Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 review

[Greg Beetham]

I guess one problem that wouldn’t help the 16-105 on the NEX is there is no in body anti shake like there is in A-mount bodies.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that Sony went with lens IS for NEX and Olympus (who had no IS at all DSLR wise lens or body) went with IBIS?
Just seemed a bit odd.

For me, the lack of IBIS is the reason I'm not interested in NEX, and to date I've yet to find any ILC that I would actually want to buy. The Fuji X has some interest, but not enough to really unload the wallet for it.
On to Kit lenses my I found the samples on the Sony one not that good the one's I've seen off the 16-50mm. My criteria for a kit lens is reasonably sharp images with a usable focal range, ie I don't expect super sharp but decently sharp. Seems to be pretty sharp in the middle but with a notable softness outside that.

The Sony 18-55mm A mount kit was odd as it was sharper outside the middle even stopped down.
The 16-50mm doesn't convince me it might pass for some but Sony really need to up their game NEX optics wise, they just don't seem to be delivering. I give a nod to Pannie and Olympus they've done pretty well with most of the lenses with micro 4/3

[bakubo]

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that Sony went with lens IS for NEX and Olympus (who had no IS at all DSLR wise lens or body) went with IBIS?

Actually, most of the Olympus 4/3 DSLRs had IBIS also. Then when Olympus started making m4/3 mirrorless bodies they fortunately continued to use IBIS. The new m4/3 Panasonic GX7 also has IBIS (first one for Panasonic).

[pakodominguez]

I guess one problem that wouldn’t help the 16-105 on the NEX is there is no in body anti shake like there is in A-mount bodies.
Greg

Why?

[Greg Beetham]

Why?

I thought it would be obvious, 157.5mm ‘at the long end’ used WITH SSS compared to WITHOUT SSS is why.
Greg

[pakodominguez]

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that Sony went with lens IS for NEX and Olympus (who had no IS at all DSLR wise lens or body) went with IBIS?
Just seemed a bit odd.

Since the beginning, Sony stated that they choose not to put AS/SSS on the NEX cameras in order to keep the size of the camera as compact as possible. This is no news and it is not odd at all (for me at least). I would prefer AS instead of OIS but this is what I have and I'm OK with the results.
I also would prefer to have more E-mount lenses in the market. But let me tell you that the lenses introduced in the past months are outstanding, specially the SEL 10-18f4 (that have OIS). I still miss a 70mm to 100mm Macro lens.

[pakodominguez]

Why?

I thought it would be obvious, 157.5mm ‘at the long end’ used WITH SSS compared to WITHOUT SSS is why.
Greg

I guess it was obvious I was talking about image quality: optical aberration, fringing... SSS won't help at all with that. I noticed the poor quality of the results and I did "controlled test" (well, I put the camera on a tripod and shoot some pics, at different focal distance, etc...)

[Greg Beetham]

I was only stating the obvious, as to why the lens starts off with a handicap on the NEX as compared to using the same lens on an A-mount body, there being a good chance that a greater proportion of telephoto shots will be worse just because of that.
As far as fringing goes I’m not convinced yet that the glassware in front of sensors (filters) plays no part, there are many layers in those and I suspect prone to internal reflections. Why should fringing be noticeable on one camera/sensor and not another? (if the fringing actually is worse on one camera than another, that is, and why should 24MP be able to describe fringing whereas 12MP can’t, if it’s there it should be noticeable in both cases).
Perhaps the 16-105 is not on the firmware list in the NEX for fringe removal. (just guessing)
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that Sony went with lens IS for NEX and Olympus (who had no IS at all DSLR wise lens or body) went with IBIS?

Actually, most of the Olympus 4/3 DSLRs had IBIS also. Then when Olympus started making m4/3 mirrorless bodies they fortunately continued to use IBIS. The new m4/3 Panasonic GX7 also has IBIS (first one for Panasonic).

Well the original E series didn't have any IS E300/500 etc. They seemed to copy KM after they did their in body AS, just as Pentax did.
I was surprised about the GX7 having IS in body, but in a good way. Canon/Nikon won't do that or change direction it's good to see a company correct mistakes

[pakodominguez]

Why should fringing be noticeable on one camera/sensor and not another? (if the fringing actually is worse on one camera than another, that is, and why should 24MP be able to describe fringing whereas 12MP can’t, if it’s there it should be noticeable in both cases).
Greg

Why?
I believe Agorabasta can explain that better than me.
I just can tell you about the results.
There is an old saying in Galicia (north west of Spain): I don't believe in witches, but they exist for sure.

[Greg Beetham]

Why not give it go Pako, (explaining) Agorabasta isn't around at the moment it seems.
Greg

[alphaomega]

But let me tell you that the lenses introduced in the past months are outstanding, specially the SEL 10-18f4 (that have OIS).

I would salute that statement from pakodominguez. Actually the 16-50 Pancake is not that bad (at least not my copy). A little softness at the corners at the wide end, but otherwise very sharp. My copy was better than my 18-55E (now sold). Cannot vouch for other E lenses except my 55-210 is exceptionally sharp and focuses quickly with both my NEX-6 and NEX-5N - even at the long end. My NEX-5 (sold) could not focus the 55-210 at the long end. Had to zoom in, focus and then zoom out. The idea with NEX was also to allow most lenses made to be used through the use of converters. A great idea. I rarely take out my A580/550 now. Most photography is done with the RX100 or NEX bodies. Just been at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe a couple of times and laughed quietly at the petit oriental ladies brandishing their kit lens fitted CAN/NIK DSLRs and thinking they would be better off with a NEX or RX100. I for one found my NEX-6 with the 16-50 pancake just fine for the kind of street photography at confined spaces. Discreet and great with EVF alternating with movable rear screen and auto switch. Not a single badly focused image and lovely for colour and contrast. Little work required on Jpegs and any CA removed by camera software. So things could be worse for Sony in terms of quality and usability.

[Vidgamer]

I agree, the 16-50 seems better than the 18-55, which surprised me.

About the old 18-70, it actually was good at some focal lengths, I think. I have a great portrait that was taken at 35mm. But there were disappointing photos, like one at 18mm, where it was rough not just in the corners, but the edges. I eventually got a better lens. Using the Nex lenses, they don't seem to have glaring issues. I guess it's a good thing, given the lack of replacements in e-mount.

[gio67]

the 16-50 tends to get a bad press from people who have never used it,probably never even seen it in the flesh,their info is reading reviews and picking out all the bad bits, as no two reviews are the same,there is no place like forums for your info, ordinary people using the lens for ordinary things.
I have no problem sticking it on the Nex, it is more convenient and versatile than the 35mm 1.8 ( not as sharp, but then again there is always a sharper lens) , on holiday last week it was the 55-210 during the day and the 16-50 in the evenings and at night,absolutely no problems, I am happy to use this lens anywhere, any time

[Vidgamer]

Like a lot of budget lenses, it has flaws if you want to look for them and obsess over them. But overall, it works pretty well. I still haven't decided if I like all aspects of the lens, but for general use, I'm using it. Like, I think it has some flaws at 16mm - maybe it's a bit soft in the corners - but it's also really sharp at 16mm, and one review says that it's the best focal length for the lens?!