Sony 16-80mm - how much slop, twitch, clunk?

[picman]

Disgusting...shame on Sony and Zeiss.

I think the evidence is in. Browse through the various fora, look at the various complaints. I listed this some time ago on dyxum

1. Someone over at Sonyforum.de had dust behind the front lens of a brandnew Zeiss 24-70
2. One reviewer had to get several copies of the Zeiss 24-70 because of decentering problems
3. Several people have complained about a sqweaking noise the plastic ring on the 24-70 makes when turning
4. Several people have reported the front part of the Zeiss 135 lenses falling apart!
5. I myself could not get Sony to respond to my questions about the problem with my lens which is an excessive wobble of the zoom part (at least 4 other users have reported this too, I browsed also french and german fora).
6. Here and on dyxum there are many complaints about the Zeiss 16-80.

And all Zeiss says is that according to them "all is well and within bounds of tolerance". Well as far as I am concerned Zeiss is no longer Zeiss. It used to be a company on a par with Leica as far as optical excellence and consistency was concerned. Now, whereas the optical design may still be excellent, the final product need not be because of tolerances and a lack of quality control. It has become a gamble to buy such a expensive piece of equipment. Oh, and Sony... deafening silence is the only response to emails with questions and/or complaints.

[aster]

Hi,

All these negative findings for the 16-80mm Carl-Zeiss is making me nervous and suspicion-prone since I ordered one too...

55 minutes ago it arrived in an over-protectively sealed package. The build quality is looking good; no clunking, no dust anywhere inside or outside, no awkard sounds to be heard from internal parts or external parts, no scratches, nothing gives the impression that something will fall off any second now.

It's raining and cold outside and it's already 18:43, so I can't go out to shoot any architectural interiors for critical viewing but I did shoot 10 or so frames in low light and the AF is spot on while the colours are bright and lively.

A day's shooting in daylight and lofty shaded interiors will tell the real capability of my copy of Carl-Zeiss 16-80mm but so far it's intact.

When the rain pauses to provide for more outside shots tomorrow or the day after, I may have more to speak of or to show on behalf of my sample of this lens. Maybe, just maybe, having bought it from the newest batch that arrived in October 2008 promises a less troublesome and even a good copy ....And I definitely hope that it is!..both for my and for Sony's sake...

Yildiz

[Hobbitofny]

I have own both the 85 and this zoom for over a year and a half. My only troubles is the filter must be the slim version on the zoom. The Sony Zeiss lenses have performed very well like they did when I used Rollei or Hassy cameras.

[Dr. Harout]

Congratulations Yildiz, I am happy for you and do hope that it will match your needs.
Happy shooting.

[aster]

Congratulations Yildiz, I am happy for you and do hope that it will match your needs.
Happy shooting.

Thank you Dr. Harout,

You're very kind. I hope the lens will prove as 'tight' during shooting as the build proved to be at first check. I just didn't want my A100 to be deprived of some quality lenses. Still considering the A900 and all it demands to become a whole camera with all the right lenses ...

Well, you know how it is, I need not tell you...

Yildiz

[redsim74]

Well, I took my 16-80 back to the store today and the manager agreed that something was not quite right with it. I knew I'd taken the last one in the store so they sent me to the only other SonyStyle which was showing two in stock.

I got there about 10 minutes later and spoke to one of the store assistants, who dutifully brought out another box... with the corner stoved in. No thanks, I'll try the other one please. He went away and came back with the last remaining 16-80 that they had in stock, I tried it and... same problem.

Again, the store manager seemed to agree something wasn't quite right. Not much he could do about it on a Sunday but he will be taking it up with senior management on Tuesday (long weekend). I went away with the original lens, so I might as well use it until they contact me next week.

Disappointing...

[Bengeo]

As I've decided not to go full frame in the near future I'm finally going to buy a 16-80mm. I seem to remember David posting something when he first got his about how to test for a good copy. David - please can you say it again?

Thanks,

Andy

[David Kilpatrick]

Shake it and see. If it rattles around when gently shaken, that's not a good start. Compare with 24-105mm. That makes a gentle sound of something shifting a bit when shaken. So does a good 16-80mm. My faulty examples clunked, you could tell something was moving 1-2mm. When viewing, does the image twitch around a lot during AF or lose focus suddenly when zooming, especially when shifting off 80mm? In my bad samples, I could lock AF at 80mm, then zoom back to 70mm to reframe and discover that the AF was totally out (suddenly, not the gradual change you get anyway with most zooms).

My good 16-80mm is still good 18 months and a lot of use later.

David

[Bengeo]

Thanks for that David. Hopefully QC is a bit better these days.

Andy

[springm]

What a disconcerting thread now that I ordered a 16-80 on saturday. I have to wait and see if it was a wise decision...

I have a wonderful 2.8/28-75 zoom, but as a walkaround lens it is simply not wide enough, the gap to the 11-18 is too big and the need to change arises too often. The A900, for which the 28-75 would be a good match, is still way too expensive and whilst I'd love that shallow DoF shots that would be much easier with full frame, the consequences of switching seen as a whole are not on the plus side for me.

At least I have ordered the CZ at the local dealer (you know: think global, buy local) and I hope that we'll find a specimen that's quality-wise o.k. Thanks to David for putting up a list of quality control points to check

Anyhow, that's not a really comforting thread...

Markus

[redsim74]

Markus,

despite my problems with the build of the 16-80 I have to say that the image quality is superb. I've been especially impressed by its performance wide open even at 80mm.

I have the KM 28-75/2.8 also so will try to do some comparisons in the near future.

[springm]

@David: I read that you use a UV-Filter for lens protection purposes on the 16-80. Any recommendation which brand, in order not to loose expensive image quality again?

Markus

[David Kilpatrick]

@David: I read that you use a UV-Filter for lens protection purposes on the 16-80. Any recommendation which brand, in order not to loose expensive image quality again?

Markus

I use the B+W slimline UV which does not accept a front lenscap - dead flat, no threads. It is under 2mm thick I think, but it is also the only one I know of which does not vignette. On the 18-250mm and 16-105mm we use slimline Rodenstock filters with a front thread. It is possible the Hoya most expensive slimline pro type with thread may be OK - I use those in 77mm fit for the 11-18mm and 17-35mm as I can't afford B+W.

David

[alfake]

Markus: David's presumption about the Hoya slimline pro types is correct. I do use a Hoya Super HMC Pro 1 (62mm) UV(0) with my CZ 16-80mm. It has a front thread and does not vignette.
Alfonso

[springm]

David, Alfonso: thanks for the advice. I just ordered a Hoya Super HMC Pro for the lens I got today.

The lens does indeed wobble a bit, but I will first take some test shots before I decide if I get it exchanged. Today it's too dark already

Markus