The most controversial lens on the net?

Jesper Frickmann

Leading Member
Messages
685
Reaction score
519
Location
Raleigh, NC, US
This premium branded "Zony" lens has received some rather harsh reviews on the net and sparked some strong feelings on this discussion forum. I have owned and used it for over two years now, and I have to say that overall, I am actually quite pleased with it. In the following, I will try to point out the strong and weak points of the lens and share some sample pictures.

General: Any lens design has to make compromises between weight, max. aperture, zoom range, and image quality. Although this lens is not ultra compact like the collapsable 1650 kit lens, it is still a fairly small zoom lens. Yet, they have insisted on making it a constant F/4 lens. I believe that they may have pushed the limits, and this is probably why the corners are sometimes soft, and decentering sometimes an issue. If you understand the limitations of this lens, however, I think that you can get really good results, and overall I find that it is a joy to use.

Pros: The build quality is very good, and I like the way that it handles and balances on my NEX-6 body. Focus is silent and fast. The minimum focusing distance is quite short, allowing closeups of small things. I find that the relatively wide zoom range is very useful - especially the 16mm wide end. At 70mm, the F/4 aperture allows for quite good subject isolation for portraits. Bokeh rendering I also find very pleasing.

Cons: The corners are not always perfect. I find it fairly average for a zoom lens, but not nearly as bad as some claim. I suggest that you judge for yourself from the pictures I share below. If you shoot straight into the sun, the lens can sometimes have some rather nasty green flare.

I have given the lens 3½ stars. At $999 the lens is quite expensive. Sony E lenses are generally expensive, and with the blue Zeiss badge, they add few $100s more. But I picked it up for $749 at a sale from sony.com, and at that price, I find it was worth the money.

Here are some sample images for you, starting from the wide angle going to tele.

Cityscape at wide angle.
Cityscape at wide angle.

The backlight makes things a little more challenging. You can see a little softness and chromatic aberration near the sun, but I still find it perfectly acceptable.
The backlight makes things a little more challenging. You can see a little softness and chromatic aberration near the sun, but I still find it perfectly acceptable.

A shot into the sun, but no green flare here. I do not have an example showing the flare, because I delete bad shots...
A shot into the sun, but no green flare here. I do not have an example showing the flare, because I delete bad shots...

A good little friend of mine. I think that this shot shows the bokeh rendering quite well.
A good little friend of mine. I think that this shot shows the bokeh rendering quite well.

Landscape at intermediate zoom.
Landscape at intermediate zoom.

I shot this landscape wide open by mistake. You can see a slight loss of sharpness in the left side. I still find it acceptable.
I shot this landscape wide open by mistake. You can see a slight loss of sharpness in the left side. I still find it acceptable.

Landscape at slight tele zoom.
Landscape at slight tele zoom.

This one shows the lens' ability to focus at short range.
This one shows the lens' ability to focus at short range.

70mm wide open. Notice that the grass in the foreground is slightly blurred due to the shallow focus.
70mm wide open. Notice that the grass in the foreground is slightly blurred due to the shallow focus.

Subject isolation.
Subject isolation.

Landscape at 70mm.
Landscape at 70mm.
 
The Sony 16-70mm is an excellent kit lens with premium build, a blue badge and a high price. The IQ is good for a kit lens.
 
A decent write up, thanks.

My experience of the lens is that it is a decent performer. For any reasonable print size it will produce solid images at all settings.

I think that it is very expensive for what it is though. You have to be happy with the fact that you are paying for the badge if you do buy it. That being said it is the only upgrade for a zoom lens for an APSC camera shooter without going for a superzoom or going for a full frame lens and losing the wide angle.
 
I own the lens as well. I think the main reason that it has received so much bad press is its price and the fact that its labeled as a Zeiss product. If it were a retail 599 lens with Sony brand I think it would have been better received.

I like the build quality, zoom range, fixed aperture, corner sharpness (YES) and image stabilization as compared to the 18-55. Is it worth $999, no, but I bought a mint example for $580, is it worth $580, I think so.

BTW I tested it against the 35 and 18-55, here is the post:

 
General: ...it is still a fairly small zoom lens. Yet, they have insisted on making it a constant F/4 lens. I believe that they may have pushed the limits, and this is probably why the corners are sometimes soft, and decentering sometimes an issue.
Hi Jasper, I'm trying to understand how the decision to make the lens f4 is why the corners would be soft or why decentering could be an issue. Can you explain that in a little more detail, I'm not seeing any connection there, but always glad to learn something!
I shot this landscape wide open by mistake. You can see a slight loss of sharpness in the left side. I still find it acceptable.
I shot this landscape wide open by mistake. You can see a slight loss of sharpness in the left side. I still find it acceptable.
Or it could be that as the DOF is shallow at wide open, things that are a bit farther away, like objects on left, may fall behind focus plane. Not conclusive IMO. I'd like to see a brick wall test for this with the camera rigorously squared up parallel to the wall, side to side and up and down.

--
JohnK
Off the record.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, your pics say all that needs to be said. Is it worth $1,000? That is an individuals decision. However, there is not an alliterative for size, weight, zoom range and constant f stop. Mine cost me about $550 in a package from B&H several years ago. A steal in my opinion. The corners have never been a problem, how many pics are the corners relevant or noticeable. I'm not sure why there is so much animosity for this lens. The 24mm, f/1.8 was subjected to the same critique when it first came out. Soft corners, de-centering too expensive. Today it is consider a classic. I think the 16-70 will also outlive is detractors.
 
I had the Tamron 18-200 but got a deal on the 16-70 and made the switch.

All lenses have their strengths and weaknesses. The one common complaint about the 16-70 that I have encountered is the soft edges, more so at the long end. But that is not a problem for me as I tend to shoot wider and crop.
 
I own the lens as well. I think the main reason that it has received so much bad press is its price and the fact that its labeled as a Zeiss product. If it were a retail 599 lens with Sony brand I think it would have been better received.

I like the build quality, zoom range, fixed aperture, corner sharpness (YES) and image stabilization as compared to the 18-55. Is it worth $999, no, but I bought a mint example for $580, is it worth $580, I think so.

BTW I tested it against the 35 and 18-55, here is the post:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57152846
Totally agree, a lot of the complaints seem to steam from the price/quality gap. If I spend $1000 on a lens it had better be stellar.
 
General: ...it is still a fairly small zoom lens. Yet, they have insisted on making it a constant F/4 lens. I believe that they may have pushed the limits, and this is probably why the corners are sometimes soft, and decentering sometimes an issue.
Hi Jesper, I'm trying to understand how the decision to make the lens f4 is why the corners would be soft or why decentering could be an issue. Can you explain that in a little more detail, I'm not seeing any connection there, but always glad to learn something!
I shot this landscape wide open by mistake. You can see a slight loss of sharpness in the left side. I still find it acceptable.
I shot this landscape wide open by mistake. You can see a slight loss of sharpness in the left side. I still find it acceptable.
Or it could be that as the DOF is shallow at wide open, things that are a bit farther away, like objects on left, may fall behind focus plane. Not conclusive IMO. I'd like to see a brick wall test for this with the camera rigorously squared up parallel to the wall, side to side and up and down.

--
JohnK
Off the record.
What I meant was simply that some reviewers have complained about soft edges and decentering, and it seems to be the worst at the tele end. Since many lenses have a smaller aperture in the tele end, I was thinking that they may have pushed the design and left very small tolerances for error in this lens design. Since I have not had that problem myself, I am just guessing and rambling here...

As for the picture above, everything in the foreground is definitely out of focus, due to me shooting wide open. Don't blame the lens for that ;-). But if you pixel peep at the trees in the background, you can see a small loss of sharpness in the left side. I do not consider it a problem, as it is very slight, and you would normally stop down when shooting landscape.

Jesper
On the record :-)
 
I pretty much agree with everyone else's comments. $550 or $580 is definitely a steal for this lens!! The reason that I gave it 3½ stars only, is the eye watering list price. If it had been e.g. $849 like some of the other Sony zooms, then I would have given it 4 stars.

Generally speaking, I believe that when Sony introduced the NEX line, they decided to price everything quite aggressively as an "enthusiast" product line. Then it dawned on them, that many enthusiasts are suckers for FF sensors, and that they could sell more high priced premium products going that way. Now they have "consumer priced" the A6000 body (I paid $750 for my NEX-6 body - on sale!) and a line of over priced APS-C lenses. They need to find a way to climb down from that tree again.
 
Last edited:
The Zony is obviously capable of taking perfectly good pictures, as you can see e.g. from my samples above. But the same can also be said about the 16-50mm kit lens. So let’s do a little investigating to find out whether or not the claim, that the Zony is just an overpriced kit lens, is true.

I am therefore going to look to the best source for objective lens measurements that I know of, namely DXOMark. Before we get started, I suggest that you read a little bit about DXO’s protocols for testing a lens. They test just about any lens/camera combination that you can buy, and I trust them far more than the personal opinions of people on discussion forums, or dudes with their own lens review blog and Imatest chart. I also use their excellent DXO Optics Pro software for processing my raw files.

You can find the DXOMark data comparing the two lenses here.

If you look at the DXOMark scores of the two lenses, you will see that the Zony gets a 17, and the kit lens gets a 13. This translates to the optimal print size for the Zony being 51x34cm, and the optimal print size for the kit lens being 39x26cm. Hence, the Zony scores significantly higher than the kit lens. You can find a description of the DXOMark score design here.

Of course, rating a lens with a single number is an oversimplification, and you can always argue over how the different aspects of the lens’ performance metrics are weighted into the score. Therefore, let us move on to comparing the various metrics of the two lenses…
 
If you are not familiar with MTF charts and measurement of lens sharpness, please read DXO’s explanation here. If you have opened the link for comparing the lenses above, then click on Measurements, Sharpness, and Global Map. If you click on the charts, then you will see the high resolution versions that I have inserted below.

Sharpness scale. Indicates percent contrast when reproducing the fine black and white lines on the MTF chart.

Sharpness scale. Indicates percent contrast when reproducing the fine black and white lines on the MTF chart.

Center sharpness for the Zony.

Center sharpness for the Zony.

Center sharpness for the kit lens.

Center sharpness for the kit lens.

At wide open, the Zony center gets a little soft at 50-70mm. But please take another look at the picture of the ship that I posted above - is it blurry and soft? If you look at the same aperture and focal length, then the Zony center sharpness matches or beats the kit lens everywhere.

Corner sharpness for the Zony.

Corner sharpness for the Zony.

Corner sharpness for the kit lens.

Corner sharpness for the kit lens.

For corner sharpness, the kit lens actually beats the Zony at 24mm F/5.6-11. It is a bit strange that the corners at 24mm loose sharpness as you stop down the Zony from F/4 to F/8. This is probably the weakest point of this lens, although I don’t think that pictures taken around this point exactly look bad.

Giraffes at 22mm F/4.
Giraffes at 22mm F/4.

Stopped down at 50mm, the Zony beats the kit lens. Everywhere else, they are fairly close in corner sharpness. So overall, there is not a big difference between sharpness for the two lenses when you look at the same focal length and aperture. So kudos to the little kit lens for being quite sharp.

But before you yell “HA, I TOLD YOU SO” - there are other metrics to consider before we can make a final verdict…
 
Obviously, the Zony has higher transmission than the kit lens through most of the zoom range due to the wider aperture. But what about the difference between F-stop and T-stop? This shows how much light is lost in the lens due to internal reflections and absorbance.

14a445e20aa046b6abb0544791cbe856.jpg.png

I assume that the odd point at 24mm for the kit lens is a problem with the F-stop being miscalibrated. So if we ignore that point, the Zony shows a slightly lower loss of light. This is probably due to the Zeiss T* lens coating reducing internal reflections, and it is probably also why the color and contrast of this lens is so good. But I have to say that I am surprised how well the kit lens peforms here - obviously, Sony’s own lens coating is not far behind.
 
3d757be5dba74dc38e06143ed5198861.jpg.png

Distortion for the Zony is well balanced, going from some barrel distortion(0.9%) at 16mm to a small amount of pincushion distortion (0.3-0.4%) in the remaining zoom range. The kit lens goes from strong barrel distortion (3.8%) at 16mm to almost no distortion at 50mm.

Distortion can obviously be corrected automatically, so what is the problem? First of all, some popular software suites, e.g. Adobe Elements and Capture One, do not offer automatic correction. Secondly, correcting distortion comes at the price of sharpness. Don’t take my word for it, but read for yourself what Roger Cicala has to say about it here. From his measurements, I estimate that the kit lens looses about 10% sharpness at 16mm and about 3% at 24mm.

That makes the sharpness comparison above look less attractive for the kit lens.
 
Vignetting scale.

Vignetting scale.

Vignetting for the Zony. It reaches a maximum of -2.2EV at 16mm F/4.

Vignetting for the Zony. It reaches a maximum of -2.2EV at 16mm F/4.

Vignetting for the kit lens. It reaches -4.4EV at 16mm F/4.

Vignetting for the kit lens. It reaches -4.4EV at 16mm F/4.

Vignetting for the kit lens exceeds 4EV at 16mm F/4. That is like going from ISO 100 to 1600. So what does it help that the corners are sharp, when they become blurred by noise due to lack of light?
 
Chromatic aberration scale.

Chromatic aberration scale.

Chromatic aberration for the Zony. Maximum value 13.9 um.

Chromatic aberration for the Zony. Maximum value 13.9 um.

Chromatic aberration for the kit lens. 19.2 um at 16mm F/4.

Chromatic aberration for the kit lens. 19.2 um at 16mm F/4.

The kit lens has significantly higher chromatic aberration than the Zony in the wide end. Although it can be partially corrected, it will still show in pictures. Again not my words, but what Motoyuji Ohtake and Richard Butler from DPReview said here: “‘Light doesn’t separate nicely into red, green and blue (the color channels that most cameras capture, and which can be adjusted, relative to one another, to correct lateral CA). It’s a continuum with each wavelength being displaced slightly differently. To get the really high contrast we wanted in G Master, we had to suppress it in the lens.”

Again, the Zony beats the kit lens.
 
I think that it should be evident to everyone that the Zony is not just an overpriced kit lens. Not only does it offer a wider zoom range and a faster max. aperture over most of the zoom range, it also offers better optical performance. It is actually a very well engineered lens, and I fully agree with DXO’s verdict that this lens is a balanced performer.
 
is zony some sort of accepted term or are you just trying to ram it down our throats?
 
is zony some sort of accepted term or are you just trying to ram it down our throats?
I did not invent the term - but it is a Sony made Zeiss lens. Sorry if you don't like it, but it is a convenient and short name, that is why I used it.
 
is zony some sort of accepted term or are you just trying to ram it down our throats?
I did not invent the term - but it is a Sony made Zeiss lens. Sorry if you don't like it, but it is a convenient and short name, that is why I used it.
And all this time I thought it was a typo! :-)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top