Zeiss-Sony 16-70mm E-mount NEX Zoom is Finally Here!

[Marshmellow]

Phil,

Thank you so much for your clarification and explanation of the issues facing the Z16-70 in a flat or semi-domed port. I had hoped to use the 16-70 in the same manner as the 18-55 with a little more reach in both directions and better optics. However, I didn't realize image quality or magnification was affected as much as you described. For those of us who don't do WA, a HQ middle range lens is a nice alternative over only using a macro lens; we get 16mm and 1:3 macro all in the same dive, stack the +10 on a +5, maybe even a little more. Probably why the Sigma 17-70 is so popular for many on the SLR side of things. Hopefully, Nauticam will make a semi-domed port for the Z16-70 similar to the 4" semi-domed and swing mount system they currently offer for the 18-55. Couple this with the soon to be released Z50 macro and I'll be satisfied with this lens combination with no optical degradation that you describe.

On the subject of a dedicated macro, being able to use the Inon UFL-MR130 was the main reason I was attracted to the C60 over the Z50. From my limited reading on the subject, I thought it screwed onto the standard Nauticam C60mm port's 67mm threads and therefore would also work with the new NEX C60 port, since the lens distance to the glass would most likely be the same. But now I see it's a whole different set-up as you described. The Z50 is more attractive to me now for the reasons you stated. I just hope it fits the mini-port system when it's released.

​

I feel like I was sailing on one pontoon this past week after the 16-70 announcement and the wind has just died to a slight breeze Should Nauticam come out with a reasonably priced 4" port for Z16-70 I'd rather have that lens over a WA for the limited times I use it, especially since I already own the 4.33 port and both Sony WA & FE converters for video work. The corner sharpness of these converters appears to have improved on the new 20mm pancake with it's added elements and improved optical design. The 4.33 packs nice and the lens are lightweight and tiny.

NIce to hear about the Zen adapters, I didn't know this. We keep getting more options for NEX which is good and long overdue in my opinion.

There are moments when I wished I had gone with the RX-100 system when I decided to go compact, rather than being talked into the higher resolution NEX7 system. There are a lot of Inon wet lens options that work with the set-up, including the Inon UFL-M150 ZM80 FE lens which is a close relative of the UFL-MR130. I guess it's never too late to go back or switch to the 4/3rd platform. The 12-50 macro lens sounds very sweet as an all around general purpose single dive lens.

Thank for your matter-of-fact technical reports Phil, they cut through a lot of chase compared to my optimistic and enthusiastic ramblings. LOL

Best,

Marshall

​

 

[markdrayton]

Hi Phil,

I have been reading this thread with interest in relation to my daughter's Nauticam housed NEX5N and an upcoming trip we have to Lembeh in November. Your helpful commentary to Marshall on the Z16-70 is I think predicated on its possibilities as a one size fits all lens for underwater use. As an occasional user of the Sigma 17-70 macro behind a dome on DX Nikons, I agree that such a creature doesn't exist - the Sigma is certainly not a macro lens in this setup underwater.

Our predicament is the need for a good NEX macro lens for Lembeh within the next few weeks (not interested in WA at present), and I wonder how you would place the Z16-70 in that strict context. Our options seem to be:

1: Go with the kit 18-55 and +10 diopter. Advantages: no extra kit or expense needed as we have lens, diopters, port 72 and gear. About 1x magnification with +10 diopter. Disadvantages: Limited IQ

2: Wait for the Z50 macro. Advantages: Likely excellent IQ and a lens optimised for the purpose. It would offer good magnification of ~ 1.25x with diopter even if only 0.5x native. Disadvantages/Risks: Given the dearth of information about this lens, I am doubtful that it will be available in time for this trip. It is unknown what port combination will be needed to house this lens and additional expense over and above the expense of the lens itself is likely, possibly including a new diopter adapter, port adapter, new port and/or extension.

3: Go with the Canon macro option, Metabones adapter, port adapter and special port. Advantages: Available plus excellent IQ and magnification. Disadvantages: too expensive all up. Lack of effective autofocus might provide my daughter with too much extra challenge as a learner in the art of UWP.

4: Go with the new Z16-70 in a flat port. Advantages: Almost certainly will be available in time and likely to have high IQ. A useful quality replacement for the kit lens for general land use. Magnification with a +10 diopter in a flat port likely to approach 1.1x and a better working distance than the kit lens. Will fit within the port 72 which we have with extra (unknown) extensions. Disadvantages: Cost including the extra extensions or new port. Length.

Have I missed or mistaken anything? I think option 3 is out. Option 2 seems probably unachievable in the time-frame. So 1 or 4? I know you have favoured the kit lens as the best of a limited bunch for macro in the past. Your current thoughts would be welcome.

Mark

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

Hi Mark,

Let me first say that I expect great performance from this lens but without having first tried the lens this is all speculation. So I think the lens will be an excellent replacement for the 18-55 kit lens and at the long end it should work about the same with and without a closeup lenses given the narrower AOV v. the extra 3.5 inches for minimum focus distance.

It should have much better IQ and I think it will work well for your Lembah trip except for the very small subjects. With the increase in MP's between NEX5 and NEX7 the IQ for the 18-55 dropped greatly, I would not expect to see that with the 16-70 lens.

As long as you are aware of the limits of the lens NOT being in the macro range I think it is a good choice for fish portrait and an outstanding choice as your go to travel lens. This is the lens I would have mounted for all my walk around photography.

Regarding your November deadline you will need a gear to zoom the lens and a port which will not vignette at the 16mm end. I think you will have these issues covered in time for your trip.

I see that B&H photo has further confused those looking into this lens by showing it as a lens with a max 62 degree AOV when it should be in the 84 degree AOV range at the wide end. Sony does not correct this on their site only showing the 35mm equivalent and not the AOV of the lens.

Phil Rudin

 

[markdrayton]

Hi Phil,

Much appreciated, and a lot of sense. We have a few weeks hopefully to get some hands-on feedback from the earliest Z16-70 users.

As far as ports are concerned, while a non-vignetting port @ 16mm would be good if Nauticam (or Zen via an adapter?) respond quickly, its probably not essential for Lembeh critters where I imagine we'll need to be at the long end almost all the time, and port extensions and the port 72 might get us by. We might also get by without a zoom gear, effectively using it as a 70mm prime as long as there is no zoom creep, or alternatively, I have had some success making zoom gears and given a little spare time and if there's no alternative I might tackle this at least as a temporary solution.

Mark

 

[Marshmellow]

An Update on Zeiss and NEX:

Yesterday, I recently received a couple responses from Zeiss concerning the two new lens to be released for our platform, the 16-70 and 50mm macro.

The news on the 16-70 was in regards to it's actual length at 70mm being 114mm. The length of the 18-55 fully extended is 82.5mm. This leave a need for an additional 31.5mm. Unfortunately, a mere 1.5mm shy of the currently available 30mm mini-port extension. In hopes Nauticam gave us a little tolerance to work with when using the 18-55, I thought maybe the 30mm extension would still work, but after measuring the 18-55 lens and port glass distance, it became obvious they made the port precisely for the 18-55 with the lens being .25mm for the inner port glass. This is really poor luck for those if us who may have wanted to use the 16-70 as a general single dive lens with currently available equipment. A zoom gear would have been all that's needed to use the lens (to some degree, perhaps not optimally), as a HQ replacement for the 18-55. In that regard, it's also interesting to note that the inside diameter of the 18-55 zoom gear (minus the plastic collar) is around 66.75mm with the focus collar on the Z16-70 being 66.6mm. In addition, the distance and size of the zoom ring appears to be very close between the 18-55 and 16-70. So, there is a remote possibility one could creatively get the gear to work on the 16-70. I suppose if one is desperate enough one could put a rubber bumper of sorts on the end of the 16-70 lens so it wouldn't scratch the inner port glass when extending as far as possible where it contacts the port glass. Might even be a way to put a stop on the gear so it would stop beforehand. LOL. These would be desperate measures though and would hinge on getting the 18-55 zoom gear to work. A recent conversation with Nauticam said they will definitely support the 50mm macro, but no word on anything for the 16-70. In time, I'm hopeful there will be a port for it or at least a custom 32mm extension and gear so owners of Port 72 and the 4" semi-dome port with their swing mounts can use the lens to a large degree, understanding the WA shortcomings that Phil pointed out when used in flat port 72, not really any different than what we deal with on the 18-55.

Ironically, the new Sony 18-105mm G quality zoom is an internal focus zoom, so it remains physically shorter in length at 110mm at it's 105mm range vs. the 16-70 at 70mm. It is, however, considerably wider at 78mm and has a even longer minimum focus distance of 18" compared to 13.75" on the 16-70 and 9.8" for the 18-55. I haven't found minimum focus distance on the 18-55 to be much of an issue, because I'm either using the lens for larger fish or seascapes which are well within the lens focus range or as a macro with a +10 diopter, where focus distance is not an issue. How that will feel with the longer focusing distances of the 16-70, I won't know until I shoot with it. I suspect the extra 4" on the 16-70 won't be a problem for the most part. I've met a couple Nikon SLR users who use a similar set-up with even longer zooms when they want a more general purpose lens for single dive versatility and still want high magnification for macro using stacked diopters. The 18-105 would require a 2 part custom port, so I don't think it'll ever see the light of day since few would use it. The mini-port system just doesn't have the cross platform adapters, extensions and wide range of ports that the SLR systems have to experiment with.

At least glass is catching up for us NEX users, as we now have the Sony 10-18 and Z12mm for WA. The 4.33 WA port for the Sony 16mm and WA & FE adapters is also available for WA, but at lesser HQ than the two former. My hopes of getting sharper results by using the new 20mm pancake were dashed after my recent resolution testing. The only area of obvious improvement in corner sharpness was when using the WA adapter, which basically gives the same angle of view as the 16mm by itself. When I moved to the FE adapter, the corners on the 20mm were even softer than the 16mm (not to mention greater barrel distortion and CA), so for those hoping to get sharper corners by using the 20mm, it will only help in the 16mm WA range, not really much WA for that matter, especially since these were surface tests. It's probably why Sony said the converters would not work with the new 20mm pancake. The lens are just not optimized for each other like they were for the 16. This becomes very apparent with the FE converter, more so, than the WA converter, because of the extremes. Sorry to deliver the bad news for us 4.33 port users :-( Still, unless one is printing large prints or a pixel counter, the 4.33 set-up with converters is a very nice affordable and lightweight approach to WA for video and experience photos. For those wanting greater HQ, the best is the 12mm with Zen ports as Phil has suggested, but this will set you back some $2,500 or so if you can afford them, along with transporting a 170mm or 6.5" port. Nice they're available though.

The second email I received from Zeiss said they have not released any information on the width of the 50mm macro. So we don't know for sure if it will fit our ports, but given the Touit 32mm f1.8 is 65mm wide, more than likely it will fit the mini-port system. We know for sure it's coming too, it's not just a rumor I'm actually hoping someone will eventually make a HQ teleconverter for the E-mount platform or a longer macro. Perhaps the extension for the 16-70 will work with one or the other set-ups. Sony's recent release of the 3000 and soon to follow higher HQ SLR type bodies, bodes well for the development of the platform. I think 3rd party lens manufacturers are going to start filling the gaps.

LOL, all hopeful thinking, but us NEX users have gotten used to that

Happy diving and shooting,

Marshall

---------- Post added September 11th, 2013 at 08:01 AM ----------

2nd Zeiss Update:

Zeiss contacted me again with the suggestion to remove the filter ring to gain the 2mm necessary to use the lens in existing ports. Upon closer inspection of the photograph they sent me, perhaps it can be unscrewed from the lens body without damaging the lens in any way. I replied requesting the possibility of doing so and am waiting for an answer in that regard.

They also told me the macro lens in on track and will most likely be marketed late 2013 or early 2014, but they could provide no measurements at this time.

I ordered the 16-70 lens early on so hopefully will have it fairly soon and will see how it works out with the 18-55 zoom gear. Zeiss confirmed the maximum width of the lens at the aluminum zoom collar is 66.5mm, not 67 as shown on some sites. However, upon measuring the lens in full scale on the photo Zeiss sent me, the distance to the zoom collar is 14mm deeper than the 18-55. The gear itself is 39mm deep, so the gear will have 13mm of grip on the zoom collar vs 20mm that it has on the 18-55. Than there's the plastic collar and rubber spacers that fits the 18-55 which firmly grips the zoom collar and allows room for the gear to clear the mount portion of the lens and stabilize the gear. There will be no room to use such a spacer other than perhaps vinyl tape or some other thin nylon material to take up the .25mm of space, so it's going to be a long shot that it will work. I think Nauticam will produce a zoom gear and port for it though to accommodate the full range of the lens, but there's no word of that as yet. In which case the possible removal of the filter ring would be a way to get Port 72 and the 4" semi-dome to work with the lens (along with the 30mm extension) if one can't afford a new port or one's not forthcoming.

I'll keep everyone updated on my progress when the lens arrives. I suspect we'll see a substantial increase in HQ from this lens, but how well it works as a replacement for the 18-55 is all speculation at the moment. My understanding from Phil's post above, is that the 3.75" additional minimum focusing distance will give us the same magnification as our diopters on the 18-55. I hope he's wrong (or I misunderstood), but have come to respect his opinion on these matters, as I'm more mechanical in my approach and don't quite fully understand the optics involved. In which case we may only gain resolution, which would be a real disappointment for me, as the 70mm reach for macro is what got me interested in replacing the 18-55, besides higher resolution. Right now, I use a +10 Aquatica, sometimes stacked on a F.I.T +5 for maximum magnification with the 18-55. Every piece of glass we add degrades the original HQ of the lens, so I was hoping to use the 70mm for higher magnification and reach without stacking the diopters.

Marshall

 

[Marshmellow]

3rd Zeiss Update:

Zeiss has responded and apparently it's not something simple like removing a filter collar to shorten the lens 2mm. Like most lens, the filter threads and lens attachment points are built into the lens barrel at the end. So any modifications appear to require major surgery and nothing I would care to undertake. Besides this will be a great surface travel lens and I'd hate to lose the ability to use filters and lens covers. I may try some of the things I mentioned should a solution not be forthcoming from Nauticam, but Nauticam is quite ingenious and amazing how fast they bring things to market, so hopefully it'll just be a matter of time and we will see a Nauticam solution for those of us who want a similar HQ lens to replace the 18-55's versatility.

Marshall

 

[deco369]

Could anyone clarify if the Zen port is the following?
Zen Underwater 170mm Optical Glass Dome Port for Nauticam Mirrorless Housings [zen.dp170.nm] - $999.00 : Reef Photo & Video!, The Underwater Photo Pros

Would this fit the touit 12, samyang 8mm, and also (with 20mm port extension) the sony 10-17mm?

It's not clear whether this is a 2 part dome, and I see a different listing under the Sea&Sea section:
Zen Underwater Port Adapter: Sea & Sea Ports on Nauticam Mirrorless Housing [zen.pa.nm.ss.60] - $199.00 : Reef Photo & Video!, The Underwater Photo Pros
Zen Underwater 170mm Optical Glass Dome Port for Sea & Sea SLR Housings [zen.dp170.ss] - $999.00 : Reef Photo & Video!, The Underwater Photo Pros

 

[Marshmellow]

Deco369,

It's definately a 2 part dome and will work beautifully with the Touit 12mm from what I've read. Chris Parsons tested the lens in one of his reviews and said the increase in color contract blew him away compared to the other available lens: Sony NEX-6 Underwater Review - The Digital Shootout

Phil Ruden speaks highly of it too. He did a review on it as well: ZEN port adapter for 12mm Ziess Touit for NEX [Archive] - ScubaBoard - Scuba Diving Forum - Diving Social Network

They can probably tell you if it will work well with the other lens you mentioned.

Wish I could afford the set-up myself

M

 

[deco369]

Yes, there are separate listings on reef photo catalog:

zen.dp170.nm $999
Zen Underwater 170mm Optical Glass Dome Port for Nauticam Mirrorless Housings [zen.dp170.nm] - $999.00 : Reef Photo & Video!, The Underwater Photo Pros

zen.pa.nm.ss.60 $199 + zen.dp170.ss $999
Zen Underwater Port Adapter: Sea & Sea Ports on Nauticam Mirrorless Housing [zen.pa.nm.ss.60] - $199.00 : Reef Photo & Video!, The Underwater Photo Pros
Zen Underwater 170mm Optical Glass Dome Port for Sea & Sea SLR Housings [zen.dp170.ss] - $999.00 : Reef Photo & Video!, The Underwater Photo Pros

The question is, will the zen.dp170.nm fit the touit 12mm and also the 10-17 with a 20mm port extension?

 

[PHIL RUDIN]

Just so you don't get this twisted, the first port 170.nm is a one part port. It works well with lenses that will fit through the housing opening like the Panasonic 7-14 zoom for M43 cameras and the Olympus 12mm. You can read my review on this port in past issue of UWPMAG.com.

The second combination is a Nauticam Mini port adapter from ZEN for Subal type III ports or the Sea&Sea port adapter. Again with the port adapter installed on the housing the camera is mounted inside the housing WITHOUT the lens mounted. The lens which is smaller on the rear end is then mounted to the camera from the front of the housing. Once the lens is mounted the Subal and Sea&Sea ports can be mounted over the larger lenses like the Zeiss 12mm because the ports have the larger DSLR type port opening. ZEN also makes the ports to fit these adapters like the ZEN 170 and 200mm ports for Subal type III and Sea& Sea.

So again to use the Zeiss 12mm for NEX you will need to go with the second option. A Subal or Sea&Sea port for the Canon 60mm macro could also be used with this setup. Keep in mind that you will need extensions for some of these combinations and that they will need to be Subal or Sea&Sea mount types just like the dome ports.

Phil Rudin