1650 vs 1670z, Really?

Started Aug 12, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Tommygun45 Senior Member • Posts: 1,326
1650 vs 1670z, Really?
13

I am somewhat glad I never saw this original thread where by members apparently couldn't tell the difference between the lenses. I shot the 1650 for over 2 years. I would say it was a decent copy, but the number of keepers I got was very, very low. Especially when I also had the SEL35 on hand comparing those two was honestly not fair to the Kit.

Can it serve as a general every day lens when you don't really care about having the best pictures possible? Can it chronicle day to day events and serve a basic purpose. Of course.

However I am honestly getting fed up with the repeated negative comments I keep seeing about the 1670z. I have seen that thread mentioned dozens of times by people dismissing the cost of the Zeiss. Claiming its corner sharpness isn't that great. Saying they can't tell the difference between it and a $100 kit. Well, congratulations. Don't buy it. But don't negatively influence others into thinking its not worth it. If your kit lens can do this, please, share.

This mid range zoom is indistinguishable in many aspects of IQ from the SEL35 or SEL50, focuses instantaneously, is eerily quiet, has fantastic build quality, and covers an incredibly useful FL. It's worth whatever price you have to pay for it to acquire it.

Minor adjustments made for skin tones and clarity, but not sharpness. RAW-JPEG via LR5. Also cropped because the 24mp images always exceed this stupid dpreview 3000 px side limit.

A6000 eye focus used.

 Tommygun45's gear list:Tommygun45's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +1 more
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow