[Klaus]

https://www.tamron.jp/en/product/lenses/b070.html

The MTFs look pretty good actually

[Rover]

You know you'll have it in da lab before long, Klaus.

This is going to be an interesting battle, this one vs. the Sony 16-55.

[Brightcolours]

RXD...
It even renders nicely, judging from those sample images. Nice APS-C lens.

[stoppingdown]

If the MTF is good, I wonder whether it might obscure the 'old' Sony 16-70mm f/4... 308g vs 525g, heavier but not so much, and a stop faster - 200g are not a big deal in exchange of f/2.8. The only pitfall is that you lose 1mm at the wide end. On the other hand, if you have the Sony 10-18mm, the range is covered.

So I'm longing to see tests (including decentering assessment).

[Rover]

I've seen remarks along the line of "smear the front lens of this Tamron with vaseline, and it's still going to do better than the Zeiss 16-70". Not sure how well founded these are. An ex-coworker of mine has the Zeiss 16-70, I got to ask him how that lens fares.

[stoppingdown]

Considering the dozens of reviews I've read about the SEL1670, to me it's clear that the lens has a problem of variability. Mine is mostly good, with some decentering issues. But it's for sure the less satisfying one in my arsenal; so if a reasonable replacement comes out...