Seems fine to me for a zoom. Probably better than 18-55 at every aperture and focal length. To be expected that the corner is not as sharp as FF primes/zooms.
First of all, thank you very much for the comparison. I really appreciate your swiftness in sharing.
However, I believe it isn't fair to compare the ZA zoom to the Minolta zoom as the Minolta is made for FF and a much more conservative design (2x) and rated as one of the highest calibre.
Also, I don't know how NEX OSS works, but did you turn it off for the tripod shot? I'm only speaking from experience with Canon IS where you're supposed to turn it off, otherwise it may over compensate and therefore get results less sharp than possible.
Again, thanks for the shots! It looks like it's doing a lot better in the second round. Also, I believe that it goes to show, it matters far more who is behind the camera than what's in front of it, as those initial shots you showcased look fantastic, IMHO.
Nanh wrote:
Seems fine to me for a zoom. Probably better than 18-55 at every aperture and focal length. To be expected that the corner is not as sharp as FF primes/zooms.
My Nikon 17-55/2.8 is an APS-C zoom. It's sharp across the frame at 2.8 and extremely sharp as you stop down. It's performance rivals primes and I think we've seen with many zoom lenses that the performance of zooms can be close to or as good as high quality primes. I was hoping Zeiss could come close to this kind of performance in a smaller lens due to the one stop slower aperture.
I know the Zeiss has a wider range than the 17-55, but if that is the issue, I would much rather have had a great performing 17-55/4 Zeiss than a mediocre 16-70.
Jeff Kott wrote:
I know the Zeiss has a wider range than the 17-55, but if that is the issue, I would much rather have had a great performing 17-55/4 Zeiss than a mediocre 16-70.
+1. I am going to cancel my 16-70 order for now & stick to playing with the old Minolta.
I would be happy if Zeiss would just make a modern analog to their fantastic 35-70... And then fill in the wide end with a fantastic 16-35 or so.
If it follows anything, its probably older ZA 16-80 for Sony Alpha. Which wasnt exactly appreciated when it was new, but it had and has some fans. Reason is that by f11 (yea you read right - f11) its rather good lens.
How does this one behave at f11?
Just idea.. maybe they made this lens just by shortening design of 16-80?
Mescalamba wrote:
If it follows anything, its probably older ZA 16-80 for Sony Alpha. Which wasnt exactly appreciated when it was new, but it had and has some fans. Reason is that by f11 (yea you read right - f11) its rather good lens.
IQ looks very much like the 16-80 I tried. Sharp center, messy purple oatmeal in the corners. Not a keeper lens for landscape, though it was just lovely in the center for images of flowers, people, etc.
mco, I found myself musing : how would the CY 35-70 have done in this side-by-side test...and I wonder how the 16-80 would compare also, I forgot to thank Philip before, much obliged for this great information and effort required.
I had been thinking a new NEX7 plus this one would do much better than our a77 plus 16-80 in a much smaller package but still with IS of some kind. For all it known faults the 16-80 does have impact. Maybe not now, but keen to see more images as well as 'micro-inspection'. Colour looks promising as it did in pre-release images It's a very small, very light lens however.
Nanh wrote:
Seems fine to me for a zoom. Probably better than 18-55 at every aperture and focal length. To be expected that the corner is not as sharp as FF primes/zooms.
The corner performance looks well behind the Sony DT 16-50/2.8 SSM for APS-C A mount, and also behind the samples we've seen from the Oly 12-40/2.8. A weak showing, and as noted it seems to mimic the design choices of the ZA DT 16-80 for A mount (Very Zeiss colour & contrast, strong centre sharpness but weakish corners)
p.2 #11 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
This lens looks great to me, but then I also am a fan of the ZA16-80. At least for the 16-80, I'm still not aware of a zoom on any platform near that focal range that outperforms it.
It's not quite fair to judge it against a 35-70: you either need the extra range or you don't, and at least for my usage, 16-70 is just a much more useful focal range on APS-C. I don't shoot zooms very often, but when I do, it's because I want to cover a range that I can't cover by moving my feet.
p.2 #12 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
It's just an educated guess, but perhaps the messy corners are caused by the screwed up sensor design of Sony with the ultra thick toppings and poor micro lenses. Perhaps Zeiss knows something we don't about the future of Sony's sensor toppings (no AA filter and improved micro lens design) in the upcoming models. I have already mentioned previously that my 24-70 ZA that had poor corner performance at 24mm on the A900 turned out to have excellent corners on film cameras. It was just sensor incompatibility.
p.2 #15 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
alwang wrote:
This lens looks great to me, but then I also am a fan of the ZA16-80. At least for the 16-80, I'm still not aware of a zoom on any platform near that focal range that outperforms it.
It's not quite fair to judge it against a 35-70: you either need the extra range or you don't, and at least for my usage, 16-70 is just a much more useful focal range on APS-C. I don't shoot zooms very often, but when I do, it's because I want to cover a range that I can't cover by moving my feet.
The Olympus 12-60 outperforms it, and quite noticeably. For landscape work, the Nikkor 16-85 is better across the frame (but arguably weaker in the centre wide open). Also the much newer Nikkor 24-120/4 on FF.
p.2 #16 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
Just looked at the MTF released by Sony and there is no indication of inferior corner performance. In the contrary, the corners seem to be quite good. Which leads me again to believe it's either interaction with the sensor, or maybe a below par copy.
p.2 #17 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
edwardkaraa wrote:
Just looked at the MTF released by Sony and there is no indication of inferior corner performance. In the contrary, the corners seem to be quite good. Which leads me again to believe it's either interaction with the sensor, or maybe a below par copy.
Remember, Phillip shoots a NEX-6, which has the sensor that plays reasonably well with wides. It's the NEX-7 that has the interaction issues.
If this is sensor interaction due to toppings, then the lens is very susceptible to it and will likely be a complete dog on the 7.
p.2 #18 · Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar E 4/16-70 ZA OSS
mawz wrote:
Remember, Phillip shoots a NEX-6, which has the sensor that plays reasonably well with wides. It's the NEX-7 that has the interaction issues.
If this is sensor interaction due to toppings, then the lens is very susceptible to it and will likely be a complete dog on the 7.
Certainly, but having used all ZA lenses in the past and compared their performance with Sony's calculated MTF, I am quite sure the corner performance should be better than what we see in the sample shots, at least according to the MTF. It remains to be seen if other copies of this lens perform similarly or better.
Not a keeper lens for landscape, though it was just lovely in the center for images of flowers, people, etc.
