Reading mode: Light Dark

"Weighing" 16-50 versus 35/50/85 primes

Go to last post
A

Allan Crowson

Well-known member
Messages
216
Reaction score
30
Location
Nashville, TN, US
I've tried searching for something along these lines in the forum already, but have found nothing so far. My apologies in advance if I missed it -- just point toward the proper link or search terms, please.

I'm currently shooting with the A57 and 18-135. I want to add something with wider aperture, especially for indoors (family gatherings, grandchildren, museum, church, etc.).

The 16-50 is well reviewed nearly everywhere, and in general Sony's "Easy Choice" primes seem to hold up well optically, although their build quality may not approach the 16-50.

With only the kit lens at the moment, it is difficult to test just how things would look different at 1.8 (the primes) versus 2.8 (the zoom).

I would love to hear from those with experience in this area and with these lenses.

There is a slight cost and weight difference, but they are very close. If I drop off the 85mm to make it more of an apples-apples comparison, the cost/weight difference increases, of course.
 
The 16-50/2.8 is a very sexy lens, being designed so handsome which looks like a perfect match with A77.

Focusing is fast and IQ is good but...when you shoot using 35/50/85 primes, your experience is different.

I once tried only using the 35/1.8 and I was so happy that...I almost got the other two primes..

35/1.8 is lighter, faster and less inexpensive.
 
for family indoors, you might have to go with the 16-50 due to the focal length...you want to get your kid's running towards you? 16 mm helps big time.

but for anything else indoors, 1.8 does make a big difference, at least for me. There are events where i tempted with 24-70 2.8, and decided to drop the 85 mm on instead, 1.4 is a light gathering beast.

but for church... museums...bigger aperture also means thin DOF, which is not a good fit for indoor interior/archi type shorts, for those, either you are blessed with rock steady hands, or get a tripod, doesn't have to be a big one, i found mono-pods to be great for museums, again wide angel is a must for those shots. Even with the 35, you are really getting 50 mm equivalent , which is too narrow for indoors, from my own experience.

the zeiss 24mm f2 might be a good alternative if price don't matter, even with primes i wouldn't recommend taking more than one out for the day, stick with one and learn to zoom with your feet.

following the above logic, 16-50 seems to be the best bet, counting price into the whole thing.
 
Alphamale77 said:
Alphamale77 wrote:

for family indoors, you might have to go with the 16-50 due to the focal length...you want to get your kid's running towards you? 16 mm helps big time.

but for anything else indoors, 1.8 does make a big difference, at least for me. There are events where i tempted with 24-70 2.8, and decided to drop the 85 mm on instead, 1.4 is a light gathering beast.
Click to expand...

Alphamale77 said:
following the above logic, 16-50 seems to be the best bet, counting price into the whole thing.
Click to expand...
I have the A57 with 16-50 and it's a great combination. The 16-50 is excellent in every respect.

However, the range is a little bit limiting to me. Also, I seldom use the 16mm range even on group pictures. Thus, I bought the 24-70cz last week. I am very impressed with the 24-70cz on my A57.
 
Allan Crowson said:
Allan Crowson wrote:

I've tried searching for something along these lines in the forum already, but have found nothing so far. My apologies in advance if I missed it -- just point toward the proper link or search terms, please.

I'm currently shooting with the A57 and 18-135. I want to add something with wider aperture, especially for indoors (family gatherings, grandchildren, museum, church, etc.).

The 16-50 is well reviewed nearly everywhere, and in general Sony's "Easy Choice" primes seem to hold up well optically, although their build quality may not approach the 16-50.

With only the kit lens at the moment, it is difficult to test just how things would look different at 1.8 (the primes) versus 2.8 (the zoom).

I would love to hear from those with experience in this area and with these lenses.

There is a slight cost and weight difference, but they are very close. If I drop off the 85mm to make it more of an apples-apples comparison, the cost/weight difference increases, of course.
Click to expand...
 
emmanuelg said:
emmanuelg wrote:
emmanuelg said:
Alphamale77 wrote:

for family indoors, you might have to go with the 16-50 due to the focal length...you want to get your kid's running towards you? 16 mm helps big time.

but for anything else indoors, 1.8 does make a big difference, at least for me. There are events where i tempted with 24-70 2.8, and decided to drop the 85 mm on instead, 1.4 is a light gathering beast.
Click to expand...
emmanuelg said:
following the above logic, 16-50 seems to be the best bet, counting price into the whole thing.
Click to expand...
I have the A57 with 16-50 and it's a great combination. The 16-50 is excellent in every respect.

However, the range is a little bit limiting to me. Also, I seldom use the 16mm range even on group pictures. Thus, I bought the 24-70cz last week. I am very impressed with the 24-70cz on my A57.
Click to expand...
 
Alphamale77 said:
Alphamale77 wrote:
Alphamale77 said:
Certainly, but i don't think the OP wanted to venture into that price range. I did exactly what you did, but i do miss the lighter weight and better weather seal of the 16-50.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Alphamale77,

I agree. My only wish for the Carl Zeiss 24-70 is to be weather sealed. Also, I am keeping my 16-105 because it's good for walk around lens.
 
Last edited:
16-50 brilliant lens, great flexibility, great quality, great IQ, sometimes you want a bit more distance for some reason you tend to use your feet less than with the primes. Silent for video.

35mm lives on my A77, fast, great IQ, great for low light (Photo & Video).

50mm (85mm effective portrait lens) less harsh for portraits, 35mm can be a bit vicious, it shows every blemish.

I have all three, and use them regularly, obviously 16-50mm has the better build quality and weather sealing, it is a bit of a weight to carry all day. 35 & 50mm build quality, is fine, never had a problem, just don’t play conkers with them. 50mm focusing ring is small but useable. The 35mm with its little lens hood always catches the eye of other photographs.

It depends on what you want to photograph, 35mm is my walk around lens, 16-50mm if I know I want wider shots of am going to be in a situation where zooming is required or its raining!. 50mm indoor portraits with variable lighting, you can tell the portraits taken with this lens somehow they just somehow look nicer.

It is very much personal preferences and styles, to be honest you cannot go wrong with the 16-50 or 35mm. The 50mm is a close runner up as it is slightly less flexible for varied indoor use.
 
Thanks to all who have contributed input on this. It has all been most helpful.

Clarifications:
  • Price most definitely is an issue. I could at this point do the 16-50, and perhaps even the 16-50/35 pair, at the most, but nothing beyond that. And that is really more than I would care to do. The nice thing about the set of primes is it leaves some change left over for other items on the someday list (flash/better tripod/etc.).
  • I do not necessarily have to combine wide angle view and large aperture. The angle of view of the 35 would be fine. I briefly was able to use a 50, and liked it, but believe I would do more shots with the 35 if it were available.
  • Weather sealing is not an issue at this point. The A57 doesn't have it, anyway.
  • I do not do as much in telephoto, although I have enjoyed the 18-135 immensely. Selling the 18-135, taking the 16-50 and adding the 85 or something else to extend the range just a bit might be a workable solution as well.
  • The A77 is nice, but cannot move in that direction at the moment. Besides, the A57 is bigger than I wanted. The A37 is more my size, but I preferred some features of the A57 (larger batter, electronic level, better LCD) enough to go with it. I used Olympus OM back in the day, and like the 4/3 format as well. I won't be going larger than the A57, with whose results I am generally well pleased.
Again, thanks!
 
Allan Crowson said:
Allan Crowson wrote:

Thanks to all who have contributed input on this. It has all been most helpful.

Clarifications:
  • Price most definitely is an issue. I could at this point do the 16-50, and perhaps even the 16-50/35 pair, at the most, but nothing beyond that. And that is really more than I would care to do. The nice thing about the set of primes is it leaves some change left over for other items on the someday list (flash/better tripod/etc.).
  • I do not necessarily have to combine wide angle view and large aperture. The angle of view of the 35 would be fine. I briefly was able to use a 50, and liked it, but believe I would do more shots with the 35 if it were available.
  • Weather sealing is not an issue at this point. The A57 doesn't have it, anyway.
  • I do not do as much in telephoto, although I have enjoyed the 18-135 immensely. Selling the 18-135, taking the 16-50 and adding the 85 or something else to extend the range just a bit might be a workable solution as well.
  • The A77 is nice, but cannot move in that direction at the moment. Besides, the A57 is bigger than I wanted. The A37 is more my size, but I preferred some features of the A57 (larger batter, electronic level, better LCD) enough to go with it. I used Olympus OM back in the day, and like the 4/3 format as well. I won't be going larger than the A57, with whose results I am generally well pleased.
Again, thanks!
Click to expand...
 
As you have said budget is an issue, have you considered the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as an alternative to the Sony? Here in the UK at least it's around half the price of the Sony lens (£260 vs £500).

I prefer the 1.8 of the primes (Sony 35mm and 50mm and I also have the 85mm 2.8) - I am not really a wide shooter though so not bothered about not having anything wider than the 35mm. If I was and if I wanted a fast zoom I would give serious consideration to the Tamron though - it might no be quite as good as the Sony, but I have seen some great photos taken with it and it gets good reviews on Dyxum: http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=268
 
Last edited:
I recently picked up the 16-50 along with the a77 and although I've only had it for less than a week, from what I can tell thus far the 16-50 reviews are pretty accurate.

Ultimately it depends on your budget and how you currently shoot and how you might shoot in the future.

The 16-50 along with the 18-135 should give you a fairly nice 1-2 punch for walkaround. The 18-135 for outdoors and the 16-50 for indoors and other situations where the faster aperature would help. You could add one of the fast primes that you are considering after you know which focal lengths would add more flexibility.
 
Well, I finally decided which way to go. I ordered the 35 and the 50. The Tamron was tempting, as was the Sony 16-50, but I decided to get the primes this time around. Rather than the 85, I decided to put the funds into a better tripod and extra battery, etc.

I appreciate everyone's sharing their experience and observations. It was all quite helpful.

Extra: I should have mentioned that I am in Nashville, TN, which has a lot of things going for it, but a wealth of camera shops is not it! The only chain, Wolf-Ritz, has gone out of business. They had some decent people working here locally, too! That leaves the big box people such as Best Buy, and they do not all carry the same spread when it comes to Sony. For instance the one closest to my home does not carry the SLT series at all, even though another one in the area does. That leaves, to my knowledge, one real photography store, and they are happy to sell you the Nikon or Canon of your choice….

For the tripod, I chose from the lower end of Sirui. Here's hoping…. According to the videos on their website, the correct English pronunciation is "Sue-Ray." Obviously my Mandarin or Cantonese could use some help! They apparently rely on forging rather than casting in their manufacturing process, which I find interesting.

Again, thanks for the ideas, all.
 
I have been using Sony 35mm/1.8, 50mm/1.4 and Tamron 90mm/2.8 for a while, but I was missing a Prime for wide angel shots, so finally had to get a Sony 20mm/2.8 for landscape.

Zoom or primes is a personal preference, but primes tend to have a better optic/image quality, and are generally better if you have time to change lens.
 
Last edited:
Allan Crowson said:
Allan Crowson wrote:

Well, I finally decided which way to go. I ordered the 35 and the 50. The Tamron was tempting, as was the Sony 16-50, but I decided to get the primes this time around. Rather than the 85, I decided to put the funds into a better tripod and extra battery, etc.
Click to expand...
I think you made a good choice and will have a lot of enjoyment from those 2 primes. I use my 35 and 50 a lot more than the 85, so if I could pick just 2 out of the 3 it would be also the 35 + 50. They may look and feel a bit 'plasticky' and cheap but optically they are decent performers.

The extra speed of the 35 and 50 @f1.8 is nice to have as well over the 2.8 of the 85 and the Tamron or Sony zooms. 2.8 is often fast enough but sometimes you need that little bit more in low light or just for that little bit less depth of field. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top