[stoppingdown]

The way I understand Kurt Munger's post is: he got a first copy, it was disappointed during the first tests (soft edges) and assumed it was a QC issue. So he asked for a replacement. The replacement's behaviour was just as the first copy and at this point he just ran the test, assuming that it perhaps was not a QC issue and that what he saw was a relatively good copy (*).

 

But after reading this conclusion:



 

Comparatively speaking: I don't have the Sony 16-80mm or 16-50mm SSM to directly compare the 16-70mm, but I can make some educated guesses as to how they would match up.  At the wide end, I think the 16-70mm would be sharpest across the frame, especially at F/4.  At mid-zoom lengths, the 16-80mm and 16-50mm are probably much sharper along the sides.  At the long end I think the 16-70mm would come in last place.

 

... I really can't believe that Zeiss is marketing such an expensive lens that performs worse than a kit lens for 2/3 of the focals (mid-zoom and long end). That's why I am still assuming is a QC issue, so serious that it's likely that even a replacement lens is still bad.

 

 

(*) Kurt seems still dubious about the point:

 

<div>Bottom line: Personally, I'd pass on this lens if it meets Sony's QC; It's too expensive for the lack luster quality at mid lengths.  if I got a couple of bad copies, then maybe I'll take another look when they get things straightened out. 

 

</div>