The Carl Zeiss DT 16-80/3.5-4.5, give it a break

July 22nd, 2008 - 09:24:58 PM:

In June 2008 I finally got me the Carl Zeiss DT 16-80/3.5-4.5, despite some critical reviews. I was expecting to do some critical testing and maybe having to return it. It didn't turn out this way.

Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA

In fact, I'm positively surprised by this lens. It's got high quality optics, and also mechanically I can find very few flaws. The only thing that's not so nice is the rough focus ring action, certainly a consequence of the very short focus throw. Other than that, it's very solid and precise. Even when comparing it to older medium aperture standard zooms, e.g. the 24-85/3.5-4.5, it is a much better lens. It feels more solid, the mechanical tolerances are smaller, and the optical quality is higher, despite the bigger zoom range. OK, it's also more expensive, but nothing in lens design comes for free.

Going back to the reviews I've read before, I think this lens has been over-criticized regarding its mechanical qualities. I get the impression that people were spending €600 on a lens and were disappointed that it didn't have €1000 quality, just because it was saying “Zeiss” on the lens. This is unreasonable. Even when you brand a lens “Zeiss”, you can't trick the laws of physics and economics. €600 will buy you exactly a lens with €600 quality, no matter what label you print on it. To keep the price down, every maker, including Zeiss, have to make compromises. If it had the full-metal body etc. that some were expecting, it couldn't cost only €600.

So, please, give it a break. Look at the lens as what it is, not as what you want it to be without also wanting to pay the price.

Categories: Lenses (Sony) • Archive of all entries

Readers' comments

#1: Comment posted by Thingomy on July 23rd, 2008 - 05:13:16 PM:

Having owned one of these for a few months and loving it, I have to agree with most of what you say. I Have not really had a chance to fully test it's optical capabilities, but have been reasonably impressed by it's images.

It's build is a little disappointing to me, as far as I'm concerned, it's a high end kit zoom, and as such does not have bullet-proof build, my copy has small but noticeable wobble on the front portion when zoomed in. This is defiantly an oddity in the field of CZs, and may well be getting a lot of undue stick because of it's name.

Many people remark on the feel of the focus ring having a good deal of play on it, and yes it does, this is intentional, it's got an auto clutch built in. This is designed so that during auto focus the grip does not move, the first portion of movement locks the outer and inner ring together. This design dates back to some Minolta lenses, I have a Minolta 100m2.8 RS D that has exactly the same feel to it's focus. Yes it feels a little odd, but it's fine once you get used to it.

www.thingomy.co.uk/blog

#2: Comment posted by Randy on July 29th, 2008 - 06:39:52 PM:

I am assuming it's due to the flooding of the marketplace with gear, but I find that just about all commercial reviews (i.e.: someone got paid to write it, or advertising was purchased) are tainted. I was interested in this lens, or the 16-105, until the reviews turned me off. Now my interest is rekindled. There is very little objectivity out there. Phrases like "the button was not where I expected it to be" and "it doesn't feel right" are everywhere. What do you expect when you only play with a camera for a weekend? The same reviewer will make conflicting comments on two cameras, even though the feature they refer to is exactly the same. Sites like this one and others who know what they are talking about, and concentrate on a sector of the market rather than try to (poorly) cover everything, are the places to check. One major change I have noticed, ever since that really large digital review site was bought by a large retailer; they hardly review anything. Hmmmmmm..... I have the Sony A350, and it is indeed one of only a few cameras with well-implemented (not perfect) live-view. Just about every reviewer calls it of limited use, or a novelty. These are the same type of people who said digital would never be used by professionals. In two years, they will be panning DSLRs without true live-view (and somehow citing that one of the big two manufacturers invented it). So for me, magazine and 'cover-it-all' web reviews are just off-the-cuff comments. Michael, keep up the good work.

#3: Comment posted by Roy Bailey-Wood on January 6th, 2009 - 11:37:18 AM:

I notice a certain amount of discussion regarding the quality and performance of this lens, some of it not complimentary. I would point to a review in the UK magazine " Amateur Photography" July 2007, in which comparable lenses from Canon,Nikon,Tamron and Sigma were reviewed and which reached the conclusion "For outstanding performance tha accolade goes without doubt to the superb Sony Carl Zeis 16-80mm" lens.

#4: Comment posted by NIKO on February 6th, 2009 - 08:23:32 PM:

Roy is correct. I have this review from "Amateur Photographer." I copied the PDF at one time to my computer. I still have it and will be happy to pass it along to Michael to post on his web page. It rekindled my interest in this lens as well. The 16-80 f3.5-4.5 really did exceptionally well against the other lenses. I tried it and was impressed with it. I want to buy it, but I have been holding off only because of the rumored 24-105 f4 SSM. If the 24-105 f4 SSM does actually come out and it's too expensive (above $1000) then I will dish out for the 16-80 f3.5-4.5. I really can't lose. Sure, one is designed for full frame and the other is designed for APS-C. However, that is what I have, and A700 with an APS-C size sensor. I will not pay $3000 for a full frame A900. I am not an all-out paid pro. Also, one has SSM and the other is body AF driven. The only difference to me here is that the SSM would be more quiet, but not faster. Aaaaa, enough said. It is a great lens. I tried it. I want it. I'm just being patient about it.

#5: Comment posted by John Smith on July 10th, 2009 - 02:24:36 AM:
While the lens may not be 1000 in quality because it costs 600 the real question is how much of a mark up that the zeiss badge incurrs regadless of quality. Especially beraing in mind the price of equivalent fast tamrons and to some extent sigmas.

Michael Hohner answers:
There is no truly equivalent Tamron or Sigma lens.

#6: Comment posted by syahid on December 12th, 2009 - 08:09:26 PM:
erm.. just wondering if this lens is compatible when use with sony full-frame camera? sorry for silly question..

Michael Hohner answers:
As a DT lens, it only produces a smaller image circle. But the α850 and α900 recognize DT lenses and then produce only cropped images. So mounting DT lenses on these full-frame cameras converts them into APS-C cameras in a way.