New Sony NEX mid-range zoom lenses

[donald_a]

<p>Sony just released two mid-range zoom lenses, a Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS ($998) and E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Power Zoom Lens ($598). This is a very good thing because as a new NEX 6 owner and previous Canon Digital Rebel owner I was extremely disappointed with the kit lens (besides the great small size and 16mm on the wide end). <br>

Now my question is which one to get. It seems like the 16-70 is the better option for me. Like I said, I love having 16mm on my main lens. Plus it's lighter and smaller than the 18-105 and has a smaller minimum focusing distance. But I wonder about the image quality between the two. The 18-105 is a G Lens, which I assume is the equivalent of Canon's L lenses. But why would the non-G 16-70 cost more than the 18-105? Is it just a German lens vs. Japanese lens thing? Can I expect the IQ to be more or less equivalent between the two?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>But why would the non-G 16-70 cost more than the 18-105?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because the former is a Zeiss and the latter is not. AFAIK, G indicates a Minolta/Konica heritage - whatever that means: http://www.sony-mea.com/microsite/dslr/09/gLens/</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Sony is being a bit confusing because they have more than one high end lens line. G is a naming scheme Sony inherited from Minolta that means mostly the same thing as L. Then there are the co-branded Zeiss lenses. These seem to be made by Sony in Japan under license from Zeiss (and it's a high end line). Which of those lenses is "better"? I don't think anybody can tell you what the pluses and minuses are until both are on the market and have been thoroughly compared and written about but I'd expect the 16-70 to have some advantages.</p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<p>Did anyone do some test with the Vario Tessar T* 16-70mm? I'm a long time Nikon user and I'm evaluating a strategic switch - not easy, as you can imagine. I think I've done all the paperwork and from my evaluation Sony looks better, for some respects, than m4/3. My intention is to evaluate a replacement for Nikon D5100 and a set of primes (Nikkor AF-S 24 f/2.8, AF-S 35 f/1.8DX, AF-S 50 f/1.8DX) plus a zoom AFS 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX for landscape; in recent times I've been using mostly the zoom for travel, and the primes when I've plenty of time (I also have a D7000 with longer teles up to AF-S 300 f/4, mostly for wildlife and I'm aware there will be no replacement for some time, so I'd be living with Nikon + Sony for some time).<br>

My intention is to move from theory to practice, that is trying the NEX-6 + the Zeiss 16-70 as the OP said. I'm pretty sure the optical quality will be superior than the D5100 + AFS 18-70 (please note that this Nikkor lens is a strange beast: in spite of being a kit lens it sports a very high sharpness, so don't underestimate it); I'm curious to understand whether the Zeiss will be comparable or even better than the cited Nikkor primes (at least in th f/5.6 - f/11 range). In this age of software defect correction, I'm primarily interested in acuity.<br>

My basic aim is to get rid of weigh as I've passed 40 and I have some back pain that are slowly going to get worse with aging.<br>

Thanks.</p>