logical upgrade from sel1650?

[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 ;-)

 

[Tristimulus]

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/

Well said and supported 101%.

Have several Sony lenses and fact is that I have NEVER gotten unusable results because any of the lenses. Well there is admittably better lenses than the 16-50mm and 55-210mm lenses but still the results have always been more than ok - splendid lenses when travelling light. Also have lenses like the FF 16-35mm an 55mm and 70-200mm lenses. Optically better? Without doubt! Are they better lenses? Well - not when I want to travel supelight with the complete kit in a pocket.

Usually the photograper is much more a limiting factor (lack of creativity or talent) than the gear used! And I guess that might be so with the loudest voices here. Lots of the comments usually speak for themselves and not excactly in a mature or flattering way...

 

[Silmarion]

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.

davect01 I think OP knows that there is no other option to upgrade from 16-50 other than 16-70 (considering all requirements that he wants: something on a compact side (so bye-bye 18-105), better range (so bye-bye all FE zooms) and so on). The truth is there is no such zoom other than 16-70 in e-mount lens lineup. So to put it simply - this was a rhetorical question and OP knows that.

And so far OP decided to wait it out and let the dust settle. As far as I understand if some reputable source will test 16-70 and the results will be not bad - then OP may consider 16-70. Let's say DxOMark will finally test this ZA16-70 f4 T* zoom and they will rate it above 16-50 with sharpness between 16-50 and FE70-200 (my guess would be somewhere on par with FE28-70 or slightly above). Then price consideration would still be at play. If Sony will reduce price or announce a sale - then OP may consider this lens. And we all know all this things will never happen. Thus I think OP will continue to use 16-50.

IMHO 16-70 is a very niche lens: I saw some work done with this zoom (Jose B. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53995704 ) and it was as good as it can get. You know most people who really own it and shoot with it are happy. I think that sums up all been said pretty well - they can't all be wrong. Corners and edges that so many cry about here are going to be soft on any zoom compared to center sharpness. And then there is also a field curvature that even primes like Leica 35 Summilux f1.4 ASPH have it. And the price of that lens is 5 times more (no OSS and AF of course).

So in essence - people know the answer before they ask question; people know about field curvature (except complete newbies); people know zoom is a compromise aimed more at versatility than performance (we are talking about non-Pro (like weather sealed f2.8 zooms out there) consumer mid-range zoom. And to be honest if after all this people still complain and rant - what can I say - I think it's clear what to think of those individuals (not pointing fingers to OP or anyone).

 

[jimhughes]

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.

davect01 I think OP knows that there is no other option to upgrade from 16-50 other than 16-70 (considering all requirements that he wants: something on a compact side (so bye-bye 18-105), better range (so bye-bye all FE zooms) and so on). The truth is there is no such zoom other than 16-70 in e-mount lens lineup. So to put it simply - this was a rhetorical question and OP knows that.

And so far OP decided to wait it out and let the dust settle. As far as I understand if some reputable source will test 16-70 and the results will be not bad - then OP may consider 16-70. Let's say DxOMark will finally test this ZA16-70 f4 T* zoom and they will rate it above 16-50 with sharpness between 16-50 and FE70-200 (my guess would be somewhere on par with FE28-70 or slightly above). Then price consideration would still be at play. If Sony will reduce price or announce a sale - then OP may consider this lens. And we all know all this things will never happen. Thus I think OP will continue to use 16-50.

IMHO 16-70 is a very niche lens: I saw some work done with this zoom (Jose B. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53995704 ) and it was as good as it can get. You know most people who really own it and shoot with it are happy. I think that sums up all been said pretty well - they can't all be wrong. Corners and edges that so many cry about here are going to be soft on any zoom compared to center sharpness. And then there is also a field curvature that even primes like Leica 35 Summilux f1.4 ASPH have it. And the price of that lens is 5 times more (no OSS and AF of course).

So in essence - people know the answer before they ask question; people know about field curvature (except complete newbies); people know zoom is a compromise aimed more at versatility than performance (we are talking about non-Pro (like weather sealed f2.8 zooms out there) consumer mid-range zoom. And to be honest if after all this people still complain and rant - what can I say - I think it's clear what to think of those individuals (not pointing fingers to OP or anyone).

I'm the OP. You have both summed it up well. I learned a lot from this thread. Hope the 16-70 story plays out in a satisfying way. Bottom line, I think some people at Sony got a little carried away with the Zeiss co-branding hype when they were deciding how to price it.

 

[Euell]

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.

davect01 I think OP knows that there is no other option to upgrade from 16-50 other than 16-70 (considering all requirements that he wants: something on a compact side (so bye-bye 18-105), better range (so bye-bye all FE zooms) and so on). The truth is there is no such zoom other than 16-70 in e-mount lens lineup. So to put it simply - this was a rhetorical question and OP knows that.

And so far OP decided to wait it out and let the dust settle. As far as I understand if some reputable source will test 16-70 and the results will be not bad - then OP may consider 16-70. Let's say DxOMark will finally test this ZA16-70 f4 T* zoom and they will rate it above 16-50 with sharpness between 16-50 and FE70-200 (my guess would be somewhere on par with FE28-70 or slightly above). Then price consideration would still be at play. If Sony will reduce price or announce a sale - then OP may consider this lens. And we all know all this things will never happen. Thus I think OP will continue to use 16-50.

IMHO 16-70 is a very niche lens: I saw some work done with this zoom (Jose B. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53995704 ) and it was as good as it can get. You know most people who really own it and shoot with it are happy. I think that sums up all been said pretty well - they can't all be wrong. Corners and edges that so many cry about here are going to be soft on any zoom compared to center sharpness. And then there is also a field curvature that even primes like Leica 35 Summilux f1.4 ASPH have it. And the price of that lens is 5 times more (no OSS and AF of course).

So in essence - people know the answer before they ask question; people know about field curvature (except complete newbies); people know zoom is a compromise aimed more at versatility than performance (we are talking about non-Pro (like weather sealed f2.8 zooms out there) consumer mid-range zoom. And to be honest if after all this people still complain and rant - what can I say - I think it's clear what to think of those individuals (not pointing fingers to OP or anyone).

Very good summary. The 16-50 is not as versatile nor as competent as the 16-70. I don't have any problem with the Photozone test of the 16-70, but instead of looking at his low star rating, which reflects a generalized perception of what the tester thinks the lens should be like, look at the actual specific results in each category. He concedes general good center sharpness from the lens, the principal limitation being edge sharpness, which, of course, is generally less important. The lens can produce quite good photographs, notwithstanding its limitations. When the 16-70 arrived on the scene, I was using the 16-50. The difference between the two that I noticed right away was the superior color and contrast of the 16-70 that required little or no tweaking in post. Although the retractable 16-50 is smaller than the 16-70, I almost never use it because of the difference in the results I get. Perhaps Sony and Zeiss will build a superior mid-range zoom (probably at even higher cost than the 16-70), but as of now, the 16-70 is pretty much the only choice for a small native mid-range zoom.

 

[Euell]

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.

davect01 I think OP knows that there is no other option to upgrade from 16-50 other than 16-70 (considering all requirements that he wants: something on a compact side (so bye-bye 18-105), better range (so bye-bye all FE zooms) and so on). The truth is there is no such zoom other than 16-70 in e-mount lens lineup. So to put it simply - this was a rhetorical question and OP knows that.

And so far OP decided to wait it out and let the dust settle. As far as I understand if some reputable source will test 16-70 and the results will be not bad - then OP may consider 16-70. Let's say DxOMark will finally test this ZA16-70 f4 T* zoom and they will rate it above 16-50 with sharpness between 16-50 and FE70-200 (my guess would be somewhere on par with FE28-70 or slightly above). Then price consideration would still be at play. If Sony will reduce price or announce a sale - then OP may consider this lens. And we all know all this things will never happen. Thus I think OP will continue to use 16-50.

IMHO 16-70 is a very niche lens: I saw some work done with this zoom (Jose B. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53995704 ) and it was as good as it can get. You know most people who really own it and shoot with it are happy. I think that sums up all been said pretty well - they can't all be wrong. Corners and edges that so many cry about here are going to be soft on any zoom compared to center sharpness. And then there is also a field curvature that even primes like Leica 35 Summilux f1.4 ASPH have it. And the price of that lens is 5 times more (no OSS and AF of course).

So in essence - people know the answer before they ask question; people know about field curvature (except complete newbies); people know zoom is a compromise aimed more at versatility than performance (we are talking about non-Pro (like weather sealed f2.8 zooms out there) consumer mid-range zoom. And to be honest if after all this people still complain and rant - what can I say - I think it's clear what to think of those individuals (not pointing fingers to OP or anyone).

I'm the OP. You have both summed it up well. I learned a lot from this thread. Hope the 16-70 story plays out in a satisfying way. Bottom line, I think some people at Sony got a little carried away with the Zeiss co-branding hype when they were deciding how to price it.

Presumably, Sony prices at what it believes the market will bear. Sony is not carried away by the Zeiss label, but hope that it will affect consumer perception and, hence, the price. They've sold quite a few, so apparently Sony is/was correct on that point.

 

[snapa]

Very good summary. The 16-50 is not as versatile nor as competent as the 16-70.

So, the 16-70 with 20mm more reach and maybe 5% better IQ is worth ~$800 more than the 16-50, go for it.

I don't have any problem with the Photozone test of the 16-70, but instead of looking at his low star rating, which reflects a generalized perception of what the tester thinks the lens should be like, look at the actual specific results in each category.

The Photozome test was very accurate in the data it offered, which showed the the edges and corner sharpens is way below par for an extremely expensive lens. That was very valuable information, even if you did not like to hear it, probably because you bought it.

He concedes general good center sharpness from the lens, the principal limitation being edge sharpness, which, of course, is generally less important.

I guess that all depends on if it is important to YOU or not, many others may feel it is very important, like me. I take a lot of landscapes, so only "good center sharpness" is not good enough. That is also what many would us it for when taking it on vacations.

The lens can produce quite good photographs, notwithstanding its limitations. When the 16-70 arrived on the scene, I was using the 16-50. The difference between the two that I noticed right away was the superior color and contrast of the 16-70 that required little or no tweaking in post.

A few seconds of PPing is a lot less expensive and will give you exactly what you want.

Although the retractable 16-50 is smaller than the 16-70, I almost never use it because of the difference in the results I get.

I like the 16-50 size and versatility, it fits perfectly in this smallish belt pouch, along with an extra battery, flash, extra memory card and cleaning lens. The 16-70 will need a MUCH larger shoulder bag or need to be carried on a shoulder strap.

Perhaps Sony and Zeiss will build a superior mid-range zoom (probably at even higher cost than the 16-70), but as of now, the 16-70 is pretty much the only choice for a small native mid-range zoom.

So, just because it is the ONLY choice does not mean you should buy it if it does not give a substantial increase in IQ, sharpness, versatility for the extremely high price to performance ratio.

--

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

 

[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.

davect01 I think OP knows that there is no other option to upgrade from 16-50 other than 16-70 (considering all requirements that he wants: something on a compact side (so bye-bye 18-105), better range (so bye-bye all FE zooms) and so on). The truth is there is no such zoom other than 16-70 in e-mount lens lineup. So to put it simply - this was a rhetorical question and OP knows that.

And so far OP decided to wait it out and let the dust settle. As far as I understand if some reputable source will test 16-70 and the results will be not bad - then OP may consider 16-70. Let's say DxOMark will finally test this ZA16-70 f4 T* zoom and they will rate it above 16-50 with sharpness between 16-50 and FE70-200 (my guess would be somewhere on par with FE28-70 or slightly above). Then price consideration would still be at play. If Sony will reduce price or announce a sale - then OP may consider this lens. And we all know all this things will never happen. Thus I think OP will continue to use 16-50.

IMHO 16-70 is a very niche lens: I saw some work done with this zoom (Jose B. http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53995704 ) and it was as good as it can get. You know most people who really own it and shoot with it are happy. I think that sums up all been said pretty well - they can't all be wrong. Corners and edges that so many cry about here are going to be soft on any zoom compared to center sharpness. And then there is also a field curvature that even primes like Leica 35 Summilux f1.4 ASPH have it. And the price of that lens is 5 times more (no OSS and AF of course).

So in essence - people know the answer before they ask question; people know about field curvature (except complete newbies); people know zoom is a compromise aimed more at versatility than performance (we are talking about non-Pro (like weather sealed f2.8 zooms out there) consumer mid-range zoom. And to be honest if after all this people still complain and rant - what can I say - I think it's clear what to think of those individuals (not pointing fingers to OP or anyone).

I'm the OP. You have both summed it up well. I learned a lot from this thread. Hope the 16-70 story plays out in a satisfying way. Bottom line, I think some people at Sony got a little carried away with the Zeiss co-branding hype when they were deciding how to price it.

Good to hear from you. I hope you are able to read through all the muck in this thread and make a choice that works for you. ;-)

 

[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 ;-)

 

[Euell]

Very good summary. The 16-50 is not as versatile nor as competent as the 16-70.

So, the 16-70 with 20mm more reach and maybe 5% better IQ is worth ~$800 more than the 16-50, go for it.

Well, it's not $800 more, but it's a lot more. Is it worth it? Getting beyond the limitations of the 16-50 is worth it to me. Everyone has to answer that question for themselves.

I don't have any problem with the Photozone test of the 16-70, but instead of looking at his low star rating, which reflects a generalized perception of what the tester thinks the lens should be like, look at the actual specific results in each category.

The Photozome test was very accurate in the data it offered, which showed the the edges and corner sharpens is way below par for an extremely expensive lens. That was very valuable information, even if you did not like to hear it, probably because you bought it.

Again, you have mentioned the cost of the lens, which seems to be your primary consideration. Everyone has to make that decision for themselves.

He concedes general good center sharpness from the lens, the principal limitation being edge sharpness, which, of course, is generally less important.

I guess that all depends on if it is important to YOU or not, many others may feel it is very important, like me. I take a lot of landscapes, so only "good center sharpness" is not good enough. That is also what many would us it for when taking it on vacations.

Correct, the 16-70 works fine for my travel photography. For landscape I don't generally use a zoom.

The lens can produce quite good photographs, notwithstanding its limitations. When the 16-70 arrived on the scene, I was using the 16-50. The difference between the two that I noticed right away was the superior color and contrast of the 16-70 that required little or no tweaking in post.

A few seconds of PPing is a lot less expensive and will give you exactly what you want.

I use PS and you are dead wrong. Post is not going to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. Not that the 16-50 is incapable of taking good shots stopped down away from 16mm. I own both lenses and never use the 16-50 any longer, because the results from the 16-70 are that much better.

Although the retractable 16-50 is smaller than the 16-70, I almost never use it because of the difference in the results I get.

I like the 16-50 size and versatility, it fits perfectly in this smallish belt pouch, along with an extra battery, flash, extra memory card and cleaning lens. The 16-70 will need a MUCH larger shoulder bag or need to be carried on a shoulder strap.

That's a bit silly. Smallish hip carriers are available even for DSLR's. I own one; it's made by cotton carrier, but there are others, as well that are designed for carrying auxiliary gear as well. I do generally carry a small shoulder bag to pack in additional lenses.

Perhaps Sony and Zeiss will build a superior mid-range zoom (probably at even higher cost than the 16-70), but as of now, the 16-70 is pretty much the only choice for a small native mid-range zoom.

So, just because it is the ONLY choice does not mean you should buy it if it does not give a substantial increase in IQ, sharpness, versatility for the extremely high price to performance ratio.

I set forth my reasons above. The IQ of the 16-70 IS better than the IQ of the 16-50, IMO. If you haven't used one, give it a try. You might just change your mind.

--

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

 

[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 ;-)

 

[dchao]

I set forth my reasons above. The IQ of the 16-70 IS better than the IQ of the 16-50, IMO. If you haven't used one, give it a try. You might just change your mind.

Wrong! Nobody is saying IQ of the kit lens is equal to or better than then 1670Z. Everyone agrees that the 1670Z does much better than the kit lens in the center. But when you are spending close to $1000 on a lens, most people (PZ reviewers inluded) are expecting a decent edge performance. However the result shows the edges extremely bad, with lots of CA and vignetting. If you shoot portraits all day, that may be fine, but if you want to use the lens for landscape at 16mm, you will be very disappointed.

 

[Euell]

I set forth my reasons above. The IQ of the 16-70 IS better than the IQ of the 16-50, IMO. If you haven't used one, give it a try. You might just change your mind.

Wrong! Nobody is saying IQ of the kit lens is equal to or better than then 1670Z. Everyone agrees that the 1670Z does much better than the kit lens in the center. But when you are spending close to $1000 on a lens, most people (PZ reviewers inluded) are expecting a decent edge performance. However the result shows the edges extremely bad, with lots of CA and vignetting. If you shoot portraits all day, that may be fine, but if you want to use the lens for landscape at 16mm, you will be very disappointed.

Nah, you wouldn't be disappointed. There are quite a number of satisfied users, but there are those also who just like to read sharpness tests and complain about price.

 

[captura]

I set forth my reasons above. The IQ of the 16-70 IS better than the IQ of the 16-50, IMO. If you haven't used one, give it a try. You might just change your mind.

Wrong! Nobody is saying IQ of the kit lens is equal to or better than then 1670Z. Everyone agrees that the 1670Z does much better than the kit lens in the center. But when you are spending close to $1000 on a lens, most people (PZ reviewers inluded) are expecting a decent edge performance. However the result shows the edges extremely bad, with lots of CA and vignetting. If you shoot portraits all day, that may be fine, but if you want to use the lens for landscape at 16mm, you will be very disappointed.

Nah, you wouldn't be disappointed. There are quite a number of satisfied users, but there are those also who just like to read sharpness tests and complain about price.

And there seem to be numerous dissatisfied users.

 

[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 ;-)

 

[smallLebowski]

I set forth my reasons above. The IQ of the 16-70 IS better than the IQ of the 16-50, IMO. If you haven't used one, give it a try. You might just change your mind.

Wrong! Nobody is saying IQ of the kit lens is equal to or better than then 1670Z. Everyone agrees that the 1670Z does much better than the kit lens in the center. But when you are spending close to $1000 on a lens, most people (PZ reviewers inluded) are expecting a decent edge performance. However the result shows the edges extremely bad, with lots of CA and vignetting. If you shoot portraits all day, that may be fine, but if you want to use the lens for landscape at 16mm, you will be very disappointed.

So I guess all this people are so dissapointed that they used this lens at 16mm for landscape and architecture and what not? Poor, poor folks - they didn't know what dchao knows. Let them know your verdict and I hope they will delete all their photos immediately in a shame. https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=16-70mm at 16mm

 

[Roy LaFaver]

The a6000 and 'pancake' 16-50 are unbeatable for travel. That lens obviously isn't top drawer, nor should it be. I'm interested in something better for when I'm not traveling, but out somewhere seriously trying to get pictures. In those situations I don't need the ultra compact pancake. And I don't want to be changing lenses or carrying a bunch of primes. I want something like the 16-50, but with better quality - and maybe a bit more reach.

The "Zeiss" [cough] 16-70 is off the table, given its nosebleed-inducing price and the recent negative review. I don't need the reach of the 18-200, or its size and weight.

What's a logical upgrade to consider?

Seems to me you have answered your own question. There isn't anything else that will keep you in the "small" arena at a reasonable price. The 16-70 is actually a really nice lens, but I have to admit it is not worth the price after doing some portraits with it. You have to get better than what I got for that kind of money. But it certainly isn't as bad as a lot of people say. The size and weight are absolutely perfect. And I think it is excellent in the 24-45 area of the zoom range (36-67 equiv.). You can get gray market a lot cheaper, about $725, but you know the deal there. And $725 can still make the eyes water a little..

 

[captura]

Snapa wants great lenses at bargain basement prices. Since that won't happen, he can keep playing with the kit lenses that seem to make him happy for the moment.

I have already found a great camera at bargain basement prices, so that has already happened! I went out to "Play with my cheap Kit lens" this afternoon while out on my afternoon bike ride and took a few snap shots with my cheap 55-210 kit lens. Just to let everyone know, I am EXTREMELY happy with my Sony 5T, 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses. In good light, they will give me pretty much all I need. Here are just a few of the pictures I took earlier today.


All taken with the 55-210 hand held, very little PP'ing


Not sure what kind of bird it is, but it was there ready to have its picture taken.


Just a nice looking white bird I could not resist.


These are all over the place, many are much larger.

Like I said, I am happy with the 5T and my two kit lenses at this time, they work very well for me. My entire system (Camera and both lenses) cost less than $550, not bad IMHO. BTW, how many pictures did you take today ;-)

--

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

Congratulations! I still use my 5R more than anything else. The NEX 5R/T were the high point in Sony design in my opinion, having both (removable) EVF, touch flipscreen and very compact size.