Sigma 16 vs 16-50 kit test shots

[JohnNEX]

I am sure that this post will sink down in two hours once Sony announces (or doesn't announce) a new APS-C camera ... anyway ...

Test shots of the Sigma 16mm against the Sony 16-50 kit lens.

The prime will obviously be much sharper than the kit zoom, but some may be interested in the degree of difference.

Here is the test shot (of Old Parliament House, Canberra Australia)



Here are the crops. None wider than f/3.5 because that is as wide as the kit lens goes.

CENTRE (red square):



MID (yellow square):



CORNER (green square):





--
Sharpness scores and other stats for many FE lenses here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4398385
Fairly amateur photography here:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[SpacemanUA]

That's exactly what I was saying in nearby thread. At f/8 16-50 is perfectly usable and acceptably sharp across all the image. At f/3.5-5.6 - not so much, but totally ok if you only need center sharpness. 16/1.4 is totally different beast with ultimate IQ for a wide-angle lens.

 

[JohnNEX]

That's exactly what I was saying in nearby thread. At f/8 16-50 is perfectly usable and acceptably sharp across all the image. At f/3.5-5.6 - not so much, but totally ok if you only need center sharpness. 16/1.4 is totally different beast with ultimate IQ for a wide-angle lens.

Yes, I agree with that.

At f/8 there is still a noticeable difference at the extreme corners, but this is pretty irrelevant for the vast majority of shots.

 

[The Ryantist]

That's exactly what I was saying in nearby thread. At f/8 16-50 is perfectly usable and acceptably sharp across all the image. At f/3.5-5.6 - not so much, but totally ok if you only need center sharpness. 16/1.4 is totally different beast with ultimate IQ for a wide-angle lens.

Yep. I have hundreds of great vacation shots (daytime outdoors) with the 16-50. Call me crazy, but if there was a good bayonet-mount petal lens hood for it, I'd use it a lot more.

 

[val1]

... any modern lens does well in the dead center when stopped down. The sigma is a bit better in the center, noticeably better in the mid and much better at the corner. Isn't this what you would expect? The sony kit lens is actually worse than what is shown here for two reasons. The subject photographed has limited details. WE become more sensor limited and differences in resolution are not nearly as apparent. Additionally, the photo was taken from a large distance leading to a good sized focal volume. One of the problems with most sony zooms is the field curvature and the effect on the focal volume. We often consider a focal plane to be flat but for many lenses it can be shaped. At closer distances you may find you can not actually focus on the corner and the center at the same time due to changes in the focal plane. This is one reason a lens may sharpen up as you stop down. Most sony apsc zooms including the kit lens have this problem.

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with but you could achieve better results with an RX100 and save alot of time effort and weight.

 

[Off The Mark]

... any modern lens does well in the dead center when stopped down. The sigma is a bit better in the center, noticeably better in the mid and much better at the corner. Isn't this what you would expect? The sony kit lens is actually worse than what is shown here for two reasons. The subject photographed has limited details. WE become more sensor limited and differences in resolution are not nearly as apparent. Additionally, the photo was taken from a large distance leading to a good sized focal volume. One of the problems with most sony zooms is the field curvature and the effect on the focal volume. We often consider a focal plane to be flat but for many lenses it can be shaped. At closer distances you may find you can not actually focus on the corner and the center at the same time due to changes in the focal plane. This is one reason a lens may sharpen up as you stop down. Most sony apsc zooms including the kit lens have this problem.

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with but you could achieve better results with an RX100 and save alot of time effort and weight.

Had to up-vote your post. My kit zooms show pretty intense field curvature (more so than when I mount my A Mount kit lenses on an LA-EA1 and mount that on my a6500).

I don't own an 18-135 (yet). I wish that there was an equivalent telezoom lens though (something like an aps-c 100-300mm that sold for around $600 that would pair nicely with the 18-135).

 

[SpacemanUA]

... any modern lens does well in the dead center when stopped down. The sigma is a bit better in the center, noticeably better in the mid and much better at the corner. Isn't this what you would expect? The sony kit lens is actually worse than what is shown here for two reasons. The subject photographed has limited details. WE become more sensor limited and differences in resolution are not nearly as apparent.

Have you tried 16-50 by yourself? I did. It's a great little lens for travel light. Yes, it's not a record-breaker, but performs well enough. And since you mentioned sensors, do you really need 24mp for travel? I usually resize that to about 8 mp and share with my friends and family or just post on Facebook it even smaller resolution. That's what te purpose of 16-50 is.

Additionally, the photo was taken from a large distance leading to a good sized focal volume. One of the problems with most sony zooms is the field curvature and the effect on the focal volume. We often consider a focal plane to be flat but for many lenses it can be shaped. At closer distances you may find you can not actually focus on the corner and the center at the same time due to changes in the focal plane. This is one reason a lens may sharpen up as you stop down. Most sony apsc zooms including the kit lens have this problem.

It's a problem for any modern zoom lens, especially "kit" lenses. I tried Fuji 16-50 - it was way worse than Sony's and only more or less ok at f/5, stop up or down - and it was awful. Famous XF18-55 was just as bad as 16-50. I actually don't remember a zoom lens that I liked for a very long time. Maybe that's why I only shoot primes.

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with but you could achieve better results with an RX100 and save alot of time effort and weight.

Except that you can clip on 16-50 that cost you $100 and transform your a6X00 into small yet powerful instrument and after you return of your travel/walk, put on your serious lens and get to work, while with RX100 you have to spend about $500 at least, and get a camera with only one purpose. And, of course, you can throw in something like Sigma 19/2.8 or 30/2.8 if you need compactness + great IQ.

 

[Euell]

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with but you could achieve better results with an RX100 and save alot of time effort and weight.

Inclined to agree. The zoom lens on the RX100 seems to me to be significantly better than the 16-50 and also has a greater equivalent range.

 

[mcslsk]

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with but you could achieve better results with an RX100 and save alot of time effort and weight.

Agree. Why bother with thr 1650 if there is the 18135? And if size is the limiting factor, then I rather also take the RX100.

 

[rjjr]

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with.

That depends on one's willingness to accept the deficiencies of the 16-50. I'm not willing so I use my 18-135 as my walkaround zoom and my Sigma 16/1.4 when I want a walkaround wide.

--
My policy is to not post images to the 'net.

 

[Karafuru]

I'm curious when you got your 16-50. I had one before and compared to my 16-70, my 16-70 center was significantly sharper than my 16-50 wide open that it wasn't even a contest.

 

[JohnNEX]

I'm curious when you got your 16-50. I had one before and compared to my 16-70, my 16-70 center was significantly sharper than my 16-50 wide open that it wasn't even a contest.

What has this thread got to do with the 16-70? I don't think it was mentioned at all.

I have posted comparisons between the kit zoom and the 16-70 Zeiss before here , which showed the 16-70 sharper than the kit zoom, in agreement with your experience.

 

[GaryW]

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with but you could achieve better results with an RX100 and save alot of time effort and weight.

Agree. Why bother with thr 1650 if there is the 18135? And if size is the limiting factor, then I rather also take the RX100.

Don't you need to come up with around $1000 for that solution? I mean, it's not exactly an either or... It's either take the 16-50 most of us already have as part of the kit, or not simply take an RX100, but spend $1000 on an RX100. (And if I want to go compact, then I have to consider if I should use a compact camera or just use my cellphone. Hard for me to part with that $1000!)

Sure, if someone only bought a Nex type camera with the 16-50 vs buying the RX100, maybe that isn't the best move.

 

[GaryW]

This comparison shows something that I said a long time ago, when I first started using the 16-50. At 16mm, it's pretty sharp in the center. I'd hope that a prime lens would be sharper than a zoom, particularly a kit zoom, but the 16-50 looks pretty good in this comparison. And yes the corners are a mess and never are really good, which I've also noted. But even at f5.6, I think that's pretty usable. However -- and feel free to flame me for this -- I generally would rather swap to the 16mm/f2.8 prime lens. Stopped down, the corners are still not great either, but it's pretty decent otherwise.

What the 16-50 gives you is a lot of flexibility in a compact package. It is a good general-purpose lens, but the worst performing lens. Stop down by one for better results, like with many lenses. I'd prefer using any other lens than this, except this one makes for a nice compact camera that is sometimes more fun to carry around. For some situations, it makes sense.

I recently took a P&S camera on an outing, so as not to risk my more valuable APS-C cameras, but when not in daylight, the pictures were a mess. So, in retrospect, I probably should have tried to bring one of my other cameras and the 16-50 (or other lenses!). However, I just didn't want to risk getting things wet, so P&S it was. The 16-50 also may not have given me enough reach for some of what I wanted to photograph. But I would have gotten better results overall. APS-C really works.

 

[Euell]

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with but you could achieve better results with an RX100 and save alot of time effort and weight.

Agree. Why bother with thr 1650 if there is the 18135? And if size is the limiting factor, then I rather also take the RX100.

Don't you need to come up with around $1000 for that solution? I mean, it's not exactly an either or... It's either take the 16-50 most of us already have as part of the kit, or not simply take an RX100, but spend $1000 on an RX100. (And if I want to go compact, then I have to consider if I should use a compact camera or just use my cellphone. Hard for me to part with that $1000!)

Sure, if someone only bought a Nex type camera with the 16-50 vs buying the RX100, maybe that isn't the best move.

The original RX100 takes good pictures, is still for sale, and can often be had new for under $300.

 

[Sympa]

I have an original RX100. Pictures are nice enough, but any action and you notice it is slow to focus.

Nice for people posing and landscapes though. I,m keeping it; bought it rather heavily scratched for little money. And it is a good camera, just remember there is more than image quality.

 

[Karafuru]

I'm curious when you got your 16-50. I had one before and compared to my 16-70, my 16-70 center was significantly sharper than my 16-50 wide open that it wasn't even a contest.

What has this thread got to do with the 16-70? I don't think it was mentioned at all.

I have posted comparisons between the kit zoom and the 16-70 Zeiss before here , which showed the 16-70 sharper than the kit zoom, in agreement with your experience.

I'm very impressed with the central sharpness of the 16-50 you showed since it matches the sigma 16 central sharpness @ F3.5!

 

[Mfcrisis]

That's exactly what I was saying in nearby thread. At f/8 16-50 is perfectly usable and acceptably sharp across all the image. At f/3.5-5.6 - not so much, but totally ok if you only need center sharpness. 16/1.4 is totally different beast with ultimate IQ for a wide-angle lens.

Who shoots at f/8?

Apart from landscape photographers using a tripod - which pretty much defeats the point of having an APS-C camera, doesn’t it... and they are far more likely to have an A7R (1, 2, 3 or 4).

 

[SpacemanUA]

Who shoots at f/8?

Apart from landscape photographers using a tripod - which pretty much defeats the point of having an APS-C camera, doesn’t it... and they are far more likely to have an A7R (1, 2, 3 or 4).

Those who understand how to use their lenses for maximum output.

 

[mcslsk]

That being said, the 16-50 is just fine to walk around with but you could achieve better results with an RX100 and save alot of time effort and weight.

Agree. Why bother with thr 1650 if there is the 18135? And if size is the limiting factor, then I rather also take the RX100.

Don't you need to come up with around $1000 for that solution? I mean,

Only €450 new currently.

it's not exactly an either or... It's either take the 16-50 most of us already have as part of the kit, or not simply take an RX100, but spend $1000 on an RX100. (And if I want to go compact, then I have to consider if I should use a compact camera or just use my cellphone.

With that I agree. For casual portraits of friends and family, my Pixel 3 serves me much better than any of my cameras. The RX100III just changed hands to my daughter. It is a great camera but getting crushed between the Pixel and the a6500.

Hard for me to part with that $1000!)

Sure, if someone only bought a Nex type camera with the 16-50 vs buying the RX100, maybe that isn't the best move.