Help me on Purchase decision on Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Lens

Hoping to see some samples with this lens.

I am shopping for a wide-to-normal zoom for A6000. Did a lot of net search on E 16-70 vs E 18-105 f/4 OSS vs E 18-55 kit lens. Still can't quite make up my mind. For the immediate future, I am planning on using Sigma 19mm and Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS. Shoot mostly scenic (60%) while hiking/vacation + general family pics (40%). Looking for a little more reach than 55mm and f/4. Size is not as critical. I am used to Nikon D7100 + Sigma 17-50 OS combo before.

$1k is a lot of money for a f/4 lens that is considered decent but not great per all the reviews I read. If it's $500-$600, I would have bought it already. I personally do not care whether it has a Zeiss badge or not, just care about the IQ and overall performance (AF/OSS).

IMO, E18-105 f/4 would not be a good IQ at the wide end. Rather just shoot Sigma 19mm instead.

How did you make up your mind?

liupublic wrote in post #17336202
Hoping to see some samples with this lens.

I am shopping for a wide-to-normal zoom for A6000. Did a lot of net search on E 16-70 vs E 18-105 f/4 OSS vs E 18-55 kit lens. Still can't quite make up my mind. For the immediate future, I am planning on using Sigma 19mm and Sony 50mm f/1.8 OSS. Shoot mostly scenic (60%) while hiking/vacation + general family pics (40%). Looking for a little more reach than 55mm and f/4. Size is not as critical. I am used to Nikon D7100 + Sigma 17-50 OS combo before.

$1k is a lot of money for a f/4 lens that is considered decent but not great per all the reviews I read. If it's $500-$600, I would have bought it already. I personally do not care whether it has a Zeiss badge or not, just care about the IQ and overall performance (AF/OSS).

IMO, E18-105 f/4 would not be a good IQ at the wide end. Rather just shoot Sigma 19mm instead.

How did you make up your mind?

I'm getting my copy in on Thursday. $1,000 is the new price, you can find a nice used copy in the $600-700 range. Just got the a6000 again today along with the 35, 50, 55-210 and have the 24 and the 16-70 on Thursday.

16-70 is a nice versatile range with a 24-105 equivalent and has OSS as well. I wasn't interested in the 18-105 because of it's size and the 18-55 and 16-50 suffer from poor optics in my experience, particularly with distortion. Earlier reports were of a lot of QC issues but hopefully it has been resolved. But I will report back on Thursday.

Here are some examples of the 16-70 on the a6000. https://www.flickr.com …u/sets/72157649​417373619/

The last several were taken with an A7R and the FE 70-200. I like the 16-70mmm a lot, so compact, great range, looks pretty sharp to me. I can use the 16-70mm on the A7R too but the resolution is downsized to 15MP. But 16-70mm is a perfect range on a full frame.

Thanks for the samples. Loved the IQ w 50mm and 19mm over the holidays.

Still waiting for a deal on 16-70 in the $500-600 range.

WHy did you switch to the A6000 if size doesn't matter? Of course it matters. And the A6000 with the 16-70 gives you 24-105mm equivalent range and ends up being as thin as a DSLR with a pancake lens. It's a little overpriced because it's compact and says Zeiss on it. It's honestly just barely longer than the 50mm f1.8

The 18-105 is too chunky, IMO, even if the price is better. It's nearly the depth of your D7100 with the 17-50 you mentioned.

See here: http://camerasize.com ….201,535.446,53​5.445,ha,t

Throw the 16-70 on the camera a 35mm f1.8 in the bag for low light and that's all you'd need for your described use case. 70mm f4 has the same subject isolation as 50mm f2.8 if it makes you feel any better.

Size is not as critical because I want to shoot prime most of the time.

I think I will go w 16-70. Just wait for a good deal. Sigma 19mm and 50f1.8 will suffice for now.

tkbslc wrote in post #17407984
WHy did you switch to the A6000 if size doesn't matter? Of course it matters. And the A6000 with the 16-70 gives you 24-105mm equivalent range and ends up being as thin as a DSLR with a pancake lens. It's a little overpriced because it's compact and says Zeiss on it. It's honestly just barely longer than the 50mm f1.8

The 18-105 is too chunky, IMO, even if the price is better. It's nearly the depth of your D7100 with the 17-50 you mentioned.

See here: http://camerasize.com ….201,535.446,53​5.445,ha,t

Throw the 16-70 on the camera a 35mm f1.8 in the bag for low light and that's all you'd need for your described use case. 70mm f4 has the same subject isolation as 50mm f2.8 if it makes you feel any better.

While still looking for a deal on 16-70. I read the review on photozone. Just released on 3/20/2015. I am very greateful that I did not buy one yet.

Link to Photozone review:
http://www.photozone.d​e/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss

No way I am going to spend $1000 on a zoom lens with this kind of performance. It's got such poor performance at the border of the frame. Even the kit zoom 18-55 has slightly similar if not better performance. I was intending to use Zeiss 16-70mm F4 as a landscape + general purpose lens. For now I think I will stick with Sigma 19mm f/2.8 + Sony SEL50F18.

If I need a lens immediately, I think a Sigma 17-70 Contemporary on Sony mount + LA-EA2 would be a reasonable choice. Brand new would be around $700. Might even find it at $500 if I search for it. Maybe Sigma will put out a f/4 zoom for Sony E mount.