DSC-R1 V CZ 16-80

[OLDMAN BJ]

Hello,
After having my new A700 for a few days, I'm really happy with the results. I was going to keep my DSC-R1 to cover general focal lengths, but am now thinking of getting the CZ 16-80 for the new A700 instead. These lenses cover the exact same range in crop ( 24-120) so if anyone who has owned both, I would like to hear your thoughts about the optical and build quality comparing both. I know the CZ 16-80 early samples had problems, but is this now sorted?

Many thanks,

John

[KevinBarrett]

Nobody who has bought the 16-80 ZA lens has regretted it. In the beginning there were a few bad copies running around, but now-a-days it's a clear winner. It's reasonably fast throughout its range and needs little to no stopping-down to achieve good results.

Other suggestions would be the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for speed and the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5, which is a bit of a compromise between the two for speed and range, but better than neither.

I own the Tamron 17-50/2.8, but would buy the 16-80 ZA in a heartbeat if I had the funds. Either lens is a no-brainer, it just depends on what you want more, speed or range.

I should add: There are probably enough bad copies of the 16-80 ZA floating around that I wouldn't encourage you to buy one used.

[aster]

Hi OLDMAN BJ,

I have one of the best copies of the CZ 16-80mm. It came from the new batches Sony provided the market with.

All the best,
Yildiz

Here's what I wrote in the LENS LORE about my lens only a few days ago:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =27&t=2655

My CZ 16-80 was bought around November 2008 and it's from the latter good batches that Sony delivered to the Alpha DSLR owners. This lens never did anything wrong that many early-version-buyers declared/complained that it did; never creeps when zooming; makes no sounds at all; all parts work smoothly, no forcing needed; no loosening or wobbling; when held vertically, stays as put as ever it was in other positions; it's sharp with good colours; and it can take a shower of rain and still work just as nicely as it did before.

It's always on my A100 unless I want to try an other lens for a particular optical reason. I hope to get an other Alpha DSLR where I can use this lens just as lovingly as I do now. And waiting patiently for that one good announcement to be made...or go for the A700 before it leaves the market for good. I certainly hope for a good camera for my good and nice CZ 16-80 even if I went FF also.

I'd recommend purchasing one to anyone provided that they make sure it's from one of the latest batches released to the shops.

Yildiz

[bfitzgerald]

I've tried the CZ 16-80mm albeit some time ago.

IMHO it is a sharp lens, but it's frankly overpriced, and the build is disappointing, least that is how I felt using it.
In no way is a price of £500 justified for this lens. Some folks might disagree with me, that's life..
Either a sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50mm are better choices IMO

[aster]

Either a sigma 17-70 or ........IMO

I've seen photos taken with the Sigma and they look very good indeed and those that purchased it seem to have a consensus that 'it's amazing with a good price'.

But can't say much on the matter as I had no chance of trying the Sigma myself.

Yildiz

[alphaomega]

I went straight from MD to DSC-R1 due to lens and near APS-C size sensor minus risk of dust on sensor. I was very impressed by R1 results but disliked writing speed and OVF.
Bought A700 with CZ16-80 lens as kit at good price minus £150 Sony discount. My (early S/N) 16-80 creeps and has slight wobble around 70mm but on taking test pictures could not discern any deterioration in IQ. V. happy with lens and now mostly on my A350. Only problem is CA (green.red mostly), which I remove in ACR. Would not do without this lens for IQ combined with range. Do a lot of W/A and 16 mm start (24 equivalent) is an absolute must for me. The lens is pricey but in my opinion worth it. Just look at a well exposed image at 100% and you would be impressed. I need 48Mp Jpegs for Alamy so 100% view quality a must. If your requirements are not as critical the proposed Sigma and Tamron lenses at half price might do.

[alanscape]

Hi,
I use an R1 and an a100 and the R1 at 120mm does not cover the same as the a100 with my Minolta 24-85mm (set at the equivalent of 120mm) by quite a bit. There have been comments about this before and if you look at the 'Properties' in the data it reads 72mm.
I'm not 'nit-picking', it's just a matter of interest. On the Flickr R1 owners site it seems to be the general opinion the the lettering around the R1's lens should read " 24-100 Equiv. 135" and not "120"... try it yourself, just out of interst.

[alanscape]

I have to add a P.S. to my post... I'm aware that the sensor in the a100 is 23.6x15.8mm and the R1's is 21.5x14.4mm so how but calculate that fact in terms of focal length/coverage is beyond me, I'm afraid.

[David Kilpatrick]

It's probably down to focus distance. I bet the 24-120mm (sic) R1 lens matches that spec at infinity, but at 10 feet or under could be far shorter due to the focusing system.

David

[Ghor]

Hi! Compared to R1, the 16/80 lens looks and feels "cheap", I mean it doesn't seem so solidly built. Talking about image quality at 200iso, I think the R1 wins at least in the wide angle range but since I bought the A700-16/80 combo, I don't use the R1 anymore (autofocus, high iso, flexibility...)

[David Kilpatrick]

I have R1 ISO 3200 shots which I thought were really pretty good. Yet it was slated for high ISO. However, it lost me some important picures when a Scottish boat operator fell off his tourist boat into a loch - very funny, his passengers had to pull him back on board (and very cold for him). The R1 just did not start up and focus fast enough, by the time I had the shot framed and shot the action was all finished.

David

[OLDMAN BJ]

Yes I agree, pretty useless for speed but I use it mainly for landscape and stills. Thats why I'm unsure if I should keep it or get a CZ 16-80 for my A700. I just dont want to drop in lens quality.

BJ

[Ghor]

No loss of image quality with the 16-80 compared with R1. Maybe distortion at 16mm is a little bit higher but Zeiss colours, contrast and sharpness are still there.