CZ 16-80 S/H opinions and advice OR Tamron 17-50 f2.8

[DrScottNicol]

I've been offered a CZ 16-80 S/H by a dealer friend for around 400GBP for use on my a55. Its unboxed and without the soft pouch but otherwise seems in reasonable condition (I've had a quick play with it in the shop). I did some digging around on the internet and whilst most reviews praise the IQ, there are quite a few comments regarding build quality and some focussing problems, both straight out of the box and developing over time (particularly zoom creep) - I noted that David felt the need to exchange his 1st copy for example. I like the range on this lens as it looks to be a good fit with the sort of things I like to shoot BUT it also overlaps with several of my existing zoom lenses - ignoring the kit lens (I'm only keeping that should I ever want to sell my a55 as a boxed set), I have a Minolta AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 and the Sony superzoom 18-250. Going on Dyxum reader reviews all 3 are pretty closely bunched together score-wise and its not like I'm unhappy with either of these lenses (at least IQ wise - I'd prefer the Minolta to be wider but then I know that's rare for an older 35mm film lens) so my questions are;

- Would I really gain much IQ wise by purchasing the CZ compared to the above zooms? Anyone have experience of all 3 lenses?

- Does 400GBP for an unboxed sample seem like a good price?

To justify the purchase, I'd probably have to trade in / ebay one of the lenses (most likely the Minolta as the 18-250 range is so versatile). I'm tempted by the CZ as I hear / read so many people using the CZ as there 'standard' APS C lens. On the other hand, its a lot of money for a blue Z on the cap if its not going to give me a visible increase in IQ.

Oh, and to further complicate matters, whilst looking up the CZ I came across the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which is faster than any of the above and seems to be well regarded but obviously covers less than any of the above lenses.

thanks in advance for your thoughts
regards
Scott
(who freely admits to having a bad case of 'excesslensbuyingitis' but that doesn't mean he wouldn't benefit from just one more lens before he quits.. for a while

[KevinBarrett]

I'll speak as an owner of the Tamron 17-50. The Tamron has some goofy distortion at the wide end, which spoils it for use as an architectural lens, but otherwise it is as sharp as can be. I've stayed away from it for a while, using my primes more, but recently I took the Tamron to an airshow for the ground attractions, and I gained a new appreciation for its speed and versatility.

My copy is just a couple of years old, and I've treated it well, but within the first couple of months it started to show dust well inside the lens and at various depths. Now-a-days it shows little circles of fungus where the original dust was, in addition to new dust. Also, the filter-threaded bezel around the front element is wiggling its way loose. I've certainly got my money's worth out of it though, as it's saved my butt at some extraordinarily dark weddings. The great news is that I've still got years left on the factory warranty...maybe it's time to look into that!

Still, the occasions on which I've said to myself, "I should have got the Sony 16-80" cannot easily be counted. I find it hard, when I have a bag full of prime lenses and a day off, to reach for a mere 3x zoom lens that gives me goofy barrel distortion.

[Dr. Harout]

How about the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS HSM?
Look here: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-17-70 ... ns552.html
After all if you're going to shoot video SSM/HSM is much much better.

[Birma]

Hi Scott, much as I also love my Tamron 17-50/2.8 I plan to upgrade at some point to the cz 16-80. The main hindrance is the high price and my nervousness of unwarranted second hand copies. 400 gbp sounds ok to me if there is some form of warranty. There is a useful article here http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/07/2 ... -kit-lens/ which covers the 18-250 and cz. The sigma that the Doc mentions is well thought of. Decisions, decisions . Let us know how you get on.

[ACIPhotos]

Hi I've owned the CZ 16-80 for sometime now and it's a lovely lens. I havehad no issues with mine at all and used it as my main lens until I upgraded my camera recently to a full frame. I would say though that £400 for an unboxed is a bit steep. £375 would be a better price. Mine only cost £475 new and boxed.

If you have the Minolta lenses though it is quite a big overlap and it might be a bit redundant. So you could opt for just a wide angle lens - there are some good ones on the market. That's what I did in the end - but of course it depends what sort of shots you are taking most of the time.

[DrScottNicol]

Pricewise, I might be able to knock him down a bit - although he's a dealer I've known him for many years (old school friend). Whilst I trust him and know he'd accept the lens back, no quibbles if I find a fault soon after I buy it, the lack of a box is one of the things that puts me off - rightly or wrongly, I equate keeping the box as a sign the original owner looked after his kit.

[DrScottNicol]

Finally gave in and bought the CZ 16-80 - with a little haggling, got it for £375 - traded in a cheap tamron 70-300 (no big loss) and a Sony 55-200 v2 (much harder to let go of as its a very nice lens for a cheap zoom BUT I just wasn't using it so reluctantly let it go) - so cash price was well under 300 for the CZ. Looks to be in good cosmetic condition (I was a bit paranoid that it may have been a little battered due to the lack of box), no obvious AF issues at the wide end, zoom action is smooth and free but no obvious creep / looseness (yet . Have been out and about for a few hours and it seems like a nice lens. Pics will follow.

Scott

[DrScottNicol]

Couple of quick shots down by the river Kennet in Reading. Much higher ISO (800-1600) than I'd planned and these are cropped to about 1/4 size but I like the green foliage / colours coming through with the CZ. Taken with an a55, the CZ at 80mm, twilight, processed from raw using the a55 / CZ16-80 preset (the fact that DXO recently added specific support for this body/lens combo was probably the factor that pushed me into buying the lens).

[Birma]

Congratulations on the new lens Scott - I think you have made a good deal there. This forum has a long history of squirrel shots (but never a squirrel thread ?) and these are nice additions .

[Harpooner]

Nice shots.

I'm currently debating between the CZ 16-80, Sony 16-105 or Sigma 17-70 HSM. Decisions, decisions.

[Dr. Harout]

Congrats Scott.
And nice shots.

[DrScottNicol]

After a few days of shots, I'm really loving the CZ - the images just seen to sharpen up so well in DXO and the colours are so vibrant straight off the memory stick.

All shots taken with a55, cz 16-80, processed in DXO Optics 6.5.


Punters in Oxford. 1/125s, f4.5, 80mm, ISO 200.


Railway bridge over the Kennet, close to the point it merges with the Thames. 1/60s, f6.3, 24mm, ISO 100.


I call this one 'Lovebirds'... although in actual fact they were hissing and flapping quite aggressive so I stepped back a bit and decided that was enough Swan shots for a while . 1/125s, f4.5, 80mm, ISO 100.

[alphaomega]

Lovely pictures DrScottNicol. Not surprised that you are happy with the CZ. I also have the Sony 18-250 but tend to have the CZ fitted because of the quality of the image it provides and the extra width. I tends to develop CA a bit but easily removed in software. If you have got an earlier model it could have been supplied as part of a Kit with the A700. That's how I got mine. I could do with a zoom lock but I understand newer models are firmer. Never had any problems with focus. Always fast and accurate on all the cameras I have used it on A700, A350, A550 and A580.

[chriznatch]

Those are great pictures. I also got a CZ 16-80 recently, and I love it. I will say I'm surprised you're getting such great looking results from DxO. For me, it does a great job sharpening, etc, but the greens consistently come out more on the yellowish side than when I convert the same picture in Elements. Your pictures look great though. Congrats on the new lens.

[DrScottNicol]

Chriznatch
I've not had a 'problem' with greens with DxO, although I do sometimes prefer to up the vibrancy a little to get that lush green look (if appropriate). What I have noticed is that if I use the film pack to alter the colours, many (not all) of the available film settings seem to have a distinct red / browny tinge. However, I don't have enough experience or any examples of photos actually shot on the real films to really know why this happens..

1) The films generally did have this hue
2) The type of shots I'm processing aren't particularly appropriate for that type of film treatment
3) DXO just gets it wrong .

If I get a chance, maybe I'll do a test with several film types and post it here for comments.

Overall though I like DXO - I find its main fault is that its a little slow to process, Its NOT good at handling large libraries (but I use other software for that) and can get into a tangle sometime and say photos cant be processed, but if you restart the software they process just fine (a bug or memory leak perhaps)... but as a final polishing step on RAWs shot with a supported lens like the CZ or my 18-250 superzoom, it gives stunning results.

Scott