Which is the better all purpose walk around zoom for the A6600?

Good topic! I was curious to see what others had to say about a choice between these two lenses (I would choose the Sigma) and was surprised to see multiple comments in support of the 16-70mm f/4 Sony/Zeiss. I sold my first very nice copy of that lens and years later purchased an even better copy that I think is excellent. I love the focal range and am so happy to have this lens again!

When the topic of a walk-around lens comes up, I have often shared my choice but haven't recommended it to others due to its reputation for sample variation and quality issues. Years ago, there were threads on DPReview complaining about this lens. At the time, I had a positive experience with my copy. So, when I purchased my current copy, I had to really think about whether it was worth purchasing. After purchasing, I was nervous about what kind of lens would be delivered. Happily, it turned out to be a better copy that my previous very good copy. I thought that this would be worth mentioning to any thinking about purchasing the 16-70mm f/4 lens. Lots of very happy owners...but some unlucky and unhappy owners as well!

Jim

I'm another vote for the Zeiss 16-70. Used, they can be bought for around £300 her in the UK (I think the recent f2.8 zooms have hit their resale value). The OSS is very good, and the constant f4 is a definite plus over the 18-135.
Optically it seems to be a much better lens than the old 18-55 (original Nex kit)
Cheers. C

I guess OP must be OOO..
I'm curious to know, those of you primarily using the 1670, what's your favourite additional lens to compliment the 1670?

The 1670 stays attached to my a6300 while I use a variety of primes on my ZV-E10. Currently, I have the Sony 11mm f/1.8 attached to the ZV-E10. I am also partial to the Sigma f/1.4 trio (16mm, 30mm & 56mm) but sometimes rely on my Sony OSS primes.

Jim

I would go with Tamron 17-70, a little more range and it has OSS, even if used on A6600. It may be large a little bit for walk around, but it has f2.8, good/better for low light. I use 18-135 for almost everything, or 70-350 when I want more reach. I have couple of primes, but barely use them few times in a year. If I want something pocketable I use 16-50. Sometimes it would help to have a larger aperture, but I allow ISO up to 6400 with acceptable results.

I have the A6600 and had the Tamron 17-70 f2.8 before replacing it with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. For me, the added benefit of OSS and extra range on the Tamron on the wide and long end was outweighed (pun intended) by the much smaller and lighter Sigma. The photos on the Sigma are excellent and the size seems more well balanced on the A6600 in my view. I have no regrets switching out the lenses and do not miss the Tamron.

The 11mm looks a very nice lens. I have the 12mm f2 Samyang but I just can't become friends with it being all manual. The 11mm looks a solid alternative.
The Sigma trio is great. As 16mm isn't too flattering for people shots, I opted for the 30mm but I find that too tight for indoors shots.
I can never make up my mind, and usually end up with just the 1670 or a full bag of lenses.

I have tried many standard zooms and I kept the 16-55G, which I bought used for a reasonable price. IQ is just superb at all focal lenghts and even wide open in the corners. I also like the very fast AF performance and that it starts at 16mm, so I usually do not take an additional wide angle lens on trips. Downside: quite large, no OSS.

The Tamron. Surprisingly, background blur is noticeably better at 70mm 2.8. For portraits it is a great choice. I was also surprised by its strong OSS performance. I eventually sold it for its poor IQ at 17mm outside of the center of the frame. I think this lens suffers from problems with field curvature. It is also very heavy and large. AF is ok but not as good as the 16-55.

The Sigma. I absolutely love the tiny size and its great IQ. I sold it because 18mm was not wide enough for landscape shots so I always carried the 10-18 and kept changing lenses, which I hate on trips. Also, AF is not as fast as with the 16-55. You will notice that with running kids.

The Sony 16-70Z. Perfect focal length, compact and lightweight. At F/4 not as fast as the former three options but at 70mm still a good portrait lens. For me it was quite unusable as a landscape lens for its softness at 16mm.

The Sony 16-50PZ. IQ okay at F8 but soft wide open. Too slow. Tiny size, though.

The Sony 18-135: Good IQ (deteriorating towards the long end). AF ok but not as good as the 16-55. For me, 18mm is not wide enough and the lens is generally too slow, becoming 5.6 very early, I think somewhere between 50 and 60mm.