What an honest review, free from any manipulation of sponsors. Now I can concentrate more on taking photos and adore my kit lens and A6000. Once again, you showed unimportance of the expensive gears. You made a lot of people to save hundreds of dollars. Thanks...
I wouldn't agree with that conclusion. The Zeiss is better in nearly all areas and you can see the difference on the pictures. Maybe not if you have small pictures in your hands, but on the screen you see the difference in terms of sharpness, colours and contrasts. I have both lenses. But the Zeiss is not only sharper, the other big advantage is that you have 70mm f/4 instead of 50mm f/5.6 which is much better for portraits and give you better bokeh and flexibility. The kit lense is quite ok, but more expensive gear is not useless or unimportant.
Thunderbird1337 if you shoot portraits at 70mm f4 you wouldn't impress clients would you... that is not the purpose of the lens... portraits look good at wider apertures
Tuca Martins There is just no alternative zoom lens for E-mount existing with the same flexibility, weight and size. Sure, whenever I can I use prime lenses. But such a compact zoom lens is made for holidays/ trips when you can't or don't want to carry around heavy gear. I just came back from holidays in Sicily yesterday and I only used the Zeiss although I had some prime lenses with me. It's just way too uncomfortable to carry around more than just the camera and one lens when you are walking hours in the heat of the sun. And you don't want to change lenses when everything is full of sand, dirt etc. That's what a flexible zoom lens is perfect for. And it must be small and lightweight. A 18-105 is no alternative in terms of weight and size, and the kit lens has noticeably worse image quality, so it's no option either.
Varun Kamal That absolutely depends on the situation. F/4 for portraits can be absolutely fine. Depends on how far your object is away from the background etc. Sometimes you need a higher DOF as f/1.8 can offer, or in bright sunlight you can't just use wider apertures without using filters. We are talking about a small and lightweight zoom lens for trips/ holidays, so handling with filters is no option in many cases. And of course, nobody would use such a compact zoom lens for portraits whenever there is a possibility to use an adequate prime lens. Unfortunately there is not always the possibility. That's where zoom lenses come in, offering a compromise.
The video is helpful to me. The result is surprise to me. I am the user with kit lens in A6000 and have a urge to buy the 16-70mm Zeiss. The review remind me that the difference between two lens is not massive and the expensive lens don't improve the quality of photo. I will learn more knowledge and skills about taking photo rather than buying more expensive lens.
Indeed you're so right! I have the same issue. Recently bought the A6000 with two kit lenses, wanting to buy a Zeiss prime/zoomlens, but after this review I have to reconsider my 'wanting'. So like you, I am going to spend more time to improve my technical and photografical skills.
Just getting into Sony mirrorless world and I bought a cheapo, used A6000 which did not come with a lens. I started looking for lens that would suffice me for some time and this review helped a lot. Appreciate the honesty, and quite obviously a LOT of efforts have gone into making this video. Kudos. We actually need reviews from people who are doing honest testing and don't call themselves pro. All the best. I am subscribing to your channel!
After 4 years do you have any lens advice based on your real world experience with the A6000? I just bought an immaculate used 5T with the kit lens but I might upgrade the lens it if it's worth it. Im a novice shooter. Thanks
I liked this review a lot. Many years ago I had a Leica M2 and loved it. It supported 35, 50, and 90 mm lenses, which I also loved. It was stolen and I got out of photography. Now 45 years later, I live in the mountains of Western Colorado. It seemed so senseless to be taking beautiful hikes and just taking pictures with my cell phone. So I bought a Sony a6000 with the Sony-Zeiss 16-70. It more or less exactly mirrors my old camera in terms of capabilities. The mountain landscapes as well as the mountain flowers come out extremely sharp and with beautiful colors, both better if I use my tripod and shudder release cord. I'm totally happy with this combination. I'm also happy that the kit lens is also excellent.
I don't know if it's been said already but you need to make sure that your focus point is the same for both images (preferably manually) and that you don't have subject or camera movement between lenses changes. Both could explain the vast difference in sharpness in your last photo comparison.
Well said! Just purchased the 6000 as well, and I ended up arriving at the same conclusion from watching this. Thanks for all the videos so far they're helping me out a ton.
The ZEISS consistently has superb sharpness in the center. The one photo that has the Kit Lens beating out the ZEISS is obviously not focused on the eyes. The ZEISS is definitely better than the kit but it is just a question of correct focus. Now in 2023 you can get the mint ZEISS for $300 used. The kit for about $100.
Very good review. You're a better photographer than some of the youtubers who claim to be pro photographers. I have both the 18-55mm and 16-50mm kit lenses. I like both of them. Unless you blow up images the kit lens seems to work fine in well-lit scenes. I'd take the kit lens and save $800 for the next camera.
Perfect example of what I am trying to get my head around. In many of these photos the Zeiss was sharper in the very far corners, but the cheap little kit lens was equal or close and a few times sharper in the center. With all of the talk about great bokeh, is it really that necessary to have it completely sharp in the far corners? Or, can that out of focus be considered a type of bokeh? Think about it... I am taking a photo of my subject in the center of the frame...It is perfectly focused there...in the corners, like in these photos, there are some tree branches...they are a little out of focus with the kit lens, but here's my point...Do I really care?!! My center subject is sharp as a tack! Are 99% of the people viewing this image going to see the corners are a little blurry, or if they do, care? So, if the corners of some trees off in the distance are out of focus, is that not a form of bokeh? And do I really want those branches to be IN FOCUS? Or, is it OK if they are a little blurry? Call me crazy, but I really don't care. As long as my subject is sharp and 90% of the rest of the image is pretty darn sharp, I say who cares if the far corners, I mean the far 5-10% in the very corners, is soft. If anything, doesn't that put more emphasis on my subject?! Become a form of bokeh? Is this not considered a form of bokeh because some lenses do keep that in focus? Is that the only reason? And, is it really critical that a tree's branches be sharp way out there in the far corners? Not to me anyway...I say who cares if, when I blow it up 100x, it's not sharp way out there. Aren't we splitting hairs and being awfully picky? This is pixel peeping after all...and my problem with it! ;) Now, look at the difference in price to get those 5-10% of the far corners in focus. Utterly and completely NOT WORTH IT!
@@scottrostad1137 this comes down to really buying lenses to fill very specific shooting roles. Every scenic shooter is shaking their head going you so crazy... pictures of buildings? Like the flexibility of your kit lens but shoot those kinds of things and you'll be looking for a different lens. Big on Bokeh? You'll probably want a different lens eventually. Personally I'd put the money into paying off debt or investing and save it for when there is an affordable camera as good as the 6400 that has IBIS. Then I'd sell my 6400 and buy the IBIS camera and stop buying lenses that are OSS. One of the reasons I keep a completely different brand older camera around is in body stabilization on non stabilized lenses. Unfortunately the 6500 and a7ii cant compete with the 6400 in so many other areas. But even then... I'd rather spend that $800 on a A7II because it's like having 2 lenses for every lens you own. Part of owning different sensor sizes is that your lenses now fill 2 different rolls. Eventually I'll probably get an A7ii or a7iii for that reason. So I can IBIS and full frame to take advantage of different lenses and or use existing lenses in different ways.
I love the kit lens. No way would I replace it with that huge Zeiss. Optically it may be better but it won't fit in my pocket. I have had some crazy sharp stunning images from the kit lens. No complaints from me.
This video confirms my feeling, I had a a5000 with "kit lens" I sold that to buy a a6000 with a zeiss lens. The truth is I am missing my old lens, Im sensetive to cromativ aberration and I think the Zeiss is awfull. After seen your video Im convinced to sell the zeiss and go find a kit lens from ebay and save some money. I have taken some amazing portraits with my old a5000 (and the kit lens) and have not had the same feeling with the zeiss. Great Video!!
I think Zeiss has a clear advantage in sharpness and quality throughout the video. As other people in the comments have mentioned, this is especially true if you did a side by side, all manual comparison. The Zeiss will win hands down every time. But only when you punch in. Looking at a full image or even a reasonable crop of the full image, the difference is still noticeable, but only in a side by side. For professionals, the choice is obvious. Zeiss all the way. For pro-sumers and hobbyists, your conclusions is totally correct. The Zeiss doesn't really provide enough additional quality to justify the cost.
I just came across this and it is sound advice. I have the 24-70 Zeiss for my full frame and have the same exact experience vs. the 24-70 kit lens. After picking up an a6100 to travel with, I naturally was looking at the 16-70. People forget that the only people who will pixel peep is yourself.
I guess Zeiss lenses just are fashion objects meaning you pay a lot for (of course) a better quality but the difference between these two clearly shows that it is not worth the extra money. I always wanted a Zeiss lens but there are cheapers one that are better. For instance I was planning on buying the 12mm Touit but AF was so loud and it was so expensive that I went with the faster 12mm from Samyang and I have to say the built quality and image quality are outstanding, I doubt the Zeiss could be better + it's not even weather sealed that's a shame considering hop expensive it is. Thanks a lot for all your reviews I guess my next Lens will be the Sony 35 1.8 :)
TechnologyMafia I'm sorry, but I really disagree on that. The 12mm Touit is a very good lens as well. Besides the price, which is a little bit to high in my opinion. In comparison to the samyang the Zeiss has autofocus, nice sunstars and you are able to shot into the sun and you will keep kontrast. With the samyang that's not possible if you want good results. Hope this comment might help someone :)
The price tag has nothing to do with the auto focus, if so Why is the kit lens then so cheap? Zeiss is overpriced, especially this lens thathave been widly criticized. The Zeiss is not worth the price, and all that purple fringing is unacceptable on a high so costly lens. Sony Should do a new one much better 16 or 18-70 with much better quality. and a new improved kit lens without that terrible barrel distortion it suffers from that make me not use it.
Maybe your next lens should be the Zeiss 24 1.8 - now that is a lens that shows you what good ( expensive) glass can do. When I do comparison test shots the 24mm always seems to win! Something about the Zeiss micro contrast and the sharpness. I just picked up the a6500 ( still in the box!) and am looking forward to putting the 24mm on it and see what it will do!
I don't agree that the Zeiss is not worth the extra money. 70mmf/4 ist just so much better and more flexible than 50mm f/5.6, besides the better sharpness, contrasts and colours of the Zeiss. The kit lens is OK but nothing more than that. By the way: I have the Sony 35 f/1.8 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and I would definitely recommend the Sigma if you don't need the stabilisation. Only for videos I prefer the Sony because of the stabilisation. For all other purposes the Sigma is better, its sharpness is awesome.
Wow I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it my-self . . . I've never used the kit lense that came with my A6000 but I'm going to have to dust it off and check it out my-self after watching your video. Cheers!
Man, I just love your reviews... so extremely clear and objective. TechnologyMafia is my #1 Go-To for all a6000 lens and accessory reviews, research and information. Thanks for making this so easy!
I honestly don't know why so many people say the kit lens are bad. I for one think it works wonders. Quality is great and image is sharp. The only thing I would say is you definitely do not get as much bokeh, but if you are only using it as an everyday fun versatile lens, the kit lens is ALWAYS the cheapest option. As shown by this video, you pretty much only notice differences if you ZOOM all the way in and get picky about details that you wont normally see when you look at the picture as a whole (as intended). Average people who look at these pictures will definitely not see a difference between the two. The only reaction you will get is if you tell them one of the photos was taken by a free lens that comes with the camera purchase, and the other is taken by a $1200 (CDN price) lens. If you are simply just taking pictures and posting on Instagram or Facebook, just stick with kit lens...spare yourself the extra hundreds of dollars and use that on food instead lol.
while watching the video, i was like... whaaaaaat??? i was planning to save up for the 16-70, but i think i will just go for the 18-105 after watching this review. thanks for the great comparison review. wish you could do a same comparison between the 18-105 and the kit.
Thanks for this comparison! That settles it. I was contemplating to upgrade to the Zeiss for my UA-cam videos, but the marginal improvements do not justify the investment for me. If I did not have the kit lens and I had to decide between the two, I'd probably go with the Zeiss for it's better resell value. But if you already have the kit lens then buying the Zeiss is a harder decision. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for the video! Just received Sony A6300 body and thinking for the Zeiss, but now i go for the kit. For amateur use is very good, pocket portable, taking photos anywhere...perfect. I have read many opinions and results even on Amazon about the Zeiss, surprisingly many people are not satisfied even have returned it... Like and congrats for your work.
Perfect! I'm looking into trading my OMD for an a6000 and this was the comp I was looking for. The Zeiss looks to have better colour and slightly (if erratic) better sharpness but not enough for me to justify an additional GBP 600.
After 5 years do you have any lens advice based on your real world experience with the A6000? I just bought an immaculate used 5T with the kit lens but I might upgrade the lens it if it's worth it. Im a novice shooter. Thanks
I know the obsession on making a cheap kit lens appear equal or better than that of a much more expensive one. I own both and you will need to shoot me to convince me to use this kit lens over this Zeiss.
Thanks for the video! Surprising result. I haven't been able to find a comparison b/w the 18-105 and the 55-210, especially interested in the telephoto end. Would love to see it on your channel if you get a chance.
Looking at your examples, to my eye the Zeiss lens is vastly better, actually more of a difference than I had expected. It is much sharper in the corners (kit lens seems to be a joke in the corners at f/4). The chromatic aberration is mostly correctable in Lightroom fairly easily but that can reduce sharpness just a little bit in exchange. The kit lens actually has severe distortion that is corrected in software in the camera for jpegs and in Lightroom for raws. On your wife's face, one of the early comparisons, the Zeiss skin tone and sharpness looked vastly better than the kit lens. That's to my eye anyway. On the similar example at F/8 towards the end, there was a hair in front of her eye with the Zeiss shot, and the camera might have focused closer. In general it's good practice that before comparing sharpness at close distances to always check the focal point. One trick to using inexpensive lenses is to stop them down one or two stops from their widest aperture. Often when you pay big bucks for a lens, what you are buying is the ability for the lens to be sharp corner to corner wide open. A "kit lens" can look surprisingly sharp when you stop it down a couple of stops. In general this particular Zeiss lens is considered a bit soft in the corners compared to primes or more expensive zooms. Also there is a lovely "Zeiss look" evident which to my eye is a little bit more pop and also extreme yellows are toned down. I think that the price difference is justified for enthusiasts and professionals but for casual photography the kit lens is just fine.
I agree, to me the sharpness is not just a bit better, but like a lot. Looking at the comparisson at the beginning of the video, with the Zeiss lens you can see every hair as individual, the teeth have clear edges and in general the image doesn't seem so washed out. The bokeh is softer of the kit lens, however it's just a character missing blur that comes from the lower sharpness of the lens. The Zeiss bokeh at least shows some character, could use some improvement though. I agree with the colors in the face, however the blurriness of the kit lens might be to blame here too. It blends the colors to much and destroys the texture of the skin. I own that kit lens and can confirm this exact performance. It's as well a nightmare when used in lower light, the high iso blur gets elevated by the general blurryiness. It's such a pity, because that kit lens is really small. Mine is however only decent sharp around 28mm. I wished they could make a premium version of that lens.
I just bought a 5T with the kit lens but Im looking to replace it with something affordable that performs better in low light, mostly for recording. Any advice? Im a novice shooter. Thanks
Excellent comparison and it echoes the views of a friend of mine. He has the same 2 lenses that you compare and whilst the Zeiss is a tad better overall, no way is it worth the $700 more... He calls it 'badge snobbery'...
Very well done ! It's refreshing to see reviews done by a self-proclaimed amateur since the perspective is closer to what other amateurs look for (as opposed to pros who make a living from their gear). I have the old 18-55 kit lens which came with my original NEX 5 as well as the 16-50 kit which came with my A6000. I guess my view is not that the 16_70 is poor for the money ... it's more that the kit lenses (despite some awful reviews) are actually quite good and represent great value. Of these lenses, I tend to use the 16-50 for casual shooting where the small size is handy (carry the camera in a dust cover) and the 16-70 for more serious wide to short telephoto shots. the zeiss is pricey but, the fact is that I like it and use it a lot so I'm not upset at all at the price I paid. It"s more that I'm really happy that kit lens is so good :-)
Surely, Tech- M, you are returning the Zeiss and keeping the 18-105 f.4! Wow, this plus your comparison video between the 16-70 and the 18-105 have been real eye openers! I am so glad that I opted for the bigger lens- no regrets now, thanks to your stellar comparisons. Like you, I am super shocked!
I follow your reviews and find them very helpful. I have a suggestion. You should compare these 2 lenses for landscape and night photography, as well. I feel the kit lens performs average in low light and would like to see how it compares with 16-70mm and 18-105mm lenses.
I just bought a 5T with the kit lens but Im looking to replace it with something affordable that performs better in low light, mostly for recording. Any advice? Im a novice shooter. Thanks
@@MasterArmedforcesHope you got your lens by now, but in case you didn't, I bought a Sigma 16mm f1.4 prime lens to pair with an old A5100 I've been using for a while. I think the Sigma prime lenses are some of the best price-to-performance you can get for Sony APS-C lenses. At f1.4, I've found it to be noticeably faster and sharper, especially for night photography. Great upgrade over something basic like the 16-50mm kit lens nearly everyone has.
Hi Arthur. I pick up a used sel1670z for 350 euro week ago. For 350 euro I think this is good lens. I am very satisfied. In my opinion sel1670z ir much much better then sel1650. And I dont want set up sel1650 on my a6000 😀
Go with the kit for video rather than the Zeiss though right? If you're cropping in for video the edge clarity isn't so much of an issue, plus the kit lens has the ability to zoom remotely which is great for video, especially on a gimbal.
Try shoot raw, and you'll see the difference. I thinks it is better to shoot raw when comparing lenses, no lens correction applied so we can see pure optical performance. Anyway, nice video.
This^ is exactly right. I know shooting RAW would make for a better technical comparison, but I do a lot of these videos for my own personal, practical, amateur curiosity.
Well, doesn't the final result count? I do not care about distortion if it does not show up in the result. One could do the comparison in RAW and use all lens corrections in the RAW software. But would it be a more practical comparon? I doubt it.
Thanks for the great review. I was one of those that specifically asked for this comparison. I've been very happy with the kit lens and suspected there wasn't the difference between it and the 16-70 wasn't worth $800. Your test confirmed it. I'm putting the $$ towards primes. In your comparisons, do you always use just one image for each lens? Might be useful to take 2 or three images for each and defocus and refocus each time, just in case focus was slightly different e.g. eye vs eyebrow. Great work. Thanks.
I bought recently the a6000 with the kit lens. I didn't manage to focus right in maybe 40% of my tests in bright sunny weather below f8, f8 was alright, the Canon 100D and Sony RX100 which I compared to the a6000 focused 100%. It was like the Zeiss lens on the garage door, simply bad focus.
Some honest truths. if you are looking at this comparison saying you're no longer going to buy the 16-70 because of the sharpness, you are probably an amateur cause you don't know what you're talking about. Most of these comparisons in sharpness were obviously missing focus between the lenses. Also, regarding the edge performance, Arthur spent more time complaining about the chromatic abberation (EASILY fixed with the click of a button) and ignoring the horrible distortion in the 16-50 (cannot be fixed). Having said that, I respect you Arthur for this great review, and I am a pro who downgraded to an a6500 for a personal camera, when I no longer needed my own pro gear, and I think the 16-50 is a fantastic lens. You have shown me that the extra money isn't worth it here for what I do. I have a 16-50 and I'm still able to take professional shots that I submit to Getty Images on a weekly basis. To be able to get the quality I get out of the kit lens is unbelievable and I applaud Sony for their achievement.
Arthur, I recently bought the A6000 with 16-50 kit lens. I want to try some food photography. Can you recommend a cheap prime lens that worth the money for it?
For me, I found the 16-70 F4, sharpest from 8.0-11.0. The purple fringe is really annoying, however, my software removes it rather easily. I have been told that the 16-70 F4 was updated, so, I don't have that barrel distortion, or my software is correcting for that. I purchased my lens earlier this year. I will have to try the 16-50 F4 to see how it looks at various apertures. As someone who shoots mainly landscapes, the 16-70 F4 does what I need it to, so, using it with my 70-350, those two are the only lenses I need. Someday, I will have to look real hard at the 16-55 F4, once I get some extra cash. Thanks for the review.
I've tested also these 2 lenses and i think that for the price difference stay with the kit lens is better :( I hate the 16-50 3.5/5.6 but for the price is the best
12:25 is outstanding, don't know if there was something weird in the settings but look at the sharpness on that kit less or - better - that softness on the Zeiss...and it's 800$!
Great video. I've been hesitant in getting the Zeiss because it's an f4 lens that is priced like an f2.8. It seems to be $200 more than it should be. You have convinced me to continue to wait. Sony has alluded that this year will be a year of lenses. Let's hope for a good f2.8 zoom!
I just bought a 5T with the kit lens but Im looking to replace it with something affordable that performs better in low light, mostly for recording. Any advice? Im a novice shooter. Thanks
Hey very informative video, but how did you manage to shoot such sharp pictures with the kit lens(like the last one)? No matter how hard I try i can't shoot a picture that's nearly as sharp as the last one you took. Is my lens maybe a bad copy?
Hello, what about the Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di III VC Lens for Sony E Mount Cameras ?? is it any good? it is way cheaper than the Zeiss, I am actually debating between these two. Thanks, great video!
Thanks, V helpful, I use the kit lens for travel because it is so compact and I generally stop it down and find it reasonable sharp. My camera fell off the tripod on to the rocks in Newfoundland smashing the kit lens. A couple of days and 100 dollars and I had a replacement and didn't shed a tear. It's just not great for portraits but my old Nikons primes fit nicely on the A6000 but are a lot more work.
Very honest comparison, I saw the 18-105 PZ comparison also but I have a question: I want something like these lenses but with great photo quality, what about E 18-200 or E PZ 18-200?
Comparing JPEG, not RAW, is not as fair enough due to automatic software corrections. Another issue is the need of perfect equal focal plane (and focal distance as well to do the just comparison. But it's a good video anyway. Thanks.
Thank you for creating such a great comparison. I have been debating on which lens to purchase without having to spend to much for quite a while. This helped me much.
Thank you for your review I was thinking about buying the Zeiss lens this week. I bought the kit lens yesterday. And it seems to be very sharp not too bad for a cheap lens. I've been using my G Master 24 1.4 of course that's always better but I thought I'd get something that's made for the APS-C camera. I don't think I'm going to buy the Zeiss lens now it seems to be a lot of problems with focusing I hear. Thank you for your review
You have really sold me on this kit lens honestly. I'm a photographer for a while now, and i'm changing to sony from nikon because i want to go in depth to video and my D7000 is not very good at it. Also it's a heavy beast with my Sigma, while i want to go light now... This lens is not bad. I am going to buy a lot of old primes, but this will be my go-to lens when i want AF all purpose. Thank you very much.
I'm planning to buy a6500 should i buy it with kit lens or body only then a prime lens? if yes what it should be? looking for all around lens, i do have limited budget for the lens though $400.
I truly don’t know what was going on with quality control but I had a much different experience. I tried the kit lens when I first bought my a6000 but I was really unhappy with it. I traded up to the zeiss inside a week, and it’s been good on my a6000 for several years now. Mine does have a bit of chromatic aberration but not like in this video. Fixes easily in Lightroom. Im really happy with it so I’m now going to use it on a new a6600 when it comes in.
Hi,really interesting! I have both lenses and don't use the kit lens because I thought the 16-70 mm or the 10-18 mm lenses were much better. To be honest apart from the extra focal length and the constant aperture,the 16-70 mm overcomes the kit lens in your test in colour tone and handling of reflections (more detail in contrasty areas). I'll start using the kit lens again.Maybe tomorrow. Bye!
I just bought a 5T with the kit lens but Im looking to replace it with something affordable that performs better in low light, mostly for recording. Any advice? Im a novice shooter. Thanks
That's about what I would expect too. Did a brief test on the zeiss demo set at sony centre and was surprised at how blurry it was when AF-C is switched on. When switched to AF-S, it's sharper, but can't help but noticed it ain't expensively sharper than the kit. Try to do multiple shots cause the AF tends to mis-focus which could explain the varying results. That was few years back so not sure if the firmware update fixed the AF bug. Kind of makes you ponder that just cause it's 10x expensive, doesn't necessarily mean it's 10x better.
5 років тому+2
Yes, this is really surprising, we would expect a huge improvement for 4X the price! But it is not the case, only just a slightly better (but not always). I guess Sony has just made an amazing job on the kit lens.
hey Arthur, this is a very interesting comparison ! i was interesting to upgrade my 16-50 to a 16-70 Zeiss, it helps me a lot to make my opinion about so =) thank you ^^
I totally disagree with this review. I did test with both objectives. I made around 70 Photos of lens test structures with 16,24,35,50,70mm focal length at f3,5, 4, 5,6, 8, 11, 16, 22 apertures with same ISO settings for same other parameters. Sony Zeiss 16-70 was in 95% cases better than 16-50 Kit lens. It has less distortion, better sharpness. I bought used 16-70 over ebay and wanted to test if it is in good condition and symmetrical. After this test I understood why good optic has bigger price.
I had very similar results, however, I notice that you didn't address the fact that the sel1650 renders colour quite differently where light hits a surface. For instance, you'll notice that on your wife's face, the 1650 has more white spots, and less colour detail and contrast as a result. You can get around this by turning down highlights in post process. I ended up keeping the 1670z because it was overall a sharper lens with more reach. If the 18105G was a retractable zoom, I'd probably have bought that instead.
Hey Arther. I just picked up the a6600 and I'm looking for a good vlogging lens. Not really keen on spending $900 on the 10-18mm and the Sigma 16mm 1.4 (while I know it's a great lens) is heavier than I'd like and not pocketable. Thoughts a few years later on picking up the 16-50mm second hand? In body stabilization plus the oss would be interesting.
Calling that sharpness difference on the eyes/mouth/skin on the portrait "slight" is a bit of an understatement. That is a HUGE difference in the world of lenses. To me the Zeiss looks like a pretty dang good picture...not prime territory, but pretty good. The kit picture is just not great at all. Disclaimer: I don't own the Zeiss.
I've wore my kit lens out on my a5000. I've shot automotive, landscape, and portraits. In all cases, the Sony has been tack sharp with very little drop off toward the edge. I've also shot with a canon t6i. In my comparisons, the Sony has better overall image quality and sharpness. Only huge different I noticed would be flares (or starbursts) from light. The Canon seemed to render that much cleaner and with better shape.
The kit lens is not that cheap. If you want to buy it new it has an approximately 350 price tag. And yes the 1670 doesn't deserve the Zeiss badge. Most of Zeiss lenses are expensive because they do offer great optics but this one doesn't. It's frustrating that Sony has abandoned the APSC lens line up supposing that FF lenses will do the job. Well they don't. I have seriously started thinking of making the jump to Fuji. Nice review ;)
Ran Elkobi right now, you get TWO kit lenses for about 200.00.with either the 6500 or the 5600 Nikon. It's kind of like they're FREE. lol. With Black Friday, it's even easier
I do like your videos, congrats. As few other comments, the comparison for this Zeiss is not about what you compare! I have used this lens as my main one, originally in A6000 for a year and now another year with A6500. Always stills, night and day, warm and cold, every situation and it is great, very sharp, excellent colors and the f/4 helps to get the correct exposure every time. Just because of this and the 4/10-18 lens, I will not go full frame, rather wait for the A7000!
Great video as always but in future videos, try shooting in RAW if you are not doing it now. I noticed we are comparing JPEG images and they are not as clear as they could be and they are processed by the camera for lens distortion if not more. I feel importing them into LR the profile lens correction set to off will give you the best source for comparison. Even if these were taken in JPEG, it still shows that there is a difference between these two lens, but it may have been more pronounce in RAW.
I've already test 18-105 vs 16-70 BTW. It seems 18-105 has a bad contrast at the center, but it can beats Zeiss wherever that's not center. Even Zeiss has more saturation, it's fail to take a photos that need contrast a whole frame.
When you do these lens comparisons, it would really help if you shot something in low light. I would expect the Zeiss would do a lot better than the kit lens in this regard.
Reading many posts of Zeiss owners concerning serious decentered focus problems with the Zeiss 18~70mm f4.0 I have changed my mind about purchasing this Zeiss due to obvious quality control problems.
I just bought a a5100 Cam kit. that did not come with a lens. (face palm) whyyyyyyy. anyway I'm now trying to buy a separate lens to actually use the Cam. because correct me if I'm wrong you can't use the Cam without a lens, right? so should I buy a 16-50mm Lens kit? I really don't know but I need .
Hi :) I do own both lenses and that last pair of pictures made me wonder ... hasn't the Zeiss missfocused? The way how the hairs on the Zeiss side are already melting into the backgroung a bit does feel like it.I got the Zeiss for 600€ used and I still consider it a significant upgrade. Also, it's great advantage is it's reach and ability to use f/4 @70mm or 50mm that the kit lens cannot do. I would love to see some good zoom lens for the Sony aps-c lineup, the only real options apart from the kit lens (and some bulky and expensive FE lenses) are the Zeiss and 18-105G (which is big and lacks the 2mm at short end) ... I would kill for a still compact, sharp 16-70 f2.8 from Sigma for example :)
Thank you for this video! For my travel video channel, I am trying to save up for a sony a6500 (because of the IBIS), but in my country (Spain) the a6500 is not offered with the kit lens, but you convinced me to buy it separately instead of the Zeiss. I need it to be light and portable, probably for vlogging and the kit lens just suits me better. You convinced me that the image quality is good enough to keep shooting until I can upgrade lenses :)
i'm a street photography and sometimes I do landscape or portrait. so technically it is abit of everything. is it worth the upgrade from a6500 to a7ii ?
SUCH a helpful review. I agree that for an amateur, the Zeiss (sp?) doesn't seem worth the extra cost at retail, but maybe if you can get it used and in good condition, it might be worth the upgrade. About the sharpness in the portraits and especially the last photo, how can you be 100% sure the focus was on the same spot? Maybe it's due to the depth of field and Zeiss focused on her nose or something? But maybe not since the last pic was f8. Again, so helpful. Thank you so much!
Nice review. I would have also guessed the Zeiss to blow the kit lens right out of the water. If you aren't pixel peeping the images aren't that far off at all. I could totally see the purple in that tree top shot before you even zoomed in. Nice to see the kit lens did a good job. I will save my $$$.
thanks for your efforts and great information. I have one question I am panning to buy sony a6300 and not sure to buy the body only with 35mm f1.8 lens or buying the body with kit lens and then buying the 35mm . I am interested in landscape and street photography and taking photos for friends and family . whats is the best choice for me that consumes money and gives me the decent photos. please give me your opinion and if there are any other choices let me now thankssss
My A6000 came with the kit lens and my initial shots were poor; very poor. I sent everything back to Sony who cleaned the lens sensors, etc. But the camera still provided heartbreakingly bad photos. Not willing to accept defeat, I threw money at the problem and purchased the Sony 35 mm F 1.8. What a huge difference! A year later I got the Zeiss 16-70 mm which also provided great photos. The kit lens was sold off when I replaced the A6000 with the A6300. My experience is at odds with your report. But I stand by my experience: the kit lens is a POS.
First of all, the kit lens costs about 370 (list price vs. 1099), 100 $ only with the cam. So 3 times higher price not 7 ;). Blend is at 50 mm F4.0, not 6.3. I shoot only sport climbing in realatively dark forrest and I am at 1/160 s, F4, at the most of the time at ISO3200. So at 6.3 I will be at 12.800 ISO, which is not usable with the A6000. Auto focus is a bit better in my opinion also the the lens is much more slient. So this features you have also to pay. Zoom range is also higher. So you should not only compare the sharpness of a lens. You may get only the same sharpness but with lower blend, more slient, and more zoom range. By the way. I love your comparision on your channel, keep up the good work.
Honestly having that little kit 16-50 available is a huge attraction to me to stay with A6 line as the most compact yet superb quality ILC package overall. That said, I think the Zeiss may still be the most desirable lens for the A6 series. Look at contrast and color in these test shots, Zeiss is consistently better, richer looking. This comparison you are looking only at sharpness. Also you shot these on a very flat gray day, and the lighting is quite bad and unlikely to show any shot or lens at its full potential. Also that last portrait shot, it looks like the Zeiss is focused on the nose not the eyes. The kit lens is criticized mostly for its muted contrast and color, shots just look a bit hazy. I am actually thinking of buying an A6400 with the kit lens, keeping that lens, and getting the Zeiss as well. You can get the Zeiss used for less than $500. But having such a good tiny kit makes it more likely I will throw the camera into my bag or pocket or take it biking etc. And The best thing about the Zeiss is that to me it is the perfect zoom range. The long end 70mm (105 equiv.) is fantastic, and 16 (24) on the wide end is also just ideal to me. To get this quality of lens with consistent sharpness, OSS, cost, and still compact size is remarkable; compare to say the A7 with the 24--105 G OSS, well that package is approaching three times as big and heavy and about 3x as expensive as well.
I agree, I have both the kit lens and the 16-70 and, while I like them both, there is no question that the 16-70 is the superior lens in terms of the overall image quality it produces (colour, contrast, sharpness) as well as its advantages of constant max aperture and larger focal length range. I use the 16-70mm when maximum image quality is important (events, travel etc) and the 16-50 when size and/or convenience are more important (casual photos). Having said that, I think the 16-50 is underrated. In my opinion, it does well against the Zeiss in sharpness because it is a good lens, not because the Zeiss is not. In any case, I am happy with both lenses.
What an honest review, free from any manipulation of sponsors. Now I can concentrate more on taking photos and adore my kit lens and A6000. Once again, you showed unimportance of the expensive gears. You made a lot of people to save hundreds of dollars. Thanks...
I wouldn't agree with that conclusion. The Zeiss is better in nearly all areas and you can see the difference on the pictures. Maybe not if you have small pictures in your hands, but on the screen you see the difference in terms of sharpness, colours and contrasts. I have both lenses. But the Zeiss is not only sharper, the other big advantage is that you have 70mm f/4 instead of 50mm f/5.6 which is much better for portraits and give you better bokeh and flexibility. The kit lense is quite ok, but more expensive gear is not useless or unimportant.
Thunderbird1337 if you shoot portraits at 70mm f4 you wouldn't impress clients would you... that is not the purpose of the lens... portraits look good at wider apertures
There is also other option less expensive that are also 70mm f/4
Tuca Martins There is just no alternative zoom lens for E-mount existing with the same flexibility, weight and size. Sure, whenever I can I use prime lenses. But such a compact zoom lens is made for holidays/ trips when you can't or don't want to carry around heavy gear. I just came back from holidays in Sicily yesterday and I only used the Zeiss although I had some prime lenses with me. It's just way too uncomfortable to carry around more than just the camera and one lens when you are walking hours in the heat of the sun. And you don't want to change lenses when everything is full of sand, dirt etc. That's what a flexible zoom lens is perfect for. And it must be small and lightweight. A 18-105 is no alternative in terms of weight and size, and the kit lens has noticeably worse image quality, so it's no option either.
Varun Kamal That absolutely depends on the situation. F/4 for portraits can be absolutely fine. Depends on how far your object is away from the background etc. Sometimes you need a higher DOF as f/1.8 can offer, or in bright sunlight you can't just use wider apertures without using filters. We are talking about a small and lightweight zoom lens for trips/ holidays, so handling with filters is no option in many cases. And of course, nobody would use such a compact zoom lens for portraits whenever there is a possibility to use an adequate prime lens. Unfortunately there is not always the possibility. That's where zoom lenses come in, offering a compromise.
The video is helpful to me. The result is surprise to me. I am the user with kit lens in A6000 and have a urge to buy the 16-70mm Zeiss. The review remind me that the difference between two lens is not massive and the expensive lens don't improve the quality of photo. I will learn more knowledge and skills about taking photo rather than buying more expensive lens.
陈小伙 smart decision.. keep on 🙂
A very clever decision.
Indeed you're so right! I have the same issue. Recently bought the A6000 with two kit lenses, wanting to buy a Zeiss prime/zoomlens, but after this review I have to reconsider my 'wanting'. So like you, I am going to spend more time to improve my technical and photografical skills.
I think he has a bad copy of the Zeiss lens
Just getting into Sony mirrorless world and I bought a cheapo, used A6000 which did not come with a lens. I started looking for lens that would suffice me for some time and this review helped a lot. Appreciate the honesty, and quite obviously a LOT of efforts have gone into making this video. Kudos. We actually need reviews from people who are doing honest testing and don't call themselves pro. All the best. I am subscribing to your channel!
After 4 years do you have any lens advice based on your real world experience with the A6000? I just bought an immaculate used 5T with the kit lens but I might upgrade the lens it if it's worth it. Im a novice shooter. Thanks
I liked this review a lot. Many years ago I had a Leica M2 and loved it. It supported 35, 50, and 90 mm lenses, which I also loved. It was stolen and I got out of photography. Now 45 years later, I live in the mountains of Western Colorado. It seemed so senseless to be taking beautiful hikes and just taking pictures with my cell phone. So I bought a Sony a6000 with the Sony-Zeiss 16-70. It more or less exactly mirrors my old camera in terms of capabilities. The mountain landscapes as well as the mountain flowers come out extremely sharp and with beautiful colors, both better if I use my tripod and shudder release cord. I'm totally happy with this combination. I'm also happy that the kit lens is also excellent.
I don't know if it's been said already but you need to make sure that your focus point is the same for both images (preferably manually) and that you don't have subject or camera movement between lenses changes. Both could explain the vast difference in sharpness in your last photo comparison.
bahamakyle thought the same here...
Well said! Just purchased the 6000 as well, and I ended up arriving at the same conclusion from watching this. Thanks for all the videos so far they're helping me out a ton.
I agree but across multiple photos...not sure
Yes, he does not address differences in focus point at all.
It makes the whole test completly unreliable in my opinion.
The ZEISS consistently has superb sharpness in the center. The one photo that has the Kit Lens beating out the ZEISS is obviously not focused on the eyes. The ZEISS is definitely better than the kit but it is just a question of correct focus. Now in 2023 you can get the mint ZEISS for $300 used. The kit for about $100.
Thank you so much for a completely unbiased review. I got a used a6000 with kit lens, and was considering the Zeiss. I won't bother now 😁
Very good review. You're a better photographer than some of the youtubers who claim to be pro photographers. I have both the 18-55mm and 16-50mm kit lenses. I like both of them. Unless you blow up images the kit lens seems to work fine in well-lit scenes. I'd take the kit lens and save $800 for the next camera.
Thanks for the compliments! I agree with you about the money savings. Next camera or a prime or 2 or 3 haha.
Perfect example of what I am trying to get my head around. In many of these photos the Zeiss was sharper in the very far corners, but the cheap little kit lens was equal or close and a few times sharper in the center. With all of the talk about great bokeh, is it really that necessary to have it completely sharp in the far corners? Or, can that out of focus be considered a type of bokeh? Think about it... I am taking a photo of my subject in the center of the frame...It is perfectly focused there...in the corners, like in these photos, there are some tree branches...they are a little out of focus with the kit lens, but here's my point...Do I really care?!! My center subject is sharp as a tack! Are 99% of the people viewing this image going to see the corners are a little blurry, or if they do, care?
So, if the corners of some trees off in the distance are out of focus, is that not a form of bokeh? And do I really want those branches to be IN FOCUS? Or, is it OK if they are a little blurry? Call me crazy, but I really don't care. As long as my subject is sharp and 90% of the rest of the image is pretty darn sharp, I say who cares if the far corners, I mean the far 5-10% in the very corners, is soft. If anything, doesn't that put more emphasis on my subject?! Become a form of bokeh? Is this not considered a form of bokeh because some lenses do keep that in focus? Is that the only reason?
And, is it really critical that a tree's branches be sharp way out there in the far corners? Not to me anyway...I say who cares if, when I blow it up 100x, it's not sharp way out there. Aren't we splitting hairs and being awfully picky? This is pixel peeping after all...and my problem with it! ;)
Now, look at the difference in price to get those 5-10% of the far corners in focus. Utterly and completely NOT WORTH IT!
I agree! Heck forget the camera and save for a vacation!
I prefer that most of my landscape photos are tack sharp corner to corner. Bokeh is nice, but bokeh isn't appropriate for scenic pictures.
@@scottrostad1137 this comes down to really buying lenses to fill very specific shooting roles. Every scenic shooter is shaking their head going you so crazy... pictures of buildings?
Like the flexibility of your kit lens but shoot those kinds of things and you'll be looking for a different lens.
Big on Bokeh? You'll probably want a different lens eventually. Personally I'd put the money into paying off debt or investing and save it for when there is an affordable camera as good as the 6400 that has IBIS. Then I'd sell my 6400 and buy the IBIS camera and stop buying lenses that are OSS.
One of the reasons I keep a completely different brand older camera around is in body stabilization on non stabilized lenses.
Unfortunately the 6500 and a7ii cant compete with the 6400 in so many other areas. But even then... I'd rather spend that $800 on a A7II because it's like having 2 lenses for every lens you own. Part of owning different sensor sizes is that your lenses now fill 2 different rolls.
Eventually I'll probably get an A7ii or a7iii for that reason. So I can IBIS and full frame to take advantage of different lenses and or use existing lenses in different ways.
I love the kit lens. No way would I replace it with that huge Zeiss. Optically it may be better but it won't fit in my pocket. I have had some crazy sharp stunning images from the kit lens. No complaints from me.
This video confirms my feeling, I had a a5000 with "kit lens" I sold that to buy a a6000 with a zeiss lens. The truth is I am missing my old lens, Im sensetive to cromativ aberration and I think the Zeiss is awfull. After seen your video Im convinced to sell the zeiss and go find a kit lens from ebay and save some money. I have taken some amazing portraits with my old a5000 (and the kit lens) and have not had the same feeling with the zeiss. Great Video!!
I think Zeiss has a clear advantage in sharpness and quality throughout the video. As other people in the comments have mentioned, this is especially true if you did a side by side, all manual comparison. The Zeiss will win hands down every time. But only when you punch in. Looking at a full image or even a reasonable crop of the full image, the difference is still noticeable, but only in a side by side. For professionals, the choice is obvious. Zeiss all the way. For pro-sumers and hobbyists, your conclusions is totally correct. The Zeiss doesn't really provide enough additional quality to justify the cost.
I just came across this and it is sound advice. I have the 24-70 Zeiss for my full frame and have the same exact experience vs. the 24-70 kit lens. After picking up an a6100 to travel with, I naturally was looking at the 16-70. People forget that the only people who will pixel peep is yourself.
I guess Zeiss lenses just are fashion objects meaning you pay a lot for (of course) a better quality but the difference between these two clearly shows that it is not worth the extra money. I always wanted a Zeiss lens but there are cheapers one that are better. For instance I was planning on buying the 12mm Touit but AF was so loud and it was so expensive that I went with the faster 12mm from Samyang and I have to say the built quality and image quality are outstanding, I doubt the Zeiss could be better + it's not even weather sealed that's a shame considering hop expensive it is. Thanks a lot for all your reviews I guess my next Lens will be the Sony 35 1.8 :)
I agree with the Touit series. Some of these older Zeiss lenses are not worth the money.
TechnologyMafia I'm sorry, but I really disagree on that. The 12mm Touit is a very good lens as well. Besides the price, which is a little bit to high in my opinion. In comparison to the samyang the Zeiss has autofocus, nice sunstars and you are able to shot into the sun and you will keep kontrast. With the samyang that's not possible if you want good results. Hope this comment might help someone :)
The price tag has nothing to do with the auto focus, if so Why is the kit lens then so cheap? Zeiss is overpriced, especially this lens thathave been widly criticized. The Zeiss is not worth the price, and all that purple fringing is unacceptable on a high so costly lens. Sony Should do a new one much better 16 or 18-70 with much better quality. and a new improved kit lens without that terrible barrel distortion it suffers from that make me not use it.
Maybe your next lens should be the Zeiss 24 1.8 - now that is a lens that shows you what good ( expensive) glass can do. When I do comparison test shots the 24mm always seems to win! Something about the Zeiss micro contrast and the sharpness. I just picked up the a6500 ( still in the box!) and am looking forward to putting the 24mm on it and see what it will do!
I don't agree that the Zeiss is not worth the extra money. 70mmf/4 ist just so much better and more flexible than 50mm f/5.6, besides the better sharpness, contrasts and colours of the Zeiss. The kit lens is OK but nothing more than that. By the way: I have the Sony 35 f/1.8 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and I would definitely recommend the Sigma if you don't need the stabilisation. Only for videos I prefer the Sony because of the stabilisation. For all other purposes the Sigma is better, its sharpness is awesome.
Wow I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it my-self . . . I've never used the kit lense that came with my A6000 but I'm going to have to dust it off and check it out my-self after watching your video. Cheers!
Hey! Can you please see which lens is better in low light?
Which lens do you use ?
thanks, you made me saving €850 .-
Man, I just love your reviews... so extremely clear and objective. TechnologyMafia is my #1 Go-To for all a6000 lens and accessory reviews, research and information. Thanks for making this so easy!
Great review. Now I am sticking with my kit lens. It gives me a lot of good results. And its light and portable at the same time.
Same here👍
After several reviews,i recently bought sony a5100 with with 16-50mm lens kit. it exceeds my expectations with that budget. Great picture quality.
I honestly don't know why so many people say the kit lens are bad. I for one think it works wonders. Quality is great and image is sharp. The only thing I would say is you definitely do not get as much bokeh, but if you are only using it as an everyday fun versatile lens, the kit lens is ALWAYS the cheapest option. As shown by this video, you pretty much only notice differences if you ZOOM all the way in and get picky about details that you wont normally see when you look at the picture as a whole (as intended). Average people who look at these pictures will definitely not see a difference between the two. The only reaction you will get is if you tell them one of the photos was taken by a free lens that comes with the camera purchase, and the other is taken by a $1200 (CDN price) lens.
If you are simply just taking pictures and posting on Instagram or Facebook, just stick with kit lens...spare yourself the extra hundreds of dollars and use that on food instead lol.
while watching the video, i was like... whaaaaaat??? i was planning to save up for the 16-70, but i think i will just go for the 18-105 after watching this review. thanks for the great comparison review. wish you could do a same comparison between the 18-105 and the kit.
AndrewStar I have! 5-6 videos ago.
Well, the Zeiss is better than the 18-105 at almost all FL's, so there's your answer. It is cheaper though.
Pretty much one of the most honest reviews.. Excellent job. Thank you for sharing valuable information
This is a lot of work! Thank you for doing this for free! Oh my god! This is very valuable and professional review!
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks for this comparison! That settles it. I was contemplating to upgrade to the Zeiss for my UA-cam videos, but the marginal improvements do not justify the investment for me. If I did not have the kit lens and I had to decide between the two, I'd probably go with the Zeiss for it's better resell value. But if you already have the kit lens then buying the Zeiss is a harder decision.
Keep up the great work!
Thank you for the video! Just received Sony A6300 body and thinking for the Zeiss, but now i go for the kit. For amateur use is very good, pocket portable, taking photos anywhere...perfect. I have read many opinions and results even on Amazon about the Zeiss, surprisingly many people are not satisfied even have returned it...
Like and congrats for your work.
Perfect! I'm looking into trading my OMD for an a6000 and this was the comp I was looking for. The Zeiss looks to have better colour and slightly (if erratic) better sharpness but not enough for me to justify an additional GBP 600.
After 5 years do you have any lens advice based on your real world experience with the A6000? I just bought an immaculate used 5T with the kit lens but I might upgrade the lens it if it's worth it. Im a novice shooter. Thanks
Nice comparison, only one small correction if you buy the kit lens separately the price is $350 right now $298 on special at B&H 👍
Is the international version of the Zeiss 16-70 F4 any different?
I know the obsession on making a cheap kit lens appear equal or better than that of a much more expensive one. I own both and you will need to shoot me to convince me to use this kit lens over this Zeiss.
Good review, last picture seems to be a tad out of focus on the zeiss. But I think you have an excellent point, is it really worth it?
Thanks for the video! Surprising result. I haven't been able to find a comparison b/w the 18-105 and the 55-210, especially interested in the telephoto end. Would love to see it on your channel if you get a chance.
Just posting a quick thank you, I got a 16-70 for 300 dollars used because of reviews like this. One I got is sharp as a tack ❤️
Thanks for this review. Guess I'll stick with my kit lens which I have been happy with as a holiday walk around combo.
Looking at your examples, to my eye the Zeiss lens is vastly better, actually more of a difference than I had expected. It is much sharper in the corners (kit lens seems to be a joke in the corners at f/4). The chromatic aberration is mostly correctable in Lightroom fairly easily but that can reduce sharpness just a little bit in exchange. The kit lens actually has severe distortion that is corrected in software in the camera for jpegs and in Lightroom for raws.
On your wife's face, one of the early comparisons, the Zeiss skin tone and sharpness looked vastly better than the kit lens. That's to my eye anyway. On the similar example at F/8 towards the end, there was a hair in front of her eye with the Zeiss shot, and the camera might have focused closer. In general it's good practice that before comparing sharpness at close distances to always check the focal point.
One trick to using inexpensive lenses is to stop them down one or two stops from their widest aperture. Often when you pay big bucks for a lens, what you are buying is the ability for the lens to be sharp corner to corner wide open. A "kit lens" can look surprisingly sharp when you stop it down a couple of stops.
In general this particular Zeiss lens is considered a bit soft in the corners compared to primes or more expensive zooms. Also there is a lovely "Zeiss look" evident which to my eye is a little bit more pop and also extreme yellows are toned down.
I think that the price difference is justified for enthusiasts and professionals but for casual photography the kit lens is just fine.
I agree, to me the sharpness is not just a bit better, but like a lot. Looking at the comparisson at the beginning of the video, with the Zeiss lens you can see every hair as individual, the teeth have clear edges and in general the image doesn't seem so washed out.
The bokeh is softer of the kit lens, however it's just a character missing blur that comes from the lower sharpness of the lens. The Zeiss bokeh at least shows some character, could use some improvement though.
I agree with the colors in the face, however the blurriness of the kit lens might be to blame here too. It blends the colors to much and destroys the texture of the skin.
I own that kit lens and can confirm this exact performance. It's as well a nightmare when used in lower light, the high iso blur gets elevated by the general blurryiness.
It's such a pity, because that kit lens is really small. Mine is however only decent sharp around 28mm. I wished they could make a premium version of that lens.
I just bought a 5T with the kit lens but Im looking to replace it with something affordable that performs better in low light, mostly for recording. Any advice? Im a novice shooter. Thanks
Excellent comparison and it echoes the views of a friend of mine. He has the same 2 lenses that you compare and whilst the Zeiss is a tad better overall, no way is it worth the $700 more... He calls it 'badge snobbery'...
Very well done ! It's refreshing to see reviews done by a self-proclaimed amateur since the perspective is closer to what other amateurs look for (as opposed to pros who make a living from their gear). I have the old 18-55 kit lens which came with my original NEX 5 as well as the 16-50 kit which came with my A6000. I guess my view is not that the 16_70 is poor for the money ... it's more that the kit lenses (despite some awful reviews) are actually quite good and represent great value. Of these lenses, I tend to use the 16-50 for casual shooting where the small size is handy (carry the camera in a dust cover) and the 16-70 for more serious wide to short telephoto shots. the zeiss is pricey but, the fact is that I like it and use it a lot so I'm not upset at all at the price I paid. It"s more that I'm really happy that kit lens is so good :-)
Surely, Tech- M, you are returning the Zeiss and keeping the 18-105 f.4! Wow, this plus your comparison video between the 16-70 and the 18-105 have been real eye openers!
I am so glad that I opted for the bigger lens- no regrets now, thanks to your stellar comparisons. Like you, I am super shocked!
After watching this I will be sticking to fixed primes for pure sharpness and the kit lens for portability. Another great video.
I follow your reviews and find them very helpful.
I have a suggestion. You should compare these 2 lenses for landscape and night photography, as well. I feel the kit lens performs average in low light and would like to see how it compares with 16-70mm and 18-105mm lenses.
I just bought a 5T with the kit lens but Im looking to replace it with something affordable that performs better in low light, mostly for recording. Any advice? Im a novice shooter. Thanks
@@MasterArmedforcesHope you got your lens by now, but in case you didn't, I bought a Sigma 16mm f1.4 prime lens to pair with an old A5100 I've been using for a while. I think the Sigma prime lenses are some of the best price-to-performance you can get for Sony APS-C lenses. At f1.4, I've found it to be noticeably faster and sharper, especially for night photography. Great upgrade over something basic like the 16-50mm kit lens nearly everyone has.
@@samk7500 I haven't yet purchased the lens. Thanks for the tip!
Hi Arthur. I pick up a used sel1670z for 350 euro week ago. For 350 euro I think this is good lens. I am very satisfied. In my opinion sel1670z ir much much better then sel1650. And I dont want set up sel1650 on my a6000 😀
Go with the kit for video rather than the Zeiss though right? If you're cropping in for video the edge clarity isn't so much of an issue, plus the kit lens has the ability to zoom remotely which is great for video, especially on a gimbal.
This is forever be the best lens comparison Video 🙏
Try shoot raw, and you'll see the difference. I thinks it is better to shoot raw when comparing lenses, no lens correction applied so we can see pure optical performance. Anyway, nice video.
Aad Gym true. but this channel is dedicated for amateurs and hobbyists. Comparing JPEG would have better 'real life' comparation.
This^ is exactly right. I know shooting RAW would make for a better technical comparison, but I do a lot of these videos for my own personal, practical, amateur curiosity.
Got your point. Have you tried the old kit 18-55? Some said it is slightly sharper than the 16-50.
There is already a 16-50 vs 18-55 clip on this channel.
Well, doesn't the final result count? I do not care about distortion if it does not show up in the result.
One could do the comparison in RAW and use all lens corrections in the RAW software. But would it be a more practical comparon? I doubt it.
Thanks for the great review. I was one of those that specifically asked for this comparison. I've been very happy with the kit lens and suspected there wasn't the difference between it and the 16-70 wasn't worth $800. Your test confirmed it. I'm putting the $$ towards primes. In your comparisons, do you always use just one image for each lens? Might be useful to take 2 or three images for each and defocus and refocus each time, just in case focus was slightly different e.g. eye vs eyebrow. Great work. Thanks.
I bought recently the a6000 with the kit lens. I didn't manage to focus right in maybe 40% of my tests in bright sunny weather below f8, f8 was alright, the Canon 100D and Sony RX100 which I compared to the a6000 focused 100%. It was like the Zeiss lens on the garage door, simply bad focus.
Some honest truths.
if you are looking at this comparison saying you're no longer going to buy the 16-70 because of the sharpness, you are probably an amateur cause you don't know what you're talking about. Most of these comparisons in sharpness were obviously missing focus between the lenses.
Also, regarding the edge performance, Arthur spent more time complaining about the chromatic abberation (EASILY fixed with the click of a button) and ignoring the horrible distortion in the 16-50 (cannot be fixed).
Having said that, I respect you Arthur for this great review, and I am a pro who downgraded to an a6500 for a personal camera, when I no longer needed my own pro gear, and I think the 16-50 is a fantastic lens. You have shown me that the extra money isn't worth it here for what I do. I have a 16-50 and I'm still able to take professional shots that I submit to Getty Images on a weekly basis. To be able to get the quality I get out of the kit lens is unbelievable and I applaud Sony for their achievement.
Arthur, I recently bought the A6000 with 16-50 kit lens. I want to try some food photography. Can you recommend a cheap prime lens that worth the money for it?
Sigma 16mm f1.4
For me, I found the 16-70 F4, sharpest from 8.0-11.0. The purple fringe is really annoying, however, my software removes it rather easily. I have been told that the 16-70 F4 was updated, so, I don't have that barrel distortion, or my software is correcting for that. I purchased my lens earlier this year. I will have to try the 16-50 F4 to see how it looks at various apertures. As someone who shoots mainly landscapes, the 16-70 F4 does what I need it to, so, using it with my 70-350, those two are the only lenses I need. Someday, I will have to look real hard at the 16-55 F4, once I get some extra cash. Thanks for the review.
I've tested also these 2 lenses and i think that for the price difference stay with the kit lens is better :(
I hate the 16-50 3.5/5.6 but for the price is the best
12:25 is outstanding, don't know if there was something weird in the settings but look at the sharpness on that kit less or - better - that softness on the Zeiss...and it's 800$!
Oh boy, did NOT expect that result! Very nice with a comparison like this, thanks again for a great video!
Great video. I've been hesitant in getting the Zeiss because it's an f4 lens that is priced like an f2.8. It seems to be $200 more than it should be. You have convinced me to continue to wait. Sony has alluded that this year will be a year of lenses. Let's hope for a good f2.8 zoom!
I just bought a 5T with the kit lens but Im looking to replace it with something affordable that performs better in low light, mostly for recording. Any advice? Im a novice shooter. Thanks
Can you compare the kit lens and the Rokinon 12mm f2.0?
Is there any difference between the silver 16-50 and the black 16-50
Hey very informative video, but how did you manage to shoot such sharp pictures with the kit lens(like the last one)? No matter how hard I try i can't shoot a picture that's nearly as sharp as the last one you took. Is my lens maybe a bad copy?
Hello, what about the Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di III VC Lens for Sony E Mount Cameras ?? is it any good? it is way cheaper than the Zeiss, I am actually debating between these two. Thanks, great video!
A thousand thanks for taking the time to do this review....
Youre welcome, I am glad it is helping people!
Thanks, V helpful, I use the kit lens for travel because it is so compact and I generally stop it down and find it reasonable sharp. My camera fell off the tripod on to the rocks in Newfoundland smashing the kit lens. A couple of days and 100 dollars and I had a replacement and didn't shed a tear. It's just not great for portraits but my old Nikons primes fit nicely on the A6000 but are a lot more work.
Very honest comparison, I saw the 18-105 PZ comparison also but I have a question: I want something like these lenses but with great photo quality, what about E 18-200 or E PZ 18-200?
Outstanding comparison. Results were surprising. Thanks.
Comparing JPEG, not RAW, is not as fair enough due to automatic software corrections. Another issue is the need of perfect equal focal plane (and focal distance as well to do the just comparison. But it's a good video anyway. Thanks.
Great review, as always. It eased my anxiety using the kit lens for travel, I'll switch to the prime lens in the night.
Thank you for creating such a great comparison. I have been debating on which lens to purchase without having to spend to much for quite a while. This helped me much.
Thank you for your review I was thinking about buying the Zeiss lens this week. I bought the kit lens yesterday. And it seems to be very sharp not too bad for a cheap lens. I've been using my G Master 24 1.4 of course that's always better but I thought I'd get something that's made for the APS-C camera. I don't think I'm going to buy the Zeiss lens now it seems to be a lot of problems with focusing I hear. Thank you for your review
You have really sold me on this kit lens honestly. I'm a photographer for a while now, and i'm changing to sony from nikon because i want to go in depth to video and my D7000 is not very good at it. Also it's a heavy beast with my Sigma, while i want to go light now...
This lens is not bad. I am going to buy a lot of old primes, but this will be my go-to lens when i want AF all purpose. Thank you very much.
I'm planning to buy a6500 should i buy it with kit lens or body only then a prime lens? if yes what it should be? looking for all around lens, i do have limited budget for the lens though $400.
I truly don’t know what was going on with quality control but I had a much different experience. I tried the kit lens when I first bought my a6000 but I was really unhappy with it. I traded up to the zeiss inside a week, and it’s been good on my a6000 for several years now. Mine does have a bit of chromatic aberration but not like in this video. Fixes easily in Lightroom. Im really happy with it so I’m now going to use it on a new a6600 when it comes in.
Hi,really interesting! I have both lenses and don't use the kit lens because I thought the 16-70 mm or the 10-18 mm lenses were much better.
To be honest apart from the extra focal length and the constant aperture,the 16-70 mm overcomes the kit lens in your test in colour tone and handling of reflections (more detail in contrasty areas).
I'll start using the kit lens again.Maybe tomorrow. Bye!
I just bought a 5T with the kit lens but Im looking to replace it with something affordable that performs better in low light, mostly for recording. Any advice? Im a novice shooter. Thanks
That's about what I would expect too. Did a brief test on the zeiss demo set at sony centre and was surprised at how blurry it was when AF-C is switched on. When switched to AF-S, it's sharper, but can't help but noticed it ain't expensively sharper than the kit. Try to do multiple shots cause the AF tends to mis-focus which could explain the varying results. That was few years back so not sure if the firmware update fixed the AF bug. Kind of makes you ponder that just cause it's 10x expensive, doesn't necessarily mean it's 10x better.
Yes, this is really surprising, we would expect a huge improvement for 4X the price! But it is not the case, only just a slightly better (but not always).
I guess Sony has just made an amazing job on the kit lens.
not really, zeiss made a shitty lens for an excesive amount of money, checkout something like the sigma 16mm, that bish looks amazing
hey Arthur, this is a very interesting comparison !
i was interesting to upgrade my 16-50 to a 16-70 Zeiss, it helps me a lot to make my opinion about so =) thank you ^^
I totally disagree with this review. I did test with both objectives. I made around 70 Photos of lens test structures with 16,24,35,50,70mm focal length at f3,5, 4, 5,6, 8, 11, 16, 22 apertures with same ISO settings for same other parameters. Sony Zeiss 16-70 was in 95% cases better than 16-50 Kit lens. It has less distortion, better sharpness. I bought used 16-70 over ebay and wanted to test if it is in good condition and symmetrical. After this test I understood why good optic has bigger price.
i use the 9mm laowa, the sigma 56mm and the kit lens for anything in-between.
I had very similar results, however, I notice that you didn't address the fact that the sel1650 renders colour quite differently where light hits a surface. For instance, you'll notice that on your wife's face, the 1650 has more white spots, and less colour detail and contrast as a result. You can get around this by turning down highlights in post process. I ended up keeping the 1670z because it was overall a sharper lens with more reach. If the 18105G was a retractable zoom, I'd probably have bought that instead.
Hey Arther. I just picked up the a6600 and I'm looking for a good vlogging lens. Not really keen on spending $900 on the 10-18mm and the Sigma 16mm 1.4 (while I know it's a great lens) is heavier than I'd like and not pocketable. Thoughts a few years later on picking up the 16-50mm second hand? In body stabilization plus the oss would be interesting.
I hope you and your wife are doing well and staying safe during these crazy times.
We can say that it is the same story for Video performance as well ?
Calling that sharpness difference on the eyes/mouth/skin on the portrait "slight" is a bit of an understatement. That is a HUGE difference in the world of lenses. To me the Zeiss looks like a pretty dang good picture...not prime territory, but pretty good. The kit picture is just not great at all. Disclaimer: I don't own the Zeiss.
I've wore my kit lens out on my a5000. I've shot automotive, landscape, and portraits. In all cases, the Sony has been tack sharp with very little drop off toward the edge. I've also shot with a canon t6i. In my comparisons, the Sony has better overall image quality and sharpness. Only huge different I noticed would be flares (or starbursts) from light. The Canon seemed to render that much cleaner and with better shape.
The kit lens is not that cheap. If you want to buy it new it has an approximately 350 price tag. And yes the 1670 doesn't deserve the Zeiss badge. Most of Zeiss lenses are expensive because they do offer great optics but this one doesn't. It's frustrating that Sony has abandoned the APSC lens line up supposing that FF lenses will do the job. Well they don't. I have seriously started thinking of making the jump to Fuji. Nice review ;)
Bot Theodore haha yeah the xt2 looks amazing!
I think he said you could find it used for that price.
Never buy a kit lens as a standalone. It's like with the A7II, when you buy it as a kit you only pay $150 for the kit lens vs $450 as a standalone.
Ran Elkobi right now, you get TWO kit lenses for about 200.00.with either the 6500 or the 5600 Nikon. It's kind of like they're FREE. lol. With Black Friday, it's even easier
I do like your videos, congrats. As few other comments, the comparison for this Zeiss is not about what you compare! I have used this lens as my main one, originally in A6000 for a year and now another year with A6500. Always stills, night and day, warm and cold, every situation and it is great, very sharp, excellent colors and the f/4 helps to get the correct exposure every time. Just because of this and the 4/10-18 lens, I will not go full frame, rather wait for the A7000!
Great video as always but in future videos, try shooting in RAW if you are not doing it now. I noticed we are comparing JPEG images and they are not as clear as they could be and they are processed by the camera for lens distortion if not more. I feel importing them into LR the profile lens correction set to off will give you the best source for comparison. Even if these were taken in JPEG, it still shows that there is a difference between these two lens, but it may have been more pronounce in RAW.
Some differences could be due to how well you focused the two shots. Also, you need to label which is the zeiss photo and which is the other.
I've already test 18-105 vs 16-70 BTW. It seems 18-105 has a bad contrast at the center, but it can beats Zeiss wherever that's not center. Even Zeiss has more saturation, it's fail to take a photos that need contrast a whole frame.
When you do these lens comparisons, it would really help if you shot something in low light. I would expect the Zeiss would do a lot better than the kit lens in this regard.
I suggest to compare at higher ISO. Using ISO 100 is the same as driving on slicks / winter tires on perfect road. Compare them on snow and you see...
Reading many posts of Zeiss owners concerning serious decentered focus problems with the Zeiss 18~70mm f4.0
I have changed my mind about purchasing this Zeiss due to obvious quality control problems.
I just bought a a5100 Cam kit. that did not come with a lens. (face palm) whyyyyyyy. anyway I'm now trying to buy a separate lens to actually use the Cam. because correct me if I'm wrong you can't use the Cam without a lens, right? so should I buy a 16-50mm Lens kit? I really don't know but I need .
Hi :) I do own both lenses and that last pair of pictures made me wonder ... hasn't the Zeiss missfocused? The way how the hairs on the Zeiss side are already melting into the backgroung a bit does feel like it.I got the Zeiss for 600€ used and I still consider it a significant upgrade. Also, it's great advantage is it's reach and ability to use f/4 @70mm or 50mm that the kit lens cannot do. I would love to see some good zoom lens for the Sony aps-c lineup, the only real options apart from the kit lens (and some bulky and expensive FE lenses) are the Zeiss and 18-105G (which is big and lacks the 2mm at short end) ... I would kill for a still compact, sharp 16-70 f2.8 from Sigma for example :)
You have gotten hit by the camera buying bug, having multiple lenses covering the same focal length. It happens all the time.
Can you please compare the two lenses in low light?
Thank you for this video! For my travel video channel, I am trying to save up for a sony a6500 (because of the IBIS), but in my country (Spain) the a6500 is not offered with the kit lens, but you convinced me to buy it separately instead of the Zeiss. I need it to be light and portable, probably for vlogging and the kit lens just suits me better. You convinced me that the image quality is good enough to keep shooting until I can upgrade lenses :)
I’m curious as I am thinking about the Zeiss to go on an a5100.
i'm a street photography and sometimes I do landscape or portrait. so technically it is abit of everything. is it worth the upgrade from a6500 to a7ii ?
SUCH a helpful review. I agree that for an amateur, the Zeiss (sp?) doesn't seem worth the extra cost at retail, but maybe if you can get it used and in good condition, it might be worth the upgrade. About the sharpness in the portraits and especially the last photo, how can you be 100% sure the focus was on the same spot? Maybe it's due to the depth of field and Zeiss focused on her nose or something? But maybe not since the last pic was f8. Again, so helpful. Thank you so much!
Nice review. I would have also guessed the Zeiss to blow the kit lens right out of the water. If you aren't pixel peeping the images aren't that far off at all. I could totally see the purple in that tree top shot before you even zoomed in. Nice to see the kit lens did a good job. I will save my $$$.
thanks for your efforts and great information. I have one question I am panning to buy sony a6300 and not sure to buy the body only with 35mm f1.8 lens or buying the body with kit lens and then buying the 35mm . I am interested in landscape and street photography and taking photos for friends and family . whats is the best choice for me that consumes money and gives me the decent photos. please give me your opinion and if there are any other choices let me now thankssss
My A6000 came with the kit lens and my initial shots were poor; very poor. I sent everything back to Sony who cleaned the lens sensors, etc. But the camera still provided heartbreakingly bad photos. Not willing to accept defeat, I threw money at the problem and purchased the Sony 35 mm F 1.8. What a huge difference! A year later I got the Zeiss 16-70 mm which also provided great photos. The kit lens was sold off when I replaced the A6000 with the A6300.
My experience is at odds with your report. But I stand by my experience: the kit lens is a POS.
Great job with all the videos. You have given me a lot of value. Recently changed from Canon to Sony. Thanks a lot!
First of all, the kit lens costs about 370 (list price vs. 1099), 100 $ only with the cam. So 3 times higher price not 7 ;). Blend is at 50 mm F4.0, not 6.3. I shoot only sport climbing in realatively dark forrest and I am at 1/160 s, F4, at the most of the time at ISO3200. So at 6.3 I will be at 12.800 ISO, which is not usable with the A6000. Auto focus is a bit better in my opinion also the the lens is much more slient. So this features you have also to pay. Zoom range is also higher. So you should not only compare the sharpness of a lens. You may get only the same sharpness but with lower blend, more slient, and more zoom range.
By the way. I love your comparision on your channel, keep up the good work.
and the camera you use for the test?
wow! pretty awesome review! I have the kit lens and the 18-105mm. your preview for the 18-105mm is just as awesome!
can you compare between sony 16-70 vs sigma 17-70 ,17-50?
Honestly having that little kit 16-50 available is a huge attraction to me to stay with A6 line as the most compact yet superb quality ILC package overall. That said, I think the Zeiss may still be the most desirable lens for the A6 series.
Look at contrast and color in these test shots, Zeiss is consistently better, richer looking. This comparison you are looking only at sharpness. Also you shot these on a very flat gray day, and the lighting is quite bad and unlikely to show any shot or lens at its full potential. Also that last portrait shot, it looks like the Zeiss is focused on the nose not the eyes. The kit lens is criticized mostly for its muted contrast and color, shots just look a bit hazy. I am actually thinking of buying an A6400 with the kit lens, keeping that lens, and getting the Zeiss as well. You can get the Zeiss used for less than $500. But having such a good tiny kit makes it more likely I will throw the camera into my bag or pocket or take it biking etc. And
The best thing about the Zeiss is that to me it is the perfect zoom range. The long end 70mm (105 equiv.) is fantastic, and 16 (24) on the wide end is also just ideal to me. To get this quality of lens with consistent sharpness, OSS, cost, and still compact size is remarkable; compare to say the A7 with the 24--105 G OSS, well that package is approaching three times as big and heavy and about 3x as expensive as well.
I agree, I have both the kit lens and the 16-70 and, while I like them both, there is no question that the 16-70 is the superior lens in terms of the overall image quality it produces (colour, contrast, sharpness) as well as its advantages of constant max aperture and larger focal length range. I use the 16-70mm when maximum image quality is important (events, travel etc) and the 16-50 when size and/or convenience are more important (casual photos). Having said that, I think the 16-50 is underrated. In my opinion, it does well against the Zeiss in sharpness because it is a good lens, not because the Zeiss is not. In any case, I am happy with both lenses.