Anyone with the new Samsung 16-50mm f2-2.8

Hi,

anyone with the new Samsung 16-50mm f2-2.8mm can share his opinion.

Is the  quality of image better on 16mm, 20mm and 30mm than the prime lens with the same focal (wide open)?

is there any tested review? (No pre-review)

It's not a matter of is it better then the Primes.... the primes should and will almost always be better.

The question is how much better is it compared to the 20-50 and the 18-55. Remember is designed to be a more high quality kit lens for those time where you don't want to be changing lens' all the time and don't mind the extra size

The other side is I'd like to see it compared to other 16-50 and 24-70 lens'

I know based on my experiences with the people on this board people will say...

"well the chromatic aberration of the 16-50 is higher then that of the 30mm f2 prime so I'd rather carry the 16,20,30,45,and 60 around with me because if covers the same range."

others will say "it's too big for a mirrorless camera system.. you might as well get a DSLR."

And they can... but the reality is for people that either can't, or don't want to carry 5 lens' and need more then the 18-55 can provide.

Kaziklu wrote:

It's not a matter of is it better then the Primes.... the primes should and will almost always be better.

The question is how much better is it compared to the 20-50 and the 18-55. Remember is designed to be a more high quality kit lens for those time where you don't want to be changing lens' all the time and don't mind the extra size

The other side is I'd like to see it compared to other 16-50 and 24-70 lens'

I know based on my experiences with the people on this board people will say...

"well the chromatic aberration of the 16-50 is higher then that of the 30mm f2 prime so I'd rather carry the 16,20,30,45,and 60 around with me because if covers the same range."

others will say "it's too big for a mirrorless camera system.. you might as well get a DSLR."

And they can... but the reality is for people that either can't, or don't want to carry 5 lens' and need more then the 18-55 can provide.

Could not agree more!

Changing lens in a boggy field if a real faff.

If this lens offers fewer compromises over carrying the prime lens equivalents, compares well with similar zoom offerings from sigma canon and the like then why not.

Samsunguser wrote:

Kaziklu wrote:

It's not a matter of is it better then the Primes.... the primes should and will almost always be better.

I really expect this zoom has AT LEAST THE SAME quality of the primes lens with same focal, other way (with its high price) is a nonsense

The price for this kinda of tele lens is always in this range... this is in fact at the low end of the range I expected it to be in.

It is not cheap to get a lens to be f2-2.8 through out the range. That is why 35mm 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 lens' are always very expensive.

What you are paying for is the zoom. Right now B&H has fairly low prices for the 4 (16,20,30,45) Primes and they come out to be 100 cheaper then the 16-50 but what you pay for is the convenience and the ability to use the whole range in one lens' at a good quality.

I don't shoot events, or weddings, and I don't do travel photography, so I may not go after this, as I really only need the 30 and 16 lens. and I would usually use them at different times.

But I want to know the quality because I want to see a 50-135/150 that I would use.

trac63 wrote:

Kaziklu wrote:

It's not a matter of is it better then the Primes.... the primes should and will almost always be better.

The question is how much better is it compared to the 20-50 and the 18-55. Remember is designed to be a more high quality kit lens for those time where you don't want to be changing lens' all the time and don't mind the extra size

The other side is I'd like to see it compared to other 16-50 and 24-70 lens'

I know based on my experiences with the people on this board people will say...

"well the chromatic aberration of the 16-50 is higher then that of the 30mm f2 prime so I'd rather carry the 16,20,30,45,and 60 around with me because if covers the same range."

others will say "it's too big for a mirrorless camera system.. you might as well get a DSLR."

And they can... but the reality is for people that either can't, or don't want to carry 5 lens' and need more then the 18-55 can provide.

I suspect that the lens is being introduced to allow Samsung's NX series to compete with similar products from Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm.

I do wonder how many people will be willing to plonk down $2,300 for the NX30 + 16-50mm combination though. That's dangerously close to what you'd pay for a D610 with the 24-85 kit lens, or the Canon 6D with the 24-105 kit lens.

So here is the thing people forget. If you get a D7100 with a 24-70 (which gives you less wide range because it's designed for a full frame camera) it's the same cost. 
Samsung is producing the lens because it wants to be a full featured system. 
The only reason I might not get this one is because I don't shoot events and weddings. the NX system can do it.. but I'm not interested in that, I don't enjoy it and I'm not great at it. When I'm with other photographers, the question with "professional" grade lens comes up. This shows commitment from Samsung. 
Like I said the companion lens (the 50-135/150) that hasn't been announced yet (but I hope it exists) is the one I want for the stuff I do. 
Mirrorless is a system that combines the benefits of a DSLR and the compact size options of Compact Camera. 
The NX system has the wonderful Pancakes and the big lens. The Small Bodies and the Big Bodies... 
this means I can grab my NX20 go shoot a Landscapes, or even a model, and then when I'm on a photowalk, or just traveling get a NX2000 body and use a pancake and a zoom.. or even get the 16-50 power zoom. 
that is where the NX system shines.. it is a one stop shop for APS-C and it does a fairly good job at it.

... look at my new thread.