... and quoting his words: "and this is one of the very few times I've been disappointed".
He sent back the first copy, but the second performed just as the first. I hoped that quality problems were affecting only the first batches of the product, but it doesn't seem so. If it's not a quality problem, to me it's just not a 900 € lens - corner performance seems to match my Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-4.5 that costs four times less.
I hoped to close by the end of the year my Sony evaluation, but I have to re-open the file... sigh.
Business as usual over at Sony.
Klaus, would you think Zeiss FE will be any different ?
Zeiss Touit : KO
Zeiss E : KO
Zeiss Otus : OK ? (I guess for the price)
Probably it's a matter both of price and target audience (the two things are obviously bound): for the Otus, the intended audience is very competent, so it's quite advisable not to piss it off, and on the other hand the high price covers higher costs in QC. For the other lenses the audience is the one who can spend some money but is not competent, so they aren't able to tell about the defects we're talking of, being satisfied in exhibiting a famous brand. After all I've seen tons of people glorifying their SEL-1670 by posting low resolution photos that are supposed to show off how sharp the lens is... (*)
After all it's the same phenomenon that I see in fashion, where some corporates have started to buy cheap stuff made in China and stamp their brand on it just because lots of people can't tell the difference with the real higher quality stuff but are just happy to carry the brand around.
(*) In one case - but only one - I've actually seen sharp photos from border to center, so I think that the design is ok, it's really the QC that misses.
I'm abit confused. Did he actually find QC issues with the lens or is the lens design a dud (with regards to his expectations) ?
The way I understand Kurt Munger's post is: he got a first copy, it was disappointed during the first tests (soft edges) and assumed it was a QC issue. So he asked for a replacement. The replacement's behaviour was just as the first copy and at this point he just ran the test, assuming that it perhaps was not a QC issue and that what he saw was a relatively good copy (*).
But after reading this conclusion:
Quote:Comparatively speaking: I don't have the Sony 16-80mm or 16-50mm SSM to directly compare the 16-70mm, but I can make some educated guesses as to how they would match up. At the wide end, I think the 16-70mm would be sharpest across the frame, especially at F/4. At mid-zoom lengths, the 16-80mm and 16-50mm are probably much sharper along the sides. At the long end I think the 16-70mm would come in last place.
... I really can't believe that Zeiss is marketing such an expensive lens that performs worse than a kit lens for 2/3 of the focals (mid-zoom and long end). That's why I am still assuming is a QC issue, so serious that it's likely that even a replacement lens is still bad.
(*) Kurt seems still dubious about the point:
Quote:<div>Bottom line: Personally, I'd pass on this lens if it meets Sony's QC; It's too expensive for the lack luster quality at mid lengths. if I got a couple of bad copies, then maybe I'll take another look when they get things straightened out.
</div>
Quote:Klaus, would you think Zeiss FE will be any different ?
Zeiss Touit : KO
Zeiss E : KO
Zeiss Otus : OK ? (I guess for the price)
I have no idea about what's going on here.
In theory the Zeiss lenses are supposed to be manufactured to Zeiss standards, but they seem to be as bad as the rest with their AF lenses. The manual focus variants are much better as far as I can tell.
The real nightmare over at Sony began with OSS. But I am repeating myself. Optical image stabilizers are a design flaw IMHO.
I think we all have different degrees of tolerance to imperfections. Personally I don't view decentering to be as one of the worst, providing it is not excessive. Of course I still want the best possible, but there is a "good enough" point where I worry about other things.
Actually, there may be one "good" FE lens, the 35mm f/2.8. Lensrentals.com tested them on the A7R and suggest wide open, it'll beat stopped down primes on a D800e at MTF numbers, with usual disclaimers about comparing across systems... no OSS to get in the way there
Back to the Kurt's review, just to check my reading of it. His complaint appears to be of soft borders at wide angles. If I look at the MTF chart, that shows a dive at the extremes. Is that not consistent with the images? So my interpretation of this is that it is not a QC problem but the actual design was never going to give you decent borders in the first place.
Quote:I look at the MTF chart, that shows a dive at the extremes. Is that not consistent with the images? So my interpretation of this is that it is not a QC problem but the actual design was never going to give you decent borders in the first place.
My comprehension of MTF chart is not strong, but I was thinking the same. Which would be a pity, of course. But - I've seen some full-res photos that have better resolution in the corners than the tests published by Kurt. That's why I'm still dubious. I mean: one thing is reckoning that corners are much worse than the center as the charts suggest; another is understanding in visual terms how this loss of quality looks.
BTW - my concerns are at longer range rather than at shortest - and the MTF at 70mm is much better than the one at 16mm.