logical upgrade from sel1650?

[captura]

At the corners, the 16/70 is still streets ahead of 28/70 and miles away from 16/50

Care to share any pictures to prove you claims?

I just don't have time to do the comparison test with the same subject right now, but can later if anyone wants it.

That is a shame you "don't have time to do any comparison tests", that would make your claims much more believable. Try to make some time if you can.

Together with the poor performance of the 55-210, I was on the verge of giving up on Sony, (I was getting much better sailing shots with my Nikon V2) but the 16/70 has turned that round)

I will keep a6000 and 16/70 for close shots, and Nikon v2 and 30/110 for distance. That makes a nice pair.

Anyone who thinks the Nikon v2 is even in the same class is highly questionable and their opinion is tarnished IMO.

Incidentally it is strange that most people who actually own the 16/70 love it.

Not everyone loves it that owns it from what I have read.

Also, the going price is $700...not $1000 as those who are trying to knock the lens keep quoting. I wonder just what is going on here?

If you want to spend $700 without a warranty or being able to return it if/when it does not meet your expectations. Lets see come comparison shots, seeing is believing ;-)

tom

--

Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

I generally agree with your post.

The Nikon 1's especially with the 30-110 (about the same FL as the E 55-210) are a real treat and they get a lot of love on the Nikon forum. Of course, low light/ IQ with the tiny 1" sensor can't compete against the A6000, but that lens is special. My J1 with 30-110 attached fits in the same hip pouch as my Nex-5R + 16-50.

 

[captura]

Many interesting comments here. As a side note, I used to be in electronic manufacturing and sometimes saw reviews and "independent tests" of our products, which were dial-up modems. The test results were all over the place! Few of the so-called experts really knew what performance specs were actually important, or how to set up an accurate, repeatable test. Maybe there's a lesson there.

Here's what I think: the 16-70 was supposed to be the product I want. But some things went wrong: marketing priced it too high, manufacturing had quality issues. And this latest review may or may not be fair or accurate. I think (hope) this may all be sorted out in time, with other tests and reviews, QC improvements, and a price drop. So I'm reserving judgement on this lens. I'll just keep using what I have, for now.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Vato915]

Just putting this out there: there *MIGHT* be some zooms from Sigma for APS-C E-mount:

https://www.facebook.com/Vato915/posts/630214283767070

 

[Silmarion]

Just putting this out there: there *MIGHT* be some zooms from Sigma for APS-C E-mount:

https://www.facebook.com/Vato915/posts/630214283767070

Same source "Egami blog" - http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sigma-patents-a-18-50mm-f3-5-5-6-lens-very-likely-for-e-mount/ spotted Sigma zoom back in 2011! Nothing came. I don't think Sigma will release new zoom for APS-C E-mount. However, even if that was true - look at size of front element - it's going to be huge. 16-70 will be like a pancake in comparison.

I wish it was true and Sigma do release new zoom. Maybe together with Sony they will make a Christmas present to all of us: A7000 with IBIS, no AA, Tri-Navi, high-res EVF, touch-screen, metal body, silent leaf shutter, improved high ISO, etc. Now that will be a treat.

 

[captura]

I'll post some pics I have just taken on a6000 in an hour or two. (Can't wait for DP review time for uploading just now)

Having shot with Sony a6000 55-210 and Nikon V2 30-110, I can tell you that in daylight the Nikon results are far nicer, up to 12x15 prints, anyway. I get far more 'wow' results from the Nikon combo.

Unless you have tried it yourself, you simply do not know what you are talking about

tom

My J1 is only 12 mp and yet I've achieved great results in daylight. Your V2 is 14 mp, so how much better can that be?

But can you just imagine shooting the 30-110 on the rumored new 20.8 V5 model?

I agree, the 30-110 is great no matter which N1 body you are shooting with. But mine is not so good over basic ISO's. As to be expected.

 

[captura]

I don't actually find that the 14Mp gives me much over the 10 (12?) which I had on my V1. However the V2 is much better to handle, with grip and flash, and some customisation through the F button.

I have thought of switching from a6000+V2 to the next V.....hopefully they will fix the problems in V3 design.

I find I can go up to iso800 with no problems, processing with LR. The real Nikon N1 aficionados use DXO10 and say it gives better results for high iso, but I have not tried it yet.

For the doubters on this forum I will add a V2 image when I have time to shoot it.

tom

Sounds like you're right on track. If I run across a higher-level N1 at a ridiculous price, I will grab it.

I do a lot of low light/no flash work so the NEX-5R and NEX-6 are most useful to me for that, and some other reasons.

And the NEX-7 and Coolpix A for landscape.

Didn't get the A6000 or the A7.

Looking forward to your V2 image. Some won't believe it.

Steve

 

[cxsparc]

Based on my own experience. with 2 copies of 16/50, one of 28/70 and one 16/70 I can say that the criticisms of the 16/70, which a few people have latched on to, are nonsense. (And they don't get any more true if people repeat them many times, especially people who don't own the lenses in question)

So you disregard also any critizism from people who owned the 1670 and returned it?

Now, I may have a good copy of the 16/70 and bad copies of the other lenses, so this is just my experience.

There is absolutely no comparison of sharpness and contrast at the centre between the 16/70 and the rest. The 16/70 is streets ahead.

At the corners, the 16/70 is still streets ahead of 28/70 and miles away from 16/50

Central sharpness of my 1650 and my copy of the 1670 at 24 mm was equal.

...

Incidentally it is strange that most people who actually own the 16/70 love it. The suggestion of trying one out before you buy makes sense....mine was a Sony sealed box from Ebay, and I know I could have had a real problem changing it.

Now come on, are you serious? Those who still own it have either a good copy or don't care. Those who didn't buy it or returned it are the ones who experienced a bad copy or were not satisfied with the performance. That is not strange, it is logical.

Its great that you were so brave to try this lens through ebay, but others fell less inclinded to gamble considering the amount of money involved.

Also, the going price is $700...not $1000 as those who are trying to knock the lens keep quoting. I wonder just what is going on here?

On Amazon today this lens runs at 800 Euros whereas the 18105 is at 480 Euros. If you are thinking about prices new on ebay same story. What is your point? This lens is still quite expensive.

 

[Donny out of Element here]

Since I can't do 16-50 comparison yet, I just did some transition test at 70mm f4 - sorry for bad lighting conditions again - it's dark and indoors (only room lamps).

You can't see the original plant - but the contrast and colors are something! Again OOC jpeg - no post processing at all. Green leaves behind flower petal are 1 inch away, wall and window background is 3 foot away - check the transition (or bokeh).


I would say not bad bokeh for a mid-range zoom - what say you? Circular aperture is a good thing to have!

P.S. I had to retreat to 1/60 - so excuse my handshake if any. But guys for a zoom that bokeh is creamy enough, no? At least for the worst zoom in E-mount lineup, eh?

Here's a ZA 135 f1.8 taken on FF A99 camera. This lens is known for one of the best bokeh ever. Draw your own conclusions. I personally think they are close.

 

[FingerPainter]

I posted my own copy of 16-70 lens test pics for evaluation and C&C's in another thread, but I can post it here. Maybe someone can show me where exactly it is soft. Below is copy past from my other thread, so excuse me repeating myself:

Just took a quick test photo with 16-70 at its supposed to be "weakest" spot 70mm wide open at f4.

For the most part, the SLR Gear review and the Photozone review showed similar performance. One of the few differences between the SLR Gear review and the Photozone review was the corner performance at 70mm. SLR Gear shows the corners to be little changed from the edges, which themselves are not too much worse than the centre, wide open at 70mm. Photozone has the corners worse than the edges which are much worse then the centre.

Your tests seem more in line with the SLR Gear results. I see less sharpness of the right hand side of the dollar, but this is probably a lighting issue. However, I do notice what appears to be pronounced colour fringing on the top, left and right edges of the bill, but not on the bottom. (Or is this an artifact of the printing process for the bill?)

Handheld, turned off all corrections, no noise reduction, OOC jpeg, no post processing - just pure optical results. I tried to find some flat object, but all I can find was a dollar paper bill. Since it's small and at 70mm it's not covering all 4 corners, but upper corners and edges are there to check.

This shot was done indoors, lighting conditions are ok-ish - the only light is coming from window. So it's a real world test for edge and corner sharpness.

C&C welcome (ok, just in case I should state that - this pics are merely for enthusiast sharpness test, they are not scientific and don't hold any artistic value whatsoever)


Its not perfectly flat and I was holding my camera as straight as I could, so keep that in mind. Ideally I should have cranked up SS up to 1/160 to exclude any handshake error, but I guess 1/100 is close enough. After all it's real world situations we are trying to test.

Please open original and then zoom to 100% to pixel peep edges and corners.

Just let me know what kind of photo you want for evaluation of sharpness and I'll try to take it and post it. IMHO a lot of fuzz about 16-70 is exaggerated.

And BTW for those who wants to take shot at it - it's selling now at $740 new or $617 used on amazon. May be a grey copies or from Japan, but this price is much better than initial $1100.

BTW presidents last name WASHIGTON under his portrait is 1mm high (0.0393701 inch) - just so you know the scale of resolution. Green dots on his chin are around 0.1mm (0.00393701 inch) - can't say precisely. Come on guys - I mean what more resolution do you need? it's not a microscope for God's sake.

Ok - I took one more at 70mm f4 wide open - this time I managed to find some old chart from USA NAVY 1969 Physics Formulas - it's covering full frame this time and there's text - so you can judge by yourself if any corner is soft or not? Do tell me please!


Open original file and zoom in 100% as usual. BTW the paper is old, very worn out and ink is faded - and yet check the color reproduction of Zeiss T* coating - IMHO it's beautiful. This is what separates this from 16-50 for example - colors and contrast are top notch OOC without any post processing.

2nd photo shot again with distortion correction off, OOC jpeg, no post processing whatsoever - this is what comes from a6000 and 16-70mm f4 zeiss at its weakest spot at 70mm f4 wide open. Now you tell me if this lens has soft corners or edges? IMHO it's a better zoom than both 18-55 and 16-50 and has better range. It's no prime and can't match FE55 sharpness duh.

 

[tomhongkong]

It's great that your 16/50 had equal sharpness to your 16/70 in the centre. I can only show you my own experience.

The point about the price is that some folks, in their anxiety to prove that the 16/70 is an overpriced lens, say it is $1000. Even you now say it is $800.

As the ebay seller was also in HK I had a reasonable chance of getting back to him for $700

Listen folks....I don't care what your view of the lenses is, it won't affect my opinion which is based on facts as I see them, which is that the 16/70 is clearly better. If you want to post valid examples of alternative experiences, please do so. I will be happy for you if you have better alternatives

tom

 

[munro harrap]

LOve my 16-50mm!. The camera fits in a coat pocket, primo, have stabilization, focusses fast and is sharp enough when it matters for snaps. I know it is not fantastic at 24mm, but then I use 24mm, when I do, to create a view of the scene in which, at the centre, the action occurs, and if I go to 20mm+ its as good as many other APS-C zooms, as a trawl through photozone reviews will show.IMHO.

 

[munro harrap]

There is a Sony Alternative. Its old, its not much good above 400ISO, the buffer is effectively one raw file at a time, but the viewfinder and lens are good. The lens is very good and they should've used it on the Nex series, or just upscaled it a little to fit APS-C well. It is called the DSC-R1, and in my experience has the best 24-120mm zoom of ANY camera system.

All they had to do was fit a bigger buffer, in a body easily big enough, and upgrade the sensor to 16MP and 24MP. It is only 10MP, but that is enough to fill a 4K 50" screen with detail!! because 4K is only 8MP. It however does not do video

One sold here recently for £100. I did some of my best work on one and the lens is easily better than a 16-70. It is 14-70mm f2.8-4.8, and this on the slightly smaller sensor gives 24-120mm.

Oh yes, it has still the fastest pre-focussed shutter lag of any camera at 0.007 seconds, particularly good for people pics because it is utterly silent in operation and you zoom yourself manually.

There exist wide-angle and tele add-on adaptors and a special macro lens, all very high quality, but the tele is awkward, bulky and there is no IS. But then there is NO shutter vibration that I have ever seen, ever.

It's great for selfies as the screen is on the top of the camera, giving you a Hasselblad way of seeing (without the lateral reversal!); and you can just raise the screen to face you.

It is still Sony's best camera for stills, because of the design functionality and lens IMHO.

If it had been me making the decisions, there would not ever have been A series APS-C sonys at all, or the current ergonomically poor and extremely slow A7R, and all zooms would be f2.8 pro and 3.5-4.5 pro on an R1 style body with interchangeable lenses.

Its functionality is far better than the NEX and a style interfaces in use, really an absolute doddle to use, and you have histogram and zebra options too, and as now can see the previewed image or at full aperture, etc

 

[captura]

Loading…

www.pcmag.com

Interesting.

 

[cxsparc]

LOve my 16-50mm!. The camera fits in a coat pocket, primo, have stabilization, focusses fast and is sharp enough when it matters for snaps. I know it is not fantastic at 24mm, but then I use 24mm, when I do, to create a view of the scene in which, at the centre, the action occurs, and if I go to 20mm+ its as good as many other APS-C zooms, as a trawl through photozone reviews will show.IMHO.

Not fantastic at 24 mm? The 1650 has its best point at 24mm, you only have to take care that you stop it down to at least f5.6.

 

[smallLebowski]

There is a Sony Alternative. Its old, its not much good above 400ISO, the buffer is effectively one raw file at a time, but the viewfinder and lens are good. The lens is very good and they should've used it on the Nex series, or just upscaled it a little to fit APS-C well. It is called the DSC-R1, and in my experience has the best 24-120mm zoom of ANY camera system.

The reality is more cruel and simple: "...this larger sensor facilitates larger photosite's, the F828 had a 2.7 µm pixel pitch, the DSC-R1 has a 5.49 µm pixel pitch (and hence has lower lens resolution requirements)". It's lens seemed good only because of this.

All they had to do was fit a bigger buffer, in a body easily big enough, and upgrade the sensor to 16MP and 24MP. It is only 10MP, but that is enough to fill a 4K 50" screen with detail!! because 4K is only 8MP. It however does not do video

One sold here recently for £100. I did some of my best work on one and the lens is easily better than a 16-70. It is 14-70mm f2.8-4.8, and this on the slightly smaller sensor gives 24-120mm.

Oh yes, it has still the fastest pre-focussed shutter lag of any camera at 0.007 seconds, particularly good for people pics because it is utterly silent in operation and you zoom yourself manually.

There exist wide-angle and tele add-on adaptors and a special macro lens, all very high quality, but the tele is awkward, bulky and there is no IS. But then there is NO shutter vibration that I have ever seen, ever.

It's great for selfies as the screen is on the top of the camera, giving you a Hasselblad way of seeing (without the lateral reversal!); and you can just raise the screen to face you.

It is still Sony's best camera for stills, because of the design functionality and lens IMHO.

Come on man, lens is bulky and bigger than 16-70 and the whole setup was 1kg! Now an FF weighs less.

If it had been me making the decisions, there would not ever have been A series APS-C sonys at all, or the current ergonomically poor and extremely slow A7R, and all zooms would be f2.8 pro and 3.5-4.5 pro on an R1 style body with interchangeable lenses.

Thanks god you are not a Sony CEO.

Its functionality is far better than the NEX and a style interfaces in use, really an absolute doddle to use, and you have histogram and zebra options too, and as now can see the previewed image or at full aperture, etc

 

[captura]

Alternative?

You want up to 70mm (105mm equiv.) or higher? In a system camera. And on the small side, and to use as a 2'nd camera?

Perhaps look to M43.

 

[GaryW]

....

If it had been me making the decisions, there would not ever have been A series APS-C sonys at all, or the current ergonomically poor and extremely slow A7R, and all zooms would be f2.8 pro and 3.5-4.5 pro on an R1 style body with interchangeable lenses.

Thanks god you are not a Sony CEO.

Yeah, I was also thinking, thank goodness he hadn't been making the decisions, when I read that! I'm sure that the R1 was a fantastic camera, particularly or the time, but the APS-C cameras are what I've been using for years.

Its functionality is far better than the NEX and a style interfaces in use, really an absolute doddle to use, and you have histogram and zebra options too, and as now can see the previewed image or at full aperture, etc

 

[captura]

Who really cares what they are? There is only one thing for sure, and that is the 16-70 is not worth list price or anywhere close to it ;-)

 

[davect01]

....

If it had been me making the decisions, there would not ever have been A series APS-C sonys at all, or the current ergonomically poor and extremely slow A7R, and all zooms would be f2.8 pro and 3.5-4.5 pro on an R1 style body with interchangeable lenses.

Thanks god you are not a Sony CEO.

Yeah, I was also thinking, thank goodness he hadn't been making the decisions, when I read that! I'm sure that the R1 was a fantastic camera, particularly or the time, but the APS-C cameras are what I've been using for years.

I agree, that would have been scary.

The APS-C series is a great camera, I bought into the original NEX-3, and have been loving seeing the platform go from an innovative yet hampered camera to a full developed system with the NEX-6 and 7 and now the A6000.

Its functionality is far better than the NEX and a style interfaces in use, really an absolute doddle to use, and you have histogram and zebra options too, and as now can see the previewed image or at full aperture, etc

 

[davect01]

I'd like to apologize to the OP for the negative detour this thread got into. People on this site get so worked up.


I hope you can find the answer you were looking for amidst all the gunk.

--
Novice photobug. Former NEX-3, F3, and 6 owner. Current proud A6000 owner.
http://davesnex-3photos.blogspot.com/