My impression of the 16-55mm 2.8G

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
SamKnopf Regular Member • Posts: 485
Is it really worth buying?

The 16-55 is only slightly less expensive and only slightly lighter than the 24-105G for full frame. Its zoom range is significantly smaller, and it lacks IS. The depth of field of an f/2.8 on APS-C implies that you can get about the same amount of background blur with f/4 on a FF camera.

Other FF alternatives, such as the Tamron 28-75 or 28-200 would give you shallower depth of field for less money than the Sony 16-55. Even on an APS-C, one of these Tamrons is likely to be better value and more useful.

I sometimes prefer to use my A6000 when I want to travel light, but this lens isn't really compatible with travelling light. It is heavy all by itself, and its short zoom range means that I would have to take a longer zoom along to supplement it.

It seems that this lens is mainly for somebody who has resolved never to buy a full frame camera.  Otherwise, it doesn't look like it provides very good value.

 SamKnopf's gear list:SamKnopf's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Olympus PEN-F +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow