Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS lens review with samples
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- You see before you another Sony Zeiss lens that has very nice parameters, a huge price tag, and a mixed reputation. Let's put it through its paces. It's for Sony's E-Mount mirrorless cameras, and it covers an APS-C image circle.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link):
geni.us/sonyze...
All pictures taken by me on Sony a7r ii and Sony a5100 cameras.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonE...
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonE...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma5...
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonR...
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/Marumi...
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020...
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSm...
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC...
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1...
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMin...
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons....
The colours pop out more and even the sharpness gets better when you intensively stare the "ZEISS" logo :D
The size and range of this lens are its biggest strengths. As it is now 10 years old, the used prices are very compelling. Sony has finally started updating their f4 lenses this past year so hopefully they redo this one while retaining the very nice size and weight! Personally I'll sacrifice sharpness for range and portability any day
I purchased my copy used in excellent condition for a really good price! I am fortunate because I rec'd a good copy with no overwhelming quality control issues. I sold my Sony 18-105mm because it was too heavy and not a pleasure to carry around for street photography . . . I really like the 16-70mm because it is lightweight and very versatile. With my Sony a6000 any distortion is limited and I really can't complain about my photos because they clear and sharp!
Please Ken Rockwell's review; kenrockwell.com/sony/zeiss/16-70mm.htm
Ken Rockwell just says "It's super sharp", just like he does with every camera lens, without showing any sample pictures or test results or even bothering to mention what camera he tested the lens on! Also, his review disagrees with every other one on the internet. I love Ken - but he doesn't care about optical sharpness in lenses at all, and it shows in his lazy testing.
I agree. I also have both lenses. Most times I use the 16-70 for pictures (travel and walkabout) and only use the 18-105 if filming from a tripod.
Agree, 18-105 attached to a6000 isn't best match as far as balance is concerned - I kind of hold a lens instead of a camera since it's heavier than body... ;)
I always love you video reviews.... Pls don't stop, God bless you...
I have this lens as well. I like it. Its not the greatest, but it’s the only one in a small size other than the kit lens. It does what I need. I wish there are others options out there that is in the same size as this.
I did not notice any of these issues, however, I bought mine in 2020, so, they must have corrected those problems.
Well, that was a harsh review of this lens! Thank goodness I didn't buy it when I was in the market for a walkaround zoom for my a6500.
I went with the 18-105mm f.4 G lens and have been very pleased with it ( although it is a little heavy!) Christopher, I concur with your findings - too many reviewers have found that this lens does not live up to the Zeiss name or the price tag! Of course, Sony has now brought out the well received 18-135 mm f.3.5-5.6 as another choice for APS-C users and it is priced almost the same as the 18-105 lens.
This lens came out when there was nothing else other than the kit lens. I have a copy and Happy, but Technologymafia did conclude as you. I told my friend to avoid this and get the 18-105 instead, which came out later. The zeiss badge did fool me though. Luckily I only paid $699 usd. The other issue I have with it is that it is not sealed, so specks of dust have made it in between the two front elements. I still find it useful on my a6000, especially for video work. Thanks for review.
Socrates Vela The 18-105 F4 is a better option between 16-70 and 18-135...
that seems to be the consensus, it's as sharp, the same price range and has a longer range. kind of makes the 16-70 redundant
@@andrewtregoning 18mm is too restrictive as widest option. For me 16mm is more appealing than having more at the long end. Although the 18-105 looks like it's built way better.
Hi Christopher. I've watched your review about the lens i'm using for the past 4 years, and i've got to say that your conclusion about it being such a bad lens, not to mention the other comments on that subject were to me a little too far away. Does it have some sharpness issues? Sure. Is it pricey? Yes. But in the real world you don't pixel peek on 100% photo on a screen... and you don't usually look at the corners , but rather at the center area of the photo, and you in most cases use Lightroom/Photoshop that eliminates fringing etc. and corrects light and focus fall off and so on. Also for most cases your prints are 12"-15" or something in that area anyway. That reminds me of all those Audiophiles that spend their time listening to the audio system, instead of the music... and believe me i've been there. And for those concerned with the edges of the photo, on a 24 mp camera or so, you can simply crop the center to your taste, and even plan the shootout prior to cropping.
Yes, it's not a perfect lens, but it's small, light and versatile. Anyway, i've been enjoying your reviews for some time, and hope to see more of your work. Thank you for your effort.
Glad to hear you enjoy the reviews. I'd disagree with you - sharpness is important for all kinds of different reasons - but everyone's entitled to an opinion :-)
I completely agree! The pixel peeping that goes on is completely ridiculous. Like you say it's very reminiscent of audiophiles observing over every DB. In the real world 99.9% of people wouldn't no any difference. Guess it give people something to do/talk about :)
You know if you take a magnifying glass to a Renoir, Van Gough, or Monet you'll think what amateurs these guys are....it's all out of focus and fuzzy.
Who cares if they take your breath away from a distance!
I’m going to have to agree with every part of your review. It beggars belief that even in the early days of the E-mount system this was allowed to go to market. Unfortunately Sony/Zeiss didn’t learn from this when the FE 24-70 F4 was released either. You could accept the shortcomings of both lenses if they didn’t carry the blue badge and high price tag that goes with it.
Fortunately Sony has got their act together and the current crop of (still mostly expensive) lenses are excellent although there’s not much choice in the way of dedicated APS-C.
Another balanced review.
I got this lens when I bought my A6500. I was really upset about the way the lens would stick. I went to the Sony store (Philippines) and they told me it is because it is new. I told them BS. Picture quality was total garbage but the 4K video was pretty good and the OSS seemed to work well. I was able to take it back and got the 24-70 F2.8 GM. Great quality photos and good 4K vid. Problem is to heavy and no OSS.
It's not a bad lens, but is expensive for what it is. I have this lens and 2 more zooms, the 16-50 and 18-55, but this one is better. It has good range, fixed aperture and beautiful colours. I bought it used for 270 euro, so it was a good deal for me.
Honestly, despite the (mostly) poor reviews of this lens i must say, that i really like the images. Great contrast and rendering for a zoom lens. And i say this as a Fuji user. :-) If you look a ehotozine for example, the mtf easily keep up wit the the xf 18-55 for example, which is regarded to be a decent lens.
Great review! Can't wait for the fuji xf 16-80 f4 to be released and your review on it!
Such a shame Zeiss would have their name on something that performs so poorly for the price. I expect more from Zeiss!
Corey Mathery - I'm a beginner ( to put it kindly), and even I've noticed that the Carl Zeiss name seems to bring attached to things in a way I wouldn't have expected. It almost feels like when you walk into Target and see a cheap t-shirt with a "designed by Carl Zeiss tag hanging off it! I exaggerate (...a bit) but I reckon you'll know what I mean. It almost seems like Zeiss has shrugged its shoulders and decided it can cash in on its name.
Anthony Smith That’s what bothers me, I love Sony and Zeiss, and they are better than this. My Zeiss glass on my RX10 IV is some of the best glass I have ever worked with! Not to mention all of the legacy Zeiss glass. Even a lot of their newer glass is top notch. Just not sure why they have a clunker like this.
Anthony Smith- I can recommend the Sony /Zeiss 24mm f1.8 for APS-C as an excellent lens that lives up to the blue badge. It was my first "expensive" lens for my a6000/6500 and my first used lens ( bought from a good camera shop with return policy)- it literally opened my eyes to the possibilities of Sony mirrorless. The journey has continued as I have just bought my first full frame -I snagged a Sony a7iii that is backordered everywhere.
Corey Mathery - Couldn't agree more. I've never shot with high-end Sony or Zeiss gear. Can't afford it, and even if I could It'd be wasted on me 'cause of my lack of skill/experience.
But many of the pros I admire use Sony, so I'm sure your "they'ree better than that" comment is accurate.
As for Zeiss, I have a theory: due to the increasing appeal and decreasing prices of other 3rd party lenses, Zeiss maybe trying to compete in both the markets, if that makes sense?
I would guess most of their glass maintains the standard that made them a household name, yet I'm equally sure more and more people are wondering if their quality, even at its best, justifies the price given what you can achieve in post these days.
But hey, that's just me. A beginner who is bored today and sprouting opinions that are above my pay grade! Cheers.
They fixed whatever problems they had with this model. Mine is tack sharp throughout the zoom range with awesome color.
your other Zeiss video brought me here - great call out for this lens if you have a APS-C :D
I know this isn't the best lens optically, but damn it's so small and functionally versatile. I use the fuji counterpart, the 16-80 f/4, and it's just such an incredible lens to pair with your favourite prime lens.
This is exactly what I ended up settling on for my Sony setup. 16-70mm for general usage and 16mm sigma prime for low light. For me, I found the better lenses were too large and heavy for hikes and extended trips.
6.53 when you are handing out verdict of not recommended , you show a very impressive pic.
Come to think of it i think colours it produces are very good. They look natural and still pop very nicely..
Correct. Despite beeing a Fuji user i have to admit, that this lens has great contrast and rendering for a zoom.
A very good review mate, thanks.
You doing it good.
Here it is 2020 and I don't have any of the problems cited in this review, although, I do know there were problems when the lens was first released. It appears that my copy, purchased about 6 months ago, directly from Sony, might be an updated lens, with the problems fixed. I use a Sony a6400 and shoot mainly landscapes. The 16-70mm f4 OSS (24-105mm) goes nicely with my 70-350mm f4.5-6.3 OSS (105-525mm), essentially covering 24-525mm, meaning, I only need 2 lenses for landscape photography. They did say too look out for copies purchased on Amazon, if you are looking for a used one, because they all seem to have problems.
Nice
This is a really strange one! With only a few exceptions the whole of the photography world loves this lens. There are basically 5 star reviews everywhere on the net for this thing. It's only the pixel peeping people that seem to have a negative opinion. So many of the reviews I've read compliment this lens for being pin sharp corner to corner yet a few people complain its really soft in the corners? There is also talk of a bad batch because of quality control issues. Its very strange that there are such differences of opinion.
I enjoy your reviews. Thanks. I use this 16-70 f4 on my a6500. I don’t disagree with your assessment. Just personally speaking I don’t find people’s obsession with sharpness as important as they do. It may be that my photographic work doesn’t require tack best of breed sharpness. The contrast and colours with my copy of the lens I find pleasing. As a person who walks many miles a day with this camera lens combo I’m grateful for the relatively low weight and compactness. That the lens is overpriced is without question but the alternatives are also disappointing. I find some comments in this thread ridiculous.
I have both the 18-105 and the 16-70. Most times I have the 16-70 on my a6300 unless I am video-ing from a tripod, in which case I use the 18-105 because the power zoom in combination with a remote is handy. For photos, I prefer the 16-70 because of its lighter weight, manual zoom and useful focal length for most situations. It was expensive but I use it often enough to get my money's worth out of it :-) The sharpness and general image quality for my purposes is fine with both lenses though I have a slight preference for the Zeiss. For travel I use the old silver 18-200 because of its wide focal length range even though it's heavy. Oddly enough, because it's an old and not popular lens, the 18-200 gives me the best results in terms of sharpness and colours if the light is OK !!!! Interesting since it was the third eMount lens to come out (after the kit 18-55 and 16mm pancake) way back when I bought it for my NEX5 !!!
Good review, whilst I use Zeiss glass on my Leica, this just proves that simply having the word Zeiss stamped on the side does not automatically mean a decent lens 😎😎😎 Please review the Zeiss for Fuji X next .
Thanks for the great video, Chris! I've been looking forward to this one... shame about the way the lens performed, though!
this helped me alot and saved me from investing wrongly, thank you for this honest review
as always love your work
Your review is interesting. I own this lens and have taken great images with it. My partner has the 18-105 and I prefer the 16-70. To say it's as bad as the kit lens as some did in the comments is a joke, I refuse to use the kit lens it's so bad.
My negatives about this lens are that it's overpriced (I got mine for large discount), dust can get inside (first copy came with dust already inside), and it scratches easily.
Unfortunately there simply wasn't a good zoom option when I bought this. I'm about to upgrade from a6000 to a7iii and will sell some of my apsc lenses. I'd like to sell this but not sure if I will because cosmetically it looks pretty used though performs well. I'd probably keep one a6000 body along with the 50mm f1.8 oss. I'd sell the 30mm macro and this lens. I already own two full frame lenses, the 70-200 f4 and 85 f1.8. Hoping to get the Tamron 28-75 with the a 7iii
what is your recommendation for this focal length range ?
I am waiting for your verdict on the Tamron 17-70! Is it really THAT bad at 70mm? could you include a 60mm sharpness test?
Yours is the only review I've been waiting before buying!
Thanks!
Thank you ever so much, Christopher, you helped me with my choice!
Scratch that one. Thanks for the review. Always my go to before I think of even buying a particular lens!
"Lovely package" has a different meaning on this side of the pond.
Lol
manufacture cost around 70 usd maybe. This lens should priced around 200 usd...another 700 usd is just for ridiculous zeiss branding.
In my opinion, it´s impossible to make a sharp 4x zoom, from 24 to 70 equivalent, with such a small diameter lenses. Fuji 16-80 f4 is going to have 72mm filter thread against the 55mm from the Zeiss, so optically it would be way better in the corners. I think the Zeiss is just a stretched version on both ends of the old 18-55mm kit lens. So the thing is clear, if you want a light lens for travel, the sony would be better, for image quality, despite that the Fujinon is not out yet, I am really sure is going to be way better (and probably more expensive).
Thank you for the Review Christopher. So I will wait for Sigma or Tamron to give us something similar 👍
I used to have one of these, but I sold it. I wish I had kept it though. I now use a Sony E 16-55 2.8 G, which has superior optical performance (fantastic, actually) but is much bigger and heavier. I just recently bought a Sony 10-20 f4 G, which is amazingly small and light, and has super optics. It would be great if Sony would make a 16-70 f/4 G with similar optical characteristics, and much smaller and lighter. I would get one right away.
hi, i'm a photography beginner. Recently i find a secondhand Sony Zeiss 16-77 F4 with 250 dollars, and Sony standard zoom lens 16-50 with 50 dollars. Do I worth pay 5 times to buy 16-77f4 lans?
@@hezeheze9132 For $250, the 16-70 f4 (not 16-77), would be a good buy, as long as it is in good condition. Having the range and a constant aperture are great, plus the compact size and weight. I just think that for almost $1000, the 16-70 is overpriced for the quality you get - for beginners though, the quality is fine. I got a lot of nice shots with the lens. The 16-50 is even smaller, and for $50 you can't go wrong. I think that would be the logical choice for someone just starting out. BTW, in case you're interested, Christopher also has a UA-cam review of the 16-50 lens.
Here I am about a year later, having got rid of my 16-70 f4. Actually I sold it to my sister, who is pretty much a beginner, along with my old a6000. Both were in good shape, and I gave her a good deal. Looking back, I kind of wish I had kept the lens, since it is so small and light. The 16-55 f2.8 is great, but I'm getting tired of carrying it around. There are rumors that Sony will soon introduce a new 16-80 f4 lens. If the quality is consistent with most of their new lenses, and it is anywhere near the size of the 16-70 f4, I'll probably get one right away. It would take care of about 90% of the pictures I take, and much easier to lug around. Here's hoping!
Have this guy also and my results match yours. Kept mine for different reasons. Would not have got it if I had to pay full price.
Apologies; way off topic Christopher but wasn't sure you'd get a message posted to an old review. I'm a beginner shooting with 600d/T3i. It came with 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses.
My thoughts are (and moneys pretty tight): I can't decide what 50mm lens to buy. The Canon 1.8 STM or the YN 1.4. It'll be used for portraits, arty shots, street photography, maybe some land/seascape stuff- so general purpose. However as I make my way through my wish list over the next 12-18 mth. that'll change Tokina 11-16, 24mm 2.8 pancake and Tamron 70,-200 2.8 VC) So the 50mm will eventually be my portrait/art lens. It's the bokeh I'm after and I don't love the Canon 1.8 bokeh. I thought the image quality the YN was fine for a beginner as per your test from a month ago.
Most lenses I can buy and sell as I want/need them without losing much (if any $) but a 50 is not that type of lens.
The 1.8 STM is pretty much the same $ as YN 1.4.
Is it worth someone like me going Chinese 3rd party for the extra speed and (to my eye) better bokeh of the YN in your opinion? Or should I play it safe and stick with the Canon, despite my reservations about it?
Thanks Christopher - and again, sorry for being so far off topic.
Yongnuo 1.4 all the way dawg. Creamy bokeh and better overall for portraits. Don't get caught up on the name.
Enlightened Images of NC - Thanks, mate. That's exactly what my gut is telling me.
I bought a Tokina 11-16 2.8 ii Used but BNIB for $320AUD (about $235USD). We're just hitting Autumn here in Australia. I live in a valley in a wine region and the golden hour sunrise/sets at this time of year...frickin' insanely beautiful.
It's hard to find that lens for under $450AUD here and new $570AUD. My point being I can sell that if I lose interest in land/seascapes or Astro and make $100 and buy a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 or a Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC etc., etc.
But I'll always want a fast 50 for portraits and art, even though I could get portraits with either of the other 2 lenses I mentioned. You know that though, hey.
It's funny: looking at it that way, the cheapest, shittiest little lens I might ever buy may very well be most important lens choice I make!
That's for sure. I've got a $900 Canon L lens for portraits that I rarely use...most of the time I break out the YN. I would say go for it.
Great informative video.. 4 years later someone is sell one for half price.. but naaa i think after watching this I will give the seller a noooo
That last photo :-O was beautiful! Nice review, thanks :-)
Thank you so much for this review!
Well, you may have saved me a few bucks. I am pondering this lens, but I have found very mixed reviews on it, some serious complaints and others where zeiss fanboys rave about it. If I see it used and cheap, I might give it a shot, otherwise it looks like a pain.
Love your videos man and had no idea you were in Cardiff until recently.
"On paper, it seems like a lovely package" Some excellent foreshadowing there. Very disappointing for the price and for it being a Zeiss and a 'G' lens as well. Are there better options out there (3rd party included) that start from 16mm?
Solid review! helpful! Easy to understand! Most best reviewer youtuber out there.Please review Sigma ART native sony lens. God bless you 👍
Nice video as always Chris. Please do the Sigma 30mm 1.4 DC DN..
Hello Christopher, Ur reviews are outstandingly detailed. Appreciate all the work u have done to produce them.
Could I request a review, I'd love to see your take on the Sony 18-200 f3.5-6.3 lens. It's a pretty old lens but competes rite up with the 16-70, 18-105 and the 18-135.
Hope u'll do it..!
thanks for this honest review!
I wish Sony can make 16-50 f 2.8 ,which is very sharp in A mount
Considering the review, would it be worth 200 dollars on used market in 9/10 condition? I am looking to buy a6700 and this is the first lens i was considering. Or should i go with something else in 2 to 300 range.
I own Zeiss 16-70mm and Sony 18-135mm lens.
Both produced great photos.
I watched Technologymafai and worry about the Zeiss quality issues, but after I tested it in Yangon Sony workshop, I realised it was a good len.
There are some bad copies of the Zeiss len in the market, I tested 3 of them in the camera shop and only one was sharper at the corner.
The colour rendered from Zeiss is slightly better than Sony.
Sony is sharper in the center and more zoom range.
This lens has a lot of copy variation. Mine is quite okay but needs stopping down to f/5.6 for the corners. And even then my Sigma f/1.4 primes stopped down are a lot better.
My biggest gripe is that around 24 mm, it has a lot of field curvature.
Then again I bout it used from a friend and the price was right. For its average selling price, it is just way too much.
Welcome to the disappointment group. I have tested 7 copies of SEL 16-70 F4 with years of different manufacturing and the last two with consecutive numbers. On paper it is the perfect len. The reality is that my 7 copies were completely decenter. 5 out of 7 the left side was bad or very bad. 1 copy the right side was bad and 1 copy just everything was wrong. It seems that only the first copies (the copies for the reviews) that were made had an acceptable quality (it was not good but it was usable). Nowadays the price remains unusually high above all considered that it is a very poor quality optics. Finally I work with Sigma 19mm 2.8, 30mm 1.4 and 60mm 2.8 with an a6500. I have not been able to find a decent zoom. The only problem I have is the pulse in sigma 19mm 2.8 that forces me to use manual zoom when I record video and the motor noise of 30mm. The 60mm is perfect. I have also tested 2 copies of the 16mm 1.4 one did not focus on F2-2.8 and the other the focus was inaccurate 20% of the time below F 4, it is also very heavy for hiking. You are very fortunate to have found a SEL 16-70 centered, you should be happy!
I have the kit, 1670 and 18105G. I prefer the 1670Z. Could be I got a late copy and it works nicely.
Me too ! I also like the ergonomics of the 16-70 better.
Considering the only other standard zoom for the APS-C system that starts at 16mm and has OIS is the 16-50PZ, and you can often get the Zeiss for 1/3 of the MSRP used, maybe this lens is worth getting?
My sensation is that the wonderful performance of Sony sensor is not enough to become a photography leading-brand. Ergonomics, software, lenses, are also essential parts of the package. Nikon and Canon soon will be back in the full frame ML area with Top products.
Hi fromthe future.They already did it...but there is nothing revolutionary😂They wont be able to catch Sony in mirrorless arena.
Is this lens worth 350 in 2024 for a6400?
Sehr gutes Ergebnis
why do you say it is a lens for apsc? being this Full Frame
Very usefull video. Thank you 😀
Seems like the humble 16-50 kit lens performs much better, especially stopped down..
Slight typo in description "it covers _and_ APC-C image circle"
Cheers.
thank you for saving me 800 quid mate
in my case zoom ring was smooth, but text signatures began to erase, such a shame
it wasn't my lens though and I feel a bit bad for that person who bought it
weaknesses are probably result of small package, and such price because it no better option at this zoom range and compactness, while 70 mm is not very sharp wide open, it is still nice at 50
Thanks for this review, I just got my a6500 with the sigma 30mm. What versatile lens do you recommend the most for this camera?
For best image quality, the expensive Sony 24-105 f/4. For value and portability, the Sony 18-105 f/4
so i can better get the 18-105mm ??
Love you channel ,god bless
I think it's a better lens, yes
bro my whole life i thought this was a full frame lens. good thing i researched before buying one on ebay just now lmao
please review full frame sony 24-105mm G lens
A pity.. the 18-105 is to big for me. Would you recommend the 18-135?
Take a look at my review of it for all the infoz you'll need :-)
This lens is the most infamous lens in Sony APS-C e-mount. Due to varying quality variations and the $1000 price tag, it's not worth it. This makes me question Sony for a second. APS-C will never get the attention it deserves due to the priority of FE lenses and the more ever growing niche market for a FF camera. Sad to say this but Sony's e-mount crop sensor cameras don't have much life left if no good native lenses are being made. Sticking a FE lens pretty much negates the size benefit of the smaller body and not to mention the costs of FE lenses too. It's a shame really as I like my Sony a6300.
I was gutted about having to give this lens such a bad review - it promises so much, it should have been so good!
What is the best wide angle lens for aps-c Sony a6000? (Lower than 350€)
I like the Samyang 12mm f/2
What happen to your sony a6300 camera Christopher?
I didn't really need it anymore so I downsized to an a5100. The 24mp sensor on that camera is all I really needed for testing
Hey Christopher, can you do the Sony 18-105 f4?
Great review thank you! Why Sony doesn't offer a decent 16-50mm f2.8 like they have for A mount...? Their is nothing serious in this range for lifestyle, documentary or event work. I don't get it, not everybody want a full frame, I'm really please with the size of my A6300 system.
No-one seems to be interested in designing those kind of lenses anymore unfortunately
Ken Rockwell says: "Sony's Zeiss 16-70mm OSS offers optical and ergonomic near perfection. There is no better zoom made for Sony APS-C cameras. The 16-70mm is ultra sharp at every aperture, has smooth bokeh that makes images look 3D, focuses fast and super close, and it has the perfect focal length range."
It's hard (ie impossible) to know who to believe.
He says that about every lens. I love Ken, but he doesn't test equipment properly (otherwise he would post some image quality test results on his website), and so, every lens to him is The Sharpest in the World, No Better Is Available etc.
@@christopherfrost its also true that lab tests and real world or in use tests are two different things.
@@christopherfrost also he's not the only one praising it, and you are not the only one slating it.
@@hughjohns9110 Well, that's just the nature of the world and of the quest for evidence and truth, isn't it. The challenge of discernment. Ultimately, I'm the one showing empirical and clear test results here, unlike Ken, so...
im planning to buy a a6300 what lens should i buy with it , its for pictures mainly
I don't mind the Sony 18-105 f/4, and the Sony 18-135 is okay.
I reported my desastrous findings with this ZEISS 16-70 mm f 4.0 lens as Amazon review and described the lack of sharpness. Maybe my remarks on the demaged ZEISS image were too harsh, my review got deleted. Thank you, Christopher Frost, your test fully confirms my disappointment: Don't buy a lens by its label.
Hi Chris, would you be able to review canon 16-35mm II and III? thanks!
Can you make a Video about the Samyang 20mm f1.8 pls ?
how do i know that the focus ring works? mine i think isn't
Put the camera into manual focus mode, and try.
So which one you recommend for my Sony a6500?¿ I need versatile and light one. Thanks!
If you need a small and light lens then look at the 16-50mm kit lens
Why are all the Ziess lenses disappointing
Damn. What a shame. Thank you so much for this review. I was thinking of buying this as a walk around travel lens for my a6500 but this review has convinced me otherwise. Can anyone recommend an alternative for this? Cheers.
Somehow I still want this lens. Liked into the 18-105 f4 ?
@@noorur Yup, I have definitely considered that one and it is a viable option for me, but I have decided to go with prime lenses instead.
In my case, after checking 16-105 and 16-70 cz ... The cz one is sharper in the center, and the corner also. The micro contract is more considerable.
Thanks for your tests.
Do not forget Fuji :)
Have a nice day
Great video.
It might not perform well on FF camera's, but, I would be using it with an APSC Sony. The 18-105 is junk and distortion is terrible with the lens.
Will you review the Sony 90mm macro?
I will eventually, but I'm reviewing a few others first
A real shame seeing how 16mm wide end is quite perfect on a 1.5x crop. Sony seriously needs to release a mk2 of this lens or better yet, a 16-70 f/2.8-4 with sharper optics.
Which would you prefer to buy if you were a broke college student:
- Sony PZ 18-105mm f4 G OSS; or
- This Zeiss 16-70mm f4 OSS
Get the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 instead.
@@fredigt2854 I was asking between the two zoom lenses lol. I know that primes generally have better image quality. But being a *BROKE* college student, I only have the liberty to buy one lens. And normally, when that "one lens option" is the subject matter, zooms are in question. I appreciate your input, though. I have a Nikon D7000 with a ton of primes (a gift from an uncle), so I get what you mean. But legit, I don't have much money to explore the world of primes and buy tons of them just for an array of focal lengths. Maybe when I get rich. Lol
@@charlespangilinan6351 Haha. I know. I'm a student as well, but I often sell some stuff to buy new or work sometimes. Going to get the Sony A7RII with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 soon. I think you should consider some other lenses. Even the cheap Sony 50mm is sharper. What will you use the lens for?
@@fredigt2854 events shooting, portraits probably.
Christopher can you please review the Tokina Firin series both MF & AF. I wanna purchase but cant find any deep reviews :/
One day I will :-)
This lens made me move to Fuji
thanks a lot!
16 -70mm f4 is not for dark and sharp - good color and distance and soft images every lens different use for
Unfortunately Sony has never made a sharp zoom lens for their APSC
I have several sharp Sony APS-C zooms.
Matthew Huizing Name one. There is no sharp native zoom
Most are terrible. My old lenses are much sharper, a shame really.
The SELP18105G is very good and cost less then the zeiss, f4 too and more range.
UA-cam Surfer no it's not. I do also have a 18-105 F4 and only use it if I need to, because I can't use one of my primes.
30 years old Canon primes, that are sharper. Not to speak of modern ones. Easy to tell which one is taken with the 105. Said but true.
seriously, sony should make a lens with "zeiss" naming with more carefulness, because many "zeiss" tagged lens are not quite matched as their brand's actual quality (like, otus of zeiss), not only this 1670Z but 35F28Z, shows only "fair" optical performance which is similar with samyang 35mm f2.8 FE, and their price is 2.5 times more expensive! ($799 vs $349). Even 1635Z or FE 2470Z do not show good performance for their naming, even just a G lens are way better or third-party tamron is better! (28-75 F2.8). SONY, if you guys want to take our money with blue-badged ZEISS mark, just make lens damn good. those 1670Z, 35F28Z, 1635Z, 2470Z are seriously overpriced in comparison with their optical quality.
dope thanks dude
Please review sony lens 18-105 F/4
6 years later in 2024(almost 2025) i found this lens in my local camera shop for only $180.
Wow. That's pretty shotty performance for $1200 CAD.
Damn...and I was looking on getting this lens as well... :(