Sony Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T * E 16-70mm f / 4 ZA OSS (SEL-1670Z)

Advantages: Sharp, colorful, fast autofocus, perfectly working stub.

Disadvantages: Price. Although bought a year ago on the stock with a decent discount. And the current prices are sky-high.

Comment: I use the year. Satisfied, there is no limit.
The glass came across the right, nor any blur on all focal.
Is it possible to compare it with 16-50, which I threw in some kind of box and forgot.

Advantages: Sharp, high-quality, everything moves smoothly, sharpness is induced very quickly, it is convenient to bring the sharpness of the phase shift. I have already used it many times and saw a clear difference with the whale lens - sharpness induces faster and much more sharp images are obtained, especially if you bring the focus manually. In general, now only with him. Recent photos here http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/homeopatpro/album/151032/

Disadvantages: If I were a little closer, it would be generally good.

Comment: The diameter of the first lens is impressive, which means that the obstacles in front of the lens will not interfere with it, as happens with lenses with a small diameter - a large luminosity can not remove even a small obstacle from their path, and for large glass they are invisible.
Now I am making all the photos with a simple protective filter, but it seems that it makes the picture darker, although in the daytime it is imperceptible.

Advantages: relative compactness, low weight, sharpness, micro-contrast, color rendition.

Disadvantages: The price is rather high for Thai-made Zeiss, but there is no alternative on the market.

Comment: having changed the NEX-6 to Sony -A 6000, I had to choose a staff member 16-70 / 4, who could “pull” the matrix at 24Mp. Yuzayu for a couple of days, in general, the lens pleases all the criteria. I have an excellent fix 35 / 1.8 oss, I bought something to carry the camera constantly in a leather document bag. And so it took some time, but there was not enough zoom. Whale 16-50, after reading reviews, did not buy with any camera, so I will not compare with it.
I have been photographing Nikon for a long time, I have “golden series” zooms, which weigh about 1 kg and more. So Zeiss 16-70 / 4 oss is not inferior to them in all characteristics. Although the end result with Nikonovsky FF and Sonevsky Crop is not correct to compare, the pictures do not differ in favor of Sony. But a compact bundle: the A6000 + camera 16-70 / 4 oss lens is always with me, and Nikon FF (D800) rests on the "laurels" at home)))

Advantages: Workmanship.
Everything is very well adjusted, never backlash, the feeling of a quality product in the hands.

Convenient focal lengths.

Image stabilizer.

Constant aperture.

A big plus is the mechanical zoom, unlike, for example, the drive zoom (from a motor) at the whale 16-50, resulting in a feeling of complete control over the zoom process, because There is no intermediate motor and, accordingly, a delay, plus the whole battery saving (since the battery is wasted on the motor).For me it was one of the key factors when choosing a lens.

Excerpt from Wikipedia: Tessar has a slightly higher luminosity than the classical triplet, and the best correction of aberrations. Gives a sharp and contrasting image, for which he received the nickname "Eagle eye".

Disadvantages: I think my opinion will not be subjective, since there is no one to compete with the lens, the price is rather high. The most adequate price range should be below one and a half to two times, i.e. roughly $ 450- $ 600.

Comment: All the ranting about the fact that f / 4 is not enough, just have not played enough in luminosity. Imagine the same focal lengths with f / 2.8 - the glass will be of other sizes. We're talking about a compact here, and this lens is very compact, convenient and produces great pictures! Really f / 4 is enough! At night, absolutely no matter what your "hole" is 2.8 or 4, it will not be enough anyway. Tripod to help. I use any surfaces, bridge supports, lampposts and even curbs.

P.S.
The lens is very good, quality.
Roam well, for the quality will have to pay extra, and not a little.
Yuzal 18-200, 18-105, 16-50, 18-55. Chose as the main 16-70.

P.P.S.
I also have a Canon Mark II with 24-70 f / 2.8 and 70-200 f / 2.8 IS + 580 I flash, all this is good with filters, charging, batteries and other crap coming under, you won’t believe, 8 kilograms! Of course, the mirror gives other shots, but I often missed good shots just because I did not have time to zoom in on the lens, or it was banal to be lazy to pick up two kilograms to catch a shot.

Choose :)

Advantages: Convenient focal. 24-105 on full frame. Easy enough.

Disadvantages: Dimensions. The colors are pale. Price.

Comment: After the colors, Canon lacks richness. In addition to the focal and label, I can not note anything remarkable. As travel lens can be used. I did not notice a big difference with the regular 16-50 on the NEX-6. If specifically investigated, it should be. I am talking about subjective impressions.