Pulled the trigger - 1670Z

Started Oct 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
GeRoche Regular Member • Posts: 150
Re: Pulled the trigger - 1670Z

Clayton1985 wrote:

GeRoche wrote:

Clayton1985 wrote:

GeRoche wrote:

Clayton1985 wrote:

Agree and ultimately the only way to answer the price/value question is to look back in 6 months or a year and see how the lens sells and how it is rated. A very good lens IQ wise will still take a hit in ratings if the price is out of line. I'll be very surprised if it isn't a huge success for Sony in both sales and customer ratings.

And I will be very surprised if it is a huge success. It's too expensive and too soft in the corners plus it has QC decentering issues ( and you don't need 'scientific reports' to prove it ) which is unforgivable at this price.

"Too soft in the corners" compared to what other lens or lenses and what information are you using to make this comment?

As far as the success of course we all have opinions and no one knows yet.... but we will find out soon enough.

Compared to both kit zooms for a start, I would expect much better results from a $1000 lens. I've looked at all the available samples on Flickr ( as well as several review sites and posts on this forum with samples ) and there is nothing that I've seen that would make me spend $1000 on this lens. The 20mm extra reach would be very useful to me and I had high hopes for this lens but it is not significantly different from either kit in terms of the output quality.

The lens is clearly and significantly better than the kit lenses and not just in IQ - build quality, constant f4, range, and probably AF.

You are just quoting 'paper statistics' which suggest that it should be better but the real life examples do not show any clear and significant superiority. As for the built quality - I'm using the 1855 kit and it is very well made for a cheap kit zoom - much better than the equivalent Nikon or Canon kits. Constant f4 is also largely irrelevant as most such travel zooms are used outdoors, in bright light or daylight where you wouldn't typically use it below f5.6 anyway. AF - I can't comment, if it's significantly better ( accurate and faster ), than that would be a big improvement.

I'm not questioning your decision as to whether the lens is worth the price to you but rather how you set the expectations that led to your disappointment. You say you expect much better results from a $1000 lens but did you expect much better results from a 16-70 f4 $1000 lens because that is the question that should be asked.

Yes, I expected better results from a $1000 16-70 f4 zoom - i.e NOT soft corners ( which I don't even get from my humble 1855 Nikon VR ) and definitely NOT ANY decentering issues as reported here for instance :

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1244987

It seems to me that people are making up their own standards for this type of lens instead of using a baseline for comparison with similar lenses that cover this range. Another reply in this thread has someone saying that in their opinion the 19mm Sigma is sharper.... no kidding. It's ok to decide not to spend $1000 because you don't find enough value in the lens based on your needs.... but that is totally different than saying the lens isn't worth $1000 or that you would expect much better results. Can you or anyone name a constant f4 lens for APS-C or full frame that covers this range and that provides the much better results that you are expecting?

It's not worth $1000 if I have to worry about smeared corners ( I take a lot of architectural and landscape travel shots so it's important to me  ) and if the production QC is not consistent ( i.e. - there is a risk of getting a decentered copy - which is not the case with any of the cheap cheap Sigmas ).

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