Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Inchiquin

Sony 16-50

Recommended Posts

A couple of months ago I vaguely remember someone (Bryan?) saying that he wished there was a zoom lens for the NEX as good as the Canon 24-105, but I've looked back and can't find it now. At the time I think I promised to do some comparisons between the two and also the Canon FD 50mm macro that I hooked up to the NEX6.

 

I've finally got round to doing something about it today. The results from the Canon macro were truly appalling so I need to look and see if I did something wrong before bothering to post anything. But the test between the Canon 24-105 and the Sony 16-50 was quite revealing, as shown in the 100% crops below. Both images are straight out of the camera (RAW) with capture sharpening turned off. The Sony was at 50mm, the Canon at 80mm so they are direct equivalents.

 

The Canon shot is above, the Sony below - and clearly superior.

 

FFEF7689.jpg

 

 

NXAH0538.jpg

 

Alan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison. The Sony shot is definitely the clear winner. I know little about such things, but it could be that the NEX-6 adds some sharpening, even in RAW mode. You never know what is going on behind the scenes.

 

Whatever the case, the 16-50 looks like a good little performer. I opted for the NEX-6 body only because I already had the Sony 18-55, and I prefer manual zooms. Now I kinda wish that I had shelled out a bit more and got the more compact 16-50 as well. Dumb of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that was my wish Alan, and I am surprised by your findings here!

 

I also have the 24-105 on a 5DII so can and will do the same comparison. I have reported in the past that I had a very dodgy Canon 24-70 f2.8 from new, which made a number of trips to the repair shop, so Canon is certainly not immune where poor quality control is concerned. That lens was as sharp as a sharp thing in the centre, but the edges could be appalling.

 

I use mainly manual focus primes with the NEX and have published a comparison showing why http://bryansphotographs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/50-mm-lenses-on-sony-nex-6.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 16-50mm was only an extra £50 over the body cost of a NEX-6 back at The Photography Show so I bought it. Excellent little lens. Sold my 16mm f/2.8 and passed the converters over to our daughter, as she has a 16mm, as with the 16-50mm and the 10-18mm nothing else was needed.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following Alan's comparison with the Canon 24-105, I have updated my blog on 50mm lenses to include that lens (on the 5DII) and have also thrown in a bargain basement Pentax 50mm f1,7 (on the NEX).

 

My findings do not corresponb with yours Alan, maybe I have a duff 16-50? Tried both manual and autofocus with the Sony, but relied on Canon's centre spot focus (I find it  difficult to manually focus a DSLR, even using live view).

 

The address, as above  http://bryansphotogr...sony-nex-6.html

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My findings do not corresponb with yours Alan, maybe I have a duff 16-50? Tried both manual and autofocus with the Sony, but relied on Canon's centre spot focus (I find it  difficult to manually focus a DSLR, even using live view).

 

Or maybe I've got a duff 24-105? I must say results from the Zuiko look terrific.

 

I've just ordered my X-T1 so I'll do the same test with the Fuji included when it arrives.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 16-50mm was only an extra £50 over the body cost of a NEX-6 back at The Photography Show so I bought it. Excellent little lens. Sold my 16mm f/2.8 and passed the converters over to our daughter, as she has a 16mm, as with the 16-50mm and the 10-18mm nothing else was needed.

 

David

 

Interesting. I didn't go for the 16-50 with my NEX-6 because of some negative and lukewarm reviews that I read -- loads of distortion at 16mm, softer than the original Sony 18-55 (which I'm still using), etc. Also didn't like the power zoom much. I guess this goes to show that a lens is often only as capable as the person behind the viewfinder.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I didn't go for the 16-50 with my NEX-6 because of some negative and lukewarm reviews that I read -- loads of distortion at 16mm, softer than the original Sony 18-55 (which I'm still using), etc. Also didn't like the power zoom much. I guess this goes to show that a lens is often only as capable as the person behind the viewfinder.

 

 

I got the 16-50 partly because I worried that I might miss the extra couple of mm after 5 years of having 24mm available on FF (ironically I've hardly ever used the extreme wide end on the NEX), but mainly because the whole point of buying the camera for me was to have something pocketable, and the 16-50 is less than half the length of the 18-55 and slips easily into a large pocket. The power zoom is not ideal but in practice it's easy enough to use and since for stock I'm not usually relying on the zoom to compose images precisely, it doesn't cause me any irritation at all.

 

Perhaps I will do a comparison between the 16-50 and the 24-105 at the wide end.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.