 |
| The lens that I bought from UsedPhotoPro for the video. |
Check out their website UsedPhotoPro.com to see what gear they currently have available.
The link is not affiliated. I used to be an affiliate of UsedPhotoPro, but that ended when CJ Affiliates kept closing my account due to what they claimed as inactivity and taking whatever commissions I had built up each time. If you are reading this UPP, use a different company to manage your affiliate program. CJ Affiliate (aka. "Commission Junction") is a scummy company with policies that hurt creators with lower reach. An alternative would be Impact.com.
Unboxing the Lens
UsedPhotoPro packed it well with plenty of paper padding, and bubble wrap. The lens itself was wrapped in a plastic bag with a rubber band to hold it flush. No complaints! |
| The lens and some of the paper packaging below it. |
First Look at the Lens
 |
| UPP's "Good" rating details as of the publishing of this article. |
They had the lens rated as "Good" (75 to 89 percent). The zoom ring feels pretty smooth, but the focus ring is a tiny bit loose. It could be how the lens is normally. Totally fine though I might as well mention it. The lens feels within their rating description.
 |
| Worn text "Steady Shot" on the bottom. |
Non-vital text on the lens is a little worn, which is probably one of the main reasons why this lens was rated lower on their condition scale. I personally don't mind that and see price as the major factor to consider above cosmetics.
It came with a third-party front cap and an official Sony rear cap. Overall, the lens looks good from the back, and the glass is clean. For the price of around $300 shipped, I think it was a decent deal.
 |
| The glass is in good condition. |
Comparing this Sony 16-70mm f/4 to the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8
On the Sony a7S I tested it in both APS-C mode and full-frame mode.
There’s an obvious difference in exposure, f/4 on the Sony versus f/2.8 on the Sigma. I bumped the ISO up from 640 to 1000 when switching to the Sony lens to get them looking similar. The background won’t look quite as nice with the f/4 lens, but I can still get a decent look from either lens.
 |
| The clear benefit of the Sigma lens is its maximum aperture. |
 |
| The two lenses at their maximum apertures after ISO adjustment. Looks like I didn't get the ISO change correct, but you get the point. |
I did notice that there’s a little less distortion on the Sony at its widest setting compared to the Sigma, which is a nice benefit. Plus, the Sony has built-in optical stabilization, something the Sigma doesn’t offer. However, the Sigma lens lets me get closer. Tasks I do like showing products on camera makes that useful.
Thoughts on UsedPhotoPro
I’ve used UsedPhotoPro before, and have had positive experiences overall with them.
The deal seemed good enough I rushed to buy the lens. I wasn't intending to order an APS-C lens and was thinking the focal length range could apply with lenses like the Tamron 17-50mm f/4 Di III VXD that exist. Their website didn’t have an option to cancel the order. Since it was a weekend, I wasn’t able to get in touch with them after sending a message through their website and an email. The did respond on a weekday, but the lens had already been sent.
Considering it was my mistake and any equipment I have access to for review to is useful to my work, so I’ll probably keep it for a while. If I'm able to get an FX30 in the future this would be a nice combination.
Final Thoughts
The Sony 16-70mm F4 OSS appears to be a nice lens in my limited testing. If you need optical stabilization or want that extra zoom range compared to the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, it's an option to consider.
If you’re more interested in a faster aperture, then the Sigma f/2.8 might be the better choice. I also think the Sigma's autofocus motor is a bit better for video work than the Sony's.
Both lenses have their pros and cons, but either one would make a good addition to your kit depending on your needs.