Samsung 16-50mm f/2-2.8 S Reviewed

I finished my review for the 16-50mm I think.

http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=4794

Comments/feedback always welcome. I try not to get too Samsung biased, so point me out on it if I do. I took out the section how it does better at 50mm than the A7R with 24-70mm at 70mm, and about the same in the corners. I will leave that comparison for when I get the NX1.

Bottom line is lens is great as people here with it already know. No longitudinal CA at 50mm which is really excellent for portraits. It has some heavy field curvature, but for the style of lens it is no issue. This is pretty typical for an f/2.8 zoom. Resolution is great center and partway at most settings, corners are a bit weak (in part due to heavy field curvature).

Note, my charts show best focus, so the center and corners data are from different test shots, so if you focus center you would get worse corners or vice versa.

Lateral CA is strong at wide angles, but let me try again in latest Lightroom to make sure it isn't another issue with it, or maybe the profile.  One click of remove CA button removes it effectively though.   It could also be related to the field curvature, the fact the corners are a bit more out of focus might make the number higher.  I report worst case Lateral CA.  Let me double check data and see if worse matches center focus point set.

I will review it again and get some better photos of the lens when I get the NX1 (and all the existing lenses I still have).

Eric

viking79 wrote:

I finished my review for the 16-50mm I think.

http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=4794

Comments/feedback always welcome. I try not to get too Samsung biased, so point me out on it if I do. I took out the section how it does better at 50mm than the A7R with 24-70mm at 70mm, and about the same in the corners. I will leave that comparison for when I get the NX1.

Bottom line is lens is great as people here with it already know. No longitudinal CA at 50mm which is really excellent for portraits. It has some heavy field curvature, but for the style of lens it is no issue. This is pretty typical for an f/2.8 zoom. Resolution is great center and partway at most settings, corners are a bit weak (in part due to heavy field curvature).

Note, my charts show best focus, so the center and corners data are from different test shots, so if you focus center you would get worse corners or vice versa.

Lateral CA is strong at wide angles, but let me try again in latest Lightroom to make sure it isn't another issue with it, or maybe the profile. One click of remove CA button removes it effectively though. It could also be related to the field curvature, the fact the corners are a bit more out of focus might make the number higher. I report worst case Lateral CA. Let me double check data and see if worse matches center focus point set.

I will review it again and get some better photos of the lens when I get the NX1 (and all the existing lenses I still have).

Eric

You've done a fine job, Eric (as usual).

By coincidence I happened to spot this review a few days back, without appreciating it was new.

I like the objective manner, and also like the way you've explained stuff for ignorami like me, such as why a fair whack of field-curvature isn't such a big deal in this lens category. Good one.

Ian Leach wrote:

Hi viking79, thanks for the review.

As you may remember I'm the everything sharp scenic guy and I have a couple of suggestions concerning the rooftops test shots, hope you don't mind.

Ian,

Always open for suggestions.

Firstly, the jump from 16mm to 30mm focal length is a bit large. 24mm (FF35mm) is a classic focal length and would fit neatly between the two above. It gives you wide enough and is often an improvement at the edges of the widest focal length of a zoom.

I might have some shots at about 24, might have just been me not wanting to put too many shots up there, will check.

Secondly, you can clearly see the field curvature issue in the top corners of the rooftop test shots (I looked at the f5.6 ones). However I noticed that the bottom corners were quite sharp. You may have needed to focus a little further into the distance to get the top corners looking better. This would steal from Peter to pay Paul but if you want the best overall sharpness this sometimes works. On some of my old primes I give up some center quality to improve the edges.

Yes, this is aggravated a bit by my copy having slight decentering.  You are right, should take some samples with it focused off center, issue is hard to check entire frame focus in the field.  I should take a tablet with me or something and send the JPEG over to it so I can get a better look.  i.e., I go take all the sample photos and get home and realize they are a bit off.

To tell the truth I consider myself lucky that I shoot mostly scenic photos at f5.6 - f8 as it means buying such expensive glass is often not useful. I think the 20-50mm may turn out to still be the best lens for that kind of shot. I also don't need the extras of the NX1. This all means that I can get what I want from the NX1000 and the 20-50mm for a couple a hundred pounds, quite a saving.

Exactly.  I don't think this lens is much sharper than 16-50 PZ less than 25 mm or so and f/5.6 or smaller opening.  However, my 16-50mm PZ turns into mush above 25 or so and isn't as strong at say f/3.5.  Also, this lens will flare more.  I do like that it is pretty solid through the range and doesn't fall off much at 50mm.

Thanks!

Eric

hootsmon wrote:

You've done a fine job, Eric (as usual).

By coincidence I happened to spot this review a few days back, without appreciating it was new.

I like the objective manner, and also like the way you've explained stuff for ignorami like me, such as why a fair whack of field-curvature isn't such a big deal in this lens category. Good one.

Thanks!  I hadn't posted it here as I didn't have any sample images with it yet, but didn't care if people happened across it

Eric

eye specs wrote:

Thanks Eric for the review. Only comment I can make is that I found it enjoyable becuase of your sensitivity to photography and is welcome becuase reveiws on minor systems are particularly appreciated. eyespecs

Thanks!  I think that is why I stuck with Samsung, tend to be for the underdog (as long as they have a chance).

Eric

viking79 wrote:

Exactly. I don't think this lens is much sharper than 16-50 PZ less than 25 mm or so and f/5.6 or smaller opening. However, my 16-50mm PZ turns into mush above 25 or so and isn't as strong at say f/3.5. Also, this lens will flare more. I do like that it is pretty solid through the range and doesn't fall off much at 50mm.

Thanks!

Eric

Hi Eric, is this about that old 16-50mm PZ that you thought it was a very bad copy or did you get a new one?

Giannis Ch wrote:

viking79 wrote:

Exactly. I don't think this lens is much sharper than 16-50 PZ less than 25 mm or so and f/5.6 or smaller opening. However, my 16-50mm PZ turns into mush above 25 or so and isn't as strong at say f/3.5. Also, this lens will flare more. I do like that it is pretty solid through the range and doesn't fall off much at 50mm.

Thanks!

Eric

Hi Eric, is this about that old 16-50mm PZ that you thought it was a very bad copy or did you get a new one?

No, issue with that one is it is a review copy from Amazon Vine, so I don't have any sort of Warranty (no invoice).  I will still contact support and see if they will do anything, but just haven't gotten around to it.

Eric

Raw Jaw wrote:

Thank you Eric for your very informative review.

I love using my recent aquisition, the 16-50PZ, and have used it on my NX30 as my main event lens,

with very satisfactory results, based on my client's responses.

Adding on top of this your comment:

"So far this lens is 100 times better in the 30-50mm range of my 16-50mm power zoom. At 16mm the difference isn’t as much.",

I can only surmise that I will not miss anything by trading in my Nikon Pro glass for the two NX S pieces of glass.

,I would like to read your comments on ergonomics during a full wedding day.

Thanks for your review.

I might need to update that comment since my 16-50mm appears to be a dud at the 30mm to 50mm range. I get a lot of halos and other issues, overall softness. I should probably take that out until I know if my copy is bad or not.

I think the NX 16-50mm f/2.8 S lens is pretty comparable to the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 or something, but I get more reliable focus (D7000 didn't like using the off center points much, it would often confirm focus but be out of focus, it helped once I realized those points were not cross type).

Ergonomics of the 16-50mm? It is heavy, but feels like any other 16-50mm f/2.8 for a DSLR. Zoom ring is a little close to grip on NX30, I see NX1 is wider. This might require adjusting how you hold the lens. You really do give up any size and most of the weight advantage vs a DSLR, but I like the more consistent focus, ability to rapidly check focus with DMF or peaking. I think focus might not be fastest of Samsung lenses, but is quick. I will add to that and say I think it focuses better than some other Samsung lenses. Only out of focus shots are typical focus on high contrast hair highlights or something. I wish Samsung would add eye detect to its face detect focus.

Of the NX30, I found it fine for a full day, one thing that makes it more comfortable for me is to extend the viewfinder straight backwards, or wear my contact lenses since the eye point isn't very compatible with eye glasses.

I think image quality though is definitely at least as good as equivalent lenses from Canon/Nikon and I hope for the same from the 50-150mm. You would at least want to try it before totally jumping over though, a weak point with NX30 is definitely processional if the lighting is bad (as it often is). The guy a shoot with shoots a 5dIII and he was surprised I was able to focus during reception dancing, but I did have to use my bright green AF light, which is a little irritating to people :).

By no means perfect, but works well for what I do (realize I don't shoot a lot of weddings, maybe 4 a summer or something). I have shot 3 with the NX30 with 16-50mm and 85mm now. I think for those 3 the 16-50 gets between 50 and 70% of the shots, but would have to double check. Just depends on how much I can use the 85mm, tighter indoor event not as much, outside wedding like the last one I think I used it for half the shots. The 85 does have a tendancy to focus on hair highlights if not careful (more noticeable at least than 16-50mm f/2.8, likely due to depth of field), so I like to use that one in DMF and tweak it a bit. This is most noticeable when I am doing head shots.

Since I shoot as second shooter I watch what the main shooter is using and use something different.  For example if he is using the 24-70mm, I tend to grab the 85mm.  If I see him using the 70-200mm I tend to grab the 16-50mm.  I figure less shot duplication this way.  I shoot main shooter sometimes, but hate formal shots and am not the type to like to plan with the clients or anything so I prefer second shooter

Eric

Thanks for the review! Concerning your effective resolution results: does this mean it would make no sense to use, let's say, the NX1 at 28 MP. Does the effective resolution of a lens rise when you use a higher resolving sensor with it?

Regards

ShatteredSky wrote:

Thanks for the review! Concerning your effective resolution results: does this mean it would make no sense to use, let's say, the NX1 at 28 MP. Does the effective resolution of a lens rise when you use a higher resolving sensor with it?

Regards

My number is just a simple calculation based on lw/ph. So yes, a higher resolution sensor should cause results to rise. I suspect at say 50mm where it isn't hitting the max, that it won't rise as much. I added that as it is a different way to view the information in the above charts. What I see from the 16-50mm is that it will still benefit from a higher resolution sensor, but maybe not as much at corners (except BSI should in theory help corner performance).

Your final photo resolution is the resolution of the entire system. That is lens MTF * sensor MTF * processing MTF, if you print you would have the printer MTF in there. What I give is a system resolution. As long as your system remains the same between lenses, you get a decent depiction of how different lenses perform on that system. This is why places say not to compare system MTF charts between different systems (it is probably safe to compare trends, but don't compare specific numbers too much). The point here is if you increase sensor MTF, your system MTF will increase even if the lens doesn't change.

As jennyrae says, the sensor plays a large part in system resolution. I find that the A7R tends to do no better in the corners than A7 and sometimes worse, but the center is stronger.

Eric

trac63 wrote:

My big issue with this lens would be value for the dollar.

In Canada it's $1,300 CDN, or about $400 more than the Sigma 18-35/1.8 for Nikon or Canon.

This is a much better value than the Sigma 18-35mm on Samsung NX (Since Sigma would be adapted manual focus only).

The issue I have with the Sigma is it is only 35mm on the long end (not even telephoto), only 18mm on the wide end, so it is very limited. If you compare 35mm f/1.8 it is fairly comparable to 2.8 with a teleconverter, so they really are fairly equivalent lenses in terms of aperture size.

Samsung adds weather sealing and metal construction (don't know if Sigma is or not).

Here is a photo of the Sigma on a Pentax K-3 (similar sized to NX1)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#497.398,485.380,ha,t

Both are certainly great lenses, you can rule out Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 for Samsung NX, but even given its availability I would still take the Samsung due to more flexible zoom range.  Hint, when I shoot a wedding, I rarely shoot less than f/2.8, and often it might be f/4 because I need more depth of field.  An f/2.8 lens does very well at f/4 so they make a lot of sense.  The Samsung does good enough wide open for when I need the extra stop or two.

The Sigma is one of those lenses for when you want an 18mm f/1.8, a 24mm f/1.8, and a 35mm f/1.8 all rolled into one lens. It really is a nice lens at a good price, but I don't get why it always gets compared to a 16-50mm f/2.8.  It is just a slightly more specialized lens which will work for some people, not for others.

Eric

HenrykC wrote:

Thanks for doing the review. It is nice to know what the strengths of the lens are. Do you know if the NX mini adaptor crops the image like when you use a FF lens on an APS-C sensor. If it does, then the sweet spot of the 16-50mmS could hit the 20mp of the small sensor and that may give a higher resolution image than just cropping the central part of a standard NX image. An NX mini on the end of the 16-50mmS may look a bit strange though.

Henry

Yes, the NX-mini adaptor does crop the image, exactly as you are suggesting.