Going Strong: Carl Zeiss 16-80mm

[alphaomega]

aster wrote about his new CZ 16-80 lens:

I recently purchased one of these lenses, against all the negative findings before I made my acquisition. It came from the latest batch that arrived in October 2008 to Istanbul, Turkey. I experienced none of the problems concerning the lens buildwise or while functioning. The optical value is looking good and all parts work silently while autofocusing.

Lucky man. I must have got one of the earlier versions (bought as a kit with my A700) and there is a "bump" near the 80 mm setting. I have tried several times and lately at Aperture fixed at Lowest setting to shoot comparisons at the "bump" and just below. I cannot see any difference in IQ at 100% so I feel unjustified in sending it back for a warranty repair as I cannot demonstrate a image quality problem.

Pictures lovely. I like the top one best. It is a sharp lens and I use it most of the time. The coverage of 24-120 mm (35 mm equivalent) is just right for most of my photography.

[Dr. Harout]

Lucky man.

Lucky woman (girl). And the only active girl in the forum.

[aster]

I was really keen on this lens until the production wobbles came to light, the optics, as anyone can see in your photo are very good, I'm not sure I want to take the risk...yet.
Yildiz, be sure too get as many of these old buildings as you can, before the wrecking ball get's em first, I'm kicking myself at missing quite a few old buildings (with character, not like their modern replacements) around here, now they are gone forever.....problem is, one never knows when it's going too happen, they've been there like forever, and then "poof" seemingly overnight they are a pile of rubble, destined for some foundation fill somewhere
Greg
btw I like #1 the best...seems more natural to my eye.

Thanks Greg,

I'm trying to do exactly what you've just suggested: photograph these buildings while still standing and before anymore damage comes to them either from ignorant people or the harsh climatic changes...They are genuine and irreplacable!

I'd like to give a little information about how I acquired my Carl-Zeiss 16-80mm to relieve your mind, if I may. First of all, I live in Istanbul, Turkey and I see that you are in Australia. Paying attention to many Alpha users in the last 12 months and their complaints or satisfactions on different issues, I came to the conclusion that Sony followed different routes in marketing depending on the continent or the country. I have no idea what Sony base it on or how they justify it, but some complaints made by anyone who didn't reside in Turkey came as strange at the time they were disclosed, because I just wasn't encountering anything even close.
I 'think' that we all received from different batches of products. I bought my A100 in November 2007 with the kit lens Sony SAL 18-200mm. They were both in excellent shape, and they still are actually. When CZ 16-80mm hit the markets, the early buyers of the lens voiced so many problems on the Internet that I refrained from buying any lens from our local shops as well.
I trusted that Sony and Carl-Zeiss would not let his continue and rectify any defects that presented themselves. I phoned to the Sony store a while ago and spoke to someone in charge. He told me that the newest Carl-Zeiss lenses were to arrive in October 2008 and that they had none in the store except as a kit lens for the A700. But I wanted the newest and waited for the October's batch and finally got mine on October 25th. The lens proved to be good; very silent, optically coherent, fast, and easy to use.
I strongly believe that waiting until now has paid off! The other copies I saw in the store were also just as good, which led me to believe that the latest products were definitely handled with more care.
I wish it was as simple as sending any box to Australia, because I'd delightfully send a sound sample your way if only our taxes were not so high. You definitely would pay less in Australia for a copy of it. Because I assure you these new ones feel different, act different and sound different!

Yildiz

[aster]

aster wrote about his new CZ 16-80 lens:

I recently purchased one of these lenses, against all the negative findings before I made my acquisition. It came from the latest batch that arrived in October 2008 to Istanbul, Turkey. I experienced none of the problems concerning the lens buildwise or while functioning. The optical value is looking good and all parts work silently while autofocusing.

Lucky man. I must have got one of the earlier versions (bought as a kit with my A700) and there is a "bump" near the 80 mm setting. I have tried several times and lately at Aperture fixed at Lowest setting to shoot comparisons at the "bump" and just below. I cannot see any difference in IQ at 100% so I feel unjustified in sending it back for a warranty repair as I cannot demonstrate a image quality problem.

Pictures lovely. I like the top one best. It is a sharp lens and I use it most of the time. The coverage of 24-120 mm (35 mm equivalent) is just right for most of my photography.

Thank you very much alphaomega,

I believe I'll be using it extensively during my daily photography and even during my small studio shots...I found myself using the 16mm-wide almost all the time when shooting architecture on narrow streets. I can't speak in place of a Sony representitive naturally but I think you can still ask them to see the lens and do something about your subtle-seeming complaint. If they didn't believe in improving this lens, they definitely would not have bothered with the latest copies dispatched to the market. In fact, if my copy is anything to go by, they truely rectified and adressed some important issues, I warrant you that!

Please contact Sony to at least confirm if there's a positive attitude for such subtle problems like you experience...and good luck!

Yildiz

[aster]

Lucky man.

Lucky woman (girl). And the only active girl in the forum.

God is in the details...

Thank you for the keen eye Dr. Harout!

[alphaomega]

Dr Harout wrote:

alphaomega wrote:
Lucky man.

Lucky woman (girl). And the only active girl in the forum.

I am profoundly sorry for having got the gender of aster wrong. It is encouraging to find a female participating in the discussions on such an active basis. My only regret is that she appears to be the only one. I wish more would participate.

Furthermore I can add to her latest contribution that I also use the 16 mm end more than any other setting. I find the range from 24 to 28 mm (35 mm equivalent) so useful both in street and landscape photography.

I think I will send in the CZ lens to Sony before the warranty expires now that the low season for photography is approaching - at least for me. I can still use my Sigma 10-20 at the one end and Tamron 18-250 at the other end.

[aster]

I am profoundly sorry for having got the gender of aster wrong. It is encouraging to find a female participating in the discussions on such an active basis. My only regret is that she appears to be the only one. I wish more would participate.

I think I will send in the CZ lens to Sony before the warranty expires now that the low season for photography is approaching - at least for me. I can still use my Sigma 10-20 at the one end and Tamron 18-250 at the other end.

Hello alphaomega,

No need for apologies really. Please don't worry about the gender confusion... It's bound to happen in an internationally-charged forum like this one, none of us can be familiar with gender-specific-names from other languages except maybe English and in general from languages with Latin roots.
I wish to hear/see from the ladies myself...

I wish you good luck with Sony concerning your Carl-Zeiss lens. It would be a very encouraging news for us all if Sony deals with this issue and helps you out by finding and addressing the subtle problem.

Yildiz

[Greg Beetham]

I've been thinking (uh oh), Yildiz has an Excellent example of the CZ16-80, David K I know has one that has a very small gremlin, Alphaomega has one that is a tiny bit iffy....what would be good I think is, if you could all list the lens Serial No. and date of purchase, and any issue, or not, as is/in Yildiz's case, that way at least if one were too see one in a store, or even order one the purchaser could have a look at the S/No on the lens and make a sort of assessment whether or not it's likely to have a potential issue...I know some are going to say there has been plenty sold prior to Yildiz's lens without any issues...and that may be quite correct, but there were also plenty sold that did have issues....
What do you all think?
Greg

[bossel]

Good luck with your new lens, I am getting jealous
Post a few more from Istanbul!

[David Kilpatrick]

I've been thinking (uh oh), Yildiz has an Excellent example of the CZ16-80, David K I know has one that has a very small gremlin

No, mine is fine. The gremlin was the autofocus on the A100, the first camera I used it with. It was inconsistent in accuracy at short focal lengths and medium distance subjects, often back focusing. The lens itself is perfect and has held up well for 18 months of use. I had two samples before the final one which had the standard fault already described.

The lens is now on my Alpha 350 and I'm afraid that the focus on this is, once again, not as good as it should be. I am going to do some tests with the 16-105mm and the 16-80mm on the A350. Although the 16-105mm is absolutely mint (almost unused) and I know it is technically not as good a lens as the 16-80mm, and would therefore be a better lens to sell, if it focuses more accurately on the A350 it could be better to keep it and sell the (visibly used) 16-80mm.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Oh well, so much for that idea, still it would be interesting too compare S/Nos. if nothing else than to get an idea of how many have been sold, as I think yours (David) was purchased very early in the piece.

David, with the 24-105 I'm surprised at how versatile that little lens is and the quality of the image is always better than I expected, I was fooling around with some opal offcut sheets stuck together with some masking tape into an open top "softbox" (sitting on the end of my bed) and testing out the light transmission (light quality was nice and white) with a couple of Metz45's, one on either side, and using the 24-105 as a variable F/length macro lens. (Do you remember that photo of the Minolta lens TC list...24-105 again, and quite sharp too I thought)
The only thing was the transmission was actually too much (should have got the thicker sheets) on M output and even on 1/2 output was too much for f16 so I had to move them (the Metz's) as far away as I could (not far) and go to full M and set the lens on f18, I needed to have enough light too make the panels go to a "whiteout" condition but didn't really want f18 either but in the end had no choice...for that experiment anyway.
Even with the diffraction of f18 that little lens didn't do too bad, what do you think, (it doesn't look as good at web size that's the only problem).
Greg

[aster]

Oh well, so much for that idea, still it would be interesting too compare S/Nos. if nothing else than to get an idea of how many have been sold, as I think yours (David) was purchased very early in the piece.

Hi Greg,

I think that writing our lenses' serial numbers in the forum posts may present problems in the future. As I recall, some serial numbers were used for fraudry by lens sellers on eBay. But I can say that the number on my lens is a little less than 3,850,000 and it also has some letters before it.

Does this help any about the number of lenses sold?

Yildiz

[aster]

Good luck with your new lens, I am getting jealous
Post a few more from Istanbul!

Thanks bossel,

I'll try to post more...maybe they can contribute to your speedy recovery as well !

You need not be jealous, you have a great A700 and some fine lenses you make excellent use of. I know, because I've seen your photos!

Yildiz

[David Kilpatrick]

The only thing was the transmission was actually too much (should have got the thicker sheets) on M output and even on 1/2 output was too much for f16 so I had to move them (the Metz's) as far away as I could (not far) and go to full M and set the lens on f18, I needed to have enough light too make the panels go to a "whiteout" condition but didn't really want f18 either but in the end had no choice...for that experiment anyway.
Even with the diffraction of f18 that little lens didn't do too bad, what do you think, (it doesn't look as good at web size that's the only problem).

I don't think you have enough light through the sheet the camera is on. It should be one stop over burnout to get a real glow effect - it just looks like white paper with a hint of shading coming in here. The softbox lighting looks fine. There are plenty of mounting kits for Metz heads into real softboxes like the Apollo range.

I'm about to get a vintage Metz CT60-4 with twin heads and the big battery pack, plus a Pathrath & Kemperer ringflash head for it - £230 for the complete ex-RAF kit from an eBay vendor. My son was getting one to use with his Nikon, and told me the deal, so I got him to order one for me. The old classic David Bailey (etc) fashion ringflash! Totally unsuitable for macro (like f/90...) but a great tool to have around for that price when silly 'fake a ringflash' accessories sell for more and don't deliver.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Ah, the great CT60-4 and the drycell battery battery as well, at the time I bought my 45's I lusted after the 60 but they (and the battery) were about three times the price, so a little outside my budget. I think you're getting a wonderful deal there. (I'm not familiar with the Pathrath & Kemperer ringflash, but it sounds good)
Yes David you're quite correct about the white paper the whole thing was sitting on, I hadn't built a stand yet or flash for the underneath angle, it was more of a test too get an idea of the amount of light that the material actually transmits, I was thinking when I was rummaging at the perspex supplier that I might not have enough power, but it turned out I had an embarrasment of riches.
The thing that surprised me also, was how well the 24-105 performed (once again).
Greg
My apologies Yildiz for this sort-of accidental sidetrack posting...off the main topic.