How good are Carl Zeiss Lens?

[hoppie]

Hi guys,

Like to ask a general question, would you guys pay more to get a Carl Zeiss Zoom Lens over a Fixed Aperture F2.8 Lens?

I am thinking of replacing my Kit lens on my Alpha with either
- Carl Zeiss 16-80mm F/3.5-4.5
OR
- Tamron 17-50mm F2.8

Still can't decide which one to get, i am afraid i might miss the Fixed aperture all range if i gotten the Carl Zeiss lens.

 

[Galdor]

Get the CZ 16-80mm if you can afford it.

The sharpness, contrast, color and CA control are pretty good.

Anyway, I think it's better to post this in the Sony sub forum.

 

[hoppie]

Get the CZ 16-80mm if you can afford it.

The sharpness, contrast, color and CA control are pretty good.

Anyway, I think it's better to post this in the Sony sub forum.

posted already, just wanna seek general advice from other brands user.

 

[zcf]

You can compare the 2 lens on these websites,

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-...mm-f35-45-dt--sony-alpha--review--test-report

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/386-tamron_1750_28_sony

Sharpness wise, Tamron is comparable to CZ from f/4 onward, but lose out in zoom length.

CZ last time I head may have QC issue (when it first launch), now may no longer an issue. Tamron focusing sometime may not be accurate when object is 2~3 meter away and shoot a wide angle.

 

[hoppie]

anyone have experience with Tamron at F2.8 to 4? is the sharpness really not so good?

 

[android17]

Go see my post in hardwarezone's dslr forum. I did a simple sharpness test of cz 16-80 vs tamron 17-50.

 

[Linnl71]

I was in the same position as you just about a week back.

I considering either the CZ or Tamron or the SAL16105 as an upgrade from my kit lens.

I went with the 16105 and I am extremely contented.

I do not want to influence you on which lens to buy, but just want to share with you my experiences.

I considered the 16105 because I needed the extra range.
I considered tamron because I needed the constant 2.8 for portraits, bokeh & flexibility
I considered the CZ because of the quality and reviews I read, though quite similar to 16105.

I chose 16105 in the end because, if I could substitute the tanrom for portraits with the 50mm1.8 prime; and I feel that the tamron range of 17-50 is quite restricting.
CZ was way over priced for me. Moreover, I had a really good deal for the 16105.

My advice to you is think of what you need for what you are shooting. You won't go wrong with either .

 

[Galdor]

posted already, just wanna seek general advice from other brands user.

Users of other brands doesn't have AF CZ 16-80mm, so how to advise you leh? Anyway like the other bros who have mentioned in this thread, the Tamron 17-50mm, CZ 16-80mm or Sony 16-105mm are all good lenses. Just ask yourself if you are willing to forgo the constant f2.8 for a lens with a longer range and sharper images.

Personally I have the Tamron 17-50mm and the 16-105mm and I tend to use the 16-105mm more than the Tamron.

 

[Rashkae]

posted already, just wanna seek general advice from other brands user.

That's like asking Honda and Toyota owners if the Lancer Ralliart is better than the Evo. They can't give actual hands-on info, they'd just anyhow give advice.

 

[android17]

having both the tamron and CZ, i can tell u that they both serve different purpose.

The CZ is sharper but has a slower aperture. If you always shoot at f8 or smaller aperture, then the CZ will be the better lens as its sharper. But if u shoot at f5.6 and below, then the tamron will be better.

So it really depends on your usage and what aperture u are using the lens for.

BTW asking this topic here is rather inappropriate. Since only Alpha users can use AF CZ lenses, u are seeking the opinion of other brands' users, who has not use this lens at all? Then how are they going to answer you?

 

[hoppie]

oops.......sorry, i thought last time Carl Zeiss did have lens for other makes.

 

[Rashkae]

oops.......sorry, i thought last time Carl Zeiss did have lens for other makes.

Totally different design, different build, not AF, and no 16-80.