Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:28 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hello everyone, just to let you know our full review and video tour of the Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80mm zoom lens has just been published here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_ ... s_16-80mm/

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:37 am 
Great review as alsways :)

I really like the image quality (contrast and colors) it produces and I guess that is what CZ is focused on. I would have expected a much better build quality at that price, if I paid that much for a zoom it should outlast a couple of camera bodies.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hi Rune, thanks!

It's not that the build is bad, but it's just not as big a step as we'd expect for the money. And the AF is really not much better than the kit lens. It really shows when you're using it next to a Canon USM or Nikkor SWM lens.

BUT the optical quality is really good and the range is really sweet. It's also very compact...

So it all depends what you're looking for. I don't think it would fall apart if that's what's worrying you!

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:53 am 
Nice lens, the 18-70 really had a glarish effect on the sky and you could tell a large difference between the two. If I were to buy the Alph than I would definetely pick that up and more than likely sell the kit lense. But the sky really bugs me in both shots although the 16-80 really did have an impact.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:16 am 
Hi Gordon,

I guess I expected a bigger step up in build quality like metal body and not as noisy AF. Regarding AF, I have used 350D with 17-85mm IS and it is so so fast that I can't even compare it to my 50mm prime, so I'm kind of used to slooow AF :) I like the colors more on the Minolta lenses (not the kit) though and it seems that the 16-80mm has an advantage there.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:18 pm 
Hello to all... excuse my English...

Good analysis for a lot of time had been waiting for it.

This lens has gotten me a lot the attention from its appearance, but in view of positive as many comments as negative I have stopped a little and I have thought but if to buy it or not (or to wait some of the new eyeglasses Sony-CZ).

The image quality is good, although at 16mm there is little clarity, according to what I could appreciate and I don't like the vignetting presence at 16mm without very remarkable (it doesn't seem a lot) filter a lot.

I like the photography Macro and I acquired recently Sony AF 100mm f/2.8 Macro and the quality is excellent and now I see myself comparing the lenses that I want with this Macro as for image quality and it is difficult to get one equally.

Very good analysis Mrs Laing...

PD: if it is not an abuse and without offending, serious interesting to see an analysis of you of Sony AF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Sony AF 50mm f/1.4 and Sony AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G SSM...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:23 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Hello Alex, I've actually got a Sony 50mm f1.4 at the moment, so am doing some tests versus the kit lens...

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:28 pm 
This is great news :D does this mean that we can expect more prime lens reviews or what kind of review is this?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Yep, I would like to do some more primes... I'm starting with a number of articles in the future comparing 50mm lenses with budget kit zooms...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:32 am 
Hello to all...

Thank you for the information Mr Laing, I will be waiting this analysis...

I expressed that of the analysis of Sony 50mm f/1.4 in view that I have at the moment a Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4 (original version, 1985-1986) and it works "well" in A100.
I have listened very good references of this lens, but to part of this Minolta 50mm f/1.4, also exists the 50mm f/1.7 (original version of the same year) and two "new" versions of these lenses denominated RS, in total they are 4 lenses that apparently alone they differ as for the diameter, 49mm for the original versions and 55mm for RS. To this it would be necessary to add the Minolta 50mm f/2.8 Macro with relationship 1:1 (with several versions) and Minolta AF 50mm f/3.5 Macro with relationship 1:2.
Therefore we are speaking of more than 6 models of lenses Minolta 50mm and two reissue Sony (similar to Minolta f/1.4 RS and to the Macro f/2.8 D version) and here I think about the dilemma.

I have not had good experience with my Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4, in the occasions that I have used it I consider that I have been presented a phenomenon of back focus and lack of sharpen when making an amplification in PS, although apparently, the first thing that I indicated, is caused by the camera, Sony AF 100mm f/2.8 Macro works very well without this problem (and with an AF quicker), but they informed me that apparently some lenses Minolta could have some defect that caused this problem, for what I have thought about to substitute it for other 50mm but in this case a Sony 50mm and although I already have a Macro (Sony 100mm) the price difference as for Sony f/1.4 and f/2.8 Macro it is of hardly $150 (to the change of the Venezuelan currency).

Would it be worthwhile 2 steps more than diaphragm with Sony f/1.4 that to take advantage of the focal same distance but in a lens Macro?

How will the image quality it will be in both for portrait?

Will the quality of f/1.4 of Sony have improved with relationship to the previous versions Minolta in view that this built one thought of a digital reflex?

Excuse so much to write and my English, but these are my doubts... :oops: :oops:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:52 am 
Hi Alex,

I think back focus is a common issue with such kind of lens if the apperture is larger than f/2. I have read somewhere that the AF system is not that stabel at f/1.4 or f/1.7. I have tested my 50/1.7 with this focusing chart and wide open it do back focus but stopped down to f/2.8 and below it is spot on every time.

I have also read somewhere that the Sony 50/1.4 was a new design and is a D type lens whereas the RS model is not, so it should be an improved version.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:59 am 
Hello Rune, thank you for the information about the diaphragm, I go to make some tests...

About Sony 50mm f/1.4, that it is another advantage of the lens on RS and like it is new I had considered that perhaps it was equipped for a better yield in digital reflex.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group