Sony E 16-70mm ZA Impressions

dpmaxwell

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
467
Reaction score
165
This is just a quick impression/review of the Sony SEL1670Z. I have had the lens now for about three weeks, and have shot a number of “real world” test type images. This is in no way a professional review, or really even very rigorous testing; I am not a professional reviewer, more of an enthusiast nitpicker.

Some people may want to see test charts and studio set ups in order to ascertain the true quality of this lens; you will need to look elsewhere for that. Unfortunately I also do not own any of the NEX kit lenses any longer, for direct comparison sake, although I have owned both the 1855 and the 1650PZ, and have many images from those lenses which I use to draw some conclusions.

Pros:

The 1670Z lens provides generally great IQ. The lens has very good IQ wide open, and improves when stopped down even just a bit. It is much sharper than NEX kit lenses at all focal lengths in center out to near the edges. It can be nearly as sharp as any images I have gotten from the Sony E primes that I have owned (20, 35 & 50.)

The out of focus area - some maybe call this “bokeh” - is excellent. Very smooth, good contrast, contributes significantly to the high IQ of this lens.

The zoom range is very versatile as a walk around lens. Colors and contrast are outstanding. Distortion and vignetting are well controlled. Notably this is through the optical design vs. software correction. Not sure that this means anything much in the real world, but being as there is no Lightroom lens profile currently, it helps a lot in reducing the amount of PP needed.

The lens is very resistant to flaring, much better in that regard than any E mount lenses I have used.

Finally, the lens is of very high quality build. I have no concerns that this lens is going to fall apart anytime soon.

Cons:

This lens is pricey. Especially considering there are two decent zooms already offered in a similar range. I personally think it is probably slightly overpriced; of course I felt the same way about the SEL1018, which has been my favorite E mount lens. Value is subjective, however, and I am comfortable that the 1670Z is worth the price, compared to the alternatives IMO.

The lens is bit soft in corners wide open, especially at the wide end. Though IMO it is noticeably better than the kit lenses.

Misc:

The max aperture is f/4.0, albeit constant throughout the zoom range; this doesn't really matter to me for the kind of shooting I do - f/4.0 is sufficient.

The lens is a bit large, only probably really an issue because I was spoiled by the small size of the 1650PZ. The 1670Z is actually fine with the NEX-6 - it balances similar to the Fuji X-E1 with its kit lens, to me - but the 1670Z might feel a bit unbalanced on the smaller bodies.

There is currently no Lightroom lens profile. Not that there is a huge need for it as there is not much distortion or vignetting, but still... I am sure one will be coming.

I have seen some photos on the internet from this lens with significant CA issues. I have not seen this as a major issue in any of my photos, but I can’t say I have used the lens under the full range of conditions that might cause this to appear. CA is handled easily enough in PP, though so I am not overly concerned with this.

Conclusion:

For me, this lens is the holy grail of walk around zooms for the NEX system. Near-prime IQ, versatile zoom range, not too big, quality construction. I was fully expecting to be disappointed by this lens, especially for the price. I doubt this lens will come off my camera very often, and then only for when I want to pop the 1018 on for some wide angle landscapes.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9224613745/albums/sony-1670z
 
Thank you very much for your interesting review!

I would really like to see a pixel-peeping comparison to other SEL zoom lenses. On German forums I have read from people who had both lenses and were not at all so sure if the 16-70 was (so much) better than the 1650 or 18200 in the overlapping zoom range.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your review.

I've still been toying with the idea of picking it up as a walkabout lens for my NEX 6, but it's quite hard to justify when I already have the range covered by other (faster) lenses... hmm... and also own an RX100 for exactly that reason. Too many toys!
--
Photos from a Small Planet:
 
I would have given this lens a shot for low light sports but not at F4 sadly. That is also my issue with the Sony one coming up later this year. I guess I will try my lenses at F4 and higher ISO to see what I get as a test.
 
Thank you very much for your interesting review!

I would really like to see a pixel-peeping comparison to other SEL zoom lenses. On German forums I have read from people who had both lenses and were not at all so sure if the 16-70 was (so much) better than the 1650 or 18200 in the overlapping zoom range.
I would like to see direct comparisons myself. I suspect the color, contrast, and relative sharpness of the 1670Z under most conditions would be better; but in many cases, probably not overwhelmingly so.

In some situations, the 1670Z is head and shoulders above the kits, IMO.

Whether or not any improvement over the kits is worth the cost difference is something each person would have to decide for themselves.

The 1670Z has kept me from jumping ship to Fuji.
 
Thanks for your review.

I've still been toying with the idea of picking it up as a walkabout lens for my NEX 6, but it's quite hard to justify when I already have the range covered by other (faster) lenses... hmm... and also own an RX100 for exactly that reason. Too many toys!
--
Photos from a Small Planet:
http://sims.smugmug.com/

If I owned the RX100 I would not be able to justify the 1670Z.
 
I would have given this lens a shot for low light sports but not at F4 sadly. That is also my issue with the Sony one coming up later this year. I guess I will try my lenses at F4 and higher ISO to see what I get as a test.
 
thanks for the review.

i've been debating whether to get this or the Sony 18-200 LE or the 18-105.

This seemed like a better choice because the other 2 were larger/heavier.

The previous reviews say they were not "wowed" by it and I got the impression it is average zoom.
 
I bought two copies, returned both as I considered full frame, and then called B&H to get one back since my primes just weren't cutting it. They must deal with nuts all the time and sent the lens back to me via two day air for free. You forgot one of the biggest pros: It is the only Zeiss with OSS. I can work with this lens at night too due to stabilization.
 
Your experience echos mine. Mine copy is crisp with good contrast and clearly will be on my 7 most of the time. I have a full range e lenses and many legacy lenses from the old days plus I shoot with a D800 and assorted lenses.

Quite happy with the 16-70 and think it worth the price.
 
I bought it, compared it with my 18-55 and Z 24 1.8 and returned it. Why?

1. It outperformed wide open, but underperformed the 18-55 at f/8.

2. That alone, at $1,000 should finish it.

3. But it's larger and heavier--a bit: Small and light is why I've moved to mirrorless. I wouldn't have returned it for this, but it was just further negative data.

I really had looked forward to this lens and hoped for the "Grail." I was even biased toward liking it. But alas, I can't justify that price for that lens. Not when it's not sharper than the kit at mid f stop. Now I'll have to wait for another company to make something similar.

kdoc
 
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.
 
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.

Ok sorry about that - I have revised my review - the lens is a 1 star POS because it is only f/4.0.

Wouldn't want you to go nuts or anything...
 
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...
 
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.
Your criticism is totally unwarranted. The reviewer mentions things that do not concern him, such as the price. He also mentions what other people shoot. For example he mentions:

"I have seen some photos on the internet from this lens with significant CA issues. I have not seen this as a major issue in any of my photos, but I can’t say I have used the lens under the full range of conditions that might cause this to appear. CA is handled easily enough in PP, though so I am not overly concerned with this."
 
nice review! when the funds are right i'm gonna get this lens too. seems like a perfect travel/hiking lens.
 
Nice review. I'm glad to see that you're happy with the lens. I was thinking of trying it, but I'll hold off for a while (I have the range well covered with SALs) until I see how the promised 18-105 G turns out.
 
Thanks for your review.

I've still been toying with the idea of picking it up as a walkabout lens for my NEX 6, but it's quite hard to justify when I already have the range covered by other (faster) lenses... hmm... and also own an RX100 for exactly that reason. Too many toys!
--
Photos from a Small Planet:
http://sims.smugmug.com/
I have a similar problem. My most used travel lens on my NEX 7 is the A-mount 16-80mm Zeiss on the LA-EA2. With the 16-70mm I would save a little weight and gain stabilization. Combined with the 10-18mm I would have a good 2 lens travel kit. Lens speed is about the same. I would lose faster focus, a little bit of the long end, and a chunk of my checking account. A significant chunk of my checking account.... and I just talked myself out of it. That was close.
 
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.
Ok sorry about that - I have revised my review - the lens is a 1 star POS because it is only f/4.0.
Based on this revised review, I ordered the lens from the DPReview Gearshop. It won't arrive until next Tuesday afternoon but when I get it I'll take three or four pictures and give my final opinion right here. Hold your breath.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top