Yeah, the 16-50mm kit lens is awful

Started Jan 21, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP WoodWorks Senior Member • Posts: 1,408
Re: Yeah, the 16-50mm kit lens is awful

franzel wrote:

Fair enough.

But the title of the thread suggests you consider the 1650 to be a good performer . What is it, good enough for snapshots, 'up to a point' , and all that, or is it a good lens, period ?

It's true, you can't teach a man what he thinks he already knows - do you know what a good lens is ?

Yes, I have owned (and still own) a few that are consensus "good" lenses. And yes, if it hasn't been made clear enough by now, I do consider the 16-50mm lens a good lens for landscapes and walk-around shooting in good light. Plus it's small, versatile, can go wider than most kit zooms, and is plenty sharp and contrasty. With a little development in Lightroom, I'm over the top. But it's not a good lens for low light shooting, or for rapid action, or birding, to name a few. But really, in the image I posted, how much more IQ would you be able to get from a "better" prime?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Because obviously my answer would be: not enough to justify the extra cost.


-- hide signature --

It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow