Photoclubalpha

Having received a second sample from Warehouse Express (new one delivered next day, old one collected - amazing service!) which is virtually identical to the first I am wondering if even a "good 'un" has the same level of slop, twitch, clunk, and random blurred shots as both my samples.

Additionally though, this second one has a speck of debris stuck under the front element which is very small (about half a millimeter) but irritating because it can't be got at to remove.

- The focus ring has a 'slop' of about 1.5mm.
- The image twitches a little when zooming back from 80mm but stays in focus.
- Gentle agitation produces a clunk of the front section moving less than half of a millimeter.
- On a really solid tripod, shutter speed over 1/500, anti-shake off, focussed at infinity, using cable release, occasionally shots are slightly blurred for no discernable reason (even at full aperture - so no auto-diaphragm jiggle).

If you have what you consider to be a good sample does it still exhibit any of the above symptoms?

Whilst the mechanical construction gives little confidence of a long and reliable working life for the lens - I don't want to request yet another sample if it is unlikely to be any better.

______________

Philip

I got two like this. My final one is mechanically perfect - no slop, no image twitch, no clunk - but I am convinced it's not actually as sharp as the original one, which I found impossible to get on with because of the more obvious faults. It's very bad at focusing at 16mm, missing by miles, and I did not notice this with the 'faulty' samples. I have to focus at 80mm and zoom back to get perfect sharpness at 16mm. It seems fine at anything from 24mm to 80mm.

David

My 16-80 did not have any of those problems. I think the glass is first class, but they seem to have cut to much in quality of the rest of the lens.

My complaint to Zeiss about the lens got a reply that reads in part:

Please keep in mind that this lens was designed to reach compact design, little weight and high performance at reasonable costs - professional lenses are not optimized for size and weight.

So 16-80 is a high performance lens in cheap compact design and not made to be a professional lens.

My complaint to Sony got no reply as of today.

After some addition email exchanges, I got this information from Zeiss about the lens:

We think that the Vario-Sonnar T* 3,5-4,5/16-80 ZA is a very good compromise regarding all of these factors, and it offers the best image quality compared to similar lenses on the market. It is the best choice for users that use a semi-professional camera like the Sony Alpha 100.
In common usage, a "professional" lens is a "big, heavy and very expensive" product. Today many manufactures offer "professional" lenses - in most cases the mean high speed prime (f /1.4) or zoom lenses (f/2.. A "professional" lens is always the best lens for a specified purpose - so one would say that a miniaturized Carl Zeiss lens in a mobile phone is "professional" - but a photographer who is used to Carl Zeiss lenses for his Hasselblad camera may only talk about a "toy" lens in a mobile phone...

Slim filters without a roating barrel like an UV filter should not cause any vignetting at 16mm. Adapters to a larger filter size are recommended when using a polarizing filter.

Thanks for the info. A 3rd sample is on its way - I wonder what the record is for the number of 'dodgy' samples before getting the "good 'un"?

Is anyone in receipt of a 'dodgy' sample considering jumping ship to, say, the 18-250 Tamron rather than playing postal ping-pong with 16-80's?

__________
Philip

Adapters to a larger filter size are recommended when using a polarizing filter.

Yeah right. Great design. Will the hood fit then?

I have black 72mm petal lens hood. The sunshade is not as ideal as the one with the lens, but works.

You can't use a regular polarizer with the 24-105mm or 24-85mm on full frame, or with the 20mm f2.8 or the old 24mm f2.8. You can generally get away with a modern slimline, which did not exist when most of the lenses were first designed.

The 16-80mm should also work OK with a Cokin holder and polarizer, but only without the hood added.

The situation with the 11-18mm is better - you can use the 77mm Minolta slim polarizer, and the hood is shaped so that you can manage to adjust it.

David

I went into my local Sony Style store today to test some lenses. I was looking to pick up the 16-80 so had a play with one (attached to a camera!) for about 10 minutes.

The display copy didn't appear to have any of the issues I've read about and the image quality seemed excellent, even wide open. I decided to make the purchase and got the last copy in stock. Unfortunately when I got it home I found that this lens does exhibit the reported clunk and twitch.

I'll take it back tomorrow but I'm not sure of my next course of action, do I persist and try to get a better built version or start looking at another lens altogether (also looking for a decent long zoom)?


Sim

My copy of the lens is from the first month release to the the USA market. It has been working fine. I used it first on the A100. It is now on the A350. I strongly recommend the lens. If you use the A350, it needs the CZ or G glass to be worth using. The difference on the A700 or A100 is not as great, but better then the kit lenses. I recommend exchanging the lens for another. It might mean waiting for the replacement to be shipped. The IQ is worth it.

Disgusting...shame on Sony and Zeiss.

Lately I've compared my experience with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 to the popular (and unpopular) assessments of the Carl Zeiss 16-80 for several people looking for a new wide-angle/standard zoom. I realize that the Carl Zeiss lens has the potential to have better image quality, but it can be a very frustrating and expensive gamble to get a copy of the lens to deliver on that promise. I've given it the benefit of a doubt most of the time, urging people to consider it if they can (It's still 280 USD more!), adding that people seem to switch from the Tamron to the Sony more than they switch from the Sony to the Tamron. Does anyone here have that experience? I wonder about ordering a 16-80ZA some day, and whether it will take more than one copy (and if so, how many?), to get one that's sharper than my 17-50 but as solid of build.

The 17-50/2.8 is a tempting alternative, and almost half the price locally. A little short on the focal range for my taste but the constant 2.8 is a plus.

Unfortunately I've had my issues with Tamron also, though partly due to not having a branch of Tamron where I live. Without going into detail it soured my opinion of the brand somewhat.

At least at SonyStyle I get an automatic 1 year warranty extension on my purchase and a more reliable channel of replacement lenses!

I think most of us are in the same dilemma. If price is not an issue then I would definitely go for 16-80 CZ. On the other hand, will I upgrade to full frame? If yes, then it would be wiser to wait and buy appropriate lens. The same question might extend for 70-300 G SSM.
Too many questions...
Anyway welcome to the forum redsim74

Thank you for the welcome! I tend to spend more time on "the other forum" but it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate useful information from the noise.

It's certainly an expensive hobby. The two lenses I was looking at in particular were the 16-80 and 70-300G, I don't really expect to go full frame any time soon!

I think I'll persevere with the 16-80, will keep everyone posted on the progress.

Cheers!


Sim