DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Late Fall, Wine, and a superb combo - the NX300 & 16-50 f3.5-5.6 PZ

Started Nov 19, 2014 | Discussions thread
DoctorPDA Regular Member • Posts: 106
Re: Late Fall, Wine, and a superb combo - the NX300 & 16-50 f3.5-5.6 PZ

Ben Herrmann wrote:

Hello to all...

I wanted to elaborate a bit further about my high degree of satisfaction with the 16-50 f3.5-5,6 PZ zoom lens - and in this case, it being attached to the NX300. Now granted, my love for this lens in no way diminishes my "want" for the much more expensive 16-50 f2.8, but I'll save that for the future (i.e. getting either an NX1 or NX 400 within the next 6 months). But let's face it, at a cost of only $350 USD, the PZ lens performs remarkable well, and is IMO, an exceptionally sharp zoom lens. It's really a shame to refer to this PZ zoom as merely another "kit lens," because it performs to a higher standard. I currently have several of these types of pancake zooms (from Olympus, Panasonic, and of course, the Samsung), and I can easily say that the Samsung is the sharpest of 'em all. And no, this doesn't diminish the relevance or performance levels of the Samsung 18-55 (I have the version III model).

Ben,

Thank you very much for the great post and very nice photos. I want to get the 16-50 S lens, but I am still pondering whether to get it. My other option is 16-50 PZ + 45 1.8. I mainly take family photos and videos INDOORS in lower light of moving subjects (e.g. small children). Which lens(es) would you suggest?

CONS for me for the 16-50 S:

-- hide signature --

Price (1100 US dollars) is hefty. Compared to the Olympus 12-40 2.8 which I can get for 800 US dollars with a camera purchase and similar price for Canon 17-55 2.8 (880 US dollars). Plus, the Olympus is sharper in the edges. I can "afford" the 16-50 S, but it is still a lot of money to spend.

---Weight. The 16-50S is 622 gm versus 16-50 PZ is 111 gm, which is a little under 6 times the weight. I am not a big fan of heavy lenses. I prefer small light primes, but willing to make compromise if needed. Unfortunately, Samsung doesn't have any "normal" primes (e.g. 35 mm equivalent) (yet) that are silent in video, which would be my ideal lens. I am not sure how long the rumored 24 1.4 Samsung lens would take to come out (maybe 2015?) but that would be my ideal walk around lens. I might be able to use the 45 1.8 indoors in low light until more lenses come out, as I have used the Canon nifty fifty for years as a single lens and have become adept at it.

PROS for me for the 16-50 S:

---Fast aperature would be very useful.

---Water resistance is useful for me.

OTHER:

The reviews at PCMag do suggest that the 16-50 PZ is very sharp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2462581,00.asp), almost similar to the 16-50 S (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2458708,00.asp).  The obvious differences are the faster 2-2.8 which will give you lower ISO's, and the bokeh you will get at 50 mm 2.8.

Best regards,
Gus

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