First Day: Sony SEL1670Z Vario-Tessar T E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS

Bass Lake Dan

Well-known member
Messages
155
Reaction score
11
Location
US
If it is of use to you: here is a link to my photo blog camera roll : of course those are compressed so I included with this post a few full frame jpg's... If you want DNGs or anything just email me..

The fact is that the lens operates over such a wide range of focal lengths and ability to near focus, that it can not help but have a lot of sweet points and contrary with those corollary sour points, so therefore performance tends to run all over the map. It would take a large spreadsheet and someone with a lot of time to map out a lens performance chart here. For example at infinity focus at 16mm the barrel distortion, and the edge focus issues are present, but go to 24mm and focus from 3 feet to 12 feet and you're good to go, but focus issues change and come and go with F stop changes and focal distances all across the lens range and the whole thing quickly degenerates into a grab-bag of "what you see is what you get". Some time excellent Zeiss like performance but sometimes just good here, bad there, and back again in a constantly changing pattern that you quickly realize becomes either a deal killer or you can live with it.

I personally can live with it, because my use is mostly a bunch of street portrait and "document the live event" type of candid rapid fire no-time-to-think get the shot before it disappears stuff. You could call my use sort of "advanced vacation photos stuff", usually always daylight, high shutter speeds, and a typical afternoon camera roll of 100 shots edits down to less than 50 "keepers" .. I have a bag full of great primes that I can bolt on if I need them, but here is the thing: The great strength of this lens is it versatility and speed of use. It's 10x faster for me to use this lens for what I do than to go to the primes. For me with OSS and auto focus and almost always crystal sharp center areas it beats the snot out of fooling around with switching through a bag full of primes just to get these "candid shots". I want these shots, but I need much better performance than the kit lens.. Don't get me wrong, the kit lens is a smashing good deal and I have taken hundreds of "keepers" with it. For $95 it is a steal. But eventually, when looking through your last roll from the kit lens, you get that nagging hair on the back of your neck bothering you. It tells you "darn a great candid shot, too bad that lens not just a notch higher in quality"

From the above narrative you can see that just about anyone with my shooting style would say, sure its time to get better speed of use / performance over the kit lens. But, what is that worth? For the last 40+ years I have bought and sold, owned and parted with so many cameras and lenses I have lost counting them. But I never remember having to pay 1000% more than the lesser kit lens to accomplish the goal. This is the toughest part of owing this lens. It's kind of strange, usually to a photographer, these decisions are made on a technical basis. But here you have to make the decision based in large part on what your banker thinks of the deal.

... just the usual with any new lens you add to your bag. Although here maybe a little more so. I spent the first part of the afternoon when the lens arrived shooting the usual flat brick walls until I was satisfied. My copy was "OK", I think if I had a way to go through 20 of them, I could probably have selected out one or two that were better, but I think what I have in hand is about what is generally the normal for this one. Later that afternoon, after the brick walls were shot, I moved on to an afternoon of real subjects.

























 

Attachments

  • 2808049.jpg
    2808049.jpg
    9 MB · Views: 0
  • 2808048.jpg
    2808048.jpg
    9.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 2808046.jpg
    2808046.jpg
    9.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 2808047.jpg
    2808047.jpg
    12.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 2808045.jpg
    2808045.jpg
    11.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 2808044.jpg
    2808044.jpg
    10.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 2808050.jpg
    2808050.jpg
    5 MB · Views: 0
Thanks for the post and nice pictures. I feel like I have the same thought process and your post might be one of those to push me over the edge, so to speak, to finally get the SEL1670z.

Yesterday I went to play with the lens in a store, and I really like the feel of it, the range, the AF, colors, weight... everything but the price-tag ;-). Also, its hard to see a "BIG" difference in quality over the kit lens with pictures taken inside a shop under a fluorescent light, but the photos taken in daylight I've seen online have some crispness I just don't get with the kit lens. Might be utterly subjective though...

Btw, do you use any filter with this lens? I am thinking that if I buy it, I might as well get the expensive Carl Zeiss VF-55MPAM filter, as well as the 5 year extended warranty. What the heck. Just hope my wife will never notice. Don't ask, don't tell.
 
Btw, do you use any filter with this lens? I am thinking that if I buy it, I might as well get the expensive Carl Zeiss VF-55MPAM filter, as well as the 5 year extended warranty. What the heck. Just hope my wife will never notice. Don't ask, don't tell.
I assume we are talking here about neutral filters that the intended benifit of use is to "protect" the front lens element? I do not use any filter on any of my lenses. No matter how well made it might be, a filter is yet another optical surface, and can only degrade image quality.

Also I always pass on those extended warranties. The most common issue with lenses is that somewhere along the line someone drops one and knocks the innards out of alignment or damages the mechanical system internals, so does that warranty cover that? or does it just extend the manufacturer warranty against defect in material and workmanship? If you could get a inexpensive drop / damage protection insurance policy then that might be worth it, ...I would like to see someone offer such a policy on all my equipment, not on a piece by piece basis. Actually you might check with your homeowners insurance agent, and such a policy might be available. I know there are special policies like that for art and jewelery.
 
Btw, do you use any filter with this lens? I am thinking that if I buy it, I might as well get the expensive Carl Zeiss VF-55MPAM filter, as well as the 5 year extended warranty. What the heck. Just hope my wife will never notice. Don't ask, don't tell.
I assume we are talking here about neutral filters that the intended benifit of use is to "protect" the front lens element? I do not use any filter on any of my lenses. No matter how well made it might be, a filter is yet another optical surface, and can only degrade image quality.

Also I always pass on those extended warranties. The' most common issue with lenses is that somewhere along the line someone drops one and knocks the innards out of alignment or damages the mechanical system internals, so does that warranty cover that? or does it just extend the manufacturer warranty against defect in material and workmanship? If you could get a inexpensive drop / damage protection insurance policy then that might be worth it, ...I would like to see someone offer such a policy on all my equipment, not on a piece by piece basis. Actually you might check with your homeowners insurance agent, and such a policy might be available. I know there are special policies like that for art and jewelery.
Thanks for the response. I am relatively new to the camera world, and SEL1670z would be the biggest purchase so far. That's why I am (perhaps overly) cautious...
There seems to be no clear consensus on the pros and cons of protective filters on the forums. Personally I've tried test shooting with and without filters, and I cannot see the difference in my shots, so I use them. It just makes me calmer ;-)

As for the insurance, I live in Japan, and here the stores usually offer extended manufacturer's warranty for about 5% of the lens price, and few internet shops offer extended warranty + insurance (including dropping/damage/theft) for about 8-9% of the lens price. I might go for it.

Anyway, this is just a distraction from the main point, that hopefully SEL1670z turns out to be a good long-term investment into the NEX system as an all-purpose lens for everyday shooting for many years to come. Your descriptions and photos look convincing. Now I just need to convince my wallet.

If you would be so kind and try to convince me some more, could you post some outdoor shots taken with SEL1670z and SEL1855 to compare them side by side? God I hope that I can see the difference :-)
 
Hi



Thanks for the review and nice pictures.

Not sure if this helps anyone:

I've had my 16-70mm for about 10 days and I have to say that in spite of some reservations reading other reviews I am relieved to say I seem to have a good copy.

I have also done several comparisons between my other lenses, to see whether there really is a difference. I did buy this lens brand new at a significant discount on the retail, so I have an added good feeling it it turns out OK.

Compared to SEL1650PZ standard zoom

In certain situations it can be hard to tell the difference, but generally the 1670 is clearly sharper, has better colour, is brighter and has less (although not no) distortion - visibly better edges and corners on my copy - almost as good as 28 2.8 even wide open. Feels better and has a certain quality that is hard to define. I can honestly say that having bought the 16-70 within my Nex 6, I now no longer hanker after those big FF beasties - although I am not pretending this combo competes with Canikonleica A7 FF. The 16-50 gave me excellent results - I took it on holiday in Spain and it was very good. It's just this is visibly and pleasingly better. I live in grey damp cloudy England with subtle greens and greys. I insist on good subtle colour rendering and sharpness and this delivers (most of the time).



River Test January 2014 Nex 6 16-70mm
River Test January 2014 Nex 6 16-70mm



Compared to Contax 28 2.8 biogon and 90 2.8 T* lenses

I will not be selling these two. They are better than my 1670. But not by a huge amount surprisingly. 28mm is brighter and sharper though, as I said above, with better corners and edges - at 5.6 and above especially. 90mm is unbeatable for sharpness and I thoroughly recommend it as a companion (135mm) equivalent med tele. Having said that the 1670 still holds its own. You can tell its also from the T* family. It more than compensates any downsides to have a OSS native Nex zoom lens that is also part of that family.

Compared to Canon FD 50 3,5 SSC macro

I will not be selling this either as it is a good companion for those stamen and gnat's knackers shots. Excellent at macro lengths, it is unremarkable at distant focus. the 1670 more than covers that.

Compared to Canon AF70-210, an old legacy lens

1670z is much sharper with usable AF as opposed to unusable AF on the Canon. Also much sharper than 1650pz - so it may be my Canon AF-Nex adaptor. The Canon was a great lens on my old Canon film Camera 15 years ago.

Is it worth it?

Premium lenses are expensive. The Canon 254-105 f4L, which this is kinda the same market is good, perhaps slightly better (looking at the 2 MTFs side by side). But some have complained and I have seen for myself the soft edges of that lens edges wide op an 24mm FF. (On a Canon 1DS).

It is also comparable in quality to the Panasonic 12-35mm (Ok this is a general statement based not on having both lenses but my friends who have and my reading and yearning (I used to have a G5).

So is it perfect - absolutely not, Is it overpriced in its market. I dont really think so, premium lenses all seem to cost around $1000US or more. There are better choices for people who want primes (zeiss 24 1.8, sigma30 2.8, 60 sigma sony 50 1.8), which seem to knock socks off this one at times. But they are limited and not great as all purpose carry rounds for the whole day.

For a premium general purpose standard zoom there's really nothing else.

Negatives

Soft around the edges (rarely visible - but hey its a zoom)

Flare - yes that is quite pronounced and can be annoyingly difficult to get rid off; requires careful camera skills

CA - Not noticed much - not as bad as my Contax 90mm 2.8. but there is.

AF - it does indeed hunt a bit in the dark just as other reviews say. It's not serious on my lens but I use MF in dark rooms. Had good results up to 3200 ISO



Final note - results visibly improved when I cleaned/swabbed my sensor, the nex is a b****ger for dust and spots. But then that would apply to all my/your lenses.



Best of luck



Ray
 
Some time excellent Zeiss like performance but sometimes just good here, bad there, and back again in a constantly changing pattern that you quickly realize becomes either a deal killer or you can live with it.
Exactly my impression: it's a sort of "Dr. Jekill and Mr. Hide" lens. Today I ran some more tests (I'm going to share in a couple of days) and I've seen some sharper borders than I expected, and some softer borders than I expected in other shots.

The other poster asked about UV filters. I've always used them on my Nikkor lenses and, considering that I have to change them after a few years because they got some scratches, I'm glad that this little glass damage doesn't go to the front element of my lenses. It's nothing that can harm the IQ, but it would harm the lens monetary value. I always use B+W filters and I've tested so far that the difference with & without is negligible. But I didn't test the SEL1670Z in this respect yet.
 
Some time excellent Zeiss like performance but sometimes just good here, bad there, and back again in a constantly changing pattern that you quickly realize becomes either a deal killer or you can live with it.
Exactly my impression: it's a sort of "Dr. Jekill and Mr. Hide" lens. Today I ran some more tests (I'm going to share in a couple of days) and I've seen some sharper borders than I expected, and some softer borders than I expected in other shots.

The other poster asked about UV filters. I've always used them on my Nikkor lenses and, considering that I have to change them after a few years because they got some scratches, I'm glad that this little glass damage doesn't go to the front element of my lenses. It's nothing that can harm the IQ, but it would harm the lens monetary value. I always use B+W filters and I've tested so far that the difference with & without is negligible. But I didn't test the SEL1670Z in this respect yet.
 
.... Actually you might check with your homeowners insurance agent, and such a policy might be available. I know there are special policies like that for art and jewelery.
I insure all my equipment against any damage, drops, stolen, uw flooding (I dive) for a few hundred a year through a home owners policy. This is much cheaper than the dive policies. You must claim each item so do not expect a blanket policy, but it is easy to update when needed. A few years ago I fell (tripped on an uneven dock) carrying my D200 and damaged the base plate. The insurance purchase a new D300. Worth the $$$.
 
I've only had this lens for a few days but unfortunately I am not at all satisfied. For the price (and branded Zeiss), I expected much better. I would like to have a good zoom for my A6000 but this is not it. Better to shot with primes and move the legs instead. I think Zeiss underpins its reputation when putting there name on a lens like this. This one is going back to the shop.
 
The Hoya filters are good quality too. Either the NXT, HD or HD2. Lens Rentals likes Hoya too and they produce less glare than the cheap ones.
Good to know about the Hoyas. I bought a premium Canon L lens and put a Canon branded [Tiffen?] UV on it to protect from micro-abrasions caused by wiping off salt water, as well as to make the lens a bit more water proof.

Sent the lens off to Canon for servicing/realignment TWICE before figuring out it was the darned filter causing the aberrations.

I carefully tested every filter brand I owned, and they all degraded images to some degree. The B+W was the only one where I couldn't tell for sure in a blind test whether the filter was on or off.

Now that's all I buy. Expensive, but I don't use a filter on every lens, and it's cheap insurance for those that need it.
 
The Hoya filters are good quality too. Either the NXT, HD or HD2. Lens Rentals likes Hoya too and they produce less glare than the cheap ones.
Good to know about the Hoyas. I bought a premium Canon L lens and put a Canon branded [Tiffen?] UV on it to protect from micro-abrasions caused by wiping off salt water, as well as to make the lens a bit more water proof.

Sent the lens off to Canon for servicing/realignment TWICE before figuring out it was the darned filter causing the aberrations.

I carefully tested every filter brand I owned, and they all degraded images to some degree. The B+W was the only one where I couldn't tell for sure in a blind test whether the filter was on or off.

Now that's all I buy. Expensive, but I don't use a filter on every lens, and it's cheap insurance for those that need it.
I am using Hoya HD UV Filters since they came out into germany. HD2 is phsically nothing added or more, just a warranty thing and therefore Hoya is charging extra.

B&W XS Pro Nano are also *very* good, and of course original Carl Zeiss T* UV Filters.

Check out my thread here from Fall 2014, Tianya XS Pro1 is a way good low-price alternative to the other 3 brands above.

Marc
 
I've only had this lens for a few days but unfortunately I am not at all satisfied. For the price (and branded Zeiss), I expected much better. I would like to have a good zoom for my A6000 but this is not it. Better to shot with primes and move the legs instead. I think Zeiss underpins its reputation when putting there name on a lens like this. This one is going back to the shop.
But why is this a surprise? Primes will be better than zooms. Have a look at the DxOMark ratings for the APS-C E mount lenses on the a6000. There is only one prime rated lower than the 16-70, and its only just lower - the 30mm Macro lens.

a6000 lenses at DxOMark

The 16-70 is rated the best of the zooms. Its just not as good as the primes. Having a Zeiss brand and costing $1k won't change that. The 10-18mm is lower than the 16-70 and it costs the same. The stand-out in value is the 18-105mm, which is actually rated sharper than the 16-70 but costs only $600.
 
The fact is that the lens operates over such a wide range of focal lengths and ability to near focus, that it can not help but have a lot of sweet points and contrary with those corollary sour points, so therefore performance tends to run all over the map. It would take a large spreadsheet and someone with a lot of time to map out a lens performance chart here.
You might find this interesting:

 
This is useful, but requires careful reading.

My take away:

- 1670 is not the greatest landscape lens, but where center sharpness matters more (most of the time, for me), it is the best overall off the bunch. At some focal lengths, the 1670 peaks at 6.3 aperture as opposed to 8, so that center sharpness table would show even more pronounced difference if that was taken into account.

- the above becomes even more clear as the light drops and lowest apertures come in play

- ganging the 1650&18105 against the 1670 may make some sense price wise, but does not make any practical sense whatsoever.

All this is to confirm that (price aside) this will be the most versatile zoom for many, especially for travel.
 
Nice write up and images. While many only use primes and detest zooms, the advantage of not carrying multiple lenses and having to swap out all the time is very valid.
 
I think the 16-70 is overpriced but the best option for APC-E mount. It's so so light, sometimes I feel like someone just stole my camera - my bag is that light. I might have been one to get a decent copy, seems kind of like a lottery, but I will miss this lens if/when I move onto FF. Of course there are some problems like the distortion and a couple other things, but the pros outweigh the cons, for sure.
 
This is useful, but requires careful reading.

My take away:

- 1670 is not the greatest landscape lens, but where center sharpness matters more (most of the time, for me), it is the best overall off the bunch. At some focal lengths, the 1670 peaks at 6.3 aperture as opposed to 8, so that center sharpness table would show even more pronounced difference if that was taken into account.

- the above becomes even more clear as the light drops and lowest apertures come in play

- ganging the 1650&18105 against the 1670 may make some sense price wise, but does not make any practical sense whatsoever.

All this is to confirm that (price aside) this will be the most versatile zoom for many, especially for travel.
All this assumes you get a good copy. Many do not, for example this recent thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3958271 It seems there are QC issues with that lens as discussed in this review http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss and in this forum.

If I buy one it will be a friend's 16-70. He's moving to FF and I know that copy :-)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top