optically how far is the kit 18-55mm from the CZ 16-80mm

Dear Mohammed AlAttraqchi,

i own both of these lenses and optical is de CZ a great improvement.

but for the price u pay i say it isnt worth to buy the CZ a better option instead is the 16-50 almost as sharp but, you got weather sealing and ssm for less money

i got my CZ secondhanded and then it is worth the price so mabye look around on ebay or .

grtz
Niek

Suzukiniek said:

Dear Mohammed AlAttraqchi,

i own both of these lenses and optical is de CZ a great improvement.

but for the price u pay i say it isnt worth to buy the CZ a better option instead is the 16-50 almost as sharp but, you got weather sealing and ssm for less money

i got my CZ secondhanded and then it is worth the price so mabye look around on ebay or .

grtz
Niek

Click to expand...

thank you mate, I went with the 16-50 as you have said, however, I am not impressed with the AF accuracy

and I have found out something i am sure the majority wont agree about, but I compared the results of the sony 16-50 with my old Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC and the sigma wins in term of the sharpness over the entire frame and with almost all the aperture settings, however, the color and contrast of the sony is much better plus the F2.8 and the SSM.

some might think this is not true as the sigma costs £100 while the sony £400 for used copies but at least that was my copies results !!

I am not a pixel peeper generally, but I tried to find out if the money spent on the sony is really justified, but now I am not so sure !

cheers

Above was interresting reading for me. I bought my a580 a body only because I have the minolta 24-85, 50 1.7 and 70-210 f4.

I do miss the 16-18 to 24 mm sometimes. Reading some reviews about different lenses in this range I was about to look for an 18-55 used. Image quality, although not steady for each copy, is one of the best for the cheap kit lenses around.

So for me the extra investment is too much for the small amount of improvement you get. The gap between these lenses is just too big price wise. A tamron 17-50 f2.8 is the only alternative I will be looking for as well. No SAM or SSM, but very sharp corner to corner and well priced. Build quality may be the only real down side of this lens compared to the 16-50, but sure no worse then the zeiss 16-80.

Love to see a good comparison between these lenses so we van really see the improvement we pay for.....

Bosman71 said:

Above was interresting reading for me. I bought my a580 a body only because I have the minolta 24-85, 50 1.7 and 70-210 f4.

I do miss the 16-18 to 24 mm sometimes. Reading some reviews about different lenses in this range I was about to look for an 18-55 used. Image quality, although not steady for each copy, is one of the best for the cheap kit lenses around.

So for me the extra investment is too much for the small amount of improvement you get. The gap between these lenses is just too big price wise. A tamron 17-50 f2.8 is the only alternative I will be looking for as well. No SAM or SSM, but very sharp corner to corner and well priced. Build quality may be the only real down side of this lens compared to the 16-50, but sure no worse then the zeiss 16-80.

Love to see a good comparison between these lenses so we van really see the improvement we pay for.....

Click to expand...

thanks Bosman71 for your comment.

I will post a comparison pictures between the 3 lenses (sony 18-55, sigma 18-125, sony 16-80) so stay tuned

I agree about what you have said in term of the price verses the IQ improvement, however, the build quality of the sony 16-50 is superior to the other two, sigma is great one as it use more metal than plastic maybe 60%, the sony kit is all plastic !

if you just want something cheap ( I mean really cheap as I bought one awhile ago for £3 from ebay lol) look for the sony 18-55mm at least its best performance is on the wide side that you miss !!

Wasn't gonna reply, but I have to put my two-bits worth in.


I have a CZ16-80, and think it has taken some of the best images possible. Love the IQ.

But, the bug in the ointment is the innards of the beast. My auto-focus died a couple of years ago, and Sony Canada said the best they could do was offer me a new lens at a "low" price... it was $669 at the time, plus taxes.


Repair, at a local Vancouver camera repair business... CamTex... cost me roughly $450. The "fix" lasted for 18 months. Autofocus died once more. (I can still focus manually, but my eyesight is not what it used to be, so have to rely on auto-focus for speed). The tech I spoke to said that the lens part that has 3 plastic "guide" (?) rails and is really NOT as robust as it should be for the size of the glass components. He said the part should of been brass, or at least aluminum. Other than that, the lens is a perfect picture taker... I just might get it repaired once again, because I miss it. My "new" 16-105 gives sharp and colourful images, but they don't have that special contrast and colour quality I was used to with the 16-80. And, it is really, really prone to flare. You don't want any bright doorways or suns peeking into the pictures you take. Nice lens, really, if I did not have anything to compare it to, but since I do, I really miss the Sony-Zeiss 16-80... it did NOT have the flare issue!


If you can be very careful with it, the Zeiss lens is worth the $1000 it now costs ($1050 in Canada now). It just is not constructed robustly enough. I really am not rough with my equipment, but the tech said that even in a padded case, if you put it into the trunk of your car, or elsewhere a little more firmly than normal, he said the plastic focusing rails will break. He has supposedly repaired "a few" for the same problem. (Actual number wasn't specified.)


If they bring out an upgraded model that addresses those issues, it would be a killer lens to go with your Sony non-FF cameras.

I never did a direct comparison. There was nothing wrong with my copy of the 18-55mm and it produced pictures good enough for me. The reason why I replaced it with the CZ 16-80mm is that 18mm is never wide enough and 55mm is never tele enough. The kit lens is a bit slow and although CZ 16-80mm is not particularly fast like a f2.8 zoom, the 1/2 stop can sometimes make or break a picture especially when light is fading.

So yes for me the investment was worth it.

http://www.antonwilhelmstolzing.de/Saal 381 Verkehrsmuseum Muenchen/index.htm#1

All with the 18-55.

It has a lousy reputation, but the results are good, not only in small photos for the web, but also in prints. And it weighs next to nothing.

I had on that went broken in heavy Madeira rain. Of course the build quality is bad.

So what, I got the next one when I bought a new camera, and even if you buy the lens solo it does not ruin you.

I would not want the 16 - 80. The 16 - 50 would interest me, though, but it is expensive, big and heavy.

RobertSigmund wrote:
I would not want the 16 - 80. The 16 - 50 would interest me, though, but it is expensive, big and heavy.

To be honest if the Sony 16-50mm existed at the time I bought the CZ, it would not have been a easy choice. That said, the 50-80mm is quiet useful when taking pictures on the street of people. I bought it specifically for my travel in India and Nepal where its versality proved to be useful.

excellent macro




with a raynox on the end





the minolta 18-70dt macro 'kit lens is as sharp as about any lens going,even in the corners...at least on 2/3 sensors.its quick accurate focusing and light but doesnt have a cheap feel to it.in the gallery its shows as a sony 18-70 but its not..its the minolta version.not a fast lens but open its tack sharp with decent distorion control nice colors/contrast.at around $75used its a steal....brian

I read today that Sony-Zeiss will be releasing at E-mount version of this lens shorty (we will see

I'm currently shooting underwater macro with wet diopters (Aquatica +10 stacked on a F.I.T +5) using the 18-55mm kit lens. This works fairly well with acceptable sharpness, but the 55mm end is rather short in converting this for macro use with close up high IQ wet close up lens. Should Sony release the E-mount version, I'm interested in using it as a versatile limited wide angle lens and super-macro using the longer 80mm end of the lens. This would make for a very versatile set-up for a single dive situation. The rig I'm using is a Nauticam NA-NEX7 with a swing mount for the close up lens. I've considered the new Zeiss 50mm macro to be released, but the 16-80mm would give me a longer reach and include wide angle, a much preferred set-up. It looks like the 16-80mm is about the same size as the 18-55mm kit lens which might allow the use of the same ports?

The photos shown say excellent macro? Is this for the kit lens or the Zeiss? It would be helpful if the Zeiss focused rather close like the 18-55. I haven't been able to any focus range info on the Zeiss?

Any feedback on using it in this manner. The close up lens-diopters are very high IQ.

Thanks,

M

MAtt2023 said:

Mohammed AlAttraqchi wrote:
so you guys who got both lenses, have you tried to compare between them and is it really worth to pay 12 times the price of the kit lens ?

Click to expand...

I have both lenses and it is true the kit lens is not at all a bad lens for the £50 and you will be needing to pixel peek to see differences. My feeling is that the CZ is a bit contrasty and that 18-55mm has a bit more vignetting and distortion in the same range. But to be honest I never compared the lenses directly.


The single most important reason why I bought the CZ 16-80mm is that it's range is so much more convenient. I like travelling and this range is very useful when on the move: 16mm for architecture e.g. churches, city scapes, etc and 80mm for people on the street. Probably 98% of my pictures are with this lens. The second reason is that the CZ is slightly faster, which is useful when inside building.