16-50mm SSM lens review now up

[David Kilpatrick]

It's closer to a 12 megapixel crop, not 10 - 11 point something.

David

[agorabasta]

It's standard size is 3924 x 2656, i.e. 10.4Mp. Unless some raw software may add a few pixels around that.

P.S. Sorry, just checked with manual, it's actually 3984x2656. So it's 10.6Mp. The wrong value above was lifted from dpr

[Almazar80]

I've been trying to sell my 16-80Z for several weeks. Everyone seems to lowball the price. So I took it out of the box today and did a little testing. I've been using the 16-50 with the A77 for a while now. Now that I shot a few shots with the 16-80, I want to keep it again. These two lenses are really complementary. If the 16-80 had SSM, I would not even dream of parting with it. It really is a great lens. And after three years, my copy of the Z has no zoom creep, no fungus, etc. And it is sharp (though vignetting with a filter at 16mm can still occur). Now, do I need both lenses? Not really. Though I have a funny feeling I'd really regret getting rid of the Z.

[kaled_201299]

Like you, I have both lenses and have no intention of selling the CZ. The 16-50 is great for low light and video but a little short. The CZ has great range, and is very compact. If only it had SSM!

[bfitzgerald]

Thought I'd post on this thread as I noticed a few things recently.
The price of the Sony 16-50mm is now down to £399 (from some places in the UK) that's a very good deal for an SSM weather sealed lens. Wonder why it's so cheap though way cheaper than you would expect?
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 HSM has dropped a lot in price recently it's now around for £330 ish across mounts which is a lot less than the £500 odd previously (maybe a new version on the way?

I did think about trying the Sony lens but in the end went for another grey market Tamron 17-50mm with a 7 year Mack warranty for £200 odd It got hit for import charges but I got that refunded from my usual supplier OSD so no worries there.
Strangely sites like Amazon UK try to sell you a Sony mount Tamron 17-50mm for about £50 more than a Canon one (thanks but no thanks!)

Someone commented earlier in the thread that it was a miracle I got so many good Tamron 17-50mm copies. Well I sent one Nikon mount one back (AF motor was making odd noises)
I've tested the lens thoroughly and this copy shows no decentering issues and the AF is dead on with the A57. I never had a problem with the K Mount copy either. The lens is "good" and sharp at f2.8 across the range as it should be.

This one is more recent stock it has "made in China on it" 2 of the others were made in Japan, one was China. I can't see any difference between them regardless of where it came from.
Simple rule when you get a lens (even a s/h one) test it shoot some stuff. If you have major problems like one side is really bad and smudged out then clearly that's a problem with decentering. If you have a "soft at f2.8" in the middle then I've seen enough focus errors to write a book about it..I know first hand how bad AF can make a good lens look awful, so check your AF accuracy and MF is necessary.

If you buy an "it sucks lens" just send it back folks (replacement or a refund)
I've seen bad copies of all 3 of these lenses with complaints about AF too.

Anyway a heads up on prices...

[classiccameras]

I remember Kurt Munger telling me that if you found a good copy [and most were] of a Tamron 17-50 it was as good as the CZ 16-80 and a lot less money.

It seems using weaker or even leaving out AA filters is a developing trend amongst some manufactuers, Pentax, Fuji, etc. Olympus played yo yo with their AA filters on the 4/3 cameras, one model was strong, next model weak and so on.

[bfitzgerald]

The Zeiss is good but it badly needs a 16-50mm f2.8 style make over and it's priced way too high for most folks. I can't fault the range or optics bar some CA and fall off it does deliver great bite to images.

Strangely the 18-135mm I got for nothing, has now shot up in price quite a lot to £350 odd! (at one time it was on a blowout at £199 from one seller)
Straight talking head to head I think overall the Tamron would be my first choice (f2.8 is just too handy in a zoom to pass on), the Sony 18-135mm is still good though for a lens of this type.

I am tempted to sell the 18-135mm, though I admit I do like the lens quite a bit.

[classiccameras]

I'm hanging on to my 18-135 because not only is it a pretty decent lens but its a good all round walkabout lens and I won't have to change lenses so much.
However, the Tamron 17-50 is very tempting.

[bfitzgerald]

Problem is I have too many lenses in the 17/18mm range
17-50mm f2.8, 17-35mm f2.8-f4 (which I got for the film bodies mostly), 18-70mm DT kit lens and the 18-135mm

I only keep the 18-70mm for sentimental reasons and if I sell a body it's easier to shift with a kit lens
In fact I've too many lenses full stop, about 12 in total I think.