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

There is a lot to like about this lens and there is a lot I like about this lens but at the end of the day, it is being returned. I have wanted this lens for well over a year now. I liked the focal range, the constant f4 aperture, the somewhat compact size, the chance for high quality contrast, color and images from Zeiss. It just seemed to be the type of lens you leave on for 90% of the time. However, I have read a number of reviews and while many people praise this lens, there are a lot of people who were disappointed with it for a variety of reasons. The overarching reason seems to be the quality control with this lens and that turns out to be the reason I returned it. Most of the complaints I’ve read have focused on the decentered issue with this lens in having an imbalance between corner and even center sharpness and softness. I have to say, that testing the lens for the short time I had with it, there did seem to be some issues with some corners being softer than others but for me it wasn’t horrible and the center sharpness was superb and more comparable to a good prime than I expected. Center sharpness was good to great through most of the range and apertures and while the corners were not consistent with each other or themselves at different ranges and apertures, they were decent. The only zoom lenses I own are the kit 16-50 and the 18-105 f4 so I can really only compare the lens to these two lenses without going into comparing this to a prime. It was far and away better than the kit lens as expected in terms of the constant aperture, the focal range, and image quality in general. I also expected it to be slightly better in image quality than the 18-105 but felt the image was a good bit better than I expected making it a pleasant surprise. I really like the 18-105 but the Zeiss 16-70 was far more compact, slightly wider although losing distance, and the image quality seemed to noticeably surpass it. It sounds great so why did I return it? While I believe my copy was maybe slightly decentered, the image quality was still good so it came down to two issues I had with the lens. The first somewhat minor issue was the zoom ring. It was smooth until about the 50mm mark where it almost gets stuck making for very bad zooming if you’re using this for video. This might change with some breaking in but from my experience with Zeiss lenses, their rings are buttery smooth and this was disappointing to say the least. My second major issue the straw that broke the “cameras” back was what looks to be a large dust particle inside the lens. I have added pictures to show it. I know dust isn’t necessarily an issue inside the lens and I know that eventually even the best of lenses will get dust inside due to the nature of their design but for my new $1000 Zeiss lens that already has a sticky zoom ring and slightly decentered issue, I couldn’t justify keeping a brand new lens with a large piece of dust in it brand new. I have purchased a number of lenses on Amazon and none of my Zeiss or Sony lenses have ever got to me with a large piece of dust clearly inside the lens. In the end I want to like this lens for all the good that it has. The compact size for the focal range and fixed aperture not to mention good image quality for a zoom is really one of a kind for native E-mount glass. Add to that image stabilization, T* coating, and Zeiss colors and contrast and you have a truly amazing lens….on paper. In reality it didn’t turn out the way I had hoped and I’m not sure if there is something inherently flawed in the design or if this could be the amazing lens people want it to be if it just had good quality control. For now because of the potential it has and the image quality I have seen, I am comfortable giving this 3 stars. I’ve heard good copies of this lens exist and if that is true, I can still recommend taking the gamble to see if you get one. The price is high which is going to make me hold off on taking the gamble again right now, but unless Sony releases something similar to this soon I think I’ll probably end up taking the plunge again eventually. This could be the ultimate travel lens for Sony E-mount cameras but if you don’t want to take the gamble and don’t mind a bigger lens with slightly inferior image quality, the Sony 18-105 F4 PZ lens might be a better option at a fraction of the cost. (Pictures - 1.)16-70 on A6500 2.)Zeiss 24 f1.8 on left 16-70 f4 on right 3.) Dust inside brad new lens)

Show more

Updated review: March 6 2019 I reordered this lens and tried it with the a6400 which has an immensely better sensor than the a6000. I was hoping to see better IQ with this lens. I did not see smearing in the photos as with a6000 because the a6400 sensor is that much better. The lens also produces sharper images on the a6400. However, I ended up returning the a6400 and 16-70 lens because the IQ in the videos, besides for low light and high contrast scenes, literally looked the same as my RX10 camera with its outdated 1" sensor. The photos were nice though, but they are not as sharp and detailed and rich as with my d500 and 16-80mm lens. I did add a star to the review as I now think its an nice lens, but I dont think the IQ matches the price. I think its the best standard lens for Sony crop cameras. I compared it to the Sony 18-105 lens and I found the 16-70 to be slightly sharper than 18-105g. The 18-55 kit lens is not usuable in my opinion and 18-135mm lens has a maximum 5.6 aperture which I hate and I would never buy a lens with such a small maximum aperture. I buy only maximum f4 lenses to get the best IQ in low light ( 24-105mm FF equivalent lenses with f2.8 maximum aperture would likely be too heavy even for crop sensor cameras, so Im content with f4). Original review: On an a6000 camera, this lens is not sharp at all. And theres tons of smearing in low light. I understand that people are desperate for a good standard zoom lens for the a6xxx series, but I found all the standard e-mount zoom lenses to be sub-standard in IQ in comparison to other apsc lenses, the Sigma 17-70 2.8-f4 on a Canon sl1 and the Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4 on a d500. Those lenses are sharp. It may just be the a6000s sensor that causes the lenses to produce images with bad IQ. I will look out for an a6700 .(Hopefuly it will have more effective IBIS and a shutter sync speed faster than 1/160 that the a6500 has .) I will repurchase this lens again and see if the IQ is better.

Show more

The SEL1670Z is a solid performing lens worthy of the a6500 and a price of about $700 for the international version; MSRP for the USA warranty version is a bit steep however. The biggest pitfall is the fairly slow f/4 aperture; you will find yourself pushing the ISO to 3,200-6,400 on overcast days and nearly always when indoors shooting free-hand. The build quality is good however the telescopic zoom has a plastic construction, likely to limit weight, and one fears the long-term wear taking on and off the lens hood will have on the barrel. Additionally, I received one lens with obvious particulates sandwiched between different lens elements; though dust is an inevitability with lenses, one would expect better quality control right out of the box. I had to return mine for another as it impacted shots at small aperture settings. Obvious softness in the corner unless stopped-down to f/5. Chromatic aberration (purple or green fringing near highlights) is well controlled at aperture values of f/5 and smaller. The first lens was also slightly less sharp than the replacement sent so buyer beware of manufacturing inconsistencies. Be sure to properly test the lens within the return window to ensure you have a sharp and clean lens. Two out of three lenses I have used had significant defects. The 16-70mm range is excellent and will cover the majority of your shooting needs however, bird-watchers and sport/action photography will need more reach and landscape photographers will likely enjoy the new SEL1224G for added width. All-in-all it is worth upward to 80% of MSRP but no more.

Show more