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

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?

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 don’t 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 I’ve been reading, the CZ and 16-105 are optically better.