1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sony 16-80mm Zeiss lens

Discussion in 'Sony Chat' started by GrahamR, Jan 10, 2008.

  1. GrahamR

    GrahamR Well-Known Member

    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
     
  2. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Here are a few dozen user reports on the CZ 16-80mm.
     
  3. carman

    carman Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  4. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  5. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    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.
     
  6. Gordon_McGeachie

    Gordon_McGeachie In the Stop Bath

    So what are you waiting for then..........?
     
  7. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    ... 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
     
  8. fabs

    fabs Well-Known Member

    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?
     
  9. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    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 :)
     
  10. fabs

    fabs Well-Known Member

    Thanks Roger, some food for thought there.
     
  11. fabs

    fabs Well-Known Member

    Thanks Roger, some food for thought there.
     
  12. fabs

    fabs Well-Known Member

    Thanks Roger, some food for thought there.
     
  13. Gordon_McGeachie

    Gordon_McGeachie In the Stop Bath

    deleted by me.......... :eek:
     
  14. TallPaul

    TallPaul Well-Known Member

    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!
     
  15. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    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 ... )
     
  16. TallPaul

    TallPaul Well-Known Member

    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 :rolleyes:

    Can't justify the cost at this stage though, maybe if there was a FF sensors to put it in front off...
     

Share This Page