The most controversial lens on the net?

Jesper Frickmann

Leading Member
Messages
664
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.
 
I think the problem with the pics you have posted do not demonstrate the problem some claim is wrong with this lens. Please take some out of focus pics which will demonstrate a problem with the lens to those who are sure the lens is a dog.
Is this meant for me? If so, when I take out of focus pics, do I focus a little further away or a little closer, or a lot? How much? There's no focus distance scale on the lens so this will be a total guess... This being an f/4 lens the DOF will also be pretty far in front of and behind the object I'm out-of-focusing on... At f/4 and 24mm, 6 feet away from the brick wall, DOF is 3.21 feet an online calculator tells me for example.

Will a decentered lens (I've heard so much about) then show areas in focus that shouldn't be? (totally guessing here)
 
I think the problem with the pics you have posted do not demonstrate the problem some claim is wrong with this lens. Please take some out of focus pics which will demonstrate a problem with the lens to those who are sure the lens is a dog.
Is this meant for me? If so, when I take out of focus pics, do I focus a little further away or a little closer, or a lot? How much? There's no focus distance scale on the lens so this will be a total guess... This being an f/4 lens the DOF will also be pretty far in front of and behind the object I'm out-of-focusing on... At f/4 and 24mm, 6 feet away from the brick wall, DOF is 3.21 feet an online calculator tells me for example.

Will a decentered lens (I've heard so much about) then show areas in focus that shouldn't be? (totally guessing here)
I think his post was a bit of a joke.
 
I think his post was a bit of a joke.
Lol. Totally got me if that's the case (Jerry, learn to use sarcastic smiley faces dammit!). I'm still so confused how this lens can be so bad I thought I was missing some crucial aspect of the testing and doing it all wrong! (and working in reverse by de-focusing a little bit to see if anything on the same plane was IN focus when it shouldn't be makes a weird kind of sense to me somehow ;)

I mean, the outside edges of the photos are not as sharp as they could be, and since I've taken no other similar tests with other lenses to see how they fare I don't even have a baseline for comparison (that's where you guys come in!).
 
Last edited:
it keeps on ticking!

But most won't remember such as this
 
The lens is fine. What you posted was insightful. The nay sayers can drive you to drink.

I have had top of the line Nikon lenses. When I switched to Son/Zeiss my wife's response was wow. She has a great eye for color.
 
He he - in all modesty, I think that I chose a good title for this thread...

Did you all notice that Sony.com has lowered the prices for both the APS-C Zeiss lenses to $899.99? And it looks like a new list price; not a sale. I think that warrants a four star rating for this lens, up from 3½.
 
Jerry, your post strikes me as being plain silly. No one has stated that the 1670 is always bad. The problem is that a LOT of people received one that was decentered and/or showed poor corners - and even showed prove of that on this very forum.

That this comes on top of the premium sales price does not mean that this lens is always a dog, but should be evaluated with a lot of caution.

I have added below two fullsized pictures showing a scene at f8 (where lenses shouldn't show any visible differences) and around 24 mm. The 1670 used was originally decentered, then repaired and certified by Sony as good!

I have more shots at different apertures and focal lengths showing the same performance.

You can easily see that side sharpness drops off well into the frame, so we are not even talikng about the corners here. Seems photozone and many others had a similar copy. And you can easily see that the cheapo 1650 outperforms the 1670 at these settings. To me, that performance was unacceptable.

That is why I was sceptical about a 1670 lens being as good at the corners as Dochs seems to be - and possibly yours. It is now even more odd that the 1670 design seems to allow such an extreme amount of performance variation leaving Sonys factory (or repair labs) as "good".

That some are frustrated or disgusted having to be forced by Sony to gamble when buying a premium lens whether they get a good one or a dud seems to be quite understandable to me.

One - 1670

One - 1670



Two - 1650

Two - 1650



--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/
 
...
Have you ever owned one?
From all the images and reviews I've seen, I never will. It's way too over priced for what it is an the IQ it gives gives you. Enjoy it for what it is, IF you are lucky enough to get a good copy ;-)
oh, I get it now. So you do not own this lens, and you have no plans of buying it?

Then why are you spending so much time on this thread? Why is it so important for you to repeatedly tell us that you do not like it?

There are lenses that I dislike. I had preordered the 18-105G, and returned it after 3 days testing, because I was deeply disappointed by the optical quality of it.

But I do not hang out in every thread about that lens, telling everyone how I feel aboit it. Different lenses have different merits, and I respect that other people have arrived at a different opinion than myself.

I think that opinions from people who have experience with the lens are helpful in a review thread like this one. cxsparc has done extensive testing with the two lenses, and he arrived at the opposite conclusion of mine. But of course his opinion is just as valid as mine. And we both put it out here for potential buyers to consider.
 
John, I am not flaming anyone. If you read my posts or blog closely, you can see that I never ruled out the possibility that others have better copies than my two, the one from photozone, tge two of Karl Munger ...😏 .

I also stated that central sharpness is always good with this lens. The problem is risk of decentering and that many copies have lousy corners.
 
He he - in all modesty, I think that I chose a good title for this thread...

Did you all notice that Sony.com has lowered the prices for both the APS-C Zeiss lenses to $899.99? And it looks like a new list price; not a sale. I think that warrants a four star rating for this lens, up from 3½.
You sure did Jesper! I'm a 4 1/2 stars.
 
John, I am not flaming anyone. If you read my posts or blog closely, you can see that I never ruled out the possibility that others have better copies than my two, the one from photozone, tge two of Karl Munger ...😏 .

I also stated that central sharpness is always good with this lens. The problem is risk of decentering and that many copies have lousy corners.
Chris, .. you assert there are "many bad copies". My experience of market research on satisfaction levels is that disappointed buyers will complain or publicise for more often than will satisfied buyers. ....

Could it also be the case that the poor lenses were early ones, possibly even preproduction ones released for reviewers? ...
John, I think that is true, but also for other lenses. When one now compares the number of complaints about the 1650 (very large volume sold), 18105 (still quite a lot) with the 1670 numbers, there is a mismatch. Maybe people are more prone to complain when a lens was more expensive, but the 18105 is not exactly a cheapo and yet I have to find someone who had a decentered lens with that. Some niggle about the power zoom or the amount of distorsion.

Comparing that to the cases substantitated with example shots here in this forum, Kurt Mungers dissatisfaction with two copies, Philip Reeves test, photozone extreme review, Blue skies experience with multiple copies, all this consolidates to my current view that this lens does have a quality issue.

I also investigated the possibility of older versus new. My first 1670 copy was bundled by Sony when the A6000 was first put one the market. My second copy was years later and had a much later serial number. Then I understand Jerry has his 1670 for quite a long time and it seems to be good. Doch on the other hand appears to have bought his (good) copy recently. So the evidence is not conclusive :-)

I am truly happy for anyone having one of these good 1670s and am quite disappointed with Sony for having produced noticable amount of really bad ones (decentered) and weak ones (soft corners). I stopped trying after the third attempt.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top