I own both of the aforementioned lenses and can assure you that the 16-50 is clearly inferior to the 16-70 at wide aperture and at most comparable focal lengths, particularly at or near 18mm. In my estimation the 16-70 is a competent lens and the 16-50 will do in a pinch. BTW, do you rely on test results of a direct comparison or your own observation? The above is my observation.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I sure hope the rumored a7000 and new lenses are true!
- Thread starter snapa
- Start date
snapa
Veteran Member
Thanks for your observation and opinion. It would be great if you could back up your opinion with a real world comparison (or two) to prove your point. It is one thing to give your opinion verbally, but it is another thing to give image comparisons to drive home your point. If you don't have any pictures taken with both lenses, no problem, but it would be nice to see and compare. Thanks for your input since you actually own both lenses.
Last edited:
blue_skies
Forum Pro
I concur, there were a number of threads here debating this very issue, and they all point to the obvious conclusion: that the E1670Z is hardly distinguishable from the E1650, it only broadens the range and allows a faster aperture. Take away those margins, and the lenses behave rather similar.
captura
Forum Pro
Steve, WHOSE outside interests - I'm not quite sure what you might mean??Yes Quercy, I would very much like to see a real A7000 with those specs, as much as anyone else. But I hate the way this forum (and maybe others, too) is being manipulated by outside interests. And so, we need to be on guard....the specs. listed are almost exactly what most us would like to see as the Nex-7 mk-II
the only thing of very little plausibility was the rumored price point = wrong rung on the ladder for sure
jpr2
jpr2
captura
Forum Pro
Steve, WHOSE outside interests - I'm not quite sure what you might mean??Yes Quercy, I would very much like to see a real A7000 with those specs, as much as anyone else. But I hate the way this forum (and maybe others, too) is being manipulated by outside interests. And so, we need to be on guard....the specs. listed are almost exactly what most us would like to see as the Nex-7 mk-II
the only thing of very little plausibility was the rumored price point = wrong rung on the ladder for sure
jpr2
jpr2
shutterbud
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,350
- Reaction score
- 675
In my experience, the opposite is true. I have been working with 50mm equiv primes for the last 3 years and there is nothing like being so used to your FL that you often don't even have to think about the composition. You know it's there. This is an invaluable part of Street Photography where speed of reaction is often key. I have often seen photographers "perusing a scene" with their zooms going in and out before deciding which FL to use, checking Tv as Av decreases. now that I am using a 75m e.f.l. I am having to adjust and have gone too tight several times in the last two weeks or so, on hipshots and flickshots.
point and shoot
Yes and very nice, but travel photography is a much broader application, where a zoom does come in handy. I often use a manual focus 21mm lens for street photography, which yields better DOF than a 50-mm equivalent.In my experience, the opposite is true. I have been working with 50mm equiv primes for the last 3 years and there is nothing like being so used to your FL that you often don't even have to think about the composition. You know it's there. This is an invaluable part of Street Photography where speed of reaction is often key. I have often seen photographers "perusing a scene" with their zooms going in and out before deciding which FL to use, checking Tv as Av decreases. now that I am using a 75m e.f.l. I am having to adjust and have gone too tight several times in the last two weeks or so, on hipshots and flickshots.
point and shoot
Last edited:
Spunky8
Senior Member
Such a wise, helpful, productive comment.
Yes, you are right direct comparisons of the same shot would be more useful. However, I have only general impressions. The 16-50 is quite sharp when stopped down and in its mid to upper range. The 16-70 appears to be (much) better wide open and at 16-18mm. The corrections applied to the 16-50 at the wide end appear to reduce and slightly degrade the image. The 16-70, while not perfect, has far less distortion. You can compare these when applying lens corrections in Camera Raw or Lightroom.
captura
Forum Pro
Steve, I do not get it:Without getting into too much detail, there are fanboys, which are part of the territory. But there are also paid fanboys, or shills, who are rewarded for saying this and that as directed by some corporate interests. Perhaps in the distribution supply chain.Steve, WHOSE outside interests - I'm not quite sure what you might mean??Yes Quercy, I would very much like to see a real A7000 with those specs, as much as anyone else. But I hate the way this forum (and maybe others, too) is being manipulated by outside interests. And so, we need to be on guard....the specs. listed are almost exactly what most us would like to see as the Nex-7 mk-II
the only thing of very little plausibility was the rumored price point = wrong rung on the ladder for sure
jpr2
jpr2
- either the margins/gains for Sony were hugely greater three years ago for the N7-classic than we were led to believe they might have been;
- or... the rumored build quality, and other advanced specs for the a7000 - causing it to be what the a6k should have been a year ago - will not be true;
- so it won't be at the technical level of excellence of a true Nex-7 replacement;
either way I do not see a vested interest for shills (and hence the producer who pays them) to engage into such viral promotion tactics ??
- or... the rumored $700 can't be true;
jpr2
captura
Forum Pro
...the specs. listed are almost exactly what most us would like to see as the Nex-7 mk-II
the only thing of very little plausibility was the rumored price point = wrong rung on the ladder for sure
jpr2
captura
Forum Pro
captura
Forum Pro
Well, let's assume that you are right about that, just for the moment. So if true, it would mean that roadmaps are absolutely useless for predicting the future of new products.Road maps change drastically once rumors come true, as has happened many times in the past
I've had the A6000 with the kit lens for a few days and my initial reaction is that the 16-50 is very poor. I'll probably use my 16-50 2.8 A mount with the LA-EA4 adapter and give the 16-50 to my daughter with my F3 and tell her to use it for videos of the kids. So far I've found the 18-55 to be better so I'll keep it when I need to go lighter.
captura
Forum Pro
I suggest exchanging it. They're not that bad but Sony has a spotty record with sample variance.
My 16-50 is reasonably good. No comparison though to any of the compact zooms from Samsung. Got one of those too, in my case a 20-50 plastic fantastic with amazing optics.
captura
Forum Pro
Indeed, why not? I even put a 1.7 X telextender on mine. But it really reduces the quality of images when mounted on an A6000 or any older NEX camera.
Samsung, who are dead set on taking over Son's market as the APS-C market leader, are providing better lenses than the E-mounts, and they are also providing a 2-tier option list. (cheaper + plus expensive PRO-level.) Now my cheap 20-50 kit lens is built like c__p compared to the Sony kits, but optically, it is far better.
I can rely on such a lens to get me the sharp, straight detailed images which my camera is capable of.
Tom Gross
Forum Enthusiast
HOLY COW! These are some of the best bird images I've ever seen. Are you manually focusing? If so, I am stunned.
Come on! Are we really supposed to believe actual brilliant photographic evidence versus the opinion of people who don't actually use the lens, or appear to even take many photos in general, who tell us this lens is no good? This is the Internet!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum