16-50mm SSM lens review now up

[Almazar80]

David, I gather that after getting rid of your first 16-50mm f2.8, you had a change of heart and repurchased the lens? And this newly purchased lens is what you reviewed?

[David Kilpatrick]

No, I have only had one 16-50mm. When I tested two examples at Sony's launch I found problems, such as very unsharp zones to the edges of the field on shots at medium apertures at 50mm. But I also liked some of the results I got. I decided not to buy a 16-50mm with the Alpha 77 body.

After using the Alpha 77 for a bit I realised that f/2.8 does make a significant difference to the EVF. I guess I missed this out from my test report. With an optical finder, you don't get any significant gain in brightness much past f/4, depends on the finder screen but the best ones like the A700/A900 get brighter up to f/2.8 (the grid screens) - however, they only get brighter up to f/2.8 because they are darker at f/4... etc. Modern consumer camera screens like the A580 are designed to be as bright as possible at apertures like f/3.5 to f/6.3 commonly found on zooms.

BUT EVF finders get brighter in direct proportion to the lens used, in low light. So, a 16-50mm used at 50mm at f/2.8 is passing twice as much light at the CZ 16-80mm at 50mm, and even more relative to the 18-55mm kit lens or the 16-105mm, or the 18-250mm (etc) which are generally f/5 to f/5.6 at 50mm. These lenses may be two stops less in light transmission.

That means the EVF has to apply two stops more gain in low light and you get a worse viewing image. Also, I realised that the new focusing module responds better to f/2.8 lenses.

So when one came up a few days after I got the A77, at the same price I would have paid for it in a kit, I decided to get one. It does have much the same faults that I observed on the early samples but it also has many uses and advantages - not the least being a better lens in low light.

David

[Almazar80]

Thanks for the reply David. Now I want one for myself. As I am shooting more videos with my A77 nowadays, I think this will supplant my 16-80mm lens.

[kaled_201299]

So I decided that this is also the lens for me and went and snagged a 'nearly new' example for quite good price.
I wanted a lens with quiet focussing to use for video with my A77. I originally thought that this lens would be too similar to my 16-80CZ, but on reading David's review I came to realise that I hadn't fully understood some of the more subtle technical details e.g. the omnifocus spec. The clincher really was that I don't think there really is a viable alternative if SSM type focus performance is the priority, and I currently take a lot of shots of family indoors in low light so the constant fast aperture will really help.
So I now have both lenses and have no intention of selling my 16-80CZ. I've only had the lens about 24 h so I've not taken more than a dozen test shots but my immediate impressions are.
1. It is well built.
2. It is very substantial and the difference to the 1680CZ is even greater than online photo comparisons suggest.
3. Focussing is very fast and quiet, and even quieter in video mode (the A77 sets a slower focus speed).
4. With my Nex-5 LA-EA2 combination, the 1680CZ attached is well balanced and I have used this combination a great deal. The 1650 feels a little too cumbersome.

[garyngkt]

I broke my Tamron 17-50 now thinking whether to replace with the 16-50 SSM or get another copy of the 17-50. I'm using the Sony A580, I think David mentioned the 16-50 is better on the DSLTs.

[Dr. Harout]

I have tried the Tamron for a short while though. Sony's 16-50 is better and weatherproof too.
And welcome to the forum.

[garyngkt]

I have tried the Tamron for a short while though. Sony's 16-50 is better and weatherproof too.
And welcome to the forum.

Thank you. Have you tried the 16-50 on non DSLT such as A77?. Without in-body correction still as good?.

[Dr. Harout]

Haven't tried it. Ill do that if I find some time. Probably on this week end.
But do PM me to remind me of it.

[bfitzgerald]

Looks like PB got a lemon copy
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ ... arpness_4/

It's not very good at f2.8 across the range I'd have returned that as unacceptable. No point having an f2.8 lens if it's not usable at f2.8
I've another Tamron on order for F Mount if it looked like that I'd sent it back pretty quick!

[David Kilpatrick]

This review is complete nonsense dressed up in technical jargon - with errors. The most glaring is the statement, repeated many times, that the lens only focuses down to 1m.

David

[bfitzgerald]

I guess you won't be getting a Christmas card from Mark Goldstein this year
I didn't actually bother to read it I never really read on that site, the odd time I look at sample images and that's about it really.
Still think he got a lemon copy it looks awful wide open

[David Kilpatrick]

He got a very dirty copy. Anyone who doesn't bother to clean equipment before photographing it, or at least to retouch out the dust and specks of stuff on the lens, is probably not taking the right kind of care with other aspects of the review. Or overworked.

David

[agorabasta]

Still think he got a lemon copy it looks awful wide open

His samples show some very much geometrically defined halos around edges. It's normally caused by internal reflections in lens elements.
So a reflection from greasy lens surface is the first obvious guess, just as David said; and such a guess most often proves right.

[artington]

I am very tempted by this lens, but for use on FF. i understand this would crop to APS-C on my a900 but that's still equivalent to around 16mp and it would give me a 24-75 equivalence for a lot less weight and cash than the CZ 24-70. More importantly, if the forthcoming a99 is indeed 36mp the equivalent crop would be 24mp. I know the lens is bundled with the a77 at a goodish price but since I have the NEX-7 I dont need the a77 as well. Of course it would work on the NEX but is too unwieldy there for my liking.

I should be interested to hear other views on the merits/demerits of using this on a FF camera body.

[agorabasta]

i understand this would crop to APS-C on my a900 but that's still equivalent to around 16mp...

That would be only 10Mp APS crop as 24/1.52/1.52. And that crop is forced since both the body and the lens are native Sony.
But you may later get about 16Mp from a 36Mp FF...