Travel Zoom for A6000, SEL1670, SEL18200, SEL18200LE, SEL18105 or SEL24240

[manatmoon]

Hi,

I am searching for the best travel- always-on zoom for my A6000. Price is not really the top criteria, but I want a good zoom-lens with best optics in relation to focal length. The SEL24240 is quite new, so I didn`t find a good review, the SEL1670 has mixed reviews compared to price and limited focal length, the SEL18105 is maybe a good deal for under € 500,-. The SEL18200LE has maybe not the best construction. Not simple to decide.

What did you choose and why?

 

[José B]

Hi,

I am searching for the best travel- always-on zoom for my A6000. Price is not really the top criteria, but I want a good zoom-lens with best optics in relation to focal length. The SEL24240 is quite new, so I didn`t find a good review, the SEL1670 has mixed reviews compared to price and limited focal length, the SEL18105 is maybe a good deal for under € 500,-. The SEL18200LE has maybe not the best construction. Not simple to decide.

What did you choose and why?

 

[Scott770]

I also went with the 1670z option. I like the range, like the construction, like the size, and like the images it produces. A terrific walking around lens for me.

 

[MrCPH]

+1 for the 1670Z. The sharpness, contrast, colour, size, weight, IQ all in favor of the Zeiss lens. The mixed reviews are often based upon the fact, that there are a few "sour lemons" out there, so - as with all other lenses - do some test shots and return it for a new one if you are unlucky.

 

[Jerry R]

16-70, right focal length, right size & weigh, great IQ.

 

[Joseph Mama]

I don't think anyone can decide for you. The lenses are very different. Its how much image quality you want to sacrifice for reach.

16-70 is awesome if you can drop a grand. Thats 24-105mm ff equivalent. A bit lacking in reach but for many people, its plenty of range. Nice and portable too. The F4 becomes strong at long range making a decent portrait lens.

If rich and short range is ok, thats clearly the winner.

But if you want more range, then the 18-105 is the next step up. Less quality but more reach and only 600 bucks.

Moar range? 18-200. Performance isn't as great but huge zoom reach. Definitely an all in one.

FE24-240 isnt much more pricey than the 18-200. But you totally lose wide-angle capability from 27mm all the way to 36mm! That is significant. Its also double the weight.

 

[JYPfoto]

I chose the 16-70, bought it grey from Japan for $715 and very happy with the results. Would be happy with it if I paid full retail, but for the price I paid and the money that I saved I'm even more satisfied with my purchase.

 

[dquangt]

Hi,

I am searching for the best travel- always-on zoom for my A6000. Price is not really the top criteria, but I want a good zoom-lens with best optics in relation to focal length. The SEL24240 is quite new, so I didn`t find a good review, the SEL1670 has mixed reviews compared to price and limited focal length, the SEL18105 is maybe a good deal for under € 500,-. The SEL18200LE has maybe not the best construction. Not simple to decide.

What did you choose and why?

 

[val1]

... sadly, I don't think there is a top notch travel zoom in the emount lens line. Fuji etc have better options.. Of the lenses you mentioned it depends alot on your needs. Personally, I opted for the 18-105g. I tried the zeiss 16-70. At the then current retail price, I was not impressed. I am not wowed by the Sony G either but I do like the internal zoom (.. dust? not an issue..) I don't mind spending a few thousand on a lens if it is really great. I just never felt that way on the 16-70. The 18-200 is a good super zoom but on the whole super zoom lenses are for poor IQ. The 18-105 was a nice compromise. It is clearly better than the 18-200. On the short end it is worse than the zeiss 16-70 but as you zoom out they get closer and closer. The sony G gets terrible reviews for corner performance but that is not really right. The issue is that this lens has massive field curvature. This makes the corners look soft and the insane distortion doesn't really help...

So for native lens, I like the sony G.

The real strong part of the E mount lens line up is prime lens offerings. I would strongly suggest you check out the primes.

 

[User5469540350]

Check this out. Great lens. On the downside: Its heavy.

Loading…

www.ephotozine.com

 

[HZP]

Check this out. Great lens. On the downside: its heavy.

Loading…

www.ephotozine.com

 

[cxsparc]

It depends on your wishes:

Compactness, weight, range, empasis on wide-angle or more on tele, low DOF capability, price.

Many in this thread at least have opted for the 1670. That lens is a nice combination offering 16 mm wide-angle and at least some tele, althrough at f4.

I also had this lens for a brief time but found that you sacrifice size and weight compared to the 1650 but don't really get that much of tele with it. Since my usage as travel zoom means usually the ability to stop down the lenses, there is not a big difference in IQ between a good copy of the 1650 and the 1670. Some may differ but I posted a blind quiz of shots at f8 for both lenses and the overwhelming majority chose the shots of the 1650 as the better ones!

Still, the 1650 does lack the tele range and when I got a fire sale offer from Amazon, I bought the 18105 with return option. This lens only goes down to about 19 mm, compared to about 16 mm (1670) and 15 mm (1650, corrected) but up to 105 mm f4 and combines similar low DOF fun as that of the SEL50 into the zoom lens.

The sweet spots of the 1650 are from 20-35 mm stopped down once, the 18105 is great from 35-105 mm.

Again, it all depends on your preferences.

You can find a more detailed discussion of many of those options in my review on the 18105.

--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

 

[Dirk W]

I recommend the first SEL18-200. Great IQ, fantastic image stabilization and extremely versatile. Downside: pretty big.

 

[uzman1243]

This is an easy call for me----I went with the Zeiss 16-70/4. Got spoiled with my first Zeiss----1.8/24 that I wanted a zoom that gives me the same beautiful contrast, color and bokeh. I also do a lot of portraits and this zoom is like having a built in 70/4 portrait prime lens. I am an early adopter to this lens and took it to the Far East in Feb. 2014 along with my NEX-6. Super happy with the images.

Good luck with whatever lens you choose.

Cheers,

José

Recenty, the 16-70 and 24-70 have been getting really bad reviews. I was going to get the 24-70 for a6k (because I want FF compatibility)as it was close to the price of 16-70. But did you see the distortion in that thread recently? Dear god it was as bad as the kit

 

[Tristimulus]

Despite bad reviews and a lot of fuzz the Sony lenses are far from as bad as some will have it. Even the much hatet/much appreciated super compact 16-50mm delivery - well: excellent images.

Have the 16-50mm lens (pocketable and have never returnere with a single useless image because of the lens) and the 18-200mm lens (ever so slightly soft but that is to be expected from a zoom range like this and a bit on the heavy side). Also have lots of images taken with this lens and none of the images are useless - all actually fullfill my intentions when taking them.

Contemplating getting the 16-70mm lens (will eventually get it, no doubt) as it is very sharp in the center and a bit softer in the corners (but still better than the two lenses mentioned above). Expecting optical perfectness from this lens only because it is labelled Zeiss is plain silly - a zoom lens is and will forever be an optical compromise. - and the 16-70mm lens id actually quite good given its species.

If buying the 16-70mm lens with open eyes (no extravagant expectations) you will for sure have a lovely and very useful lens for years to come. The Sony lenses have and still serve me very well.

Expect more haters to post here ... and just a diplomaic warning: some exaggeration migh occur!

 

[uzman1243]

--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/111606629@N03/

 

[MrCPH]

I think most have read, and are really surprised about, the recent German review of the 1670z. It stands in strong contrast to both my own, most users and other reviewers experiences. Here are some examples of reviews from users and websites and all have rated this lens between 4 and 5 stars:

Loading…

phillipreeve.net

Loading…

admiringlight.com

Loading…

www.imaging-resource.com

Loading…

www.photographyblog.com

Loading…

sonyalphalab.com

Loading…

www.amazon.com

The recent German review is a bit of a mystery to me, to be honest.

 

[cxsparc]

I think most have read, and are really surprised about, the recent German review of the 1670z. It stands in strong contrast to both my own, most users and other reviewers experiences. Here are some examples of reviews from users and websites and all have rated this lens between 4 and 5 stars:

http://phillipreeve.net/blog/carl-zeiss-e-416-70-za-oss-for-sony-nex-review/

http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-carl-zeiss-16-70mm-f4-vario-tessar/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...view-a-well-built-lightweight-all-around-lens

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/carl_zeiss_vario_tessar_t_e_16_70mm_f_4_za_oss_review/

http://sonyalphalab.com/product-review/sony-e-mount-16-70mm-f4-oss-zeiss-lens-review-sel1670z/

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL1670Z-Vario-Tessar-16-70mm-OSS/dp/B00ENZRPG0/

The recent German review is a bit of a mystery to me, to be honest.

--
MrCPH
- If you think before asking, I'll think before answering.

Well, PZ never really liked Sony in the past. I don't really understand their obsession with SW corrected lenses. But it seems that they got one of the lemon copies of the 1670s and experienced the nightmare of any lens buyer - no help from Sony nor their support!

So being stuck with a lens having cost anywhere between 800 to 1000 Euros and no return option.....

Please note that Reeves review also demonstrated a decentered lens in his 1670! Afterwards, he received some Sony stuff from Sony to try out and also redid his review of the 1670 in a much more positive way. Honi qui mal y pense...

Admiringlight tested both the 1670 and the 18105, gave the 1670 a somewhat better review - and kept the 18105!!

And when you check the Amazon user ratings ( at least on Amazon.de) of the 18105 are more positive than those of the 1670.

You also forgot Kurt Munger, a Sony afficinado, giving a - for him - damning judgment on the TWO copies he had of the 1670.

I also had the 1670 and tested it. Remember my blind quiz comparing it to the 1650 both at f8 and the majority preferring the shots of the 1650? The 1670 is not a bad zoom lens. But my copy was weak at 24 mm and if stopped down not better than the 1650, not to say somewhat worse - if both are stopped down.

You can take a look at the above quiz or at the two file below if you are interested. Here two files at 24 mm f8 from both lenses 1650 and 1670:


Dpreviews web machine will mess up the files but see for yourself. Hint: Either look at EXIF or which image is wider (1650)









--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

 

[gkstar]

I would bet the second image, which is better, is from the SEL1650. I guess you found one of may be two focal length/f-stop combos where 1650 is better.

One can go to SLR gear and open the interactive resolution widgets then slide the bars in sync to see how the lenses compare. Optically, the 1670 is better (by no huge margin) in most cases, not all. Extra reach and constant aperture are a plus, it can double as portrait lens. Now the price argument is absolutely legit (I would not buy the 1670 at full price), though note that OP said price is not a top priority. I would advice buying form a place with return policy in case there is a problem with the lens.

As for 18105 and 18200, these were heavy for me for travel and do not balance well on the body for all day walking and site seeing. I also found out that for trips to Europe, I have about a quarter of my pics taken at 16mm.

So sum up - the SEL1670 may not be a stellar in all departments, though it strikes a balance that is hard to beat when it comes to travel, especially for those who would like to minimize lens swapping and travel relatively light.

 

[Euell]

Your best bet in a standard zoom for travel is presently the 16-70. Have taken it on several international trips and it performed quite well for general purpose photography. It is F4, so you might want to also include a faster fixed-focal-length lens in your kit for dim light use. Suggest wide angle. Used the 18-105 on a NEX 5 for a trip to Egypt and Jordan. It performed OK, although not with the same snap, color and contrast of the 16-70.