Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 DT Vario-Sonnar T* A-mount lens reviews
 A68noob#44514 date: May-9-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 18-270 |
| price paid: | 140€ w. shipping |
| positive: | -sharpest lens i ever had (even at open aperture it was really sharp and absolutely gorgeous) -amazing performance between approx. 24-50mm replacing fixed focal length lenses, talking about raw image quality -very solid and usable zoom-range |
| negative: | -horrible zoom creep -not a particularily attractive lens to look at -cool colours, too cool for my taste -loud AF -quite some CA |
| comment: | This was my 2nd real zoom lens after my first Tamron 18-270. It delivered very sharp and much better images than the tamron obviously, BUT is inferiour in built quality in every way: -NO zoom lock. This zeiss lens still costs about 900€ but makes me look dumb, as it keeps expanding all the time. The tamron is much cheaper but features a very well placed zoom lock. yes, there are rubber bands that fix this issue.. but using cheap rubber on an expensive zeiss lens? please no, pathetic. -AF was loud and felt really cheap because of this, compared to the PiezoDrive built in the tamron. Yes, AF worked flawless in most cases and thats the thing that matters, but if you keep in mind that a much cheaper tamron features a much smoother and more quiet autofocus i feel fooled, AGAIN.. -most pictures had pretty cool colours. yes, you could say that postprocessing could fix this, but i am not someone who edits every picture because of basic problems. there are enough lenses out there that deliver better colours without wasting time in editing. -build quality appearance. compare both lenses i mentioned before and tell me, that the zeiss doesn't look cheaper/worse. -my 2nd hand copy had an issues that didnt allow me to focus on distant objects at low focal length (especially 16mm). everything looked blurry and i had to zoom in to about +20mm to get sharp images of objects in distance. probably something faulty, but the lens worked fine otherwise. To the one positive aspect of this lens: It was sharp.. extremely sharp even and a pleasure to use between the already mentioned 24-50mm, but otherwise it was pure frustration with every negative aspect i stated above. Oh.. and yes, i bought it pretty cheap, but it was still not worth it for me. My Minolta 50mm 1,7 may never be as sharp as this lens, but at least it is fun to use.. |
| slarty54#39938 date: Sep-21-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 24-85 50/2.8 macro |
| price paid: | 600 aud |
| positive: | On my a57,my sharpest lens |
| negative: | Wondering when it will break! |
| comment: | I always thought my macro was a sharp walk around but this cz is much sharper beyond 400mm on A57. |
| der dickgg#38861 date: May-18-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70mm f/2,8-4,5 DG, as close as it gets in compare |
| price paid: | € 350,- second hand |
| positive: | The very usefull range, sharpness and overall IQ. I do like the design too, but that's not the most important criteria. Correction incamera for JPEG's. Works well with the LA-EA2 on my NEX-VG10. |
| negative: | Not so very sturdy built, I had higher expectations. Once I hit the lens and the zoom is very stiff after that slight incident. |
| comment: | Very pleased with this lens on my A77. Perfect for walkaround, holidays and 'normal' all purpose use. Hoped for better built quality. Very pleasant lens on the NEX-VG10 and the LE-AE2 a-mount/a-mount adapter. The cropfactor is 1.8 do 16mm is very ideale, and 80mm multiplied by 1.8 is serious tele. |
| Magnumúrfi#32730 date: Dec-8-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 1 distortion: 2 flare control: 5 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-135 24-85, 24-105, |
| price paid: | 450 |
| positive: | Sharp, light, color, flare, fast focus |
| negative: | Built, very poor infinity focus. very easy to damage, poor distorsion |
| comment: | I do not buy anymore Zeiss lens Big disappointment this lens |
| QuietOC#29663 date: Aug-20-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 16-50 F2.8 SSM Sony E 16-50 F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony DT 16-105 F3.5-5.6 Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Tamron SP 17-50 F2.8 Sony E 18-55 F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM I/II Sony DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-135 F3.5-5.6 SAM Sony DT 18-200 F3.5-6.3 Tamron 18-250 F3.5-6.3 Canon EF 22-55 F4-5.6 USM |
| price paid: | 240 USD (refurb) |
| positive: | Zeiss logos & T* Useful range IQ at 35 mm f/4.5 at 80 mm Non-rotating filter/hood Non-rotating focus ring in AF Sharp wide-open in center Good contrast Close focusing In-body lens compensation |
| negative: | Build issues with early copies View shifts erratically during operation Very short focus throw Very mushy corners around 20 mm Noisy mechanical focus Zoom creep f/4.5 from 35 mm Lateral CA |
| comment: | The original retail price was $700 when released in 2007 and is now $1000. My first used copy looked very nice and came with the hood and both caps purchased on eBay. After selling this copy I purchased a second older copy that had a locked focus ring and wouldn't auto focus to the minimum distance. I then bought a factory refurbished copy from Secondipity. "JAPAN" It is slightly faster optically than the other variable aperture DT normal zooms but slower than the full-frame normal zooms. It reports f/3.5 at 18 mm unlike the 16-105. A maximum aperture of f/4 at the long end would have been nice. This lens performs similarly to the other APS-C normal zooms with good center sharpness wide-open and variable corner performance with a good deal of distortion at both ends. It's best image quality is at 35 mm which is good for an APS-C lens. It is a bit better at 35 mm than the 35 F1.8. However, the corners are quite soft around 20 mm and also a bit soft around 50 mm. The 18-55 kit has much less focus plane curvature at the wide end. The 16-105 is also slightly better on the wide end. It has much better center sharpness and contrast wide-open than the Minolta zooms. The Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM is definitely the better zoom, especially if you prefer wider angles-of-view. But this is a very nice kit. Test chart comparison with Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and Sony DT 18-135 SAM. |
| derekw#26554 date: Apr-19-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 18-70 Minolta 18-200 Sony 16-105 Sony 18-135 |
| price paid: | 250 GBP used |
| positive: | Very sharp for a zoom; even at maximum aperture Great colour and contrast No problems with flare control |
| negative: | Distortion not as well controlled as one would expect of this quality of lens Build; lens looks flimsy when extended out to 80 mm |
| comment: | Lens produces lovely IQ. Notwithstanding the negatives my favourite walk round lens |
| Doublejayz#20395 date: Oct-23-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina AF19-35 Minolta AF28-105 Minolta AF50 f1.4 |
| price paid: | 421USD (USED) |
| positive: | Sharpness Color Focal length Weight |
| negative: | Distortion (easily corrected) Price (New) |
| comment: | Great sharpness, great color, perfect focal length. This len can do best for its purpose. Weight is very good, not too heavy and still feel solid. Maybe if it were 2.8-5.6 would be so perfect |
| Matt#18361 date: Sep-29-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Tamron 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Di II PZD |
| price paid: | € 390 used |
| positive: | * Good range starting from 16mm * Sharp wide open * really sharp when stopped down to f/5.6 |
| negative: | * Plastic build |
| comment: | I got this lens to replace the Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM kitlens that I inherited from my A55. It did not do so good on the A77-II. I looked at the 16-50mm F2.8 SSM and the Zeiss 16-80 F3.5-4.5. Then I saw an offer from cameraland.nl: the Zeiss for €390 with 1 year guarantee. I bought this at once. The build is plastic, but that makes the lens less heavy on the other hand. The pictures from this lens a really great, so much better than the Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM. Also the Tamron 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Di II PZD I have is no match for the Zeiss. I compared the result of the Tamron at 270mm and the result from the Zeiss cropped to match the 270mm view. There was little difference in the final result between the pictures. The lens is screw-drive, but it focuses fast and exact on the A77-II, after I had set the proper micro focus adjust |
| gsaronni#12042 date: Nov-29-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-105 KM 17-35 f2.8-4 Sigma 17-70(old version) |
| price paid: | 550€ new |
| positive: | Range Speed/Weight/Size ratio Fast focus No need to stop down to best results Contrast and colours(but not like Minolta classic lenses) |
| negative: | Build. Mine is 8 years old and still perfect, but I care a lot of my gear CA at 16mm, easy to correct and now with A77 can be corrected in camera Vignetting. Need to use slim filters and post process your shots AF issues at 16mm with 7D and A700. Better with A580 and A77 Manual focus is a pain Image shift in your viewfinder when you zoom |
| comment: | It is my most used lens, can be used for everything with very good results Built is not very good, but mine is one of the first lens of this kind in Spain and is in good shape. Would like to test side by side with the new 16-50 SSM, but I feel overall results are a bit better with the Zeiss |
| gmanmi#11985 date: Sep-16-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL16105, SAL1855 |
| price paid: | 600 USD used |
| positive: | Super sharp images Great color and contrast especially for landscape shots |
| negative: | Build quality ok No SSM drive Zoom creep is horrendous |
| comment: | I bought this lens used after using the SAL16105 and SAL1855 for a couple of years. Definitely a step up in image quality from the non-Zeiss lenses. I am impressed with the sharpness and resolution, and it matches well with the 24MP sensors. Images seem to be a little on the cool side, so shots of the sky and water look great. Portraits shots need to be "warmed up" a bit. |
| stavros78#11905 date: Jul-14-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX-II Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM |
| price paid: | 600 eur new |
| positive: | sharpness , micro contrast , range , bokeh |
| negative: | Zoom creep , cold color , build for the price |
| comment: | good lens,good sharpness at 3.5 - 4.5 sharp at 4.5 - 5.6 ,distortion at 16 in raw but easily corrected in post processing , perfect on a57 ,a77 lens correction -1 |
| Ovas#11726 date: Mar-14-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SONY SEL 18-50mm: Clearly sharper and better contrast. MINOLTA 28-70mm G: Much lighter and more sharpnes and contrast. |
| price paid: | used $ 400 |
| positive: | Nice good sharpness and contrast. Focuses very well on my A580. I even use it with success an my A900 at APS-C crop. |
| negative: | Zoom keeps creeping out. A bit more cold color then MINOLTA's. |
| comment: | Really didn't need it, but wanted to try it on my A580. It is very nice on this camera and has become my standard walkaround (now also by side of the NEW RX10) lens for this camera. It gives the nice Zeiss sharpness and contrast. |
| SonyMinolta.ru#11651 date: Jan-30-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta af 24-85 on the field, not worse. Minolta af 28-135mm a very good alternative. |
| price paid: | 500 |
| positive: | Sony 16-80 /f3.5-4.5 Carl Zeiss Excellent sharpness wide open, this is the best zoom for Sony Alpha. Use it on a Sony Nex-7, via an adapter Sony La-ea2. Often compare him with Minolta 28-135mm, on the field they are close, but 16-80 misses less. I recommend to all who wants to buy a good standard lens. |
| negative: | vignetting on 16mm, almost impossible to use a filter. The price may be a little lower |
| comment: | At my store of used lenses A Minolta/ Sony A in Russia, with this lens does not want to leave. I often test shots lenses. Here is a link to sample photos Sony Nex-7+La-ea2+Sony dt 16-80 CZ http://sonyminolta.ru/cp41879-sony-16-80-f35-45-carl-zeiss--sony-nex-7-foto.html |
| fute77#11641 date: Jan-28-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-105/3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 350€ |
| positive: | sharp |
| negative: | lack of SSM not open 2.8 distortion at 16mm |
| comment: | lots of distortion at 16 mm except that this lens is very sharp even wide opened that is almost at constant f/4 |
| Dryce#11571 date: Jan-1-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL24105 SAL35F18 |
| price paid: | 266 UKP refurbished |
| positive: | Relatively compact and lightweight. Handles the A77's pixel density. Sharp with nice colours and contrast across the zoom range. Stopped down a little bit it manages to be sharp at the edges. |
| negative: | Feels like a kit lens because of the lightweight construction. Has a screw drive rather than SSM or SAM. |
| comment: | The A77 performs distortion correction on JPEGs. Compared with the SAL24105 it's sharper wide open and less purple fringing (negligible below 50mm and not much above that when wide open). The 16mm wide end makes up for the reduction from 105mm to 80mm at the long end. Feels like a good match for the A77 as a walkaround lens. |
| armirail#11317 date: Aug-22-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Sony 50mm 2.8 Macro - Minolta 24-85mm - Sigma 10-20mm - Sony DT 35mm 1.8 - Minolta 100-300mm APO |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - great image quality and sharpness - awesome contrast - perfect range - stopped down between 35-50mm can match Sony primes in sharpness |
| negative: | - soft in corners wide open - build quality not so great, wobbly front element when zoomed out. - heavy distortion at 16mm |
| comment: | This lens is amazing when paired with an aps-c body. As every lens, it has its shortcomings. build quality leaves something to be desired, image quality does not. It is a very nice lens for the price and range (24-120mm FF equivalent). When stopped down a bit this lens produces amazing super sharp results. Wide open the corners suffer. Overall I am very happy with this lens. I briefly compared it to the Sony DT 16-50mm 2.8 and I would love to have the weather sealing, but the range of the 16-80mm is much more appealing to me as an all rounder when traveling light. I used this lens mostly on the a65 and the balance is perfect. Great combo, still love it. |
| shadowfax001#11112 date: May-14-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL2470z SAL1635z |
| price paid: | 550 USD (used) |
| positive: | Fairly sharp — even wide open Colors and contrast are great Nice focal range |
| negative: | Plasticky build No SSM 2/3 stop slower than competition Slight distortion and CA Some light falloff/vignetting at 16mm |
| comment: | Works well on both the A77 and A99. However, with it's APS-C design it is really not made to be used with the A99. In my opinion, this lens has better color/contrast than the 2470z. Since there is no SSM or SAM, the lens is not very good for video in AF mode. Build quality could be better as well. I purchased this lens refurbished w/ a two-year ADH for just over $600. Definitely worth this price. I'm not sure if I would pay $999 for a brand new 1680z. |
| Guy#11107 date: May-11-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 18-70 kit Sony 18-55 SAM kit |
| price paid: | 400 EUR |
| positive: | + great range + great IQ |
| negative: | - zoom creep - the rubber zoom ring has bad quality - generally not that good build |
| comment: | I have a rather beat up version of this lens. The original cap is broken and I received the lens as-is without a pouch/box. The focus ring is not completely smooth, but AF works without any problems at all. I really like this lens for it's IQ. I take it with me for my vacation trips and it performs nicely. The range is perfect and it doesn't weigh too much. The build quality of this lens could be a lot better. There is a lot of zoom creep, the hood is wonky, and the rubber from the zoom ring is detached almost completely (it streched out too much it seems). |
| ABDurbs#11077 date: Apr-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 |
| price paid: | $580 (new) |
| positive: | Sharp Reliable Nice colour Value for money |
| negative: | Build quality is the only negative I have, but even that is not bad just a little barrel "rattle". Would love it to be f2.8 at that price. Not weather sealed Not SSM |
| comment: | This lens used to sit permantly on my A700 now it sits on my A77. It is such a versatile and reliable lens. I have thought of changing it for the 16-50 f2.8, but I love the extra reach of this lens, and of course the price was better. |
| Aavo#11075 date: Apr-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 18-70 kit for KM5D Sony 18-70 kit for A700 |
| price paid: | 800 euro (new) |
| positive: | Great and enough fast standard zoom with longer reach |
| negative: | Build quality not the best |
| comment: | The greatist zoom I had for KM5D and A700 from 2006-2012. Owned one of the very first copies in Estonia and it was mounted all the time I needed zoom lens. I have used it with NEX-7 via EA-1 about 1,5 years. Sold after obtaining E 18-105/4 G OSS. |
| psychni#11041 date: Apr-15-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MINOLTA 24-85 3.5-4.5 70-300G Tamron SP90 2.8 macro |
| price paid: | 750 euro (new) |
| positive: | Sharp in the center Really good in Color Light and compact |
| negative: | Strong Fringes in the corners Not SSM Not Full Frame |
| comment: | Always a good companion and my standard lens to my A700. Now I owned a used A900 . Both A700 and 16-80 on ebay for sale... I was till now happy with this lens for the budget.. Now an old 24-85 is on A900 and waiting for a brand new CZ 24-70 2.8!! I strongly recommend sal16-80 if you are in APS format! |
| Pygmy#10884 date: Jan-30-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 Minolta 35-105 (beercan) |
| price paid: | 600 (used) |
| positive: | Perfect colours Great sharpness That special micro contrast making things pop out Great Bokeh |
| negative: | Fragile construction |
| comment: | Finally made the jump to try this lens, despite its mixed bag build reputation. It turned out my copy did have some oil splash or condensation on the inner lens element - luckily it doesn't affect picture quality. When it focusses the picture at times jumps a little in the viewfinder, it seems somehow a little lose so the build quality doesn't seem to be the best out there. Having said that, the optics are absolutely fantastic. I've been really happy with my Tamron which is extremely sharp as well - but there is just that extra micro contrast in the Zeiss giving the 3D feel. The Bokeh is an entirely different story compared to the Tamron, it's creamy and soft, especially at 80mm it's beautiful. I felt the Tamron had not always natural colours especially on my a77, but the Zeiss is cooler and more natural - just beautiful rendition. The zoomrange is also so much more handy than 17-50, I realized that I really make use of that 80mm in my walk-abouts and landscapeshots. All in all it's just the perfect lens - if only Sony would improve the build quality! I still highly recommend this lens! |
| arakpura#10840 date: Jan-11-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sony 16-105 minolta 50 1,7 minolta 50 macro 2.8 minolta 28-135 sigma 17-35 sigma 105 macro minolta 70-210 minolta 28 sony 18-200 minolta 35-105 minolta 28-85 sony 18-250 . . |
| price paid: | 350 eur, used |
| positive: | colours are great good aperture for zoom lens bokeh light weight |
| negative: | build quality plastic build sharpness dark corners at 16mm unreliable (longevity) AF |
| comment: | I bought this lens with a big expectations and maby that`s why I was so disapointed. I must say, my copy, is one of the worst lenses I ever had. Sony 16 105 is much more sharper, it has allmost the same colours, OK, bokeh and colours are really great at zeiss and that is all good what I can say about this lens. The build quallity for zeiss lens and the price is to cry for, zoom creap, sharpness is normal but far from good-at my copy,...but if you compare it with kit lens 18-55, is exelent.... I think the glass in the lens is very good, but everything else what is arround this, so "wanted" lens, is beyond the expectations Minolta old scholl lenses, they should learn from them... sorry zeiss but this is not good for your name, which ment something a decade ago...or maybe just my copy was so bed, I sold it |
| Alphaboi#10289 date: Jun-11-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta AF 28-105 RS - Sony DT 50 1.8 SAM - KM 18-70 - Beercan - Tamron 17-50 - Sony 55-200 SAM |
| price paid: | 550 USD (used) |
| positive: | - Excellent zoom range - Excellent color and contrast - Sharp at wide open (center) - Ultra sharp at 5.6(corner to corner) - Fast and accurate AF - Zeiss |
| negative: | - Price - Build quality could be better - Not SSM |
| comment: | I have had this lens for a couple of weeks now and I am very happy with its performance. It's better than Tamron in every aspect except aperture. My copy is sharper than 50 1.8. The color and contrast is fantastic, just amazing and this lens is very very sharp. Unique. |
| Argote#10273 date: Jun-8-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma DC OS HSM 18-50/2.8-4.5 Sony DT 18-70/3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 600 (Used) |
| positive: | Nice Range (great walkaround) Good aperture (though not ideal) Great Microcontrast & Colors Nice heft (but not excessive) Focuses great on A65 Carl Zeiss It just FEELS right |
| negative: | No SSM Not as fast as other lenses (aperture wise) Some CA Expensive |
| comment: | Very good lens, a nice step up from the Sigma DC OS HSM 18-50/2.8-4.5 I had before especially on my 24 MP A65 (the Sigma was fine for my previous 10MP A200). I have noticed a bit of barrel distortion on the lower end of the zoom range but nothing too bad. Lens is very good walkaround overall. I just wish it had SSM (especially given the price). I don't think it's worth the $999 New asking price though, I'd go for the Sony 16-50, Tamron 17-50 or Sony 16-105 instead. It is cool to say you have a CZ lens though... |
| Dan Berke#10199 date: May-14-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-50 f2.8, sigma 17-70 |
| price paid: | £400 |
| positive: | Colours, bokeh, flare control, sharpness, weight |
| negative: | Aperture |
| comment: | Excellent lens. A great walkabout with perfect APS range making it suitable for landscapes to mid-range telephoto. Of course a constant f2.8 would be great but then it would weigh and cost more. The colours are a dream and the bokeh is excellent. Very sharp and well recommended. better than the Sigma 17-70 and on a par with the Sony 16-50 |
| Retyred#10091 date: Apr-7-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-300G, Sony 100/2.8 macro, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 |
| price paid: | £520 |
| positive: | An ideal compromise between IQ and zoom range, making it an outstanding lens for general-purpose use. Very good IQ throughout its zoom range. Relatively snappy, quiet focusing, especially for screw-drive. I find the build quality quite acceptable, though note my negatives below. |
| negative: | Some zoom droop does occur but that is not a major concern for me. Never seen this before - but if you grasp the zoom ring too firmly it binds on the barrel and turning requires force. One’s instinct is to grasp even more firmly and that makes it worse. Only then does one realise what’s wrong and adjust one’s grip. |
| comment: | I bought my first Sony DSLR for use with this lens, having enjoyed the excellent performance of the Sony DSC-R1 with a similar, though not identical, Zeiss lens. I’ve now owned the CZ16-80mm for nearly 4 years and use it for over 90% of my pictures. Its performance on the A77 in terms of IQ and AF precision is even better than on the A700, though that was good. Highly recommended. |
| Prabu#9831 date: Jan-22-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 550 (used) |
| positive: | sharpness weight colors saturation zoom range |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | This is a great walk around lens. The zoom range is perfect! 16-80mm, and with the digital tele converter on A65, it extends up to 160mm. I am not a fan of digital zooming, but that has made otherwise impossible shots possible. This lens is so sharp that even at 2x digital zoon on A65, the loss on quality/resolution is hardly noticeable. Produces excellent saturation and contrast and I hardly ever used post processing. Take the lens out in the sun and you get stunning images. |
| pureaxis#9820 date: Jan-19-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 730 USD (new) |
| positive: | -Sharp -Great range -Not heavy good balance on A65 |
| negative: | -Not SSM -Focus ring do not have a good feel |
| comment: | Not sure why everyone complains about the build quality, I mean it is not as good as other Zeiss lenses but overall it is fine. Problem for me is not SSM and focus ring do not provide good travel, which is important for video. |
| jakubh70#9738 date: Jan-1-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-105, 18-70 |
| price paid: | 500$ |
| positive: | Sharpness, color, contrast, range, speed |
| negative: | too many build issues |
| comment: | I have bought this lens occasionally second hand, but very little used. It gives excellent picture quality in almost every aspect. Great macro ability. What makes me somewhat dissapointed is the build that could be better for such quite an expensive lens. Zoom ring is smaller and definitely worse dampened than in cheap kit lens 18-70. At 16mm corner darkening is massive problem, worse than in 16-105 superzoom. Even using slim filters causes yet extra shading in corners at 16mm setting. Zoom creeps from time to time - no zoom lock. Distance scale and MF ring are a joke - you got maybe 10 degrees from MFD to infinity. I can't tell it's better than 16-105. Well, Zeiss people - you should learn from good old Minolta 18-70 kit which has a zoom ring working like a dream and lets use flters at all. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 215
- sharpness: 4.67
- color: 4.80
- build: 3.84
- distortion: 4.20
- flare control: 4.55
- overall: 4.41
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login