FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony 16-105 or CZ 16-80 - can't decide!

Page  123 5>
Author
Rambler358 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 23 December 2005
Country: United States
Location: Torrance, CA
Status: Offline
Posts: 220
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rambler358 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Sony 16-105 or CZ 16-80 - can't decide!
    Posted: 31 March 2021 at 17:38
So I've looked at the reviews here for the subject lenses and both get pretty much the same overall score, though the CZ has more than twice as many reviews. So I'm still uncertain as to which I should get. This lens would go on my A77ii, and be mostly for walkaround, street shots and maybe some indoor.

Yes the extra reach of the Sony would be nice, but not required. And cost isn't a factor for me between the two. I was initially leaning towards the CZ for the optical quality and faster speed at the high end, but then I'm reading about build issues with this lens, though the online reviews I've read don't mention that.

So has anyone with either of these lenses gone through the same decision process? And if so, what was your reasoning for getting the lens you chose?
~Ron
Torrance, CA
 



Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 3221
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 17:51
The 16-80 and 16-105 have the same build. I've had three or four copies of each.

The 16-50mm F2.8 SSM is better than either of them. Maybe consider the 18-135 SAM too. I am selling both of those.

Edited by QuietOC - 31 March 2021 at 17:58
Sony A7RII NEX-5T HVL-F45RM LA-EA3 LA-EA4r MB-IV MC-11 EF-E II TLT ROKR MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q
Back to Top
neilt3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 13 September 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Manchester.U.K
Status: Offline
Posts: 2658
Post Options Post Options   Quote neilt3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 18:02
I've had / got both these lenses .
The build quality of the Zeiss is dubious , mine broke , as have many others .
The manual focus rings clutch goes .
The main gear for AF goes , and the the balsam on the front element is probe to an issue .
Mine has all three issues !
I would never buy another due to poor build quality , and poor materials used .

The 16-105 I got was (just) o.k , but decentred .
Image quality of the CZ when I bought it new , I was happy with .
It was my main lens on my a100 and the a580 .
When I bought it the extra speed over the 16-105mm was important to me as maximum ISO on the a100 was only ISO 1600 , no , I've not missed any zero's off !

So with my a77ii I now use the Sony 18-135mm SAM as a walk around lens , which I would highly recommend over the two asked about .
I think you can find them for less money than the two you asked about .

I also have the Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 , which is also a good lens , but for general use just not long enough . YMMV .

Hope that helps .

Edited by neilt3 - 31 March 2021 at 20:09
see my photostream on flickr;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/
C & C welcome.
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 2180
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 19:55
My preference in JPEG as a "walk around" is the 16-105mm. I've never had a problem with my 16-80mm very nice wide open. The 18-135mm I use the least, nothing wrong with it, I just find I use the 2mm at the wide end more that the 30mm at the long. I also never got use to the focus ring near the mount design.
If you're shooting street I can recommend the Tamron AF 17-50MM 1:2.8 A16 as a fast light option over the 16-50mm 2.8 SSM.
The 16-50mm 2.8 SSM is the best performer in it's range, I just never liked the size and weight as a walk around lens.

Edited by LAbernethy - 31 March 2021 at 20:22
Back to Top
Maffe View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Joined: 11 November 2005
Country: Sweden
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Posts: 11932
Post Options Post Options   Quote Maffe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 20:06
I have only tried both on different occasionsad not that impressed by them.
You say indoor and first advice that springs to mind is Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sony 16-50/2.8 or add a 35/1.8 for indoor stuff.
The Tammy is great wfm use your fot-zoom to compensate for the shorter reach.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 11553
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 21:34
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

The 16-80 and 16-105 have the same build. I've had three or four copies of each.

The 16-50mm F2.8 SSM is better than either of them. Maybe consider the 18-135 SAM too. I am selling both of those.
These were the lenses I was thinking of as well. Back when we only had the 16-80 and 16-105 they were comparable, more reach, Zeiss colours, faster aperture - but all in all more or less comparable.

I have the 18-135 and it is a capable do it all lens. It is not 16mm, but to me that would be no problem - if you need wider then 18mm, get an ultra wide angle lens.
The 16-50/2.8 is shorter, but highly regarded and the f/2.8 is nice.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
 



Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 3120
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 21:50
Used to own the CZ 16-80mm in my a-mount days. It was a wonderful lens with very nice IQ. I had two copies and they both were great.
If I ever went back to a-mount I'd buy one again (probably one of the first lenses I'd buy).
my flickr
A7RIV, A7C
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 3221
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 21:56
The Tamron and Sigma 17-50mm F2.8's are both better than the 16-80 too. I never tried any of the 17-70's.
Sony A7RII NEX-5T HVL-F45RM LA-EA3 LA-EA4r MB-IV MC-11 EF-E II TLT ROKR MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q
Back to Top
Rambler358 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 23 December 2005
Country: United States
Location: Torrance, CA
Status: Offline
Posts: 220
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rambler358 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 22:33
I already have the 16-50 2.8 SSM. I want something with a bit more reach but good IQ. I also have a nice compact Minolta f/1.7 50mm for low light.
~Ron
Torrance, CA
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 3221
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 22:54
Originally posted by Rambler358 Rambler358 wrote:

I already have the 16-50 2.8 SSM. I want something with a bit more reach but good IQ. I also have a nice compact Minolta f/1.7 50mm for low light.

The 18-135 SAM really fits that role best. Unless you want something much longer. The 55-200 is small and quite good.

Edited by QuietOC - 01 April 2021 at 00:39
Sony A7RII NEX-5T HVL-F45RM LA-EA3 LA-EA4r MB-IV MC-11 EF-E II TLT ROKR MD-NEX KR-NEX DA-NEX
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9 AF-P/Q
Back to Top
2manycamera View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 November 2005
Location: Cal Motherlode
Status: Offline
Posts: 1612
Post Options Post Options   Quote 2manycamera Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 March 2021 at 23:51
I had the 16-105 first, and then got the 16-50. Once I had both, I seldom used the 16-105, preferring both the speed, as well as the better IQ of the 16-50. My preferred multi-purpose walk-around on the a77 has been the Sigma 18-300, but there have been plenty of good suggestions already made on this post for consideration.

On a different note, now that I've mostly left A-mount APS-C, the 16-50/2.8 is seeing a great deal of use combined with the a6600 and LA-EA5. While this has little to do with your current decisions, E mount as a future platform choice is there for most of us.
7D a68 a99 a6600 a7Rii 16/2.8 24/2.8 28/2 35/2 50/1.4 100/2 200/2.8 24-70CZ 1.8/135 80-200/2.8 24-105 28-135 300/4 16-50DT 70-300G Tam 90/2.8, E55-210 E2/12 Sig E1.4/16,30 & 56, FE15/4.5V
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 2180
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 April 2021 at 01:06
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I never tried any of the 17-70's.

The Sigma DC 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 I would only consider if a Macro need and a 20cm MFD was on the table. It's handy if while you're walking around, you stop to smell the flowers.
Back to Top
Rambler358 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 23 December 2005
Country: United States
Location: Torrance, CA
Status: Offline
Posts: 220
Post Options Post Options   Quote Rambler358 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 April 2021 at 06:32
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:


The 18-135 SAM really fits that role best. Unless you want something much longer. The 55-200 is small and quite good.
No, I donít need that much longer reach as I also have the 70-300G. I was hoping to keep the 16mm on the wide end, though maybe 18 is good enough. But from what Iíve been reading, the CZ and 16-105 are optically better.
~Ron
Torrance, CA
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 11553
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 April 2021 at 07:24
If you have the 70-300, what is the usecase for this lens? You already have the reach.

The 18-135 might be slightly less sharp, but it has better AF, AF override, good build quality. This thread might be helpful: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/sony-af-dt-16105mm-f3-55-6-vs-dt-18135mm-f3-5_topic107195_page1.html

If it is a convenience zoom, the 18-135 is very good choice. Standard zooms are a compromise, you decide on what compromise. If IQ is important, the 16-50 is a marked improvement over the others.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.