OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S: Samsung Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

Started Apr 26, 2016 | Discussions

arbux • Senior Member • Posts: 1,173

OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

Apr 26, 2016

Hi,

I am using 16-50 S for about two years now and recently added 50-150 S. I was never impressed by OIS performance of 16-50. It worked quite well for movies, but was very poor for stills. I thought this is what it is and accepted it.

However I am very positively surprised by OIS in 50-150 S. I'm frequently getting excellent results even at 1/4s at 150mm.

I wonder what are your observations? Should I expect similar performance from 16-50? Now I wonder maybe I got defective lens.

Cheers,

Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8 Samsung 50-150mm F2.8 S

If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.

Reply to thread Reply with quote Complain

tecnoworld • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,232

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 26, 2016

Sams as yours. 50-150 is a much better overall lens.

tecnoworld's gear list:tecnoworld's gear list

Samsung TL500 Samsung NX100 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX1 +15 more

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

cookedraw • Senior Member • Posts: 1,970

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 26, 2016

Is normal, 16-50 is light wide to light tele , that's the difference. Image stabilisation seem to like a narrow angle of view.

50° angle of view difference compared to 20° is optically better by design.

That's why the 50-150 and 50-200 are so good. Both optically at all focal lengths and for image stabilisation.

Rules of physics.

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

Kinger • Contributing Member • Posts: 549

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 26, 2016

arbux wrote:

Hi,

I am using 16-50 S for about two years now and recently added 50-150 S. I was never impressed by OIS performance of 16-50. It worked quite well for movies, but was very poor for stills. I thought this is what it is and accepted it.

However I am very positively surprised by OIS in 50-150 S. I'm frequently getting excellent results even at 1/4s at 150mm.

I wonder what are your observations? Should I expect similar performance from 16-50? Now I wonder maybe I got defective lens.

Cheers,

I have had the exact same experience as you.

Kinger's gear list:Kinger's gear list

Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS M200 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +3 more

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

OP arbux • Senior Member • Posts: 1,173

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to cookedraw • Apr 26, 2016

cookedraw wrote:

Is normal, 16-50 is light wide to light tele , that's the difference. Image stabilisation seem to like a narrow angle of view.

50° angle of view difference compared to 20° is optically better by design.

That's why the 50-150 and 50-200 are so good. Both optically at all focal lengths and for image stabilisation.

Rules of physics.

There is nothing about physics that restricts image stabilization in 16-50. Apparently my signma art 24-120 doesn't know rules of physics.

Stabilization on my 16-50 is worse than on 18-55 and worse than on 16-50 3.5-5.6.

And no, 50-200 is not a "so good". I have 3 of them, and each is very good at 50mm and not good at 200mm.

-- hide signature --
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

TJL LTFF • Senior Member • Posts: 1,728

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 26, 2016

I can't speak to your comparison - no 50-150 S experience. But I do have all the compact primes plus the 45mm and 60 Macro, plus three different zooms.

I have just started using the 16-50 S and these are my impressions within the above framework;

focuses faster than anything I have
OIS is better than any of my other OIS lenses I have (18-55, 16-50pz, 60 Macro, 50-200)
it has not once failed to achieve very accurate focus; something my other zooms have not accomplished and the pz is particularly poor at doing
its resolving capabilities is comparable to the 30 & 45mm primes and better than the 16 & 20mm's across the entire frame

However, from some of the cons listed on reviews for the 16-50 S that I have read, I am coming away with the impression that my copy might be a very good one.

TJL LTFF's gear list:TJL LTFF's gear list

Sony RX1R II Samsung NX1 Samsung NX500 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OIS +10 more

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

Ralph McIntosh • Regular Member • Posts: 301

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 26, 2016

I also have both lenses and a NX1.

But I had to replace my first NX1 and 16-50 S combo!

There was an issue in this combination that in my case the OIS did not work correct on teh 16-50 and in some cases even destroyed the image (blur). There is also an older thread about this here in this forum from me.

After I got the combo replaced OIS works very fine now! I can see how it stabilizes the image and image quality is very good at very low shutter speeds.

My 50-150 S lens has similar and maybe slightly better OIS performance.

But both lenses show very good OIS behavior.

So i guess you may also have problems with your 16-50 S lens.

Ralph McIntosh's gear list:Ralph McIntosh's gear list

Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS 300D Canon EOS Rebel T4i Samsung NX1 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +8 more

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

cookedraw • Senior Member • Posts: 1,970

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 26, 2016

arbux wrote:

cookedraw wrote:

Is normal, 16-50 is light wide to light tele , that's the difference. Image stabilisation seem to like a narrow angle of view.

50° angle of view difference compared to 20° is optically better by design.

That's why the 50-150 and 50-200 are so good. Both optically at all focal lengths and for image stabilisation.

Rules of physics.

There is nothing about physics that restricts image stabilization in 16-50. Apparently my signma art 24-120 doesn't know rules of physics.

Rules of physics can be mastered. Maybe your sigma art is very good (and expensive).

Maybe it's that image stabilisation works better at some shutter speeds and it's kind of related to angle of view also.

Stabilization on my 16-50 is worse than on 18-55 and worse than on 16-50 3.5-5.6.

And no, 50-200 is not a "so good". I have 3 of them, and each is very good at 50mm and not good at 200mm.

We have different experience then. My 50-200 is very good

My 18-55 is also very good but I don't like the out of focus blur as much.

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

Harleysoftail • Contributing Member • Posts: 506

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to TJL LTFF • Apr 26, 2016

TJL LTFF wrote:

I can't speak to your comparison - no 50-150 S experience. But I do have all the compact primes plus the 45mm and 60 Macro, plus three different zooms.

I have just started using the 16-50 S and these are my impressions within the above framework;

focuses faster than anything I have

OIS is better than any of my other OIS lenses I have (18-55, 16-50pz, 60 Macro, 50-200)

it has not once failed to achieve very accurate focus; something my other zooms have not accomplished and the pz is particularly poor at doing

its resolving capabilities is comparable to the 30 & 45mm primes and better than the 16 & 20mm's across the entire frame

However, from some of the cons listed on reviews for the 16-50 S that I have read, I am coming away with the impression that my copy might be a very good one.

I have to agree with you.....also been my experience.

Harleysoftail's gear list:Harleysoftail's gear list

Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA Samsung NX 12-24mm F4-5.6 ED Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8 Topaz Adjust +5 more

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

tecnoworld • Veteran Member • Posts: 7,232

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to TJL LTFF • Apr 26, 2016

My 45mm at f2.8 is better than 16-50@50/2.8 for sure (as detail and sharpness). The 30mm is probably at least on par with it and possibly also better. The 20mm is worse.

The 50-150@50 is better (way better actually) than 16-50@50.

tecnoworld's gear list:tecnoworld's gear list

Samsung TL500 Samsung NX100 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX1 +15 more

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

deang001 • Regular Member • Posts: 227

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to tecnoworld • Apr 26, 2016

My 16-50 S has pretty good stabilisation I think.

I can consistently get sharp shots with the lens fully extended to 50mm @ 1/8 sec. 50% of the time I can get sharp images @ 1/6 and rarely @ 1/4 sec. Seems to be in line with other similar lenses I have owned.

I have nothing but praise for this lens though. It is a brilliant "do everything well" lens.

I had the 50-150/2.8 as well and that did seem to have amazing OIS for sure.

The OIS in the 16-50 S teamed up with the DIS of the NX1 makes hand held video really easy now.

Would have loved to have seen the next NX1 update ... oh well !!

-- hide signature --

http://www.grainydreams.com/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/deang001/ https://vimeo.com/user4391835/videos

deang001's gear list:deang001's gear list

Ricoh GR Canon G5 X II Nikon D750 Sony a7 III Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +16 more

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

OP arbux • Senior Member • Posts: 1,173

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to cookedraw • Apr 26, 2016

cookedraw wrote:

arbux wrote:

cookedraw wrote:

Is normal, 16-50 is light wide to light tele , that's the difference. Image stabilisation seem to like a narrow angle of view.

50° angle of view difference compared to 20° is optically better by design.

That's why the 50-150 and 50-200 are so good. Both optically at all focal lengths and for image stabilisation.

Rules of physics.

There is nothing about physics that restricts image stabilization in 16-50. Apparently my signma art 24-120 doesn't know rules of physics.

Rules of physics can be mastered. Maybe your sigma art is very good (and expensive).

Its much simpler to stabilise short focal lenghts than long focal lenghts. you should not write in one post "seem to like'' and " "rules of physics" because it suggest you dont know the rules. My sigma aer is way cheaper than samsung s.

Maybe it's that image stabilisation works better at some shutter speeds and it's kind of related to angle of view also.

Stabilization on my 16-50 is worse than on 18-55 and worse than on 16-50 3.5-5.6.

And no, 50-200 is not a "so good". I have 3 of them, and each is very good at 50mm and not good at 200mm.

We have different experience then. My 50-200 is very good

That's opposite to every other opinion I read on this forum.

My 18-55 is also very good but I don't like the out of focus blur as much.

-- hide signature --
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

cookedraw • Senior Member • Posts: 1,970

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 27, 2016

the 50-200 is my favourite.

50-200 at 130f8

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

OP arbux • Senior Member • Posts: 1,173

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to cookedraw • Apr 27, 2016

cookedraw wrote:

the 50-200 is my favourite.

There is a saying - "All lenses are equal on f8". 130mm f8 is not 200mm f5.6.

50-200 at 130f8

-- hide signature --
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

cookedraw • Senior Member • Posts: 1,970

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 27, 2016

50-200 at 200 f5.6

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

Kisaha • Senior Member • Posts: 2,300

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 27, 2016

arbux wrote:

cookedraw wrote:

the 50-200 is my favourite.

There is a saying - "All lenses are equal on f8". 130mm f8 is not 200mm f5.6.

50-200 at 130f8

Only that the S doesn't even go above 150mm, so the saying is irrelevant.

The 50-150 is in my radar for some time know but because I professionaly use mostly Canon Cine cameras with the L lenses or Zeiss/Leica primes (and in our company we have 3 Canon Cine lenses), and the recent abandonment of the NX series I am reluctant to "invenst", but the 50-200 for what it is, and what it worths, is maybe the best cheap zoom I have ever used. I think NX cheap zooms are excellent Choices (especially 12-24, 50-200, 16-50, and even the 20-50 and 18-55 for what they cost).

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

OP arbux • Senior Member • Posts: 1,173

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to cookedraw • Apr 27, 2016

So where is the focus set on this picture?

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

OP arbux • Senior Member • Posts: 1,173

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to Kisaha • Apr 27, 2016

Kisaha wrote:

arbux wrote:

cookedraw wrote:

the 50-200 is my favourite.

There is a saying - "All lenses are equal on f8". 130mm f8 is not 200mm f5.6.

50-200 at 130f8

Only that the S doesn't even go above 150mm, so the saying is irrelevant.

I think it stays relevant - I bet that you can upscale 150mm S and get at least the same level of detail as from 50-200mm 5.6. And better DOF control, faster focus, better OIS etc.

The 50-150 is in my radar for some time know but because I professionaly use mostly Canon Cine cameras with the L lenses or Zeiss/Leica primes (and in our company we have 3 Canon Cine lenses), and the recent abandonment of the NX series I am reluctant to "invenst", but the 50-200 for what it is, and what it worths, is maybe the best cheap zoom I have ever used. I think NX cheap zooms are excellent Choices (especially 12-24, 50-200, 16-50, and even the 20-50 and 18-55 for what they cost).

12-24 is great indeed. High quality, very light. However I stand by my opinion about 50-200 - it's getting bad towards long end. Cheap canon 50-250mm is better, also m4/3 kit zooms are better. On the other hand I read opinions and reviews that 50-150 S is also a bit sof at 150mm 2.8. This is definitely not the case with my lens. Maybe at the minimum focus distance borders are getting soft (I did a wall test). But at usual distance and especially more remote objects, sharpness and details at 2.8 is incredible across the frame. I shot the same view of the town (ca. 700m away) at 2.8 and at 7.1 and there was hardly any difference.

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

Harleysoftail • Contributing Member • Posts: 506

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 27, 2016

There are many things I love about the 16-50 (all previously mentioned here) but the one thing that has REALLY impressed me with this lens is how much you can crop a photo taken at 50mm. I have done some pretty extreme cropping on images and am always impressed with the result. I also own the 50-150S but there are times when I don't have it on the camera and need "the shot".

Harleysoftail's gear list:Harleysoftail's gear list

Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA Samsung NX 12-24mm F4-5.6 ED Samsung 16-50mm F2.0-2.8 Topaz Adjust +5 more

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

cookedraw • Senior Member • Posts: 1,970

Re: OIS performance - 16-50 S vs 50-150 S

In reply to arbux • Apr 27, 2016

arbux wrote:

So where is the focus set on this picture?

The bee image have a 4mm DOF (by calculator) and it's manual focus , probably on the bee before it flew away.

Interesting you mention to crop from a shorter focal length, I made some experiments with it and it's not a bad idea, but I like the blur and optical zoom is more fun.

-- hide signature --

" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain

Keyboard shortcuts:

FForum MMy threads

Latest sample galleries

Sony ZV-E1 pre-production sample gallery (DPReview TV)

The Canon EOS R3 goes to the rodeo

Fujifilm X-H2 review samples

Nikon Z 28mm F2.8 Sample Gallery

See more galleries »

Latest in-depth reviews

The Sony ZV-E1 is the company's latest vlogging-focused camera: a full-frame mirrorless camera based the FX3/a7S III sensor, aimed at YouTubers and 'creators' looking to go pro.

The Sony ZV-E1 is a full frame camera targeting YouTubers. Chris and Jordan are Youtubers, what do they think?

Fujifilm's X-H2 is a high-resolution stills and video camera, that sits alongside the high-speed X-H2S at the pinnacle of the company's range of X-mount APS-C mirrorless cameras. We dug into what it does and what it means.

Review: Holy Stone's HS710 and HS175D are drones with a ton of limitations

Holy Stone produces dozens of low-cost drone models aimed at consumers. We look at the HS710 and HS175D to see if they stack up to other sub-250g offerings. Are these secretly great or more like toys?

DPReview TV: Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Review

It's small, light, cheap and extremely wide but is it any good?

Latest buying guides

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.

There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.

The best cameras for family and friends photos in 2022

Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.

Best affordable cameras for sports and action in 2022

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

Check out more buying guides »


Valley of the Ten Peaks, Moraine Lake by punman from Magnificent Mountains	Windows Shopping in Old Town by wam7 from Urban Night Scene	Babcock State Park by GoBucks from Creeks Unlimited	Mud Slinger by cjf2 from Mud, mud, glorious mud

3	Rudi
2	CyberDEL
1	filibuster
1	eilivk
1	supeyugin1
1	markyboy81
1	Kisaha
1	StenM
1	Lawrence Norman
1	sillycornlotty
1	Ogard
1	Wahid Khan 1961
1	Siralgovia
1	2reE
1	ge0rg
1	Tigerventer
1	lfella