How good (or bad) is the 16-50?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
JohnNewman
JohnNewman Contributing Member • Posts: 655
How good (or bad) is the 16-50?
1

Hi all

I've been going backwards and forwards over the last 6 months or so trying to decide where to go camera-wise. Quick background is I'm in my 70s, fairly experienced as I've been shooting since I was about 12, have owned and used a lot of cameras, currently use MFT but am getting to have Last Camera Syndrome. I don't shoot sports, BIFs etc anymore and don't need blazing fast AF but I do want relatively lightweight and decent quality. I was about to pull the trigger on a Fuji X-E3 which would give me the quality at a level I want and maybe add a used X-T2 for longer lenses.

But I forgot that I don't want longer lenses that are heavier so I'm thinking another possibility is one of the A6*** cameras with a small lightweight zoom for walking about, adding the 10-18 for wide and maybe the odd prime but then getting an RX10 (probably M3) for long and everything else, especially in good light. (The RX100s are good but not quite good enough as a main camera - at least for me).

My query at this stage is what the title suggests, the IQ of the 16-50. I've seen good samples of Fuji's 15-45 as a small power zoom but not so much for the older Sony version. So, is it useable for quality stills (max print size 16" x 20") or, if I went Sony, do I really need something better, if not so pocketable?

Any thoughts would be appreciated,

Thanks,

John.

 JohnNewman's gear list:JohnNewman's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V
Fujifilm X-T2 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Labe
MOD Labe
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow