📷 Sony SEL1670Z Vario-Tessar T E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Lens Review

At long distances, the sharpness still decreases, only to "squeeze", so f4 is rather formal. Zess does not justify the brand, the price-quality ratio is below the plinth, for a price above 60k it should be a "razor". Pros below: Good quality case. Smooth zoom. Good focus speed. Compact. Light. Quiet. Color rendition is good. Has cons: They write that it is sharp, but it depends on what to compare with. Objectively speaking, for its price, the sharpness is mediocre, of course, sharper than the…

After Canon colors, there is not enough juiciness. In addition to focal and label, I can not note anything remarkable. As a travel lens can be used. I did not notice a big difference with the regular 16-50 on the NEX-6. If you specifically investigate, it should be. I'm talking about subjective impressions.

All the ranting about the fact that f / 4 is not enough, they just haven’t played enough aperture yet. Imagine the same focal lengths at f/2.8 - the gl will be different sizes. We are talking about compact here, and this lens is very compact, comfortable and produces great pictures! Realistically f/4 is enough! At night, it doesn't matter what kind of "hole" you have 2.8 or 4, it will not be enough anyway. Tripod to help. I use any surface, bridge piers, lampposts and even curbs. P. S. The…

The diameter of the first lens is impressive, which means that obstacles in front of the lens will not be such a hindrance to it, as is the case with lenses with a small diameter - a large aperture cannot remove even a small obstacle from their path, and for large glass they are invisible. Now I take all the photos with a simple protective filter, but it seems that it makes the picture darker, although this is imperceptible in the daytime.

I am ating my review after a couple of years. In terms of optical qualities, the lens is mediocre. Soapy, sluggish and boring. Offers an ugly blur. The positive aspects include light weight, compactness and high quality of the body material. Different pros: Weight, colors, workmanship, stroke of the FR change ring, optical stabilization, autofocus, small diameter. Some cons: Low sharpness (catastrophic near the edges). There is no bayonet protector.

To be honest, it is not worth the money that we are asking for it. If you can find it somewhere at a flea market for about 30-40 thousand, take it boldly, you won’t find another staffer with such a set of qualities for cropped Sony mirrorless cameras! Pros below: * Sharpness! It's not because of the beautiful eyes that "Tessar" is written on it. This is one of the sharpest "whale" E-mount lenses. The amount of fine detail compared to any SELP-1650 is simply amazing! * Compactness. Everything is

having changed NEX-6 to Sony -A 6000, I had to choose a 16-70 / 4 staffer, which could "pull" a 24MP matrix. I’ve been using it for a couple of days now, in general, the lens pleases by all criteria. I have an excellent fix 35 / 1,8 oss, I bought something so that I could constantly carry the camera in a leather bag for documents. And so it did for some time, but there was not enough zoom. Whale 16-50, having read reviews, did not buy with any camera, so I will not compare with it. I’ve been…

If you need a COMPARATIVELY high-quality and at the same time compact zoom, then there is no alternative on the Sony crop (18-105 is large, the whale is darker and lathers not only at the edges, 18-200 is very large and the picture is worse) In general, the lens is far from ideal, because. it is optimized primarily for shooting people - sharpness, color are all on top, but landscape and architecture shooting at a wide angle (up to 30mm) and at a distance further than 50 meters is not his…

Quality lens for a lot of money. However, this is not a claim to the manufacturer, but to the national currency. It is important to understand that this lens is !!! COMPROMISE !!! between quality, cost and size. For such dimensions and weight, this is really one of the best NOT fixes, and not only for Sony. Very high quality, beautiful and comfortable item. Convenient for travel, spontaneous photo shoots, as a standard camera lens for every day. It is by no means an ideal lens, and not a lens…

I took a 16-50 to replace the whale. I tested different specimens at photo exhibitions, and so everyone has different sharpness at different focal lengths, shifted in one direction or another. For my benefit, it is more or less harmoniously located, on the w / y the edges are pulled up at F8-F9.5, so that suits me. At the same time, at the long end, it is quite possible to shoot portraits in the open, the main thing is not to press the object too close to the edges of the frame).

By and large - glass is about nothing. Tried 3 different instances. All three never impressed, causing only misunderstanding already at the trial stage. OK, I attributed it to the curvature of my hands. Bought. Walked for a couple of days. Submitted for examination. Received confirmation of all "questions" (read below). Took the money. Not worth your money under any sauce. At all. The stub works extremely strange: on frames one after another, the sharpness along the edge can be very…

Reviewers who don't see the difference between a whale lens and this need new eyes. Whale lenses take the same pictures as my smartphone camera. If you are unhappy with the picture, it's time to shoot in RAW. Sony's JPEG is terrible. It is extremely naive to believe that a frame compressed by the camera in JPEG, with additional compression when transmitted over Wi-Fi, will turn out to be sharp and impressive. This lens is the best that Sony has on CROP. On trips (mountains…

all the pros and cons were weighed before spending the money. I bought it primarily for shooting landscapes, and as a staff member for all occasions while traveling. I thought that for such money I would have "cloudless happiness". Of course, the sharpness, picture quality, colors, detailing pleased - everything is on the level and does not cause any complaints. But the chromate is hard, which I did not expect from Zeiss (I have an ancient Zeiss manual - there is something to rip off), this is

somewhere it was written before that this glass is about nothing, and so I completely agree with every word. In comparison with the whale 16-55, the difference in sharpness is extremely insignificant, in addition, the venetting on the right is simply terrible, despite the fact that it is almost invisible on the whale. Autofocus is slower than on a whale, if at 16-55 I didn’t even notice how focusing was going, then at 16-70 you have to wait a bit. I was disappointed in this glass, I bought it…