Skip to main content

Sony Zeiss 16-70 f4

Wanting to cut down on the number of lenses that I cart around, and having suffered the failure of my Sony 16-50 zoom, I decided to try the top of the (crop format) range Zeiss badged Sony 16-70 f4. This is not a cheap lens, I paid £605 but with a potential cashback from Sony.

First the good news. It appears very well constructed, and is relatively small and light given the specification. The focus is very fast and accurate coupled with the Sony a6500 body, and the centre of the images produced is biting sharp.  The colour produced is pleasantly neutral, the photos look good.

The not so good news. The edge performance is variable, I would say barely adequate to poor. The lenses I hoped to replace with this Zeiss included a Sigma 19mm f2.8 ( cost £100) and an ancient Pentax 28mm f2.8 M from film days - the copy used here cost me £25. These two optics are the weakest amongst those that I regularly use.

So to the comparison. All tests using a tripod with a 2 sec delay and at f8. I have to say that the conditions were not great, winter gloom and a bit windy, but I can't find any evidence of camera shake, while all of the images produced are very sharp in the centre of the frame. I applied the Lightroom lens corrections where they were available but made no other adjustments.

What you are seeing below are actual pixel crops from the top left hand corner of the frame. Click for a larger image.

Sigma 19mm f2.8 at f8 - 394 KB

Sony 16-70 19mm at f8 - 387 KB

Pentax 28mm f2.8 at f8 - 453 KB

Sony 16-70 27mm at f8 - 367 KB

The Sony turns in a disappointing performance with regard to definition at the edges of the image (the crops are 1024 pixels wide and 600 deep) with the fuzziness extending quite a distance into the frame. The cheap as chips Pentax oldie returns a stellar performance, take a look at the relative file sizes as well as the image detail!

In contrast I took some photos of the grandchildren at Xmas using the Sony lens, and they were very good indeed. The autofocus performed very well and the images were sharp where they needed to be sharp, but the subjects were nearer to the centre of the frame.

So this lens would be very good for people photography, but not for those circumstances where detail is required across the frame. For some photographers this would be a good choice, but for me it's an expensive luxury, I'm returning it to its maker.

Finally, here's another indication of why I don't intend to keep this lens as it shows the magnitude of the region that lacks sharpness. 26mm at f5.6. You need to click for larger images.

The overall image, no masterpiece but it serves to illustrate the problem.

Section to the left, but not the edge - very fuzzy

Section to the right, but not the edge - not very clever.

Section from the centre - very sharp

It would not be possible to crop the unsharpness out and retain the sense of the image.

Today I returned the lens to the vendor John Lewis, and they refunded the full purchase price without quibble. 

It strikes me that this is an opportunity for a third party maker to come up with a half decent 16-70 f4 zoom. I used to make extensive use of my Canon 24-105 mm on full frame, it's an ideal walk around zoom range, capable of good optical performance but coupled with convenience. 16-70 on the crop camera gives effectively the same range. Come on messrs Sigma and Tamron etc, let's see what you can do!


Popular posts from this blog

Using an enlarger lens and a Sony a6500 to copy negatives

This is very much a work in progress. I've assembled a collection of components and examined the feasibility, but not done any proper testing. Hopefully you will find it interesting.

I have a large collection of negatives and transparencies dating back to the early 1960s, and I have scanned quite a number of them using an Epson 4990 Photo flatbed scanner. The results are OK, particularly for 120 film, but not so great for 35 mm. Sadly the film related section of the scanner failed recently, possibly due to overwork or maybe just old age, so I was interested in finding an alternative.

If you have a good macro lens read no further, but if, like me, you don't possess a macro lens, then what is the next best thing? Well possibly an old enlarger lens. They were designed to provide the best possible resolution over a flat surface ( the negative) and project onto another flat surface (photo paper), both at close quarters, so, theoretically, they should be well suited to scanning.


Sony 28-70 FF lens on a6500

Since my kit 16-50 lens failed and was pronounced unrepairable I've been looking for a replacement walk around zoom, or, in my case, a lightweight lens that I can carry when cycling. I tried the Zeiss 16-70, but as my previous post here demonstrated, that lens was fatally flawed - as well as being expensive. I was persuaded to try the much cheaper 28-70 lens (cost £234 new) that is supplied as part of the standard kit on Sony full frame cameras.

Let's give it its full title, the  Sony SEL2870 E Mount - Full Frame 28-70 mm F3.5-5.6

There are things to admire about this lens. It's compact and lightweight and handles well on the a6500. Despite being of plastic construction, it does appear well made, with a metal mount and a robust feel to it. I liked using it.

Mounted on a tripod and shooting test pictures against a brick wall the lens is OK, nothing like as sharp at the edges as in the centre, but usable. Here are a few crops from a test shot at 28 mm and f8.  The upper imag…

Pentax A 28-80 f3.5 - 4.5 lens on Sony a6500

I'm continuing to search for a half decent walk around lens for my Sony a6500, having tried and discarded the Zeiss and Sony offerings. My latest discovery is a Pentax A 28-80 f3.5-4.5 zoom from the film era. I've had my copy for years, bought second hand it's not in the best of condition, with marks visible on the front element and a general slackness in the zoom helicoid. This is what it looks like on the camera.

Be warned, this is a manual focus lens, if that's not your cup of tea, read no further!

It's no lightweight being of mixed metal and plastic construction. With adapter it weighs 502 g, but this is appreciably lighter than the Tamron 28-80 that I have also tested.
How does it perform, I've not conducted any brick wall tripod tests as yet, but having taken a number of shots with it I am reasonably impressed. 
Here's an example. It was a muggy, hazy day with poor visibility, but the image quality is OK
First of all the overall view, the German cruis…