Samsung 16-50mm PZ vs 16mm pancake

Hi All

Apart from my 2 5dmkIII and few prime L's I have NX2000 which I use when I'm on holiday or going for a walk with kids.

I have 16mm and 30mm pancakes. After I came back from my last holiday I decided it would be nice to have a zoom lens which would cover me from 16mm to 50mm.

I had 20-50mm before but this doesn't cover my wide angel needs. 18-55 it's way to big.

Now I have perfect solution PZ lens. But is it?

Could anyone tell me how does it compare to 16mm pancake? Is it much softer about f4?

And how IS performing in real world? Any one did any tests on how many stops it will give?

I know it's not £1000 lens and some things needed to be compromised but I don't want to make bad choice.

Thanks for any help.

Don't have an answer for you, just pitching in that I'm also interested in this lens. Sure it currently seems to cost about twice as much as I got the NX2000 for, but the compact size and that design is quite seductive (The NX2000 kit zoom with the three cylinder extension and that weird plastic ridge on the front element is quite "meh" look wise... That lens is SHARP, though - if this is the same just wider and with OIS - might be worth it).

Speaking of lenses: Perhaps someone wants to sell their wide-angle (Samyang 8mm or Samsung 10mm)?

The 16-50mm is decent, but my copy is a bit decentered so close focus is closer on the left than on the right, as long as my landscape is a close subject on the left and a distant subject on the right it is perfect A better copy would be pretty good I think.

Main advantage to 16 mm f/2.4 is the 1 stop larger aperture, and probably less likely to have centering issues, etc with it.

Raw with sharpen scenic preset in Lightroom.

Snowy Range - 16-50mm Power Zoom, Notice how tree is sharp, but mountains right behind tree are not, but rest of mountains are sharp. This copy is decentered. A better copy would be just fine.

I recently purchased the 16-50 PZ lens after what seemed like a long wait for it to arrive at US vendors.

I've not been disappointed at all; in fact, it has presented me with IQ levels that have surpassed what I had expected from this lens prior to getting it.  IMO, it is sharper and far more versatile than the 18-55.  It has a good quality feel to it and has a metal mount (as opposed to all plastic - mount too - construction of the 18-55).  I also believe that this 16-55 PZ is far sharper than what most get from their typical "kit" lenses.

As I mentioned, I don't have the 16 MM prime, and I replaced the kit 18-55 MM lens  on my NX300 (which I thought was nice, although my copy had a rough feel while moving the zoom ring) with this 16-55 PZ.

So again, IMO, you can't go wrong with the 16-50 PZ, but then that also brings up the question about unit-to-unit QC scenarios as is the case with most lenses now-a-days.  Because it's funny how one person can say that their lens is average, while the next may claim that his/her copy is absolutely superb - now go figure.