Sony 16-55 f2.8 Is it worth it?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Flat view
UllerellU Junior Member • Posts: 26
Sony 16-55 f2.8 Is it worth it?

I have been with this lens for a couple of days in my shopping cart, I am trying to justify the change of my newly acquired 18-105 f4, but I am not convinced.

The 18-105 f4 is bigger (in the wide angle, ehen 16-55 f2.8 extends the thing changes ...),but not heavier, 18-105 427gr 16-55 497gr ....

The 16-55 is noticeably sharper, especially in the extreme corners and wide angles, you just have to see the MTF graphics and all the samples that are there, it is one of the sharpest zoom I've seen.

It is sealed and is a stop faster, it is also noticeably wider at the wide end. The minimum focus distance of 33cm sounds nice for close up shoots.

Having said all this in a multipurpose or travel lens, I am not too worried about the sharpness of the extreme corners, I have been shooting a few with 18-105 and it surprisingly complies with it for a lens for this purpose, if I want extreme sharpness I have the Prime lenses.

The sealing is always appreciated, but I would never expose my A6500 + 16-55 f2.8 to rain, in fact Sony indicates it clearly in the small print of the lens and the camera. If I want to shoot in the rain or in an extremely dusty environment I use my RX10 that costs less than 1/4 than this combo.

f2.8 is great, 1 stop faster than f4, but it's still insufficient for indoor photography or shooting after blue hour, nigth street shoots... so I wouldn't avoid switching to a fast lens in these situations.

Despite what is thought, and what many reviewers have said, the 18-105 is not a bad lens for close up shots, obviously if we read the technical specifications (40cm in the 18mm and 90cm in the 105mm) it is not Very promising, but that 40cm of minimum focus is maintained up to 79mm, and that is something else. In addition to that focal point and to that focus substance, 18-105 is extremely sharp.

As for the bokeh for portraits it may seem that there is no color between the f2.8 of 9 blades against the f4 of seven blades, but at 70mm (105 equiv. Very good portrait distance) f4 the dof is smaller than at 55mm f2. 8. At 105mm f4 is much smaller (although more than 120mm equiv does not excite me for portraiture).

Yes, certainly 16mm is much wider than 18mm (I have also found that the 18mm of 18-105 f4 are not very true ...) but 105mm is really longer than 55mm, between 55 and 70mm the difference is not very noticeable, between 105 and 135mm either, but between 55 and 105mm if it is notable and as a travel lens it is quite appreciated.

I think this lens may make sense for a " for a profesional" use for enthusiast am not very convinced. The 18-105 is a bargain and is stabilized for those who do not use A6500 / 6600.

So I guess so, that extra sharpness at the extreme corners, that improved AF, splash resistance and 16mm os good for professionals or even landscape enthusiasts, but for the rest it is hard for me to justify the investment.

Even so I will not remove it from my shopping cart yet, we all want a f1.2 Prime that we don't need and a standard lens with constant f2.8 brightness ...

Has anyone tried both? I just need to remove it from my basket, either because I deleted it from it or because I finally bought it.

 UllerellU's gear list:UllerellU's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon Coolpix P900 Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro +8 more
Sony a6500 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow