how does the 16-50 PZ lens compare to the 18-55 kit lens on the NEX 5N specifically?

Started Apr 12, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rickj23 Regular Member • Posts: 456
Re: how does the 16-50 PZ lens compare to the 18-55 kit lens on the NEX 5N specifically?

Annex wrote:

Rickj23 wrote:

salla30 wrote:

Well, you could always search the forum or Google, it's only been discussed one gazillion times ; the 5N is no different from any other Nex with a 1650 , with the exception of internal lens correction, or lack of it , in a few models .

The variables to look out for is competence variations .

thanks. perhaps you can point me to some forum link discussion threads (I did search of course but the search criteria varies wildly depending on nomenclature)?

The SEL1855 is a better lens for still photography by far.  The SEL1650 PZ has too much distortion at 16-20 mm and it is not very sharp fully extended.  It is not that compact either, the moment you switch the camera on.  The PZ lens was developed specially for the new range of the cameras that were to follow the NEX 3N it was never meant to be used with the upper range of the NEX cameras.  As Sony fell on the hard times .. they have decided to standardise instead of using 3 different standard lenses (NEX 7 uses black  SEL1855 that is made in Japan).  Optically, the PZ lens is really only usable within the 20 to 40 mm range and only with f11 or higher apertures.  I had that lens 24  hours and tried it on macro and portraiture / candids in the low light, no flash in my locall coffee shop ... side by side with SEL1855 on two NEX 5N cameras (I have one 5R and two 5N cameras).  Next day I went back to John Lewis in London and got my money back.  The lens is slow on start up, slow to operate, has the non standard 40.5 mm filter thread etc.

This is complete drivel. I've owned 2 18-55s and the 16-50 on a NEX3/5N&6:

  • The 16-50 was produced with the 6, not the 3N.
  • The reason the NEX7 uses the black 18-55 is because it is OUTDATED and imminently to be replaced by the 7N.
  • The PZ is usable all through it's range and is sharp at most apertures above wide open at 16mm.

The reason the above poster is posting such tripe is

  • Lack of experience (24 hours...)
  • Lack of knowledge (shooting uncorrected raw?)
  • Bizarre self justification??? I dont know its just 99% nonsense

Obviously as you are so convinced of being right, and as you have no doubt compared the two lenses side by side ?  Why don't you upload a few pictures taken with SEL1650PZ at 16 mm [or 20 mm for comparison sake] focal length and f5.6 aperture, so that everyone can have a good laugh?

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