Welcome to Photo.net: A Community of Photographers

Home > Equipment > Sony > Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 versus Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5

Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 and Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5

by Bob Atkins; created November 2007

This article compares two wide-to-telephoto zoom lenses for Sony digital cameras. The first is the Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6, often supplied as a kit lens with the Sony Alpha A100. The second is the Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5, which has a similar zoom range but is about four times as expensive. Both of these zooms are designed for the APS-C sized sensor in the Sony A100 (and A700). Because their image circle is smaller than that of full frame lenses, they cannot be used on earlier Konica-Minolta film SLRs.

a100/a100_zooms_18.jpg (33303 bytes)
Left: Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Right: Sony Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80mm f/3.5-4 .5

The 18-70mm and the 16-80mm are fairly similar in size as shown above, although the Zeiss 16-80 is twice as heavy (15.5oz vs. 8.3oz) and seems sturdier. Both have a useful zoom range for general-purpose work and yield images of good quality and contrast. However, the more expensive 16-80 lens does have a slightly larger zoom range, keeping in mind that 16mm provides significantly wider coverage than 18mm. The 16-80 has the same effective coverage as a 24-120mm zoom would on a full frame camera, while the 18-70 has the effective coverage of a 27-105mm on full frame. Lenses with this range are suitable for travel photography and are a staple for wedding photographers, but are not long enough for sports or wildlife.

Both lenses have a maximum magnification of obout 0.25x, which means you can fill the frame with an object as small as 63mm x 95mm (2.5" x 3.75"). The 16-80 has a distance scale marked in feet and meters, while the Sony 18-70 lacks any external indication of focus distance. In practice the lack of a distance scale is unlikely to be of concern to most users of the 18-70. Both lenses are supplied with a lens hood, but as you can see from the photo above, the 16-80 hood is a deeper "petal" design and is more efficient at shading the lens from stray light.

The A100 body recorded the 18- 70 lens identity in the image EXIF data correctly, while the 16-80 was recorded as "unknown lens". If there are any more lenses in the Sony line that can't be identified by the bodies, this could cause confusion this didn't cause any problems for these tests since I was only using two lenses, it could potentially cause confusion for someone using multiple lenses, especially if more than one was not identified in the EXIF data.

Image Quality

While the quality of the images from both lenses was generally quite good, if you look closely, you can see that the image quality of the more expensive 16-80 lens is higher, particularly when you look at areas away from the center of the frame. This can be seen in the 100 percent image crops shown below.

The areas outlined in yellow and red are shown in more detail below for each lens set to around 30mm and images captured wide open (f4 for the 16-80, f5 for the 18-70) and stopped down by about one stop.

In the center of the frame all the images look pretty good. Those taken using the 16-80 were slightly sharper than those taken using the 18-70 kit lens.

The differences are easier to spot closer to the edge of the frame. Here the 16-80 shows its superiority by producing a sharper image than the 18-70, even with the 18-70 lens wide open and stopped down to f8.

Both lenses showed visible barrel distortion at their widest setting. Distortion was reduced at longer focal length settings, becoming slight at 35mm (particularly for the 16-80) and negligible at the maximum focal length. Note that barrel distortion can be corrected with digital post-processing. Chromatic aberration was well controlled in both lenses and would be unlikely to be a problem.

Conclusion

You get what you pay for and what you're willing to carry in terms of weight. The more expensive and heavier lens delivers substantially better image quality. Both lenses are too slow for use indoors in available light, especially given the mediocre performance of Sony digital bodies at high ISO settings.

Alternatives

For a low-light zoom lens, consider the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD for Sony, $430, which requires only one fourth as much light as the 18-70 kit lens. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC for Sony and Minolta, $429, requires only one sixteeth as much light as the kit lens and provides a fixed normal perspective.

Where to Buy

Amazon.com has the Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 DT, $120 (review), and the Sony 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 DT Carl Zeiss, $700 (review), in stock and offers free shipping on both lenses.

Specifications

Lens Sony 18-70/3.5-5.6 Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5
Focal Length (35mm equiv.) 18 - 70mm (27-105mm) 16-80mm (24-120mm)
Minimum Aperture (wide - tele) f22 - f36 f22 - f29
Filter Size 55mm 62mm
Distance Scale No Yes (ft/m)
Minimum Focus Distance 15" (0.38m) 13.8" (0.35m)
Maximum magnification 1:4 (0.25x) 1:4 (0.25x)
Aperture blades 7 7
Groups/Elements 9/11 10/14
Length 3" (77mm) 3.4" (83mm)
Diameter 2.6" (66mm) 2.8" (72mm)
Weight 8.3oz (235g) 15.5oz (440g)

More

Sample Images with the 18-70 and the 16-80

Sony 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 DT Carl Zeiss (review), Sony Alpha A100 (review), 24mm, f/5.6, 1/400s, ISO 100.

Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 DT (review), Sony Alpha A100 (review), 70mm, f/8, 1/125s, ISO 100.

Sony 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 DT Carl Zeiss (review), Sony Alpha A100 (review), 80mm, f/4.5, 1/800s, ISO 100.

Sony 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 DT Carl Zeiss (review), Sony Alpha A100 (review), 18mm, f/8, 1/100s, ISO 100.


Original text and images ©2007 Bob Atkins

Readers' Comments


Add a comment



David W. Griffin , April 23, 2008; 09:19 A.M.

Isn't the Sony 18-70 just the original Konica Minolta 5D/7D kit lens?


Add a comment