04-02-2015, 08:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2015, 08:51 PM by Brightcolours.)
Quote: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...
All mirrorless cameras have a similar flange distance. Except the silly Pentax whatwasitcalled, which uses K-mount.
And Samsung NX at 25.5mm, and Leica M at 29.8mm.
In this case Popo is right then, priorities are not the optical qualities...
Just a reminder for those questioning the testing method of PZ. The very first reviews about the SEL1670Z were so-so: about lens samples with a strong decentering defect. Then Kurt Munger came, a guy who tests all the Sony stuff and clearly has got no bias against the brand, and was a negative review:
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_zeiss_16_70mm_f_4id354.html
This was a tough lens to review. When I first received it and took it for a test spin, I thought it was not up to Sony standards as it was noticeably soft along the sides at wider focal lengths, so I sent for another one, (both were brand new and not 'loaner' copies). Unfortunately, both performed about the same. I've reviewed all Sony DSLR/NEX camera lenses ever made (unless new), and this is one of the very few times I've been disappointed. Soooo, let's move on!
There are a few positives, and a a couple of negative with this lens ... [...]
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.
And as you can see, he also had to return a first sample. Sure, there are decent and probably good samples around. To me it's clear Sony was bad with QC on this product.
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 Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
I think you didn't understand the essence of this review.
Trying to understand the rating. If the borders would not be soft how many stars would the 16-70 receive.
04-06-2015, 08:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-08-2015, 04:00 AM by Klaus.)
Quote:Trying to understand the rating. If the borders would not be soft how many stars would the 16-70 receive.
Well, that depends on the borders :-) A sharp center is no real achievement.
If the borders/corners were as good as the center, it would be a 5* rating - in this case the other characteristics would be considered to be minor aspects but then no zoom lens on mother earth could do that.
As is the performance at 70mm is the dominant factor for the rating.
Quote:Well, that depends on the borders :-) A sharp center is no real achievement.
If the borders/corners was as good as the center, it would be a 5* rating - in this case the other characteristics would be considered to be minor aspect but then no zoom lens on mother earth could do that.
As is the performance at 70mm is the dominant factor for the rating.
That's the awful truth. Most major builders have learned the lesson that center sharpness is king, as with the Sigma 17-50mm. They have to get that right, if nothing else. The 16-70 can produce some really nice results in the middle portion of the range, particularly stopped down a little. I like the lens. But PZ is right about sharpness at 70mm, and that destroys the value of the lens overall. Too bad.
|
