Why upgrade from SEL1650 kit lens to Zeiss Lens? - GoFuckYourself.com

HelmutKohl · 03-20-2015, 12:04 PM

For pure comparison I uploaded 2 pics side by side made by A6000 with: Sony Zeiss Sonnar 35/f2.8 prime vs. SEL1650 Kit lens (supposed to be much worse in quality) :

Sony Zeiss Sonnar T : View image: DSC04444

SEL1650 Kit lens : View image: DSC04445

and one more:

Sony Zeiss: View image: DSC04446

SEL1650: View image: DSC04447

The only difference I can really notice is here with text displayed:

Sony Zeiss: View image: DSC04448

SEL1650 : http://postimg.org/image/qgrf3npn3

If you click on the image again, it will enlarge it.

So in my conclusion, for a regular outdoor shooting I could not justify spending $800 for Sony Zeiss, I will never shoot text in a newspaper, other pics show no clear difference to me. Perhaps in lab conditions you can see with human eye, other than that, we are splitting hair and cheaper 1650 is a fine lens for 99% of population IMHO. Or do you see something I don't?

Marialovesporn · 03-20-2015, 01:32 PM

Always hard to compare glass. Best method is to use a tripod and same settings on both lenses to really try to compare.
Shooting out of your hand or different frame are factors you want to exclude.

SilentKnight · 03-20-2015, 03:48 PM

I've got a buddy who swears by Zeiss lenses on his Sony - but I still prefer my Nikkor for the Nikon.

amvcdotcom · 03-20-2015, 05:15 PM

maybe it's just my old eyes but the SEL looked better to me.

03-20-2015, 12:04 PM	#1
HelmutKohl Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 378	Why upgrade from SEL1650 kit lens to Zeiss Lens? For pure comparison I uploaded 2 pics side by side made by A6000 with: Sony Zeiss Sonnar 35/f2.8 prime vs. SEL1650 Kit lens (supposed to be much worse in quality) : Sony Zeiss Sonnar T : View image: DSC04444 SEL1650 Kit lens : View image: DSC04445 and one more: Sony Zeiss: View image: DSC04446 SEL1650: View image: DSC04447 The only difference I can really notice is here with text displayed: Sony Zeiss: View image: DSC04448 SEL1650 : http://postimg.org/image/qgrf3npn3 If you click on the image again, it will enlarge it. So in my conclusion, for a regular outdoor shooting I could not justify spending $800 for Sony Zeiss, I will never shoot text in a newspaper, other pics show no clear difference to me. Perhaps in lab conditions you can see with human eye, other than that, we are splitting hair and cheaper 1650 is a fine lens for 99% of population IMHO. Or do you see something I don't?

03-20-2015, 05:15 PM	#4
amvcdotcom i like kitties. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Seattle & NC Posts: 886	maybe it's just my old eyes but the SEL looked better to me. __________________ Email only: allen at/ amvc dotcom

03-20-2015, 01:32 PM	#2
Marialovesporn Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 579	Always hard to compare glass. Best method is to use a tripod and same settings on both lenses to really try to compare. Shooting out of your hand or different frame are factors you want to exclude.

03-20-2015, 03:48 PM	#3
SilentKnight Megan Fox's fluffer Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: shooting pool in Elysium Posts: 24,818	I've got a buddy who swears by Zeiss lenses on his Sony - but I still prefer my Nikkor for the Nikon.