12-03-2020, 05:48 AM
12-03-2020, 06:33 AM
You know you'll have it in da lab before long, Klaus.
This is going to be an interesting battle, this one vs. the Sony 16-55.
This is going to be an interesting battle, this one vs. the Sony 16-55.
12-03-2020, 08:44 AM
RXD...
It even renders nicely, judging from those sample images. Nice APS-C lens.
It even renders nicely, judging from those sample images. Nice APS-C lens.
12-03-2020, 09:20 AM
If the MTF is good, I wonder whether it might obscure the 'old' Sony 16-70mm f/4... 308g vs 525g, heavier but not so much, and a stop faster - 200g are not a big deal in exchange of f/2.8. The only pitfall is that you lose 1mm at the wide end. On the other hand, if you have the Sony 10-18mm, the range is covered.
So I'm longing to see tests (including decentering assessment).
So I'm longing to see tests (including decentering assessment).
12-03-2020, 10:08 AM
I've seen remarks along the line of "smear the front lens of this Tamron with vaseline, and it's still going to do better than the Zeiss 16-70". Not sure how well founded these are. An ex-coworker of mine has the Zeiss 16-70, I got to ask him how that lens fares.
12-03-2020, 03:45 PM
Considering the dozens of reviews I've read about the SEL1670, to me it's clear that the lens has a problem of variability. Mine is mostly good, with some decentering issues. But it's for sure the less satisfying one in my arsenal; so if a reasonable replacement comes out...