SAL1650 DT SSM

[Dr. Harout]

Doc, is it correct that the ACR default level for the 'blacks' was left at '5'?

Generally speaking, that level is too high and clips out too much of shadow detail. But judging from the scene, I'd say that the lens contrast is pretty good. It may well be excellent, but we simply cannot know that for sure if blacks are left at '5'.

Still the result is very good, simply since the clipped shadows distribution is fairly related to the object features. So I think your copy is truly good.

P.S. Just for the reference, given such conditions, the cheap kit SAM 18-55 would need blacks in ACR set at 10-15 just to show some hint of shadow clipping, and that clipping would be shapeless.

Yes, the blacks were left at 5, or maybe/probably I lowered to '3' I can't remember exactly.
I can lower the blacks to '0' and upload the shot if that helps, just let me know.

[Dr. Harout]

This is a totally unprocessed shot, all parameters to default levels, except for blacks lowered to '0'



Can send you the original RAW file, if you'd like.

[agorabasta]

Sending out raw won't be necessary. Your JPEG already has some pixels clipped to zero, and the JPEG is a gamma-corrected format.
So there's definitely no haze in that pretty hard lighting condition.

All's good. A very impressive performance.

[Dr. Harout]

Thanks Agorabasta, you've been very helpful.

[agorabasta]

You're welcome Doc. But we all, me included, have learned something very useful of that lens performance. So thanks for your cooperation

[bfitzgerald]

Lens looks good to my eyes. For these types of fast zoom you can have it all either speed or less speed more range. I'm perfectly ok with a fast f2.8 zoom at 50mm at times you might want more but then you'll feel a lot less pain in low light conditions.

[David Kilpatrick]

David - As you used both Sony 16-50 and CZ 16-80. Can you please tell which one has better color, contrast and sharpness.

Thanks

Because of the conditions I used the two lenses in - quite dull and in London - it's hard to say. I felt the colour and 'feel' of the 16-50mm lens was excellent, it produces a very smooth-sharp looking image with good bokeh and very high sharpness wide open as focused.

However, it's not better than the CZ - a perfect example of both lenses would probably rate as equal. Please remember I had two poor 16-80mms before ending up with the good one I still use. I tried two 16-50mms and one was excellent, the other one was poor at the 50mm end. But at the 16mm end I would say the 16-50mm has better geometry (not such wavy distortion).

That is my problem, the 16-50mm is actually very good indeed at 16mm, including wide open. I can see a use for it. I don't think anyone will be disappointed by the colour, contrast and sharpness - just disappointed if they get a faulty lens as QC would seem to be variable. That is not a new story but it's a pity to learn it is being repeated.

David

[aramkostanyan]

Thank you very much, David.