• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

next PZ lens test report: Carl Zeiss E 16-70mm f/4 OSS


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41 jenbenn

jenbenn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 31 March 2015 - 08:58 AM

The Canon EOS M3 does have better AF than the M, but is not as fast as the quickest Sony/Fuji/Olympus models. The AF in video is unusually well implemented, with smooth, natural transitions.

If you find yourself to be a shadow puller (never was one myself) you might notice the DR in the dark end is less than for instance Sony Exmor sensors, but if you are no shadow puller, the IQ is pretty good (was already pretty good in the original M, and M2).

The external EVF is of good quality, but makes the package more expensive. The 18-55mm STM standard zoom is pretty ok. The AF accuracy of most EF mount lenses is good, the AF speed too (much better than on Sony (F)E with AF capable adapter).

Pretty off topic, all this, though ;)

 Thanks for the detailed answer. May I ask how you know all this? Here in Germany the M3 has not been released yet.



#42 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,896 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 31 March 2015 - 01:07 PM

From people reporting on them. The M I have laying around, also the 18-55mm STM. And an EOS adapter.



#43 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 31 March 2015 - 01:56 PM

The EOS M3 will be here soon ... 

Will test all available M lenses.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#44 DavidBM

DavidBM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 10:55 AM

Klaus, have you seem the (Imatest) based review at Ephotozone?

 

http://www.ephotozin...t--review-24059

 

Their sample appears to be very even wide open at 70mm.

 

Now I don't think they are hopeless, and I *know* you aren't, so that leaves a combination of two things:

 

Terrible QC at Sony (and perhaps a design that gets out of tune easily) combined with incompetence at Sony Australia.



#45 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 585 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 01 April 2015 - 11:27 AM

I don't know about Sony Australia, but the "terrible QC" - that is, wild sample variance - explains very well the reason for which this lens is such a love/hate thing. There are many good reviews around, but also many bad reviews, and PZ's one is not the first one. It's probably the first one to have spotted the problem in numbers.

 

Explanations about this lack of QC? I can speak for my experience, but: marketing. At the end of 2013 I was evaluating a mirrorless system and the thing boiled down to Sony vs Fuji. It was really a close call, but one of the thing that made me pick Sony was the announcement of the 16-70mm: perfect range for my needs, definitely better than the 16-55mm offered by Fuji, and even though you can't evaluate a lens at announcement time, "it couldn't be bad" because of the Zeiss badge. 

 

In the end, I got a decent copy of the SEL-1670, even though I'm not totally ok. But, in the end, I'm also ok with the Sony pick, for a number of other reasons (however, I still think Fuji is an excellent system and when I have to advice a friend I suggest to evaluate both Sony and Fuji). 

 

If my personal experience is shared by others, with this strategy Sony got a lot of whiners, sure, but also a number of customers.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#46 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 585 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 01 April 2015 - 11:29 AM

Forgot a final sentence: it's better more whining customers, than less customers, I suppose.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#47 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 01 April 2015 - 02:26 PM

Well, it's all in the review. We didn't believe the results either and gave them two fair chances to correct this.

Now they have to live with the consequences. 


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#48 photonius

photonius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 02:48 PM

It's a special zoom designed for portrait photographers  :D

 

Or that's why Sony has high pixel density sensors, so you can crop away the edge  :rolleyes:


  • dave's clichés likes this

#49 Sammy

Sammy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 503 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 03:07 PM

M4/3 does not have the low light performace required for my stock photogprahy, so it is no option altogether.

There is not much in it really. E.g. the 7D Mark II performs about 1/3 of a stop better than current M4/3 cams in terms of ISO noise (according to DXO).



#50 borisbg

borisbg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 01 April 2015 - 05:54 PM

It looks like Sony relies on their cool looking cameras to attract customers rather than high quality results.

#51 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,823 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 06:00 PM

The jury's "still"  out on this one;

 

 In spite of the graphs giving "near excellent resolution" stopped down at all focal lengths Ephotozone write:

 

"There is no doubt that this is a high quality optic, that delivers very high sharpness in the centre of the frame and sports excellent build quality and a useful optical stabiliser. However, the sharpness towards the edges of the frame isn't of the same standard as the centre and CA levels are higher than you might expect for a lens of this price"

 

My remark on their site is, their excellence levels are achieved far more easily than the majority of other test sites!

 

 I found the images soft at the edges, 

 

                  and the beat goes on..................we're not yet done with this baby!



#52 Royl

Royl

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 09:04 PM

I can't make my images with this lens look as bad as yours does. Maybe I'm not trying hard enough, or perhaps it's a distance thing. Are you sure you guys didn't drop that lens. I have always put a lot of faith in your reviews because you do it better than anybody. As for Sony service, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in their word about the condition of the lens. I think someone got a bad lens, got pissed off, and sent it to you.



#53 Royl

Royl

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 01 April 2015 - 09:07 PM

PS: I'm not sending mine to you. I already have my lens, and I like it no matter what the photozone score. Maybe you could get another one from sSony because this is going to cost them some sales.



#54 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 01 April 2015 - 10:55 PM

PS: I'm not sending mine to you. I already have my lens, and I like it no matter what the photozone score. Maybe you could get another one from sSony because this is going to cost them some sales.

 

I suggest to read the review about the situation here - we BOUGHT the lens. We let them check it TWICE. We mentioned to the Sony service that we are a magazine and that there'll be a review. Thus where exactly is the flaw in the way we handled this ?

 

Now it's THEIR turn. We won't do anything further - we have done our part. If THEY contact us and replace the lens - fine. I may review it then once more. However, Photozone is not the marketing arm of the industry (as some other sites) thus we won't make them look good if they don't deserve it. The very last thing we care about is their sales. This is a site for customers. Customers receive such lenses from Sony. Customers send such lenses to the Sony service. And Customers have to live with such an outcome as you can see. So a website dared to put the finger into the wound - whether it relates to a poor design or abysmal service quality doesn't matter. THIS is the mission statement. Now what exactly is the problem again ?


  • thxbb12, popo, DavidBM and 1 other like this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#55 AiryDiscus

AiryDiscus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 04:16 AM

@Dave - both EPZ and photozone use imatest, so the "standard" is the same, however a difference in test configuration will produce very different results.  This is true of all testing methods.



#56 soLong

soLong

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 02:37 PM

.we BOUGHT the lens. We let them check it TWICE. We mentioned to the Sony service that we are a magazine and that there'll be a review. Thus where exactly is the flaw in the way we handled this ?..

 

.hmmm, prob might be that youre living in Afailya now, formerly known as the land of Oz, where the man behind the curtain is pulling all our strings.

.now where were we.oh you cant go wrong buying a Zeiss lens, theyre always money well spent, cough.


  • Brightcolours likes this

….facetuneing can make you beautiful too....


#57 Royl

Royl

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 04:10 PM

Wow. A thought just hit home for me. If I ever want to sell this lens it probably won't be worth 50 cents. I like it, but I won't keep it forever, I think. Those people at Sony service should have taken this s--t seriously. Photozone doesn't mess around, apparently. Sony did, and they just broke it off in all their customers who bought this lens. If I return it, where do I go for that color, contrast and smooth background blur that some people like to call bokeh. Maybe the 55mm and the 24mm. Bunch of money, even used.



#58 Royl

Royl

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 02 April 2015 - 04:27 PM

Well, I found a good amazon warehouse deal on the 55mm. One down. Maybe gray market for the 24mm. Returnable, of course. If you want to go really small APSC CMOS, better go in with a fat wallet because the a6000 is really the only game in town. Guess I will return the 16-70. What a nice lens. Sharp portraits at 70mm f5.6, but dreamy portraits at f4. Not all bad. F4 sharpens up nicely in post when you want it, but you shouldn't have to do that. Works better if you soften a sharp image. Too bad photozone hasn't reviewed the 55mm or the 24mm for the a6000, but there is pretty much universal acclaim for those two, so the resale looks good if it comes to that. And I can get the color/contrast which I absolutely have to have, now that I have used the 16-70mm.



#59 borisbg

borisbg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 02 April 2015 - 05:22 PM

Does all this have something to do with original NEX design - lens mount too close to the sensor? None of the other mirroless brands have so many poor perfoming lenses. I am not a sony user, but my observation on PZ is: each time Klaus publish a review, it generates quite a discussion about his testing method, sensor micro-lenses, sample variation...



#60 popo

popo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,353 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 02 April 2015 - 07:34 PM

I don't think there is such a thing as a mount too close to the sensor. If you really need to keep the lens elements away, you simply put them further away in the lens design. In a quick look at the mirrorless bunch, Sony E/FE and Canon M are 18mm, Fuji X is slightly shorter at 17.7mm. m4/3 is miles out at 19.25mm.

 

Now, the question of tradeoffs made during the lens design is another matter... are they optimising for reasons other than pure image quality?


dA Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de