Is the A6400 16-50mm kit lens good enough?

Judge for yourself here


I like mine.











--
He worships me so much he even took my name. How awesome is that!

Around the time that the A6400 was released, there was talk of a 'new' 16-50 kit lens distinguishable by the prefix 'A' at the beginning of the lens' serial number.

Is there any truth to this?

A couple of years ago I had an A6000 for a while with the kit lens but I sold it when the 18-135 was released.

I am now thinking of buying an A6400 and wondered if the regular 16-50 is still worth buying. I loved it for its small size which made the camera almost invisible when it was used.

tjmckay4 said:

As per another thread of mine, I'm considering getting the A6400 coming from a Panasonic GX85.

Considering that I have the wonderful panny 15mm and 42.5mm f1.7 lenses, is the 16-50mm kit lens that comes with A6400 good enough as an all round lens mainly for outdoor family/travel useage?

I'm a bit concerned as the OSS (no IBIS on the A6400) Sony e mount lenses seem pretty pricey, slow, heavy and large. If the kit lens on the A6400 produces great results I may get the A6400 and keep my GX85 and lenses.

Click to expand...

Good enough for what?

I have used this 16-50 kit lens extensively on an A5100, the system is very small, and easily beats out my cell phone camera.

Does it keep up with FF and GM lenses? Not so much.

But cell phones are pure daytime only, this 16-50 kit lens is good through early twilight.

For an A6x00 camera, already being larger in body size, I would pick up a different zoom lens:

• Size and Speed: 16-70/4 (only one starting at 16mm)
• Versatility: 18-135/var
• AutoZoom & Speed: 18-104/4
• Allrounder: 18-200 (yes)

This is my priority order, albeit that I returned my 16-70.

For many situations (not indoors), the 16-50 will do in a snap.

simpix said:

Around the time that the A6400 was released, there was talk of a 'new' 16-50 kit lens distinguishable by the prefix 'A' at the beginning of the lens' serial number.

Is there any truth to this?

A couple of years ago I had an A6000 for a while with the kit lens but I sold it when the 18-135 was released.

I am now thinking of buying an A6400 and wondered if the regular 16-50 is still worth buying. I loved it for its small size which made the camera almost invisible when it was used.

Click to expand...

The lens that everyone wanted was the 16-50/2.8, similar to the APS-C A-mount lens (which can be adapted).

This lens is simply too bulky and expensive, and my guess is that the market estimate for such a lens does not reach the treshold.

Or, a fast prime lens is a better choice than such a bulky (and expensive) zoom.

It is all relative. Everyone's acceptance of "good enough" can be different. Kit lens is quite soft. So you have to decide what is acceptable for you.

Couple years ago, when I had Canon DSLR with great L lenses, then in comparison 16-50mm kit lens is not good enough.

But now that I got A6400 as travel camera, then 16-50mm is good enough. I also have the 35mm F1.8 OSS. I took only the kit lens with me on my recent trip to Greece.









--
Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimmyk-photo/

This is a somewhat controversial topic.

Here is my take. I found MY kit lens to be unacceptable. The edges were very soft. Furthermore in a lot of cases even the center wasn't all that sharp. The lens is known to be best in the middle of its zoom range and around f8. But what good is a zoom that needs to be limited to its mid range and f8, anyway?

The IQ is probably fine for printing up to say 5x7 or using on social media.

Some posters have said theirs is pretty good and I've seen some photos that appear to show that their copy is better than mine was. I've also seen posts where users tried 3 different copies and they were all soft.

I actually added M43 to my arsenal just because of my dissatisfaction with the Sony kit lens. At that time the really good Sony 18-135 had not yet been released. Now THAT is a really good lens.

On M43 I have an Oly 14-42 EZ, I also picked up a used Panny 12-32 kit, and then I picked up the Panny 12-60. All three of these lenses are better than my Sony kit lens was. However I'd say the Sony 18-135 is equal to or better than all of these M43 kit lenses.

But the DR and high ISO on the Sony sensors is way better than at least the 16MP sensor on my OMD-EM10ii. So each system has its advantages and disadvantages.

Good luck!

blue_skies said:

simpix said:

Around the time that the A6400 was released, there was talk of a 'new' 16-50 kit lens distinguishable by the prefix 'A' at the beginning of the lens' serial number.

Is there any truth to this?

A couple of years ago I had an A6000 for a while with the kit lens but I sold it when the 18-135 was released.

I am now thinking of buying an A6400 and wondered if the regular 16-50 is still worth buying. I loved it for its small size which made the camera almost invisible when it was used.

Click to expand...

The lens that everyone wanted was the 16-50/2.8, similar to the APS-C A-mount lens (which can be adapted).

This lens is simply too bulky and expensive, and my guess is that the market estimate for such a lens does not reach the treshold.

Or, a fast prime lens is a better choice than such a bulky (and expensive) zoom.

Click to expand...

I think a lens similar to fuji 18-55 2.8-4 would really take the Sony system off. I mean you can find this lens used under 300$! But I'm sure if Sony will ever release it it would be double the price even kitted.

geopapa said:

blue_skies said:

simpix said:

Around the time that the A6400 was released, there was talk of a 'new' 16-50 kit lens distinguishable by the prefix 'A' at the beginning of the lens' serial number.

Is there any truth to this?

A couple of years ago I had an A6000 for a while with the kit lens but I sold it when the 18-135 was released.

I am now thinking of buying an A6400 and wondered if the regular 16-50 is still worth buying. I loved it for its small size which made the camera almost invisible when it was used.

Click to expand...

The lens that everyone wanted was the 16-50/2.8, similar to the APS-C A-mount lens (which can be adapted).

This lens is simply too bulky and expensive, and my guess is that the market estimate for such a lens does not reach the treshold.

Or, a fast prime lens is a better choice than such a bulky (and expensive) zoom.

Click to expand...

I think a lens similar to fuji 18-55 2.8-4 would really take the Sony system off. I mean you can find this lens used under 300$! But I'm sure if Sony will ever release it it would be double the price even kitted.

Click to expand...

Actually I would be completely happy with the 1650 if it stayed the same in all respects but improved its IQ in a revision 2. Don't say it can't be done in a near-pancake as M43 has multiple pancake kit zooms that are sharper than the Sony by a significant margin.

PhotoFactor said:

geopapa said:

blue_skies said:

simpix said:

Around the time that the A6400 was released, there was talk of a 'new' 16-50 kit lens distinguishable by the prefix 'A' at the beginning of the lens' serial number.

Is there any truth to this?

A couple of years ago I had an A6000 for a while with the kit lens but I sold it when the 18-135 was released.

I am now thinking of buying an A6400 and wondered if the regular 16-50 is still worth buying. I loved it for its small size which made the camera almost invisible when it was used.

Click to expand...

The lens that everyone wanted was the 16-50/2.8, similar to the APS-C A-mount lens (which can be adapted).

This lens is simply too bulky and expensive, and my guess is that the market estimate for such a lens does not reach the treshold.

Or, a fast prime lens is a better choice than such a bulky (and expensive) zoom.

Click to expand...

I think a lens similar to fuji 18-55 2.8-4 would really take the Sony system off. I mean you can find this lens used under 300$! But I'm sure if Sony will ever release it it would be double the price even kitted.

Click to expand...

Actually I would be completely happy with the 1650 if it stayed the same in all respects but improved its IQ in a revision 2. Don't say it can't be done in a near-pancake as M43 has multiple pancake kit zooms that are sharper than the Sony by a significant margin.

Click to expand...

Probably they now have the know-how but I doubt if they have the will..

As kit lenses go, it's a very good one. Compare it to something like the Canon EF-M 15-45mm, and you'll appreciate what Sony have accomplished. Add on the power zoom and the metal construction, and it's all the more remarkable. It's a good little lens, and my only complaint is that it flares more than my other lenses in sunny weather, but it's not a huge amount.

I had both the GX85 with its collapsible kit lens and the a6300 with its kit lens. I got similar results with both, but I'd say the Sony lens was a bit better. I ultimately kept the GX85 due to its low price, but I never used the kit lens.

I don't find Fuji lenses particularly cheap, but many of them are good. The same is basically true for Sony lenses. Even the 50mm 1.8 FE is pretty good and it's not pricey. The 85mm 1.8 and 28 f2 are great lenses for the price. I like the 18-105 and 18-135 zooms on APS-C. And the 24-105 FE is great, though the maligned 24-70 f4 was not as bad as some people made it out to be. It seems that a lot of people have preconceptions based on what they read, which is natural. I found the 16-50mm kit to be more than acceptable, as was the 18-55 kit. It depends on what you want to do.

Now, it's strange that the OP asks a question and lays down an opinion though he probably never used a Sony lens. I suppose he can be convinced that the Sony lenses are actually very good (for the most part), that they're not overly big and there are enough lenses available to satisfy most people's needs. I mean, most of the lenses available today are much better than what Ansel or Gordon Parks had available to use. And yet, few people today have reached the level of artistry that those masters, with lesser equipment, achieved.

16-50 is very underestimated lens. Most people blame it for soft edges and some stuff like that and yes, wide open it's pretty soft on the edges. But once you stop it down to it's sweet spot (around f/8), it starts no shine. Well, it's still not comparable to primes, but as for zoom lens, and a very cheap one, it has very decent IQ. So, if you need compact all-around lens for good lighting conditions where shooting at f/8 gives you short enough shutter speed, it's absolutely fine. And there is some sample variation, so try to find a good copy of it.

Almazar80 said:

Now, it's strange that the OP asks a question and lays down an opinion though he probably never used a Sony lens. I suppose he can be convinced that the Sony lenses are actually very good (for the most part), that they're not overly big and there are enough lenses available to satisfy most people's needs.

Click to expand...

Sorry mate, when did I lay down an opinion?

Yes, I haven't used a Sony lens before. That's what I started the thread for, to ask everyone else's opinion on the quality of the 16-50mm kit lens and whether I can use it as an all round lens (taking photos of my kids, general photos, travel) without the need to buy any others.

SpacemanUA said:

16-50 is very underestimated lens. Most people blame it for soft edges and some stuff like that and yes, wide open it's pretty soft on the edges. But once you stop it down to it's sweet spot (around f/8), it starts no shine. Well, it's still not comparable to primes, but as for zoom lens, and a very cheap one, it has very decent IQ. So, if you need compact all-around lens for good lighting conditions where shooting at f/8 gives you short enough shutter speed, it's absolutely fine. And there is some sample variation, so try to find a good copy of it.

Click to expand...

Thanks Spaceman, that's exactly the feedback I was after.

I guess if I get the A6400 with the kit lens, I could use it for a while alongside my GX85. If the whole Sony system (UI, fast autofocus, 4k video, etc) outweighs the advantages of the MFT system, I'll probably sell my MFT lenses and GX85. I can then look to expand my collection of Sony E mount lenses.

Another question, what's the OSS of the 16-50mm like? Useable for handheld 4k video?

tjmckay4 said:

Another question, what's the OSS of the 16-50mm like? Useable for handheld 4k video?

Click to expand...

Just like any other OSS in most lenses. It will help a bit but don't expect to get smooth footage, especially when walking.

I have two, 7 years apart in manufacture and both as good as each other.

For compactness and versatility you can't beat it especially for what you are wanting i.e. family and travel.

Just use a couple of stops down and you're good to go.

I've had the 16-50 for several years and use it quite often, mostly on an A6300. I also have the sel 18-55 that came with my nex 7 in 2013. These two perform somewhat differently. The 18-55 falls off from the center sharpness more quickly than the 16-50 but the 16-50 becomes worse in the very far corners. But I love the 16mm aspect of the 16-50!

So for the 16-50 I have a method for helping the far corners in ACR (or LR). I use the elliptical mask with feathering to select the far corners and then sharpen those. This method doesn't make into a high quality prime, but it does allow me to print on 17x22 paper with great results.

I also use very little sharpening in ACR, perhaps 30-40 amount, .5 radius, 0 detail, 0 masking. Heavy lifting sharpening in done in PS CC using a highlight mask to avoid halos.

Well, this works for me. Maybe this is helpful to someone...

I traveled through Northern Viet Nam, Laos,and Cambodia with only the 2 kit lenses and not one of my images has any sort of lens-induced problem that you would find without intentionally looking very hard for it. They were more than adequate for travel photography.