for everyday photography. The first copy I purchased in 2007 had an issue with back focus, but its replacement has been tack sharp at every focal length on my A100 and A700.

Here's how I break this lens down:

Sharpness: excellent (equal or better than primes)
Contrast: excellent
Bokeh: ok....I've seen better and I've seen worse

Build Quality: good. Its a solid lens but not a tank like top end CZ and old minolta (like my beercan)
Focus: very fast and almost always right on. Very impressive.
Vignetting is present, but can be fixed in post processing

CA generally is well controlled. When it is there, it is sharp and well defined and can usually be removed easily in post.

I have ordered many large prints (mostly 16x20 and 20x30) from photos taken with my CZ and have been amazed at the overall image quality, even from viewing distances of only a couple inches.

The myth about bad build quality (CZ 16-80mm) is mainly based on lenses starting creeping after a few years. To get a smooth zoom two factors are important:

• The material used in the zoom mechanism must be without stiction to get smooth zooming

• The shims used to get the right zoom feel must be choosen manually (manufacturers have several rings with slightly different thickness to choose between, and workers must choose the ring that give the best feel for every single zoom lens made)

The first problem is that the shims used wear, and the zoom start to creep. Making durable materials without stiction that do not wear is probably not that easy - the materials choosen may be first class, but wear is unavoidable...

The second problem is choosing the right shim - to thick and the zoom action is hampered (brute force needed), too thin and the lens is wonderfully smooth at the time of purchase but soon start to creep after put into action...

Yes - there was initially problems with loose fronts, but that issue is resolved long ago.

The CZ 16-80 is a fine lens, but do expect it to start creeping sooner og later (mine is early in the creep season, but it will without doubt become more active with time - the lens is creeping slighly but the zoom action is still wonderfully smooth, and the optical quality is still as stunning as when the lens was new).

When I purchased my 16-80 last fall I purchased the four year extended warranty because of the concerns. This the first extended warranty I have ever purchased. I hope it was a bad desision on my part and I will never need it. Great lens it is on my camera all the time.

Thanks to all who replied with your expierience and opinions on this lens, looking more like this lens will be joining my collection, should work well with my 70-400G as a 2 zoom set, will still have my 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 macro for when I need them.

to start feeling neglected i would guess.
--
tom power

G,

Take into consideration that this lens it less than half (third) of most CZ lenses and you realize what a steal this lens really is!

The color is outstanding, tack sharp, excellent in decent light, usable in poor light. It's not a 2.8 but it's not 2k plus either!

also, if you have lens creep, you have a bad lens. If your 16-80CZ isn't tack sharp, you have a bad lens! Colors aren't phenomenal, bad lens! I've had 2 copies and niether had any lens creep at all, and easily took the best pics of any of my lenses, except maybe my 70-400G (unbelieveable lens!). You want to talk lens creep, try the new 18-270 Tamron!

I think most people think CZ and expect this lens to look and feel like a $2500 lens. IMHO, Sony tried to make a CZ lens available to the majority of Sony photographers at a very attractive price point and I think they succeeded. The fact that there hasn't been an update to this lens or a similar choice (except the 16-105) illustrates this point.

I think this lens is a no-brainer if you own a Sony A-mount SLR, especially the A55 (I know, SLT, but you get my point), it matches up perfectly as a light, quick, tack sharp set up!
TDoc