Samsung 16-50mm f/2-2.8 S Reviewed

Ian Leach wrote:

Hi viking79, thanks for the review.

As you may remember I'm the everything sharp scenic guy and I have a couple of suggestions concerning the rooftops test shots, hope you don't mind.

Firstly, the jump from 16mm to 30mm focal length is a bit large. 24mm (FF35mm) is a classic focal length and would fit neatly between the two above. It gives you wide enough and is often an improvement at the edges of the widest focal length of a zoom.

Secondly, you can clearly see the field curvature issue in the top corners of the rooftop test shots (I looked at the f5.6 ones). However I noticed that the bottom corners were quite sharp. You may have needed to focus a little further into the distance to get the top corners looking better. This would steal from Peter to pay Paul but if you want the best overall sharpness this sometimes works. On some of my old primes I give up some center quality to improve the edges.

To tell the truth I consider myself lucky that I shoot mostly scenic photos at f5.6 - f8 as it means buying such expensive glass is often not useful. I think the 20-50mm may turn out to still be the best lens for that kind of shot. I also don't need the extras of the NX1. This all means that I can get what I want from the NX1000 and the 20-50mm for a couple a hundred pounds, quite a saving.

Thanks Ian

I added some of the shots from 20mm I took at the same time and hadn't uploaded. They are at the end of the gallery:

http://viking79.zenfolio.com/p82401163

Should be on page 2 or something, last 5 shots.

Eric