GrahamR
journeyman
Reged: 13/11/2006
Posts: 78
|
|
Hi all,
Has anyone got the CZ 16-80 lens for their sony, and can you recommend it.
It sounds like a top lens, although the apeture is not fast f3.5-4.5.
Any better than the KM 28-75 f2.8 or KM 17-35mm f2.8-4 combination.
Many thanks
Graham
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3068
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Here are a few dozen user reports on the CZ 16-80mm.
--------------------
Rog
|
carman
journeyman
Reged: 16/10/2005
Posts: 64
|
|
I am waiting for the Sigma 17-70 to be acclaimed. all the reports on dyxum and other sites Canon etc extol its virtues. I think I will try it instead of the CZ 16-80mm.
--------------------
The older I get the better I used to be!
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9470
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
I am waiting for the Sigma 17-70 to be acclaimed. all the reports on dyxum and other sites Canon etc extol its virtues. I think I will try it instead of the CZ 16-80mm.
It's a good lens. Certainly changed my views about how good a zoom lens can be. Clearly it's not going to be quite in the same league as the Zeiss lens - but then neither is the price...
Personally I'd say it's quite possibly the best standard zoom lens on the market in terms of image quality, aperture, zoom range and price.
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is more fun than one in the cupboard........
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2341
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Lucky so and sos. We Nikon users have only the 16-85 VR f5.6 Nikkor. The Zeiss 16-80 is almost enough to make one buy a Sony camera.
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4140
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
Quote:
Lucky so and sos. We Nikon users have only the 16-85 VR f5.6 Nikkor. The Zeiss 16-80 is almost enough to make one buy a Sony camera.
So what are you waiting for then..........?
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558)Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3068
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
Lucky so and sos. We Nikon users have only the 16-85 VR f5.6 Nikkor. The Zeiss 16-80 is almost enough to make one buy a Sony camera.
... don't forget the other Carl Zeiss lenses for Sony Alpha ... and there are more to come. Of course they're all image stabilised by the camera body 
link
Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135 mm F1.8ZA
Carl Zeiss Planar 85 mm F1.4ZA
|
fabs
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/04/2007
Posts: 2880
Loc: Beds/Bucks
|
|
Quote:
Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM
Looks like the perfect lens for me, but prohibitively expensive. I notice Sigma do an equivalent, but at £279. I know it won't be up to Zeiss standards, but is it a capable alternative?
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3068
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM
Looks like the perfect lens for me, but prohibitively expensive. I notice Sigma do an equivalent, but at £279. I know it won't be up to Zeiss standards, but is it a capable alternative?
I have neither lens but the Sigma does get quite good reports - except it seems the AF is noisy and there's a tendency for it to flare.
ALL Carl Zeiss lenses are very expensive BUT (providing you get a good deal to start with) it's difficult to lose much - even after years of ownership, whereas cheaper lenses drop alarmingly on the SH market. Just a thought
--------------------
Rog
|
fabs
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/04/2007
Posts: 2880
Loc: Beds/Bucks
|
|
Thanks Roger, some food for thought there.
|
fabs
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/04/2007
Posts: 2880
Loc: Beds/Bucks
|
|
Thanks Roger, some food for thought there.
|
fabs
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/04/2007
Posts: 2880
Loc: Beds/Bucks
|
|
Thanks Roger, some food for thought there.
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4140
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
deleted by me.......... 
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558)Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
TallPaul
journeyman
Reged: 28/03/2008
Posts: 63
Loc: Berkshire
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM
Looks like the perfect lens for me, but prohibitively expensive. I notice Sigma do an equivalent, but at £279. I know it won't be up to Zeiss standards, but is it a capable alternative?
I saw this lens in an advert for the first time in this weeks AP, £1149, so slightly more than the Sigma then!
Best to wait for the deal with the new FF body, just need to rob a bank between now and then!
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 3068
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Yep All things Zeiss have always been expensive! In 1938 the top of the range Zeiss Ikon camera cost the same as a small car. (I know Zeiss Ikon, Carl Zeiss etc were different entities but ... )
--------------------
Rog
|
TallPaul
journeyman
Reged: 28/03/2008
Posts: 63
Loc: Berkshire
|
|
I think its all relative, its a lot of lens for a lot of money, as someone who owns a 70-200G I can see where the money went every time I take a pitcure!
Cameraworld have some really competitive pricing at the moment on all things Sony, its a shame all other AP advertisers are still at RRP though.
Still want one 
Can't justify the cost at this stage though, maybe if there was a FF sensors to put it in front off...
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
