16-50 VS 16-35cz

I doubt that I would be investing in the 16-35CZ, but I was wondering if anyone has done a comparison between these two.

It would certainly be quite an eye opener if the 16-50 were to come close to the legendary......

Thanks in advance!
--
Still not enough time to take pictures....... Is there ever?
http://www.afripixel.com/

I assume that you are looking to use it on a aps-c camera. The price and the weight is more than enough to put me off buying a 16-35z. Also 16-50 is giving me more of a reach. As far the image quality goes, yes zeiss has its own punch and color that the 16-50 does not give but as mentioned its not worth the price and weight.

Now if you are looking for a full frame it is a different story. There is no comparison.

Sunil

I should have indicated that it would be on the A77 body.... yes the wide angle advantage of the full frame is very attractive, (and the 16-50 does not offer that!) but that would mean an A900 or A850 body... too much for old tech, IMHO...

I was really looking to try and compare the IQ of the two lenses on a crop sensor body.

--
Still not enough time to take pictures....... Is there ever?
http://www.afripixel.com/

OK - no comparison coming for me....

I bit the bullet and bought the A77 with the 16-50 as kit lens. Looking forward to opening the box tonight!
--
Still not enough time to take pictures....... Is there ever?
http://www.afripixel.com/

The 16-35 is a UWA lens covering FF -- the 16-50 on APS
is the equivalent of a 24-75.

Why use a lens that costs so much in order to provide sharp corners over such a wide
view when you'll never see them?

Thanks for chipping in - that's exactly my point of view... (excuse the pun!)

The 16-50 will do everything I need - wide angle on APS-C and constant fast aperture - the SSM is a bonus, as is the weatherproofing, so I am looking forward to some super sharp images from my new toy!
--
Still not enough time to take pictures....... Is there ever?
http://www.afripixel.com/