You are very welcome. It's great to get feedback like this. It's a ton of work to produce good and informative youtube videos, so I really appreciate when someone takes the time to say "thanks". It really does make a huge difference. All the best.
@@tnbtech5436 Sure. I've been perusing youtube contemplating whether or not I should go with this lens, but then when I added it to cart and looked at the total...I... couldn't do it. I then considered Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART (changed my mind cause lack on native mount, and autofocus noise), then 30mm contemporary, then thought of 35mm 1.4 ART. Honestly though, 16-50 kit was the perfect lens for me: small, lightweight, stabilized, cheap, could go to 100mm with digital zoom on Sony a6300, easy to find and replace. But since I upgraded to Sony a6400, have been stuck with the lens decision. It'll be really funny if I end up with iPhone 11 Pro.
Hah! Don't think you'll be ultimately happy w the iphone. Once you graduate to 'serious' photography, iPhone won't allow you the creativity you want (although it's great for casual shots). For run/gun shooting, there is really no other choice at this optical quality than the 16-55 2.8. As I showed in my video, however the kit lens will work (especially in the middle) for many scenarios as long as you don't blow up prints or pixel-peep. Thanks.
Also, please do more of these. It is valuable and I really appreciate your breakdown. It's very truthful and clear and I think there's a lot of value in what you are doing.
After only 30 seconds, BIG THUMBS UP. This is an actual review compared to someone who just have 1 or 2 lenses and only talks about sharpness !!! I didn't realize your video was this long. Thanks for your work and thoroughness.
Good job! I have a6600 and 16-55 set for several days, it's good :) I wonder why no one comparing a6600 and a6400 says that a 6600 has expandable ISO from 50, i.e. one f-stop better than a6400 (ISO 100)
... as a journalist working with the a9 II, a7R IV and a6600, I do not agree with the conclusion. The 16-55 is a lens is definitely worth the money for Sony FF shooters too. I use it also in crop modus with the a7R IV to get oversampled 4K footage.
Well of course your opinion is a valid one. My only point is that you are in the minority in my opinion, and certainly not the main target for this lens. Sure, if you have the bucks to go for the A7R IV, this lens would be a great companion when using crop mode (26 MP crop image). In fact it's perfect. It's just that it's a really expensive way to get the equivalent image quality to the A6400. Of course, you don't have to carry two cameras. Thanks for the comment.
Very good and detailed review! I have the A6600 and this 16-55mm too and the lens performs prttty well. I am using this combo mainly when I am travelling...together with my A7RIV. I am mainly a landscape shooter and I would never miss my A7RIV with the 16-35mm GM 2.8 lens and the 24 1.4 GM. In parallel I take my A7III or A9II with the Tamron 70-180mm 2.8 with me. My 24-70 2.8 and my Sony 70-200 2.8 GM stay at home due the weight and size when I am travelling with my family...and for these circumstances the A6600 with the 16-55 is fantastic! I can take really nice pictures from my family and I dont have to carry the "big glasses" with me when we go out with the family.
Thanks for this review. I'm surprised it's not higher up in the search results. Was really looking for a sharpness comparison between the 50f1.8 and 1655f2.8 in so far as to understand if the latter can replace the former. As an enthusiast, I guess I'll start saving up then... :-)
I'm not a major youtuber - that's why I don't rank higher :) and that's ok... I think the apsc 50mm1.8 gets a lot of bad press cause build quality ain't all that great - but my copy is pretty damn good for the price. I don't think there is a better 50mm out there for sony apsc - I've heard good things about the Sigma 56mm however so that is worth looking at as well. Thanks.
Thank you very much for the amount of work you have put into this. I think I fit exactly in the space that you described in the end for whom this lense might be for and I'm finally going to buy it.
I'm a travel blogger/photographer but I only do it as a side gig so I make little money out of it. The a6600 with this 16-55mm F/2.8 is the perfect combo with great quality and a small form factor for my travels (going to 6 continents this year!). Traveling with a full frame can be cumbersome for me. You hit it right on the head. Great review!
Very good and deep review. I also liked your final conclusions as I felt interpellate when you were descrbing the person who might want to buy this lense. I am not a pro. Photography is my hobbie (more expensive than I expexted) but I like to take my camera wherever I go. I really wanted a lense like this as I do photopgraphy of many kinds, mainly landscape, night photography and portraits in a sporadic way, not in studio. For all of this I think this lense + the a6600 I am thinking of buying and the 70-350G I already have, will be a nice and not heavy equipment. The FullFrame.. the only advantage I see is that you get more dynamic range, but doesn't worth the extra money in camera, lenses plus the extra size and weight, and even more if it is not my profession.
Thanks for the comment! Yep it's a tough choice, especially now after the intro of the A7c. You HAVE to value size/weight highly to pick these types of lenses. The best case would be a 'A7cR' which uses a 42MP sensor so you can use 16-55, 70-350 e lenses in Super35 mode for telephoto use when you most likely would be cropping on ff anyway. But that's a few years off :) !!
Great review ... very thorough and in my opinion objective. I have this lense and now consider it my go-to lense for everyday use (sharpness, contrast, colour, f2.8 constant aperture and relatively small all did it for me). I too have a bunch of other lenses, however my 50mm f1.8 prime and my kit lense are probably not going to be used much any more. My 24mm F1.8 Zeiss is still my choice for on-gimbal video work though and I did recently buy the 70-350G for my hobby which is motorsport. FWIW: I consider myself a prosumer, so spot on there.
Excellent! Keeping in mind what you have just said - I am selling the kit lens (not good enough for me); I will also be selling my Sony 35MM-1.8 (as you found not to be as sharp based on your comparison), I will keep the manual $60 -35MM 1.7 when I need a fast small lens in 35MM (my favorite focal), I will keep my sigma 16MM- 1.4 as it is super fast and super sharp. I am getting this G-lens! Thanks to you! (You might be in trouble with my wife...)
Hey, don't put me in the middle of that! I have my own spouse issues! But seriously, it's clearly a better lens, but is it right for you? Only you can decide that! I'm actually keeping both the kit lens and this lens because sometimes I need a small kit for casual shooting, and it works quite well for that. Still blows away an iphone lens! Thanks for the comment and best of luck!
While reading all the opinions we are becoming experts...what then works for us -is "the best". For me as well - a good small lens /small camera set up is most effective for everyday use. When I get to plan to "go out and shoot" - at that point 16-55 2.8 seems ideal. I appreciate your comment!
I use to travel with the Sigma Trio (Sigma: 16mm, 30mm, 56mm all F/1.4), but now I have one lens that replaced all 3. Thank you, Sony, finally! Yes, I lose my F/1.4 shallow depth of field, but totally worth it for the convenience and this Sony is just as sharp as the Sigma. Also, I found myself shooting a lot of F2.8 to F4 for portraits (I wanted some of the environment in focus because of the beautiful scenery), so I rarely used the Sigma's at F1.4. This is a no brainer for a traveler.
I’m starting to believe FF best for mostly portrait work in the studio, but for travel, sports,action,wildlife, environmental and landscape I think the benefits of apsc compete well. FF excels in bokeh and lowlight (but only when comparing identical scenes!), but apsc is best compromise for light weight vs IQ. Thanks again!
TNB Tech, thank you for your very informative review of this lens. I think you are spot-on with all of it, but I have some different contextual thought. I am in my early 50s, and my Dad was a pro photographer, so I grew up with photography all my life: Leica M, Hasselblad, Nikon SLR, view cameras, air brush retouching and lots of time in a darkroom. I thought it was very interesting the way you offered an explanation of what people this lens might be for, and I agree mainly, but I believe that ultimately it may claim a larger market than what you describe; or rather we might find that the market of advanced amateurs you describe might be much larger than some assume. What I mean is that as a not-at-all-rich middle class dad that is also a near-expert photographer with applications for my photography even at my work, my expectations of my photography of all I do including my young children’s sports and music concerts is very high, partly because I share what I do with the school and the sports league for their PR work, and I share photography of my work with my company for their use. But what might be becoming more and more popular is that I also do paying jobs/gigs where this lens would be so extremely useful. For example, if you are shooting a chorus concert video of Children on a well-lit stage, you might do very well with an f4 zoom lens because stage lights can be very bright, and if you have the benefit of a power zoom like Sony’s 18-105 f/4,(which I have) and can shoot at f5, where the lens is really getting sharp and so great in 4k, that can work really well because you might be able to shoot at about ISO 640, but if those lights are not on, and you are shooting at ISO 2000 and F4 (about three stops less light), you are going to get a different-looking end product for everybody to see on the TV. My point is that the details matter for every situation. I know you know that. I guess if I had a mild criticism related to all of this, it would be about something you already know, which is that you found yourself trying to make some conclusions and recommendations, but you knew that is so totally subjective. I think it is very informative about you that you say you chose to keep the lens. That pretty much tells me what I need to know, but it is so expensive that I might have to sell a few camera gear items to make that happen for me like my Nikon FM3a and 45 2.8P that are mint and collecting dust. In conclusion, I see you have only a few hundred views so far, but I think you did something you felt passionate about, and I admire that, and I think you overall KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE PARK. THANK YOU.
Thanks so much for your insight and especially for your kind words. Photography has always been a passion for me, and I can tell it is also for you. In the end, everyone needs to make their own choices, but hopefully I can lend some useful perspectives to that decision process. Again - thanks!
@@tnbtech5436 I think you replied with a well-thought totally canned response.I'm not really happy with that, but it doesn't matter. God bless you and your family.
Sorry Mark I’m on the road visiting family during the Holiday and can’t spend as much time as usual on a detailed reply. My responses are never canned. Just sometimes more brief than I’d like. If you have a specific question, I’d be happy to get back early next week. God bless you as well.
@@tnbtech5436 I didn't mean to be rude. This lens is just so long anticipated and a much-needed tool but so expensive that every subtle point is a factor in whether the lens justifies the price, but you covered it pretty thoroughly. I am curious about the aperture T value of the lens because if it is actually 2.8, that would be impressive. Thanks again. Enjoy your holiday.
Hi again Mark. Sorry about the lateness of my response. Been a crazy Holiday! I did try to look around the web for the actual T-Stop value of this lens, but so far I cannot find it. Nothing much yet, including DPReview & DXOMark. Just too soon I think. I agree if the T-stop is even close to 2.8, that would be impressive. Also agree with your previous comment that, of course, utility of the lens is very dependent upon use case. I know many people will balk at the price, but there is simply nothing else out there that comes close, and I think Sony knows that. Even on Fuji XF mount, the impressive Fuji 16-55 2.8 is much larger than this lens, and I suspect no more sharp. Perhaps less distortion which is where this lens struggles, but again I'm more than happy to trade (correctable) distortion off for smaller size and less weight.I've been using this lens a ton since I got it, and I can tell you it is awesome. If you are indoors and want a fast, versatile lens, there simply is no better choice. Further, I don't this this is just an "appeasement" lens from Sony. I think it's the start of a real push into "pro grade" APS-C to attack Fuji where they live. If Sony releases a new, pro-level, APS-C body next year, then we'll know they are serious. I think it's going to happen.
This video is great. I helps me see the real value of the 16-55 f/2.8. I love the size of the 16-50 PZ kit lens but I almost never use it since I got the 18-135 which stays on my camera about about 95% of the time. I also have the sigma 19mm and 30mm f/2.8 as well as the Sony 50mm f/1.8. I hardly use the 50mm because it is soft wide open. The sigmas are incredibly sharp and produce pleasing colors. The sigma 19mm, 30mm and the sony 50mm together cost around $750. My cost was about for $650. I see a lot of value in the 16-55 f/2.8. Being able to have the zoom range from 16-55 in a single f/2.8 lens I think worth more than $700 but for my needs, I opted to purchase the 70-350mm instead. Perhaps if the cost of the 16-55 f/2.8 goes down to $1000, then, I will get it and when I do, it will probably stay on my camera more than 50% of the time. For now, the 18-135 serves me well.
Yeah the 18-135 is a great all-around lens, as long as you are in good light. I have a copy and I love mine. I also have the 50mm 1.8 by Sony. My copy is super -sharp wide open; sorry to hear yours is not. I used to own a copy of the Sigma 19mm (the original version) 2.8, but sold it because I just didn't find myself using that focal length all that often, especially since it was only 2.8. Now that I own the 16-55 2.8, I'm sure I would never use the Sigma. Going on price alone, I agree the 16-55 28 is a long-shot for most folks. If you don't mind changing lenses (and, since you have an ILC, that's not typically a stretch!), then the Sigma trio is a really nice stable of lenses to own. I have two modes of shooting: 1. (most common) Run and Gun. I'm at an event for one of my kids and need to get the shot. My wife could give a rip about bokeh, lighting, SNR, etc., she just wants pictures of the kids. So I'm on full auto to start, get some great establishing shots and make sure I check all the boxes for the event. Then and only then, if I have the time, do I go full manual and try to have some fun, knowing with the 16-55 I can switch quickly at any time. Then there is 2) at home with time. This is stuff just for me. There, I'm rarely using a zoom. I'm all about primes, with light modification, and careful setup. It's just a hobby....but still :) Thanks for the comment, and best of luck. Tom
Thanks for this review. Man it is so annoying at the beginning of a videographers journey to search for a good lense. I got me a Sigma 16mm 1.4f which is great but I am continuously thinking what if I only had one lense for the different focal lengths. I might try to get this one used or the new sigma 18-50mm.
They are prob both very good. I have not tried the Tamron, but if it were available when I was looking, I prob would have gone with it. It’s almost half the price of the Sony. And it has VC. Sony is probably a little sharper, but is the small difference (along w button,switch,etc. ) worth it?
Yeah I always try to put something on my front element, especially on my expensive glass. Typically I only use a "UV Haze" filter, which doesn't limit much in the visible spectrum of light. I doubt anyone could tell a difference (unless it's dirty :) ).
Thank you so much for your accurate work! I condivide many your thinks about this lens. I use my camera for landascape photos and I love the sharpness and uniformity lens, but I use the lens around f/8 and f/11, so I would ask you: there are many sharpness and uniformity differents to f/8, between 16-55 and 18-135? I look many samples in internet but my finally thinks about sony lens is: I need lucky! The same type of lens has too much different of sharpness between the models.
At f/8, both lenses are pretty sharp, but I still think the 16-55 is the sharper lens overall. And it should be; it's nearly double the price! Thanks for the comment.
Great video, thank you for this detailed review! Personally, I have been very happy with the results I can get with e-mount apsc cameras, especially with high quality lenses like the zeiss touit series and I have no intention to switch to full frame. However, I would definitely like to get this lens in the future as an all in one solution for my a6500. I have two little ones now and vacations/outings are much more enjoyable when I'm not juggling multiple cameras and lenses.
Thanks for the comment. I agree completely. I would much rather have a couple awesome lenses than a whole bunch of mediocre ones. I used to buy cameras because of the bodies (features, etc.), but now I'm looking more and more for quality lenses. Sony still needs to up their game in the APS-C space, but this lens (and the 70-350 OSS) are a super start to what I hope will be a total reboot of the product line.
This is a great lens albeit quite pricey. Depends upon the kind of pictures you take and how picky you are. If you want the best for APS-C, this is it. For a more all-round travel lens, you might consider the excellent 18-135 by Sony.
Thanks for the comment. Your suggestion would be a good comparison - did you mean 'wider apertures' or 'wider focal lengths' ? - both are applicable for a comparison. Personally, I think the 16-55 would be sharper across the range but that would need to be tested. The 18-135 is a nice lens.
TNB Tech I meant wider apertures of the 18-135 over the overlapping focal lenghts.. i.e. both at 18mm/f3.5, 30mm/f4, 55mm/f5. I know the G lens will be super sharp, I’m just curious about how noticeable is the difference. And seriously, I’ve seen a lot of lens reviews and yours is a really good one.
@@rodrigofernandezgajardo5348 thanks again for the comment - Yes the comparison you cite would be interesting. I too wonder how close the two lenses would be. I have both so maybe I'll do that in the future.
Hi - If you are referring to the excellent Sigma 16mm f/1.4 all by itself, then no. The reason someone would opt for the Sony 16-55 Zoom would be that they don't want to carry around a bunch of primes, and also they want more flexibility. But this convenience and flexibility comes at a cost, namely the high price (although 3-4 excellent primes will prob. cost the same or more) as well as a reduced max aperture. But if all you need is 16mm, then the Sigma is a super choice. Thanks.
@@tnbtech5436 Hi, Yes the same. I would like to have a sharpest lens for which cover my most need like landscape portrait n semi zoom. So i thought to buy 16-55. Your comment makes sense to me. Is that a good idea to use 16-55 during day and 16mm on night?
Well 16mm 1.4 gets you another 2 stops of light. So think of it like this: You could use the 16mm 1.4 at ISO 400, or the zoom 2.8 at ISO 1600. So yes big difference there. Also I must note that now that the Tamron 17-70 2.8 is available you should consider that one as well. I hear it's not quite as sharp as the Sony zoom, but it's almost $500 less! PLUS it has VR/OSS! Good luck.
Okay here's my dilemma that maybe you can help me out with. I currently rock an a6000 so with it I also have a few aps-c lenses such as the kit 16-50, sigma 30mm f1.4, and the 10-18mm F4 ultra wide Sony lens. I'm going to upgrade bodies soon and am also planning on stepping into the world of more professional work as people have been asking me to sell prints for a while now and I just haven't had the ability to. So here's my dilemma, I am debating between the a6600 and the a7iii but this is where it gets complicated. I shoot a lot of street photography in low light so the full frame sensor of the a7iii is very appealing for the better low light preformance. On the other hand I all ready have a lineup of aps-c lenses as well as the fact that I live in a very rainy state and the a6600 is much better weather protected than the a7iii is by far. Only the top plate is weather sealed on the a7iii where as on the a6600 the entire body is. So should I stay aps-c and get the a6600 and add the 16-55 f2.8 to my arsenal as well or jump to full frame and start my lens collection over again which I'm not so sure I'll have the funds for. I'm stuck between being able to shoot year round with the a6600 or choosing the better preformance of the a7iii. I wish so badly Sony would just simply weather seal their mirrorless cameras like the other companies have.
OK...very nice, meaty question :) Unfortunately, as I assume you have already surmised, the answer is not clear. A7III is better at overall low-light performance (for an identical scene), and you can get better portraits (if you define 'better' as more bokeh) easier (but not necessarily cheaper) with the A7III. However for street photog, you are not necessarily looking for massive bokeh, so shallow DOF is not as important. You need fast, sharp, small/portable lenses. So something like the 16-55 2.8 is a nice option. Not super small, not super fast, but a great all around super-sharp lens. And it IS weather sealed. You can also look at the excellent sigma primes. You need to know, however, that none of the Sony bodies are exceptionally well sealed for inclement weather. A6600 is pretty good but I wouldn't call it 'weather-sealed'. And most of the APS-C lenses are not. If I were a pro, AND if money were not an object, I'd probably go with the A7III, and use the Tamron trio (17-28, 28-70, & 70-180) for my base shooting, and then supplement a couple primes for my favorite focal lengths. You have excellent choices for 50, 35, 24, & 20 mm focal lengths in Sony FF right now. I know, not a lot of great help here :) But I too am struggling with this choice. FF seems to be a little 'better', but I'm not sure I'm willing to pay the price in terms of (not so much body) lenses. And there is a definite increase in size/weight. If I were you, unless you really WANT to switch, I'd stay with APS-C and see where it takes me. Hope that helps a bit. Tom
I too have looked at the a7iii but I tried my friend's a7RIII with the 24-70 f/2.8. That lens is massive compared to this lens and it is $800 more. I have the a6400 and I think it does great in low light even with slower lenses like the 18-135 f/3.5-5.6.
I did consider the Zeiss. I have not personally tested one, but from what others have said, it's a solid performer albeit not quite as sharp as the 16-55 G across their common focal ranges. Further, I've heard the Zeiss really falls apart near the long-end as far as sharpness goes, which is typical for zooms. The Zeiss is arguably smaller than the Sony, which is a great option for travel, but that max 4.0 aperture, to me, makes it less versatile. Yes, it has OSS which does help. It you really want the smallest zoom, you might consider picking up a used Zeiss, which I'm guessing might be readily available on the used market now for a decent price over the brand-new Sony. It's a close call, but the incredible sharpness of the Sony, across the entire focal range, and across the frame, ultimately won me over despite the (definitely high) price. Hope that helps. Tom
@@tnbtech5436 Thanks. I'm a casual consumer, though avid photographer. Having read many reviews, I suspect the 16-55G is "better" though hard to say if it's worth $400 more as a new lens, $600 as a used lens; or that the Zeiss would hold me back from the Pulitzer! haha Thanks again. LAS
The differences are so small from lens to lens, I truly believe people enjoy expensive lenses because it makes them feel and look like professionals on the street. The kit lens is amazing, but I know enough people who never use it because they don't want to be seen as an amateur lol. I'm guilty of it as well :(
Hi Noi yes it's really incredible how some youtube influencers make the smallest differences between lenses seem huge. I personally have both the kit lens and this very expensive lens. I appreciate the differences but won't argue that for most occasions, the kit lens is just fine. Which is exactly why I have it and use it for casual photography. You can still get a great shot with the kit lens, and you can still take crappy photos with an expensive lens. The quality of the photographer is much more impactful than the quality of the lens.
Great question. I have not personally tested that lens, but I hear it's pretty good - great sharpness, low distortion, quick focus, and of course full-frame. The focal length difference, however, is significant at the long end. If you are contemplating moving to FF some day, it might be a good choice to go for the Tamron trio (17-28, 28-75, and 70-180) instead of aps-c glass. But there are a few things to consider. First, you will need at least two lenses to cover the focal range of the Sony 16-55 G. The Sony is arguably built better, with a better focus motor system (but not by much IMHO), and slightly smaller size. Not sure if there is a significant difference in resolving power. So it's a tough choice. If you value size/weight/portability, the Sony 16-55 G will give you the best performance with the smallest size for the focal range it provides. It's really the only way to go if you want "one lens to rule them all". If not, I hear the Tamron's are really nice 'budget' choices. Hope that helps. Tom
It really depends upon what and how you want or need to shoot. IF you have the TIME to switch lenses, and are ok with that, you will probably have better image quality at those three focal lengths. If you KNOW those focal lengths will work for you, then again it may be best to get three lenses. BUT...if you don't have the TIME, or don't KNOW which focal length you will need - the Zoom gives you great IQ and all the flexibility. You do lose some speed (low-light capability), since the Sigma's are 1.4 (two stops of light is pretty huge). So you need to make that tradeoff. If you are unsure you could shoot with the kit lens for a while and then look at your keepers to determine if those focal lengths are acceptable. But you still need the TIME to switch lenses, and that depends upon your particular shooting conditions.
@@tnbtech5436 his is what brings me, on Sigma 1.4 (this is a lot), shooting is mainly a family, a child, a child's game on the street, there is not always time to change the lens, this is why I look towards this lens, still very confused by the lack of stabilization system... today I felt this glass in the store, the impression is very strange, like premealnost and comfortable focal, but it is very difficult to shoot at 1 \ 30 because there is no stabilization, and the size of the lens is quite large.
Fast zoom will be large. Look at Fuji 16-55 (it’s larger). Stabilization for action shooting is irrelevant because if you are below 1/125 sec your subject motion will cause blur. Stabilization only really helps you avoid higher ISOs in low light. Note all Sigma primes also lack stabilization.
Kit lens is not good for lowlight, sharpness. But it's compact, 16-50mm range is too good, power zoom, cheap and yes it always be the good lens for beginner.
Not sure what you mean, but I think a smaller camera is likely to be taken out and unless you are a pro, the real choice now is between your phone's camera and a small, capable camera. Thanks for the comment.
@@tnbtech5436 I meant that I didn't care about the cost of the Camera or lens, but I find the A7 + 24-70/2.8 combo too big. The 20-70/4 FF is actually about the same size as 16-55/2.8 APS-C, but I'll actually prefer something like a 25-50/2.8 on a full frame. The APS-C A6000-series with the 16-55 is actually not that small and if I am going to lug something that is not a phone, I'll want a FF with compact but fast lens. I am willing to give up zoom range.
Ok yeah I get it and agree. Years ago, the 16-55 was the only game in town. But I really prefer something smaller and more manageable. I would consider the A7c at this point over apsc cause it’s not much bigger and then you have the option to use apsc or ff glass. If you want something smaller, I would honestly consider the RX100.
@@tnbtech5436 There is the Tamron 20-40/2.8 and it's pretty cheap ($600). But as I said, I'll prefer a 25-50 because I like the 50mm angle and 25mm is enough for me for most wide street shots. Too bad nobody makes one at any price. The RX100 is meh... I have the 1st gen. The 1" sensor is not any better than a new phone sensor (even though it is bigger).
Agree a 25-50 might be nice. Regarding RX cameras, I think the newest ones ( I too have a mark I ) have the potential to take much better photos than even the newest iPhone ( I have the 13 pro and am not impressed w the camera). The combination of a bigger sensor, much better lens ( the most important part), and more fine controls make it better for someone who knows photography. Sony has a great opportunity to combine this excellent platform with “AI” features that could blow away any phone camera. But, alas, they probably won’t. 😀
I have FF but hate how heavy that is. A5100+16-55 is lighter than any 24-70mm f/2.8 lens (even the 800g Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 S). I know its comparable to F/4 on FF but I bet this one beats most F/4s on FF on sharpness, and lighter as a combo.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, if you value size/weight savings this is the real deal, and I believe you do NOT sacrifice sharpness when you pick up this lens. As for the "2.8 on APS-C is equiv to f4 on ff" argument, that is a topic which would fill another video! There are so many issues and assumptions in that statement. Yes, if you want the EXACT same scene reproduced on both cameras as close as possible, there is some merit to the argument. But in general, a 2.8 lens is ALWAYS a 2.8 lens. Period. Just cropping changes the field of view and you need to be ok with that. Nuf said. Thanks again!
@@tnbtech5436 I tell people F/2.8 on APSC looks like the bokeh on a full frame F/4.0 (because on APSC you have to stand back a little which lessens the bokeh if you want the same focal length appearance), however, the exposure of F/2.8 on APSC looks almost identical to a full frame F/2.8!
Thanks, TNB, I am retired and drink cool water and safe money for the 200-600 mm.[APS-C 300-900 mm] Just for joking, good INFO. Go ahead. Greetings from Thailand
What a tremendous amount of work has been done here. Great contribution to the community. Thank you so much.
You are very welcome. It's great to get feedback like this. It's a ton of work to produce good and informative youtube videos, so I really appreciate when someone takes the time to say "thanks". It really does make a huge difference. All the best.
@@tnbtech5436 Sure. I've been perusing youtube contemplating whether or not I should go with this lens, but then when I added it to cart and looked at the total...I... couldn't do it. I then considered Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART (changed my mind cause lack on native mount, and autofocus noise), then 30mm contemporary, then thought of 35mm 1.4 ART. Honestly though, 16-50 kit was the perfect lens for me: small, lightweight, stabilized, cheap, could go to 100mm with digital zoom on Sony a6300, easy to find and replace. But since I upgraded to Sony a6400, have been stuck with the lens decision. It'll be really funny if I end up with iPhone 11 Pro.
Hah! Don't think you'll be ultimately happy w the iphone. Once you graduate to 'serious' photography, iPhone won't allow you the creativity you want (although it's great for casual shots). For run/gun shooting, there is really no other choice at this optical quality than the 16-55 2.8. As I showed in my video, however the kit lens will work (especially in the middle) for many scenarios as long as you don't blow up prints or pixel-peep. Thanks.
Also, please do more of these. It is valuable and I really appreciate your breakdown. It's very truthful and clear and I think there's a lot of value in what you are doing.
Thanks so much for the support.
After only 30 seconds, BIG THUMBS UP. This is an actual review compared to someone who just have 1 or 2 lenses and only talks about sharpness !!!
I didn't realize your video was this long. Thanks for your work and thoroughness.
Thanks for the kind words. Really appreciate it.
Tom
Thank you for the great review! Keep up the good work!
Thanks!
Great final thoughts
Glad you liked it. Thx
Good job!
I have a6600 and 16-55 set for several days, it's good :)
I wonder why no one comparing a6600 and a6400 says that a 6600 has expandable ISO from 50, i.e. one f-stop better than a6400 (ISO 100)
I was unaware of this on the 6600. I’ll check it out if I can. Thanks.
... as a journalist working with the a9 II, a7R IV and a6600, I do not agree with the conclusion. The 16-55 is a lens is definitely worth the money for Sony FF shooters too. I use it also in crop modus with the a7R IV to get oversampled 4K footage.
Well of course your opinion is a valid one. My only point is that you are in the minority in my opinion, and certainly not the main target for this lens. Sure, if you have the bucks to go for the A7R IV, this lens would be a great companion when using crop mode (26 MP crop image). In fact it's perfect. It's just that it's a really expensive way to get the equivalent image quality to the A6400. Of course, you don't have to carry two cameras. Thanks for the comment.
TNB Tech ... you’re opinion is also welcome! 😊 And yes: Sony is expensive, but worth for journalists. BTW: Good reviews here on your channel! 👍🏻
Totally agree！ The a7Rii, iii, iv users can enjoy using crop mode with the 16-55 2.8 which weigh much less than the FF GM version.
Very good and detailed review! I have the A6600 and this 16-55mm too and the lens performs prttty well. I am using this combo mainly when I am travelling...together with my A7RIV. I am mainly a landscape shooter and I would never miss my A7RIV with the 16-35mm GM 2.8 lens and the 24 1.4 GM. In parallel I take my A7III or A9II with the Tamron 70-180mm 2.8 with me. My 24-70 2.8 and my Sony 70-200 2.8 GM stay at home due the weight and size when I am travelling with my family...and for these circumstances the A6600 with the 16-55 is fantastic! I can take really nice pictures from my family and I dont have to carry the "big glasses" with me when we go out with the family.
Thanks I’m glad you liked the review.
Awesome review!
Thanks!
Thanks for this review. I'm surprised it's not higher up in the search results. Was really looking for a sharpness comparison between the 50f1.8 and 1655f2.8 in so far as to understand if the latter can replace the former. As an enthusiast, I guess I'll start saving up then... :-)
I'm not a major youtuber - that's why I don't rank higher :) and that's ok...
I think the apsc 50mm1.8 gets a lot of bad press cause build quality ain't all that great - but my copy is pretty damn good for the price. I don't think there is a better 50mm out there for sony apsc - I've heard good things about the Sigma 56mm however so that is worth looking at as well. Thanks.
I love your review! Thanks!
Thanks for the vote of confidence Jimmy! I appreciate it.
Thank you very much for the amount of work you have put into this. I think I fit exactly in the space that you described in the end for whom this lense might be for and I'm finally going to buy it.
Well if you can afford it I think you will be very pleased with the image fidelity of this lens. Thanks for the comment!
I'm a travel blogger/photographer but I only do it as a side gig so I make little money out of it. The a6600 with this 16-55mm F/2.8 is the perfect combo with great quality and a small form factor for my travels (going to 6 continents this year!). Traveling with a full frame can be cumbersome for me. You hit it right on the head. Great review!
Thanks so much for your perspective. Yes, FF is great, but sometimes size/weight matters more!
Very good and deep review. I also liked your final conclusions as I felt interpellate when you were descrbing the person who might want to buy this lense.
I am not a pro. Photography is my hobbie (more expensive than I expexted) but I like to take my camera wherever I go. I really wanted a lense like this as I do photopgraphy of many kinds, mainly landscape, night photography and portraits in a sporadic way, not in studio. For all of this I think this lense + the a6600 I am thinking of buying and the 70-350G I already have, will be a nice and not heavy equipment.
The FullFrame.. the only advantage I see is that you get more dynamic range, but doesn't worth the extra money in camera, lenses plus the extra size and weight, and even more if it is not my profession.
Thanks for the comment! Yep it's a tough choice, especially now after the intro of the A7c. You HAVE to value size/weight highly to pick these types of lenses. The best case would be a 'A7cR' which uses a 42MP sensor so you can use 16-55, 70-350 e lenses in Super35 mode for telephoto use when you most likely would be cropping on ff anyway. But that's a few years off :) !!
@@tnbtech5436 A few years off and a few zeros off my budget 😁
Thanks for the comment, man 👍
Great review ... very thorough and in my opinion objective. I have this lense and now consider it my go-to lense for everyday use (sharpness, contrast, colour, f2.8 constant aperture and relatively small all did it for me). I too have a bunch of other lenses, however my 50mm f1.8 prime and my kit lense are probably not going to be used much any more. My 24mm F1.8 Zeiss is still my choice for on-gimbal video work though and I did recently buy the 70-350G for my hobby which is motorsport. FWIW: I consider myself a prosumer, so spot on there.
Thanks glad you liked it!
Great review, learnt a lot. You made my decision very easy. Thank you.
Glad I could help!
Excellent! Keeping in mind what you have just said - I am selling the kit lens (not good enough for me); I will also be selling my Sony 35MM-1.8 (as you found not to be as sharp based on your comparison), I will keep the manual $60 -35MM 1.7 when I need a fast small lens in 35MM (my favorite focal), I will keep my sigma 16MM- 1.4 as it is super fast and super sharp.
I am getting this G-lens! Thanks to you! (You might be in trouble with my wife...)
Hey, don't put me in the middle of that! I have my own spouse issues! But seriously, it's clearly a better lens, but is it right for you? Only you can decide that! I'm actually keeping both the kit lens and this lens because sometimes I need a small kit for casual shooting, and it works quite well for that. Still blows away an iphone lens! Thanks for the comment and best of luck!
While reading all the opinions we are becoming experts...what then works for us -is "the best". For me as well - a good small lens /small camera set up is most effective for everyday use. When I get to plan to "go out and shoot" - at that point 16-55 2.8 seems ideal. I appreciate your comment!
Thanks and best of luck.
I use to travel with the Sigma Trio (Sigma: 16mm, 30mm, 56mm all F/1.4), but now I have one lens that replaced all 3. Thank you, Sony, finally! Yes, I lose my F/1.4 shallow depth of field, but totally worth it for the convenience and this Sony is just as sharp as the Sigma. Also, I found myself shooting a lot of F2.8 to F4 for portraits (I wanted some of the environment in focus because of the beautiful scenery), so I rarely used the Sigma's at F1.4. This is a no brainer for a traveler.
I’m starting to believe FF best for mostly portrait work in the studio, but for travel, sports,action,wildlife, environmental and landscape I think the benefits of apsc compete well. FF excels in bokeh and lowlight (but only when comparing identical scenes!), but apsc is best compromise for light weight vs IQ. Thanks again!
TNB Tech, thank you for your very informative review of this lens. I think you are spot-on with all of it, but I have some different contextual thought. I am in my early 50s, and my Dad was a pro photographer, so I grew up with photography all my life: Leica M, Hasselblad, Nikon SLR, view cameras, air brush retouching and lots of time in a darkroom. I thought it was very interesting the way you offered an explanation of what people this lens might be for, and I agree mainly, but I believe that ultimately it may claim a larger market than what you describe; or rather we might find that the market of advanced amateurs you describe might be much larger than some assume. What I mean is that as a not-at-all-rich middle class dad that is also a near-expert photographer with applications for my photography even at my work, my expectations of my photography of all I do including my young children’s sports and music concerts is very high, partly because I share what I do with the school and the sports league for their PR work, and I share photography of my work with my company for their use. But what might be becoming more and more popular is that I also do paying jobs/gigs where this lens would be so extremely useful. For example, if you are shooting a chorus concert video of Children on a well-lit stage, you might do very well with an f4 zoom lens because stage lights can be very bright, and if you have the benefit of a power zoom like Sony’s 18-105 f/4,(which I have) and can shoot at f5, where the lens is really getting sharp and so great in 4k, that can work really well because you might be able to shoot at about ISO 640, but if those lights are not on, and you are shooting at ISO 2000 and F4 (about three stops less light), you are going to get a different-looking end product for everybody to see on the TV. My point is that the details matter for every situation. I know you know that. I guess if I had a mild criticism related to all of this, it would be about something you already know, which is that you found yourself trying to make some conclusions and recommendations, but you knew that is so totally subjective. I think it is very informative about you that you say you chose to keep the lens. That pretty much tells me what I need to know, but it is so expensive that I might have to sell a few camera gear items to make that happen for me like my Nikon FM3a and 45 2.8P that are mint and collecting dust. In conclusion, I see you have only a few hundred views so far, but I think you did something you felt passionate about, and I admire that, and I think you overall KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE PARK. THANK YOU.
Thanks so much for your insight and especially for your kind words. Photography has always been a passion for me, and I can tell it is also for you. In the end, everyone needs to make their own choices, but hopefully I can lend some useful perspectives to that decision process. Again - thanks!
@@tnbtech5436 I think you replied with a well-thought totally canned response.I'm not really happy with that, but it doesn't matter. God bless you and your family.
Sorry Mark I’m on the road visiting family during the Holiday and can’t spend as much time as usual on a detailed reply. My responses are never canned. Just sometimes more brief than I’d like. If you have a specific question, I’d be happy to get back early next week. God bless you as well.
@@tnbtech5436 I didn't mean to be rude. This lens is just so long anticipated and a much-needed tool but so expensive that every subtle point is a factor in whether the lens justifies the price, but you covered it pretty thoroughly. I am curious about the aperture T value of the lens because if it is actually 2.8, that would be impressive. Thanks again. Enjoy your holiday.
Hi again Mark. Sorry about the lateness of my response. Been a crazy Holiday! I did try to look around the web for the actual T-Stop value of this lens, but so far I cannot find it. Nothing much yet, including DPReview & DXOMark. Just too soon I think. I agree if the T-stop is even close to 2.8, that would be impressive. Also agree with your previous comment that, of course, utility of the lens is very dependent upon use case. I know many people will balk at the price, but there is simply nothing else out there that comes close, and I think Sony knows that. Even on Fuji XF mount, the impressive Fuji 16-55 2.8 is much larger than this lens, and I suspect no more sharp. Perhaps less distortion which is where this lens struggles, but again I'm more than happy to trade (correctable) distortion off for smaller size and less weight.I've been using this lens a ton since I got it, and I can tell you it is awesome. If you are indoors and want a fast, versatile lens, there simply is no better choice.
Further, I don't this this is just an "appeasement" lens from Sony. I think it's the start of a real push into "pro grade" APS-C to attack Fuji where they live. If Sony releases a new, pro-level, APS-C body next year, then we'll know they are serious. I think it's going to happen.
This video is great. I helps me see the real value of the 16-55 f/2.8.
I love the size of the 16-50 PZ kit lens but I almost never use it since I got the 18-135 which stays on my camera about about 95% of the time. I also have the sigma 19mm and 30mm f/2.8 as well as the Sony 50mm f/1.8. I hardly use the 50mm because it is soft wide open. The sigmas are incredibly sharp and produce pleasing colors. The sigma 19mm, 30mm and the sony 50mm together cost around $750. My cost was about for $650. I see a lot of value in the 16-55 f/2.8. Being able to have the zoom range from 16-55 in a single f/2.8 lens I think worth more than $700 but for my needs, I opted to purchase the 70-350mm instead.
Perhaps if the cost of the 16-55 f/2.8 goes down to $1000, then, I will get it and when I do, it will probably stay on my camera more than 50% of the time. For now, the 18-135 serves me well.
Yeah the 18-135 is a great all-around lens, as long as you are in good light. I have a copy and I love mine. I also have the 50mm 1.8 by Sony. My copy is super -sharp wide open; sorry to hear yours is not. I used to own a copy of the Sigma 19mm (the original version) 2.8, but sold it because I just didn't find myself using that focal length all that often, especially since it was only 2.8. Now that I own the 16-55 2.8, I'm sure I would never use the Sigma.
Going on price alone, I agree the 16-55 28 is a long-shot for most folks. If you don't mind changing lenses (and, since you have an ILC, that's not typically a stretch!), then the Sigma trio is a really nice stable of lenses to own.
I have two modes of shooting: 1. (most common) Run and Gun. I'm at an event for one of my kids and need to get the shot. My wife could give a rip about bokeh, lighting, SNR, etc., she just wants pictures of the kids. So I'm on full auto to start, get some great establishing shots and make sure I check all the boxes for the event. Then and only then, if I have the time, do I go full manual and try to have some fun, knowing with the 16-55 I can switch quickly at any time. Then there is 2) at home with time. This is stuff just for me. There, I'm rarely using a zoom. I'm all about primes, with light modification, and careful setup. It's just a hobby....but still :)
Thanks for the comment, and best of luck.
Tom
Thanks for this review. Man it is so annoying at the beginning of a videographers journey to search for a good lense. I got me a Sigma 16mm 1.4f which is great but I am continuously thinking what if I only had one lense for the different focal lengths. I might try to get this one used or the new sigma 18-50mm.
Yeah it's a great lens, but honestly now there are many more options than when this lens came out, so check out your options!
Iam struggling between the Tamron 17-70 and the 16-55. Tamron for the additional VC but Sony for the look and feel and build quality.
They are prob both very good. I have not tried the Tamron, but if it were available when I was looking, I prob would have gone with it. It’s almost half the price of the Sony. And it has VC. Sony is probably a little sharper, but is the small difference (along w button,switch,etc. ) worth it?
I saw most of you prime lenses, you have filter/protection on them, don’t you? Will it matter in picture quality if you remove filter?
Yeah I always try to put something on my front element, especially on my expensive glass. Typically I only use a "UV Haze" filter, which doesn't limit much in the visible spectrum of light. I doubt anyone could tell a difference (unless it's dirty :) ).
Thank you so much for your accurate work! I condivide many your thinks about this lens. I use my camera for landascape photos and I love the sharpness and uniformity lens, but I use the lens around f/8 and f/11, so I would ask you: there are many sharpness and uniformity differents to f/8, between 16-55 and 18-135? I look many samples in internet but my finally thinks about sony lens is: I need lucky! The same type of lens has too much different of sharpness between the models.
At f/8, both lenses are pretty sharp, but I still think the 16-55 is the sharper lens overall. And it should be; it's nearly double the price! Thanks for the comment.
Thx, good job! Greetings from Germany
Thanks glad it helped you. Cheers
Great video, thank you for this detailed review! Personally, I have been very happy with the results I can get with e-mount apsc cameras, especially with high quality lenses like the zeiss touit series and I have no intention to switch to full frame. However, I would definitely like to get this lens in the future as an all in one solution for my a6500. I have two little ones now and vacations/outings are much more enjoyable when I'm not juggling multiple cameras and lenses.
Thanks for the comment. I agree completely. I would much rather have a couple awesome lenses than a whole bunch of mediocre ones. I used to buy cameras because of the bodies (features, etc.), but now I'm looking more and more for quality lenses. Sony still needs to up their game in the APS-C space, but this lens (and the 70-350 OSS) are a super start to what I hope will be a total reboot of the product line.
Great review, looking for a versatile lens like this for travel! Do you think this lens is worth it when paired with a Sony a6100?
This is a great lens albeit quite pricey. Depends upon the kind of pictures you take and how picky you are. If you want the best for APS-C, this is it. For a more all-round travel lens, you might consider the excellent 18-135 by Sony.
Great review! I would’ve loved to see a sharpness comparison between 18-135 at its wider apertures with the 16-55! How do you think that’d go?
Thanks for the comment. Your suggestion would be a good comparison - did you mean 'wider apertures' or 'wider focal lengths' ? - both are applicable for a comparison. Personally, I think the 16-55 would be sharper across the range but that would need to be tested. The 18-135 is a nice lens.
TNB Tech I meant wider apertures of the 18-135 over the overlapping focal lenghts.. i.e. both at 18mm/f3.5, 30mm/f4, 55mm/f5. I know the G lens will be super sharp, I’m just curious about how noticeable is the difference.
And seriously, I’ve seen a lot of lens reviews and yours is a really good one.
@@rodrigofernandezgajardo5348 thanks again for the comment - Yes the comparison you cite would be interesting. I too wonder how close the two lenses would be. I have both so maybe I'll do that in the future.
Would you recommend to replace sigma 16mm 1.5 for this?
Hi - If you are referring to the excellent Sigma 16mm f/1.4 all by itself, then no. The reason someone would opt for the Sony 16-55 Zoom would be that they don't want to carry around a bunch of primes, and also they want more flexibility. But this convenience and flexibility comes at a cost, namely the high price (although 3-4 excellent primes will prob. cost the same or more) as well as a reduced max aperture. But if all you need is 16mm, then the Sigma is a super choice. Thanks.
@@tnbtech5436 Hi, Yes the same. I would like to have a sharpest lens for which cover my most need like landscape portrait n semi zoom. So i thought to buy 16-55. Your comment makes sense to me. Is that a good idea to use 16-55 during day and 16mm on night?
Well 16mm 1.4 gets you another 2 stops of light. So think of it like this: You could use the 16mm 1.4 at ISO 400, or the zoom 2.8 at ISO 1600. So yes big difference there.
Also I must note that now that the Tamron 17-70 2.8 is available you should consider that one as well. I hear it's not quite as sharp as the Sony zoom, but it's almost $500 less! PLUS it has VR/OSS! Good luck.
Okay here's my dilemma that maybe you can help me out with. I currently rock an a6000 so with it I also have a few aps-c lenses such as the kit 16-50, sigma 30mm f1.4, and the 10-18mm F4 ultra wide Sony lens. I'm going to upgrade bodies soon and am also planning on stepping into the world of more professional work as people have been asking me to sell prints for a while now and I just haven't had the ability to. So here's my dilemma, I am debating between the a6600 and the a7iii but this is where it gets complicated. I shoot a lot of street photography in low light so the full frame sensor of the a7iii is very appealing for the better low light preformance. On the other hand I all ready have a lineup of aps-c lenses as well as the fact that I live in a very rainy state and the a6600 is much better weather protected than the a7iii is by far. Only the top plate is weather sealed on the a7iii where as on the a6600 the entire body is. So should I stay aps-c and get the a6600 and add the 16-55 f2.8 to my arsenal as well or jump to full frame and start my lens collection over again which I'm not so sure I'll have the funds for. I'm stuck between being able to shoot year round with the a6600 or choosing the better preformance of the a7iii. I wish so badly Sony would just simply weather seal their mirrorless cameras like the other companies have.
OK...very nice, meaty question :)
Unfortunately, as I assume you have already surmised, the answer is not clear.
A7III is better at overall low-light performance (for an identical scene), and you can get better portraits (if you define 'better' as more bokeh) easier (but not necessarily cheaper) with the A7III.
However for street photog, you are not necessarily looking for massive bokeh, so shallow DOF is not as important. You need fast, sharp, small/portable lenses. So something like the 16-55 2.8 is a nice option. Not super small, not super fast, but a great all around super-sharp lens. And it IS weather sealed. You can also look at the excellent sigma primes.
You need to know, however, that none of the Sony bodies are exceptionally well sealed for inclement weather. A6600 is pretty good but I wouldn't call it 'weather-sealed'. And most of the APS-C lenses are not.
If I were a pro, AND if money were not an object, I'd probably go with the A7III, and use the Tamron trio (17-28, 28-70, & 70-180) for my base shooting, and then supplement a couple primes for my favorite focal lengths. You have excellent choices for 50, 35, 24, & 20 mm focal lengths in Sony FF right now.
I know, not a lot of great help here :) But I too am struggling with this choice. FF seems to be a little 'better', but I'm not sure I'm willing to pay the price in terms of (not so much body) lenses. And there is a definite increase in size/weight.
If I were you, unless you really WANT to switch, I'd stay with APS-C and see where it takes me.
Hope that helps a bit.
Tom
I too have looked at the a7iii but I tried my friend's a7RIII with the 24-70 f/2.8. That lens is massive compared to this lens and it is $800 more. I have the a6400 and I think it does great in low light even with slower lenses like the 18-135 f/3.5-5.6.
Did you consider the older Zeiss 16-79 f/4.0 for the same purposes? If yes, what are your thoughts?
I did consider the Zeiss. I have not personally tested one, but from what others have said, it's a solid performer albeit not quite as sharp as the 16-55 G across their common focal ranges. Further, I've heard the Zeiss really falls apart near the long-end as far as sharpness goes, which is typical for zooms.
The Zeiss is arguably smaller than the Sony, which is a great option for travel, but that max 4.0 aperture, to me, makes it less versatile. Yes, it has OSS which does help.
It you really want the smallest zoom, you might consider picking up a used Zeiss, which I'm guessing might be readily available on the used market now for a decent price over the brand-new Sony. It's a close call, but the incredible sharpness of the Sony, across the entire focal range, and across the frame, ultimately won me over despite the (definitely high) price.
Hope that helps.
Tom
@@tnbtech5436 Thanks. I'm a casual consumer, though avid photographer. Having read many reviews, I suspect the 16-55G is "better" though hard to say if it's worth $400 more as a new lens, $600 as a used lens; or that the Zeiss would hold me back from the Pulitzer! haha Thanks again. LAS
The differences are so small from lens to lens, I truly believe people enjoy expensive lenses because it makes them feel and look like professionals on the street. The kit lens is amazing, but I know enough people who never use it because they don't want to be seen as an amateur lol. I'm guilty of it as well :(
Hi Noi yes it's really incredible how some youtube influencers make the smallest differences between lenses seem huge. I personally have both the kit lens and this very expensive lens. I appreciate the differences but won't argue that for most occasions, the kit lens is just fine. Which is exactly why I have it and use it for casual photography. You can still get a great shot with the kit lens, and you can still take crappy photos with an expensive lens. The quality of the photographer is much more impactful than the quality of the lens.
How does this lens compare to the tamron 17-28 2.8 FE?
Great question. I have not personally tested that lens, but I hear it's pretty good - great sharpness, low distortion, quick focus, and of course full-frame. The focal length difference, however, is significant at the long end.
If you are contemplating moving to FF some day, it might be a good choice to go for the Tamron trio (17-28, 28-75, and 70-180) instead of aps-c glass. But there are a few things to consider. First, you will need at least two lenses to cover the focal range of the Sony 16-55 G. The Sony is arguably built better, with a better focus motor system (but not by much IMHO), and slightly smaller size. Not sure if there is a significant difference in resolving power.
So it's a tough choice. If you value size/weight/portability, the Sony 16-55 G will give you the best performance with the smallest size for the focal range it provides. It's really the only way to go if you want "one lens to rule them all". If not, I hear the Tamron's are really nice 'budget' choices.
Hope that helps.
Tom
good day! I am faced with a difficult choice, what to buy this new lens or a set of 3 Sigma 16-30-55, the price is the same, the camera A6400
It really depends upon what and how you want or need to shoot. IF you have the TIME to switch lenses, and are ok with that, you will probably have better image quality at those three focal lengths. If you KNOW those focal lengths will work for you, then again it may be best to get three lenses. BUT...if you don't have the TIME, or don't KNOW which focal length you will need - the Zoom gives you great IQ and all the flexibility. You do lose some speed (low-light capability), since the Sigma's are 1.4 (two stops of light is pretty huge). So you need to make that tradeoff. If you are unsure you could shoot with the kit lens for a while and then look at your keepers to determine if those focal lengths are acceptable. But you still need the TIME to switch lenses, and that depends upon your particular shooting conditions.
@@tnbtech5436 his is what brings me, on Sigma 1.4 (this is a lot), shooting is mainly a family, a child, a child's game on the street, there is not always time to change the lens, this is why I look towards this lens, still very confused by the lack of stabilization system... today I felt this glass in the store, the impression is very strange, like premealnost and comfortable focal, but it is very difficult to shoot at 1 \ 30 because there is no stabilization, and the size of the lens is quite large.
Fast zoom will be large. Look at Fuji 16-55 (it’s larger). Stabilization for action shooting is irrelevant because if you are below 1/125 sec your subject motion will cause blur. Stabilization only really helps you avoid higher ISOs in low light. Note all Sigma primes also lack stabilization.
Kit lens is not good for lowlight, sharpness. But it's compact, 16-50mm range is too good, power zoom, cheap and yes it always be the good lens for beginner.
Agreed. Thanks for the comment.
What if I don't care about the money, but I want something handier than an A7RV annd a 24-70 2.8GM II???
Not sure what you mean, but I think a smaller camera is likely to be taken out and unless you are a pro, the real choice now is between your phone's camera and a small, capable camera. Thanks for the comment.
@@tnbtech5436 I meant that I didn't care about the cost of the Camera or lens, but I find the A7 + 24-70/2.8 combo too big. The 20-70/4 FF is actually about the same size as 16-55/2.8 APS-C, but I'll actually prefer something like a 25-50/2.8 on a full frame. The APS-C A6000-series with the 16-55 is actually not that small and if I am going to lug something that is not a phone, I'll want a FF with compact but fast lens. I am willing to give up zoom range.
Ok yeah I get it and agree. Years ago, the 16-55 was the only game in town. But I really prefer something smaller and more manageable. I would consider the A7c at this point over apsc cause it’s not much bigger and then you have the option to use apsc or ff glass. If you want something smaller, I would honestly consider the RX100.
@@tnbtech5436 There is the Tamron 20-40/2.8 and it's pretty cheap ($600). But as I said, I'll prefer a 25-50 because I like the 50mm angle and 25mm is enough for me for most wide street shots. Too bad nobody makes one at any price. The RX100 is meh... I have the 1st gen. The 1" sensor is not any better than a new phone sensor (even though it is bigger).
Agree a 25-50 might be nice. Regarding RX cameras, I think the newest ones ( I too have a mark I ) have the potential to take much better photos than even the newest iPhone ( I have the 13 pro and am not impressed w the camera). The combination of a bigger sensor, much better lens ( the most important part), and more fine controls make it better for someone who knows photography. Sony has a great opportunity to combine this excellent platform with “AI” features that could blow away any phone camera. But, alas, they probably won’t. 😀
I have FF but hate how heavy that is. A5100+16-55 is lighter than any 24-70mm f/2.8 lens (even the 800g Nikon Z 24-70 2.8 S). I know its comparable to F/4 on FF but I bet this one beats most F/4s on FF on sharpness, and lighter as a combo.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, if you value size/weight savings this is the real deal, and I believe you do NOT sacrifice sharpness when you pick up this lens. As for the "2.8 on APS-C is equiv to f4 on ff" argument, that is a topic which would fill another video! There are so many issues and assumptions in that statement. Yes, if you want the EXACT same scene reproduced on both cameras as close as possible, there is some merit to the argument. But in general, a 2.8 lens is ALWAYS a 2.8 lens. Period. Just cropping changes the field of view and you need to be ok with that. Nuf said. Thanks again!
@@tnbtech5436 I tell people F/2.8 on APSC looks like the bokeh on a full frame F/4.0 (because on APSC you have to stand back a little which lessens the bokeh if you want the same focal length appearance), however, the exposure of F/2.8 on APSC looks almost identical to a full frame F/2.8!
Thanks, TNB, I am retired and drink cool water and safe money for the 200-600 mm.[APS-C 300-900 mm]
Just for joking, good INFO. Go ahead.
Greetings from Thailand
Thanks Frits