I like this lens, in it's range it excels the 16-105/3.5-5.6 due to:
- f/2.8 all over the range
- 16-105 has no sharpness at the corners (not far corners) wide open till 5.6 or so (depends on the focal length used)
- 16-50 is sharp even wide open
- the zoom lock on the 16-50 is welcomed (though a lock in any range would've been better)
- robust, feels good (and they say it's kind of weatherproof )


f/4 1/800s ISO 200


wide open, same settings as above


f/5 1/1250 ISO 200 +1eV

This is a 100% crop of the wide open shot (2nd shot).

Enjoying mine too Doc! Especially on the a77 (I've now't else to put it on though!)
I have a 70-400 coming too, which will give it some competition for shooting time methinks though...

Dr. Harout, a proper comparison would be with the CZ 16-80mm. I don't think the 16-105mm was ever designed to be in this class. I think I read somewhere that there was a thought to call this new 16-50mm a G lens to elevate its status.

Unfortunately I don't have the 16-80 CZ and no one else that I know does. So I'm left with the 16-105.
I've read somewhere that they did not name it a G, because it is a DT lens.

They even have digicams with G labelled lenses.

They simply made them 16-50 with sample variation too broad. Buying them is more like gambling if you can't personally test a few samples at the shop.

Then I can surely say I've got an excellent copy.

G lenses are normally those with a Minolta design team heritage - may even still be using some Konica Minolta glass, though I know for certain one lens labelled G is definitely not built by KM/exKM/Sony/Tamron/Chinese/Thai.

I tried two 16-50mms on the same day, one of which was really badly decentered and got worse when zoomed to 50mm. The other, if I had tried only that lens, would have persuaded me it was very good. Since people started getting the lens there have been two main issues - failure to focus (actual AF just stops working) and sluggish aperture blades which can't be relied on at 8fps. Decentered does not seem to be as big an issue and most are reporting good optical performance.

However - it's a very low cost lens for what it is (SSM, range, speed) and it is made in China - probably at the factory which lost the 16-80mm contract because the first Chinese samples were so bad they pulled production back to Japan. I'd guess top-rank optical design, top-rank actual glass and coating, probably very good mechanical components ... and poor assembly.

So if you have a good one and it does not go wrong, you're winning, but for new buyers there has been a risk.

David

Sounds like one should buy lenses which say Made in Japan, as does my 70-300G. Not having the CZ 16-80 I had not appreciated production had shifted back to Japan from China. Very telling! China may have state of the art factories but QC is very much a human enterprise. I remember being taken round a Daewoo car factory in Korea in the late 1980s and was proudly shown a finished car, post QC, with the window winder loose on the passenger seat On another occasion, this time in Singapore, again in the 80s or early 90s the President of one of the big Korean car companies (I forget which) proudly unveiled his new model to an assembly of dignitaries and journalists, only to suffer great humiliation when he opened the driver's door and the door handle came off in his hand. But times change and the importance of QC does sink in for most companies (although not, it appears, for a couple of well known 3rd party lens manufacturers). As for Korea, the new Samyang lenses are getting stellar reviews for both build and optical qualities, which should rattle the cages of the competition, particularly when they start introducing AF.

Speaking of the third-party lens manu's I must say that I have never seen a poor quality Sigma 17-50mm OS HSM, be it in person or posted over the web with some samples to prove... Then I have never seen two Tamron 17-50's to ever perform identically...

But these days Sigma uses some very poor supplier of hoods, they nearly fall off and rattle like that snake. The 17-50, though, is head and shoulders above the Sony equivalent despite being OS.

Sounds great. But I see you've had to crush the shadows in your samples rather strongly.

Could you please check your lens for haze? The true blacks for that purpose must reside in deep shaded areas, especially if the scene is slightly backlit. An ideal case would be to shoot from an open end of a long dark metal pipe having the other its end closed - that would be the truest blackbody as considered in physics. Then the Lr/ACR should show clipping there at the 'blacks' control not higher than '1'.

I'll link today the same shot without PP, maybe I've done it wrong?

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

Here is the same shot out of RAW without any PP at all except for resizing. During metering the camera metered according to the black coat and that's why the surrounding is burned out.


In the PP-ed version I decreased the exposure, gave some vibration and a small bit of saturation and of course a small amount of CA removal. That was it

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.