#12,196 in Electronics
Reddit mentions of Sony SEL1670Z Vario-Tessar T E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS
Sentiment score: 3
Reddit mentions: 4
We found 4 Reddit mentions of Sony SEL1670Z Vario-Tessar T E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS. Here are the top ones.
or
- Carl Zeiss mid-range zoom lens; Compatible with E-mount Full Frame cameras and E-mount APS-C cameras
- Minimum Focus Distance : 1.15 feet (0.35 m), Maximum Magnification ratio : 0.23x, Focal Length : 16-70 mm
- High lens technology in a compact body. Filter Diameter (mm) - 55 mm
- Optical Steady Shot image stabilization. Zeiss T anti-reflective coating
- When using a flash, always remove the lens hood and shoot at least 1 m (3.3 feet) away from your subject. Angle of View (APS-C): 83°-23°
Features:
Specs:
| Color | Black |
| Height | 2.63779 Inches |
| Length | 2.95275 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | September 2013 |
| Size | 3.5000" l x 3.8800" w x 3.3800" h x |
| Weight | 0.67902376696 Pounds |
| Width | 2.63779 Inches |
I tend to use either the 16-70mm or the 35mm.
You can see some examples here from Mt Fuji:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/69663852@N00/14979392520/in/album-72157647273260676/
I typically carry the 35 in my bag but leave the 16-70 on the camera. The 35 takes beautiful pictures, but you know how it is, you can't always be at the right distance for it.
I use the SEL1670Z as my primary lens. You can see some of my shots with it on my Flickr Photostream
RX100M5 will have similar focusing capability as an a6000, otherwise the focusing for action will be slower vs the a6000
The RX100 includes a much better lens than what's included in the a6000 kit, to get similar performance as the RX100, you would need to buy the $1000 SEL1670z
Neither setup would be phenomenal in low light, but dusk and under street light should be fine, if you add a dedicated flash, both would perform equal in low light.
The RX100 can fit in a pocket, so that's much more convenience for travel.
edit: you can see the size difference here http://camerasize.com/compact/#690,535.445,ha,t
Okay, thanks again for all the feedback.
I'm not totally sure I did this right. Here's my homework.
Maybe I screwed up by choosing a lemon as a subject (literally a lemon - not a metaphor), but to my naive eyes, it still looks pretty sharp at slower shutter speeds I would not expect.
At 24mm (I have a 16mm widest lens, but a 1.5 crop factor), to my eyes, it still looks okay at 1/15, and almost even looks okay at 1/8. (I guess when you zoom in it looks blurrier.) Even at 1/4 it looks okay-isn, and then at 1/2 and 1 second the train goes off the rails.
What really threw me for a loop - even at 105mm (lens goes to 70mm, so 105 with the 1.5 crop) it still seems sharp until 1/4 sec, but I know that can't really be the case. Once again, it gets junky at 1/2 and 1 sec.
This is the lens I'm using - I don't know how that factors into the equation...
On another note, I learned something else doing this -- how hard it can be to focus close-up on something using a wide lens. Initially I tired to get very close to the lemon at 24mm so that it mostly filled the frame (like I did with 105mm), but the focus wouldn't really lock on any one point in the lemon, so I had to back up (hence the crappy composition of random stuff on the kitchen counter.) Is there any rule of thumb about how close you can be to something and focus when you're at a wide lens? Or is the moral of the story that when you're doing macro, you want to zoom in with longer lens?
Anyways, hope I didn't botch this too much, and thanks again!