dmanthree
Forum Pro
Any ideas on whether or not Sony will replace or update the Zeiss 16-70 f4 lens? I tried one and, well, not pleased. But I'd love a decent replacement for that range.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
16-70 f4 replacement?
- Thread starter dmanthree
- Start date
lehill
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,015
- Solutions
- 44
- Reaction score
- 4,418
Perhaps the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8?
I would welcome another compact lens covering the same range as the Zeiss. I am hoping for something like the sigma 18-50 where the aperture is "sacrificed" to F4 so that the range can be increased to 16-70 (16mm is important to me). Yes, I do have the 16-55mm but still not as compact.
dmanthree
Forum Pro
Maybe, but I'd like something a little smaller. Not a big issue, but it would be nice.
AlexeyK77
Well-known member
As 16-70 user I never come back to 18-50mm range. f2.8 doesn't compensate lack of focus ranges, especially 16mm and 70mm. For indoor lowlight scenarious exists f2.8, f1.8 primes.
I don't hope, that sony produce any new lense with 16-70 range.
Fuji 16-80 also big and heavy.
So in future I shall look at m34 system, may be om-5 with 12-45f4 lense.
om-5: 668gr, a6600: 811gr, fuji: 931gr
I don't hope, that sony produce any new lense with 16-70 range.
Fuji 16-80 also big and heavy.
So in future I shall look at m34 system, may be om-5 with 12-45f4 lense.
om-5: 668gr, a6600: 811gr, fuji: 931gr
Attachments
Last edited:
Martin1963
Member
Same thing over here….just bought the sony 10-20 G for my trip next week.
travel set: A6600, 10-20, 16-70, 70-350
Last edited:
Well, in use with the image stabilization of an a6600, the 16-70 and its OSS is remarkable at steadiness. Not a bad thing for older photographers, and while the non-OSS 16-55 is optically better(bigger and heavier too) the 16-70 is not bad, just not perfect.
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,172
- Reaction score
- 4,677
The OM system combo is pretty good. You just need to be aware that you're going to be shooting with a different aspect ratio and giving up quite a bit of C-AF performance. Like, a lot.As 16-70 user I never come back to 18-50mm range. f2.8 doesn't compensate lack of focus ranges, especially 16mm and 70mm. For indoor lowlight scenarious exists f2.8, f1.8 primes.
I don't hope, that sony produce any new lense with 16-70 range.
Fuji 16-80 also big and heavy.
So in future I shall look at m34 system, may be om-5 with 12-45f4 lense.
om-5: 668gr, a6600: 811gr, fuji: 931gr
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,172
- Reaction score
- 4,677
I'm taking a similar setup to Izmir for an experiment. 2 x a6600 + 15 mm f/1.4 G + 10-20 f/4 G + Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I might add the 70-350 G or Sigma 90mm f/2.8, but I am not 100% sure yet.
Martin1963
Member
No, i am thinking of 10-20 and 28-60 travel setup, so both very light.
so in the photo-bag A6600, A7C, 10-20, 16-70, 28-60, 70-350, 70 Sigma macro, spare battery and sd card.
so in the photo-bag A6600, A7C, 10-20, 16-70, 28-60, 70-350, 70 Sigma macro, spare battery and sd card.
Last edited:
Dick Barbour
Senior Member
I think the chances of Sony updating the 16-70 are about as good as a snowball's chances here in the Texas summer. 
Yes, the 16-70 isn't perfect, but what lens is? For me though, it's more than sufficient for my needs. Photography is just one compromise after another.
****
Yes, the 16-70 isn't perfect, but what lens is? For me though, it's more than sufficient for my needs. Photography is just one compromise after another.
****
I too would really love to see 1) wider than 18mm, 2) relatively compact (f/4 would be fine for daylight roaming) and 3) solid optical performance - up to 2020s standards.
Until someone puts out an APS-C travel zoom that checks all those boxes, I guess I'll just keep roaming with my primes.
Until someone puts out an APS-C travel zoom that checks all those boxes, I guess I'll just keep roaming with my primes.
dmanthree
Forum Pro
That's one of the things that pushed me to the Sony; the AF. Nothing like it on M4/3.The OM system combo is pretty good. You just need to be aware that you're going to be shooting with a different aspect ratio and giving up quite a bit of C-AF performance. Like, a lot.As 16-70 user I never come back to 18-50mm range. f2.8 doesn't compensate lack of focus ranges, especially 16mm and 70mm. For indoor lowlight scenarious exists f2.8, f1.8 primes.
I don't hope, that sony produce any new lense with 16-70 range.
Fuji 16-80 also big and heavy.
So in future I shall look at m34 system, may be om-5 with 12-45f4 lense.
om-5: 668gr, a6600: 811gr, fuji: 931gr
--
-------------------------------------------------
---Have camera, will travel.---
dmanthree
Forum Pro
The copy I tried was simply soft at certain points. Hard to believe it's a "Zeiss" lens. And I hate to admit that it's unlike to be replaced or updated. Which is a shame. I'll stick with the Sony G 16-55.I think the chances of Sony updating the 16-70 are about as good as a snowball's chances here in the Texas summer.
Yes, the 16-70 isn't perfect, but what lens is? For me though, it's more than sufficient for my needs. Photography is just one compromise after another.
****
unhappymeal
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,172
- Reaction score
- 4,677
The OM-1 is very close for subject detect, but hilariously enough, that doesn't include humans. If you get the OM-1 II, then yeah, it's close to what Sony has to offer, but man the cost. When I see there's nothing on the horizon or small m4/3 bodies and the fact that Olympus said they're focusing on lenses (and presumably in-licensing agreements) the system lost a lot of lustre to me.That's one of the things that pushed me to the Sony; the AF. Nothing like it on M4/3.The OM system combo is pretty good. You just need to be aware that you're going to be shooting with a different aspect ratio and giving up quite a bit of C-AF performance. Like, a lot.As 16-70 user I never come back to 18-50mm range. f2.8 doesn't compensate lack of focus ranges, especially 16mm and 70mm. For indoor lowlight scenarious exists f2.8, f1.8 primes.
I don't hope, that sony produce any new lense with 16-70 range.
Fuji 16-80 also big and heavy.
So in future I shall look at m34 system, may be om-5 with 12-45f4 lense.
om-5: 668gr, a6600: 811gr, fuji: 931gr
CYoungLewin
New member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree! I would love a Sony Zeiss 16-70 Mark II with the following improvements:
1. Make some minor improvements to the image quality and fix the quality control issues some have reported.
2. Boost the aperture a tad from f4 to f3.5
3. Trim maybe a centimeter off the length.
4. And obviously keep the autofocus and image stabilization in there, duh.
I would buy this lens again if Sony (or s9me third party) could pull that off!!
I agree that I do not love the other lenses people often suggest as an alternative.
I don't want the Sigma 18-50 because I want 16 on the wide end and I want 70 on the narrow end. In low light I want f1.4 or 1.8 anyway, not f2.8 so I'd be using primes anyway.
I don't want the Tamron 17-70 because it's huge.
The Sony 16-55 suffers from both problems: big and not enough range.
Please please please!
1. Make some minor improvements to the image quality and fix the quality control issues some have reported.
2. Boost the aperture a tad from f4 to f3.5
3. Trim maybe a centimeter off the length.
4. And obviously keep the autofocus and image stabilization in there, duh.
I would buy this lens again if Sony (or s9me third party) could pull that off!!
I agree that I do not love the other lenses people often suggest as an alternative.
I don't want the Sigma 18-50 because I want 16 on the wide end and I want 70 on the narrow end. In low light I want f1.4 or 1.8 anyway, not f2.8 so I'd be using primes anyway.
I don't want the Tamron 17-70 because it's huge.
The Sony 16-55 suffers from both problems: big and not enough range.
Please please please!
It's so weird that after so many years, we're still obsessing about "normal" lenses. There's the 18-135 and 18-105G, but they aren't up to the image quality level of the 16-55 and don't do 16mm. That 16-70mm range is really nice.
Sigma has 2 good choices now, and Tamron has one. Worth considering.
I like the idea of a 10-20 too, as someone else mentioned. For now, I'm going to bounce between an adapted A-mount 16-50SSM and the 18-105G, and whatever prime I feel like. I probably would have picked up a used 16-70 except for all of the negative reports. Maybe it's OK stopped-down, but it's a lot of money for an f8 lens. (F5.6?)
Is it just me, or does the M4/3 system not look significantly smaller, if any, but it has the smaller sensor. I think this is the main problem I had with that system from the beginning.Fuji 16-80 also big and heavy.
So in future I shall look at m34 system, may be om-5 with 12-45f4 lense.
om-5: 668gr, a6600: 811gr, fuji: 931gr
There are going to be cases where the closer-to-square 4/3 ratio would be better. For video, I'd prefer something closer to 16:9, but I for stills, maybe it's a wash?
AF matters, so there's that.
--
Gary W.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum