Just how crappy is the 16-50 kit lens? Test vs 17mm prime & 11-16 Tokina

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
cptrios Senior Member • Posts: 1,352
Re: You might be asking the wrong question

temama wrote:

cptrios wrote:

captura wrote:

However, the OP's original question was, "Just how crappy is the 16-50 kit lens?"

At about than about 20mm and wider, the 16-50 is worse than the 18-55. So the correct answer is;  Very Crappy.

I didn't want to say it quite so harshly, but it's true. At the wide end it looks to be potentially worse than the 16/2.8 (at least in the OP's samples).

It seems that we have very different opinions on this lens. On the other hand - who cares? No one is forced to buy it

I really like wide end of  this zoom  - that it is there when needed.

After-all we're talking about all-around zoom lens! And its tiny size is just perfect match for little NEX cameras.

I think that something like 20-50mm would be very boring range compared to the 16-50mm.

Oh, 20-50mm definitely would be more boring. Like I said upthread, the 16-50 has its merits...there's certainly a big draw to being able to zoom out to 16mm even if it means making some sacrifices. Sometimes you just need to go that wide! However, I personally would gladly sacrifice the zoom range in the name of IQ.

It's one of the reasons that I'm (completely in vain) hoping that Sony's wide-aperture zoom ends up having a limited range rather than biting off more than it can chew. That and size.

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