Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

Started Apr 20, 2017 | Discussions
HP1999 Senior Member • Posts: 4,085
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

brandog712 wrote:

HP1999 wrote:

Short version is I returned the A6500 and 16-70 and replaced it completely

I have this lens and the A6500. Best test is on a person where you can clearly see skin tones at least to me that is how I test lenses. Unless you shoot brick walls and trees all the time. I then will make a print at least 11x14 and if it looks good it is fine. Assuming exposure is good to begin with and I also like to shoot RAW and JPEG when doing this. It helps me figure out what needs a tweak if any

This said I felt something was wrong with the A6500 and 16-70 and not knowing which I ordered a duplicate camera and lens. I swapped them around so camera 1 with lens 2 kind of thing to see is it the camera or lens.

I was careful not to forget which camera and lens I bought first and kept them separate. Either way one was going back. Was it complete set one or two or lens one and camera two etc....

I ended up liking the complete second set and returned the first. I am not sure still if it was camera or lens but It seems better,

I have the return label printed for the 16-70. I think my a6500 is doing ok, I just bought it a couple of days ago so I havent really used it much. It will get work over the next week. Sonys QC seems really bad, I'm recognizing the importance of buying sony equip where I can easily exchange it.

Since I found such a good deal for the 16-70 ($700 brand new instead of $1K), I decided to go for it over the sony 18-105 even though I knew there was a chance to get a very soft and or de-centered lens. You win some and you lose some more.

Yes it is disappointing and I am one who generally has no problems with any thing I buy function wise.  The 16-70 is a $1000 what is up with this.

I just had to buy a second 16-70 to reassure myself and maybe it was self fulfilling prophecy or something but I felt the second copy was better.

It never happened with my Fuji or Nikon or Panasonic system lenses, who knows...

The main reason I did not buy Fuji was in this camera video was important and the XT-2 is over kill for what I need.  I had the XT-1 as a main camera

Anyway I am shooting the Nikon D750 and Sony A6500. I will say that I like the Sony 16-70 range i.e. Fuji should have a lens like this, if they made the Fuji 16-55 a F 4.0 lens with stabilization they would have more takers. OH and image stabilization is important for video specifically the IBIS (in body) this is the key I think that makes the technology difference and why I did not get the A6300

If the A6500 did not exist I probably would have gone to Panasonic GX-8 or G85 I think

devinw Regular Member • Posts: 147
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

cxsparc wrote:

brandog712 wrote:

cxsparc wrote:

Forget about the gallery. Directly upload that one picture in fullsize to your post

Ok here's round two: SOOC jpg. small center focus, stabilization turned off. on tripod.

Good, sharp test shots. Though I wonder why on earth you keep incamera lens distortion correction turned off? The 16 mm shots alone should advise to turn it on.

Taking a look at both 16 and 24 mm f5.6: This lens is one of the 1670 with poorer=softer sides. Decentering is present, albeit in a mild form: As frequently the case, at 24 mm the right side is generally more blurred than left, top right stronger than left bottom edge. But it is not massively so and if you can live with the soft sides of this copy, you should not mind the mild decentering.

I don't understand what's going on there at 16mm. I shoot RAW and have seen the uncorrected 16mm shots and there's NOTHING like that "bulge" in the wall. The 16-70 has some *slight* (about 0.5%) barrel distortion at 16mm, but that's just crazy... Something else is going here or that brick wall is just really wonky.

 devinw's gear list:devinw's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +8 more
OP brandog712 Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

Hi Guys,

So an update, I returned the previous 1670Z and they sent me a new one. I'm pretty sure this new one is WAYY WORSE than the old. Here are some sample pics:

rjjr Forum Pro • Posts: 14,464
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

brandog712 wrote:

Hi Guys,

So an update, I returned the previous 1670Z and they sent me a new one. I'm pretty sure this new one is WAYY WORSE than the old. Here are some sample pics:

So you're 0 for 2. I'm 0 for 5 but I was able to test mine at local shops over several months.

migus Contributing Member • Posts: 888
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread
1

"Unless you shoot brick walls and trees all the time."

While not my dream model subject, a cloudy day brick wall comes next after testcharts and topo maps (my favorite, unfolded on floor) for assessing parts of a lens' IQ.

back to the OP: Some shots seem defocused, too soft.

OP brandog712 Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

I completely agree that some shots seem completely soft and defocused. Issue is I was on a tripod, with OSS turned off, on a completely calm day. With a small single point focus and a 2 second timer. I took the test images the exact same way as I did with the previous lens (which was very soft on edges, but nice in the center), as this lens--which at certain focal lengths the entire right side seems completely out of focus to me.

I agree---it's not about shooting brick walls. However, I plan to use this lens for some landscape and architecture work and dealing with such soft images for $1000 is a bit ludicrous.  I take the test samples of a Brick wall because they are the most controlled "natural" environment and very quick to get an assessment.

OP brandog712 Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

rjjr wrote:

So you're 0 for 2. I'm 0 for 5 but I was able to test mine at local shops over several months.

So you never found a good one? What did you end up with instead? I'm wondering if I should just get a Sigma 24-70 art + MC-11 adapter instead. I'll lose a little on the wide end, but I have a 12mm prime for that.

rjjr Forum Pro • Posts: 14,464
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

brandog712 wrote:

rjjr wrote:

So you're 0 for 2. I'm 0 for 5 but I was able to test mine at local shops over several months.

So you never found a good one?

No, I gave up after the fifth one and finding a very good....

What did you end up with instead?

lightly used PZ 18-105/4 G OSS in the same shop that day that was better than the 16-70s I had tried.

I'm wondering if I should just get a Sigma 24-70 art + MC-11 adapter instead. I'll lose a little on the wide end, but I have a 12mm prime for that.

I'm waiting for the Sigma 24-70 Art to be released so I can try it with my MC-11 on my Sonys.

devinw Regular Member • Posts: 147
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

The decenter doesn't look that that bad on this one.

 devinw's gear list:devinw's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +8 more
rjjr Forum Pro • Posts: 14,464
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

devinw wrote:

The decenter doesn't look that that bad on this one.

How much de-centering is acceptable?  For me any de-centering is reason enough for rejecting a lens.

HP1999 Senior Member • Posts: 4,085
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

brandog712 wrote:

I completely agree that some shots seem completely soft and defocused. Issue is I was on a tripod, with OSS turned off, on a completely calm day. With a small single point focus and a 2 second timer. I took the test images the exact same way as I did with the previous lens (which was very soft on edges, but nice in the center), as this lens--which at certain focal lengths the entire right side seems completely out of focus to me.

I agree---it's not about shooting brick walls. However, I plan to use this lens for some landscape and architecture work and dealing with such soft images for $1000 is a bit ludicrous. I take the test samples of a Brick wall because they are the most controlled "natural" environment and very quick to get an assessment.

If you are doing architecture this IMO is not the system.  Optimal are tilt shift lenses.  Same for Landscape. Typically square filters are used for landscape work.

If I was selling you a camera I would tell you go to a DSLR over mirrorless for the most options.

My A6500 is more a travel camera or something small that I am not investing more then my 16-70 and 55-210 that was part of a bundle for a extra $130 so even if I sold that 55-210 I would get my money back.

Video is also important or I would have gone to a different mirrorless system not wanting a bridge camera again

Maybe one of the Sony A7 series would work, but still the lenses are what I see key and Sony for me is not for architecture or landscape in a strict sense.

If I had a problem with my second 16-70 I would have returned the A6500 and lens and got over my need for a good video option and bought Fuji most likely or maybe a crop sensor Nikon DSLR so I could have the option of existing lenses.

Of course nothing wrong with two camera systems

devinw Regular Member • Posts: 147
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

rjjr wrote:

devinw wrote:

The decenter doesn't look that that bad on this one.

How much de-centering is acceptable? For me any de-centering is reason enough for rejecting a lens.

I don't know if you're aware, but there are things called manufacturing tolerances. There is no such thing as a perfect lens. EVERY lens has some amount of de centering of every element relative to the optical axis. The question is, is it to a point where it degrades performance. That is up to the designer to quantify and devolop a process to stay within those limits.

As we have seen, the standard tolerances on the 1670 are probably too loose, since factory passing lenses have upset customers with their degree of soft sides. In this particular case, though, I see soft soft sides at f/4 16mm, which will be due some to field curvature, but the left side "smudgy" region is maybe 15% bigger than the right. I'd say that's decent for one of these. They can get much worse. I've seen copies where the whole 1/4 of the left or right frame is blurry.

 devinw's gear list:devinw's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +8 more
Robobonobo Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

I'll take the super slick $100 sel1650pz all day.

 Robobonobo's gear list:Robobonobo's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +2 more
OP brandog712 Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

Robobonobo wrote:

I'll take the super slick $100 sel1650pz all day.

Yes... I'm starting to regret my decision to get rid of the 1650 and 55-210. Oh well.

MrCPH
MrCPH Senior Member • Posts: 1,131
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread
1

Robobonobo wrote:

I'll take the super slick $100 sel1650pz all day.

The most important is to find the lens, that works for you, be it the 24z, the 16-50 kit, or any other lens. If you, as a photographer, are not confident with the equipment you use, you are not likely to go for that very challenging, yet very rewarding, shot.

I guess most peope wish for that lens, to be the one stuck on the camera when it was purchased (I sure did!) , so consider yourself lucky

-- hide signature --

MrCPH
- If you think before asking, I'll think before answering.
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/142270290@N02/

 MrCPH's gear list:MrCPH's gear list
NEX5R Sony a6000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +8 more
MrCPH
MrCPH Senior Member • Posts: 1,131
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

brandog712 wrote:

I agree---it's not about shooting brick walls. However, I plan to use this lens for some landscape and architecture work and dealing with such soft images for $1000 is a bit ludicrous. I take the test samples of a Brick wall because they are the most controlled "natural" environment and very quick to get an assessment.

For landscape and architecture, I would really consider getting a prime. The 16mm often isn't wide enough IMO, so something like the 12mm Zeiss, the 12mm Samyang/Rokinon or the 10-18mm Sony may be better options. Edge to edge sharpness will be very difficult to find on any 4.5X zooms.

-- hide signature --

MrCPH
- If you think before asking, I'll think before answering.
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/142270290@N02/

 MrCPH's gear list:MrCPH's gear list
NEX5R Sony a6000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +8 more
rjjr Forum Pro • Posts: 14,464
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

devinw wrote:

rjjr wrote:

devinw wrote:

The decenter doesn't look that that bad on this one.

How much de-centering is acceptable? For me any de-centering is reason enough for rejecting a lens.

I don't know if you're aware, but there are things called manufacturing tolerances.

Having had a 25 year career as a test engineer I am well aware of production tolerances.

There is no such thing as a perfect lens. EVERY lens has some amount of de centering of every element relative to the optical axis.

Any noticeable de-centering is unacceptable to me. I will not compromise on that.

The question is, is it to a point where it degrades performance. That is up to the designer to quantify and devolop a process to stay within those limits.

While true, it's up the the potential customer to decide if the de-centering is acceptable to them no matter what the manufacturer does.

As we have seen, the standard tolerances on the 1670 are probably too loose, since factory passing lenses have upset customers with their degree of soft sides.

Or perhaps it's just a poor lens design for the situation those customers want to use it for. For example, given the 16-70 FL range I'd expect to be able to use it for images from landscapes to portraits but, so far, the wide end on the lenses I've tried are not useful at all for landscapes.

In this particular case, though, I see soft soft sides at f/4 16mm, which will be due some to field curvature, but the left side "smudgy" region is maybe 15% bigger than the right. I'd say that's decent for one of these. They can get much worse. I've seen copies where the whole 1/4 of the left or right frame is blurry.

Yes, that's simply unacceptable to me. I'm certainly not going to spend any money on lenses with such built-in defects.

migus Contributing Member • Posts: 888
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

" I take the test samples of a Brick wall because they are the most controlled "natural" environment and very quick to get an assessment."

Have you tried unfolding a big map on the floor (outdoor, cloudy/shady)  to shoot dead-on above its center?

provides nearly testcharts results, very quick and easy to assess... seconds of pixel-peeping would suffice, in stead of minutes

rjjr Forum Pro • Posts: 14,464
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread

Robobonobo wrote:

I'll take the super slick $100 sel1650pz all day.

I haven't used my 16-50 since I bought the Sigma 18-35/1.8 Art. The Sigma provides the sharpness across the frame in a wider lens I want for landscapes on my A6500, unlike the 16-50.

Sure the Sigma is bigger, heavier and more expensive but the IQ overrides all that. If I want a small, light lens for good light at smaller apertures, which is the only time I would use my 16-50, I'll use my SEL20F28 instead since it also has better sharpness and IQ than the 16-50.

OP brandog712 Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: Another is my Sony 1670z good? thread
2

I just heard back from the seller. I sent my 1670Z test pics to them. They said that they contacted sony, an Sony said that those pics look up to factory standards.  If you believe them---then that is pretty damn terrible.

They are giving me a refund for the lens regardless. Oh well. I'm thinking about the 18-105G now.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads