Finally written -

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/02/1 ... -f2-8-ssm/

David

Hi David,
Does the Sony Lens have any relationship with he Tamron version?

This is the first review of this lens with much more criticism. However honestly Sony 16-50/2.8 SSM is the first lens at this range I love. I have two 16-80ZA and the Tamron with EF mount which I did not like at all. I fell in love with Sony SSM version immediately. Looking back, it must be mostly because of its silent and faster focusing and larger aperture. With this lens, I turned myself more to use both the ZA with my Sony cameras and Tamron with my EOS bodies. After-all, these are much lighter lenses comparing to their FF siblings. Thank you David for the review

I do not think so. It is made in China but as far as I know, the coating process used for the front element does not happen in China. If I had to guess, I'd say that the lens is made by Sony's Chinese factory using components including glass supplied by Sigma.

David

About as expected some pros and cons. I still think the obvious bargain competitor is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
I know the Sigma has some plus points, but I was impressed with the Tamron esp at it's price point

I opted to go for the CZ lens instead of the 16-50 in order to maintain the overlap with my Sigma 70-200 2.8HSM and Sony 70-400G lenses.
Having compared the images from the CZ with my kit 18-70 and 18-250 lenses, I am very, very happy with the CZ.
Now the lens of choice for shorter lengths and the 70-200 for longer.
I love the 70-400G but for general work the 70-200 handles better (easier to zoom with fingertips where the 70-400 is stiff and needs a firmer grip).

My thoughts of the Tamron 17-50 or Sony 16-50 have fallen by the wayside (otherwise I'd need to hunt down a Sigma 50-150), I'll stick with the CZ.

Mike

It was quite some time ago that I tried to find me a good Tamron 17-50 and never could find a single copy to have all four corners sharp at 17mm even by f/8. You may check the photozone.de review samples to see that very problem; so I'm not alone there.

But you might have got among the very happy few...

You mean field curvature at the wide end yes well known. But in practical use really not a problem for me
I found it very good even wide open I'd use it at 17mm too if I needed to.

The VC version evidently isn't as good wide open I'll probably get the non VC one again for F mount. The 18-105mm covers a nice range if that's what I need

No, Barry, I mean primitive poor centring of lens elements and then some generally poor manufacturing precision of the lens mechanical parts. Getting a good copy is rare luck, as simple as that.

Nice balanced review as always - I really do value the practical perspective of how you get on with the equipment.

Reading this review has renewed my interest in the lens. I too have the A77 with the 16-80CZ and from my perspective the only real downside of this lens is the lack of SSM and thus very noisy focussing for video shooting.
Reading your review I can now more clearly identify like you that the two lenses can compliment one another. The only other lens I've concluded that would offer the quiet focussing is the CZ 24mm prime.
I do have a couple of comments questions.
1. You refer to the cross sensors in the A77 and imply that these are only active with F2.8 lenses, yet I was under the impression that they are usable with lenses down to F5.6
2. You mention that you obtained an ex-kit white box version. Can I ask where you obtained this from because I'd clearly like to take advantage of the price benefit.

Well I got a good one and I def shot it quite a lot at many focal lengths. It was spot on and I'm pretty fussy
With any new lens if you're not happy then send it back I wouldn't hesitate to do this.

I have replied to a comment. The A77 sensors are sensitive over a wide range of apertures, I believe. So if you have an f/5.6 lens they work, if you have f/4 they work better, and if you have f/2.8 they make use of it - it's even possible they work better with even faster lenses. They are a new type of AF sensor, and because they perform very similarly to the new Nikon D800 sensors I suspect they are related.

With the previous cameras, you had f/7.1 sensors or f/2.8. If you used any lens less than f/2.8, all you got for accuracy was f/7.1. The f/2.8 sensor only kicked in with lenses of f/2.8 or faster. I think that is now past history and the new sensor designs can work well at any aperture, and get more discriminating with wider apertures.

This makes sense with the f/3.5 fixed aperture for video and for high speed sequences. If you think about it, it would be sensible to close the lens to f/5.6 if the sensor could not respond to anything wider. And f/3.5, the aperture selected for these functions, is not only a nearly ideal stop-down from f/2.8 or faster lenses, but also most commonly found in others wide open at the wide end.

David

Ref white box ex-kit lenses - London Camera Exchange often seems to have them, I have obtained a 28-75mm, a 16-50mm and earlier on a Nikon 18-105mm this way.

David

I had a chance to choose from quite a few lens copies, tested them and never could single a good one out of them.
A perfectly good Tamron 17-50 is a rare exception, and exactly that is reflected in the price tag.

Thanks for the explanation.

Andy