Sony Zeiss E Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F/4 ZA OSS Review

[alphaomega]

I have been considering purchasing the Sony Zeiss E Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F/4 ZA OSS if the price came down or it becomes available as a kit lens on a NEX-6 or 7 successor.
I have been looking on/off for reviews. Not a lot has been written but I do recall som doubts about the IQ particularly in the corner regions.
I was, therefore, not surprised that Kurt Munger's review here
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_zeiss_16_70mm_f_4id354.html
included statements such as

This was a tough lens to review. When I first received it and took it for a test spin, I thought it was not up to Sony standards as it was noticeably soft along the sides at wider focal lengths, so I sent for another one, (both were brand new and not 'loaner' copies). Unfortunately, both performed about the same. I've reviewed all Sony DSLR/NEX camera lenses ever made (unless new), and this is one of the very few times I've been disappointed.

Not good for a standard zoom carrying the Zeiss mark.
Anyone with some experience of this lens. I find it hard to swallow that this lens should have this weakness sitting between two excellent E zooms I own, these being the 10-18mm and the 55-210mm.

[bfitzgerald]

I'd maybe wait for another review. I'm very very cautious of Kurt's site as his results don't tie up with my own field use of many lenses, he's also made some assumptions on clearly defective items (ie his Yongnuo flash review) I can't say I have a lot of confidence in his testing methods.

Not trying to put him down now but just about every lens I own that he's review does not match up with my own personal use of xyz lens. Maybe he gets bad copies or maybe I get great ones but something is wrong somewhere. I would wait to see another review turn up with more sample shots before making a decision.

[classiccameras]

My experience with the Minolta 24-85 is very good indeed, it produces fairly sharp centres at most focul lengths and the edges are pretty good stopped down a couple of stops. I suspect that the crop factor here has enhanced its optical performance especially edges as I would think it would be just average on FF.
Kurt considered it a 'good' lens but nothing special, I disagree.
Or, as Barry, said perhaps I have a good copy, and Kurt had a poor one for testing. Kurt tends to end his lens reviews with alternatives that are better in his view, so if we followed the alternative route where would we end up. I'm not having a pop at Kurt because he has been so helpful to me of recent times.

[Deward]

It took me 3 tries (all new from B&H) to finally get a good copy of the Sony/Zeiss 16-80. Something is just not right with Sony production when this happens.

[classiccameras]

Rumour has it that the CZ 16-80 is made by Tamron as are several other Sony lenses, but from reading several reviews, Sony's own made in house 16-50 is as good if not better than the CZ and certainly better build quality.

Lenstip thought the Sony 16-50 along with the Olympus 14-54 f/2.8 were the best 2 walk about lenses on the market for optical performance and build quality.

[David Kilpatrick]

The 16-80mm is not made by Tamron, or by Cosina as some think. It was originally made a joint Sony/Zeiss facility in Japan which is still operating as far as I know. After the prototype and first run, Sony shifted production to a factory in China, again a joint venture (and not the Shanghai Optical factory, partly owned by Konica Minolta, which used to be the Chinese production unit). The results were so bad that production was almost immediately moved back to Japan.

Tamron does not have T* coating and can not produce Zeiss specification lenses. Sigma does have T* coating (Zeiss equipment) and can make lenses for Zeiss. Two years ago they invested in nano coating to put water/oil resistant coatings on lenses, and at the time I was told this investment was made in order to produce a '70-300mm Zeiss for Sony' (no such lens exists, so that was not much use as a leak from my Sigma contact). Actually it looks as if Sigma makes some of the Sony lenses which have this type of coating - the 16-50mm is one such lens. I have to say it feels much more like a curren Sigma (solid, smooth engineering) than a Tamron.

The latest company to buy one of these coating lines is Samyang, who can now put 'nano-crystal' type coatings on their lenses. This will make a big difference to the 14mm f/2.8 but so far, they do not seem to have launched any new lens versions. This leads me to suspect they are doing sub-contract work for other marques. Why invest in an expensive Zeiss or Hoya coating installation (they don't say which) and then not roll out any new product?

Personally, I rate the 16-80mm above the 16-50mm. The 16-50mm is a better made lens but the optical performance (especially in terms of distortion type at 16mm) doesn't match the 16-80mm. I used both side by side for a month before selling my 16-50mm. It is better for video and of course it is better at f/2.8... the 16-80mm is quite restricted in aperture. And it can SSM focus by contrast detection if adapted on to NEX bodies. The 16-80mm is lighter, has more range, and therefore suits me better for travel.

David

[classiccameras]

Thanks David for clarifying that. I might just look around for a second hand 16-80 or 16-50, but not until I know what kind of future A mount has.
Pete

[Birma]

I wonder if we have crossed wires in this thread - I thought the OP was regarding the SEL (ex-Nex line) CZ 16-70 f/4?

I think we have slipped back in to the SAL CZ 16-80 f/3.5-4.5.

I haven't seen much about the new SEL 16-70 online and at around £800 new it is not for casual acquisition!

I'm very happy with my SAL 16-80, but I have tended to use the SEL 16-50 on my Nex in this range as it is more convenient for carrying around.