Compared with 1st version

[UniveralExports]

I know that there is interest in whether the new version of the 1650 power zoom lens is better than the old one, as the published optical specs appear to be the same.

I have 2 examples of the original lens and one of the new 1650 v.II. I have compared the results and to my eyes there is a conclusive improvement in focus accuracy, contrast and sharpness with the 2nd generation example, especially with the Clear Image Zoom.

I know individual examples of the old lens could be variable in terms of performance with some people reporting their examples were excellent and others the opposite, so it may well be the same with the new lens, but from this limited sample I see a worthwhile improvement.

There are already white box examples of this lens available from reputable retailers at reasonable prices where I assume they have been separated from kits rather than the rather optimistic £280 that Sony ask for a lens alone.

From a personal perspective, there is more to a great photo than a great lens. This lens with my A6000 body seems to weigh around the same as my A6400 body alone, and allows me to enjoy photography when my ideal combination of A6400 + 18/135 would be a burden.

 

[dgsjsj]

Marc Alhadeff classified both versions in the worst category of the table, Bad.

Sony E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS II
Apparently, he had inflated expectations from the reincarnation of the pancake zoom.
If you know how to cook the product, then IMHO it is quite an edible result, and it is somehow naive to compare it with the Sigma zoom, which is five times more expensive.
If a person orders French fries, he does not expect to get the taste sensations from a steak or shashlik.

 

[al.]

Marc Alhadeff classified both versions in the worst category of the table, Bad.

Sony E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS II
Apparently, he had inflated expectations from the reincarnation of the pancake zoom.
If you know how to cook the product, then IMHO it is quite an edible result, and it is somehow naive to compare it with the Sigma zoom, which is five times more expensive.
If a person orders French fries, he does not expect to get the taste sensations from a steak or shashlik.

Shoot at f8 and the results are very good with the Sony. And yeah, the Sigma is 5 times the cost of the Sony so not a fair comparison.

 

[dgsjsj]

Marc Alhadeff classified both versions in the worst category of the table, Bad.

Sony E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS II
Apparently, he had inflated expectations from the reincarnation of the pancake zoom.
If you know how to cook the product, then IMHO it is quite an edible result, and it is somehow naive to compare it with the Sigma zoom, which is five times more expensive.
If a person orders French fries, he does not expect to get the taste sensations from a steak or shashlik.

Shoot at f8 and the results are very good with the Sony. And yeah, the Sigma is 5 times the cost of the Sony so not a fair comparison.

I didn't go out specifically to take photos to test the lens. I went to get an order to replace the gas equipment, took the camera along the way and if it works out I'll check the conclusions I got from the tests on the test target - "If you need a relatively uniform resolution or the impression of a sharp picture across the entire field, then aperture 7.1 is suitable for the entire focal range." I took pictures along the way, assuming that aperture 7.1 was set, and didn't specifically test different ones on the same object. Sometimes the control wheel accidentally changed the aperture itself when taking the camera out or putting it back in the bag. I chose the picture I showed above at aperture 8 because it clearly shows the details in the corner of the brickwork. In good lighting, 7.1 is also acceptable as an acceptable value for uniform sharpness across the frame. I just need to continue collecting impressions on different focal lengths.





f7.1

 

[al.]

I didn't go out specifically to take photos to test the lens. I went to get an order to replace the gas equipment, took the camera along the way and if it works out I'll check the conclusions I got from the tests on the test target - "If you need a relatively uniform resolution or the impression of a sharp picture across the entire field, then aperture 7.1 is suitable for the entire focal range." I took pictures along the way, assuming that aperture 7.1 was set, and didn't specifically test different ones on the same object. Sometimes the control wheel accidentally changed the aperture itself when taking the camera out or putting it back in the bag. I chose the picture I showed above at aperture 8 because it clearly shows the details in the corner of the brickwork. In good lighting, 7.1 is also acceptable as an acceptable value for uniform sharpness across the frame. I just need to continue collecting impressions on different focal lengths.



f7.1

I usually get good results at aperture f8. Next time, I'll try f7.1 and compare.

 

[Craig Gillette]

The unbundled price is $300 US. More than a few bought the old one bundled when the A6700 was new. I had one and found an A6700 without it so still have one old one. I'm not inclined to seek out a new one.

 

[dgsjsj]

I usually get good results at aperture f8. Next time, I'll try f7.1 and compare.

Hello al.
The criterion for choosing an aperture of 7.1 as acceptable for uniform sharpness across the frame field at a focal length of 16 mm. It was based on the fact that on the first version of the zoom, this focal length was most often used on vacation. The lens opened at this focal length and if the situation required not to hesitate, then the picture was taken at this focal length. With the second version at longer focal lengths, you can use 5.6.
If in ideal conditions around the world at a focal length of 16 mm it is difficult to see the difference with more covered 8,9,10, then in a real environment it is even more impossible to see it, as well as the difference in depth of field. And the shutter speed will be higher, pedestrians will not be blurred, vegetation in a light breeze will not turn into mush.
I also do not see chromatic aberrations as in the first version, maybe software removal in the zoom firmware itself is better? I would be curious to hear your observations of the zoom and interesting stories of its use with the placement of full-size photographs.
Best regards, Sergey.

 

[dgsjsj]

The unbundled price is $300 US. More than a few bought the old one bundled when the A6700 was new. I had one and found an A6700 without it so still have one old one. I'm not inclined to seek out a new one.

Hello Craig Gillette.

I bought the A6100 only as a body. I sold the first version together with the A6000.

I don't think anyone would give me $300 for the second version, even a novice amateur photographer.
The first version in our region can be found on the secondary market for the equivalent of $40.
But even this low price is not tempting. For the last three years I've been going on vacation with three fixed lenses. The result was impressive, but on this vacation I decided to take a break from thinking about how not to get caught in a downpour with equipment worth about $2500, and whether something would be stolen from the hotel room?
The second version for $100 with slightly different properties than the first is an acceptable purchase for a grandfather who doesn't earn money from photography.

Respectfully, Sergey.

 

[al.]

The unbundled price is $300 US. More than a few bought the old one bundled when the A6700 was new. I had one and found an A6700 without it so still have one old one. I'm not inclined to seek out a new one.

True, this is $300 brand new from a retailer.

However on eBay there are many "open box" kit lens for sale between $80 to $110.

 

[dgsjsj]

On the sixth day after receiving the lens, I remembered. At the time of buying Sony NEX-C3K, the sales girls advised me to immediately buy a small black bag Dicom UM2990.
And later, having already bought Sony α ILCE-6000, I bought the same one, only in beige, so that it would not heat up in the sun. And on summer light clothes it would not stick out like a saddle on a cow.
I looked at it and after ten years it was in decent condition. The camera with zoom fits comfortably, it is easy to take out and put away. It is smaller in size than Tenba Tools BYOB 7.











2015





2025

 

[dgsjsj]

On the sixth day after receiving the lens, I remembered. At the time of buying Sony NEX-C3K, the sales girls advised me to immediately buy a small black bag Dicom UM2990.
And later, having already bought Sony α ILCE-6000, I bought the same one, only in beige, so that it would not heat up in the sun. And on summer light clothes it would not stick out like a saddle on a cow.
I looked at it and after ten years it was in decent condition. The camera with zoom fits comfortably, it is easy to take out and put away. It is smaller in size than Tenba Tools BYOB 7.







2015



2025

I went for a walk with the Dicom UM2990 bag I found. To see how my muscle memory adapts to it? I also set the aperture to 7.1 and took a little over fifty pictures. In my opinion, you can use it without any pangs of conscience.

 

[bing041]

I know that there is interest in whether the new version of the 1650 power zoom lens is better than the old one, as the published optical specs appear to be the same.

I have 2 examples of the original lens and one of the new 1650 v.II. I have compared the results and to my eyes there is a conclusive improvement in focus accuracy, contrast and sharpness with the 2nd generation example, especially with the Clear Image Zoom.

I know individual examples of the old lens could be variable in terms of performance with some people reporting their examples were excellent and others the opposite, so it may well be the same with the new lens, but from this limited sample I see a worthwhile improvement.

There are already white box examples of this lens available from reputable retailers at reasonable prices where I assume they have been separated from kits rather than the rather optimistic £280 that Sony ask for a lens alone.

From a personal perspective, there is more to a great photo than a great lens. This lens with my A6000 body seems to weigh around the same as my A6400 body alone, and allows me to enjoy photography when my ideal combination of A6400 + 18/135 would be a burden.

I’m a big fan of the underrated PZ 16-50 OSS, I must have a good copy that I’ve used for many years. In good light, it performs well, has a great range, OSS and is tiny. Because it’s retractable one can use the auto lens cap which is a great convenience. I have many “better” lenses, but still use it often.

I was hoping for improved optics if v.2, but Sony claims no change in the optics with the newer version. I think it’s variability that you are seeing.

1. The zoom is now quieter.

2. The AF is much quieter besides being better able to track subjects in motion.

3. The OSS coordinates now the IBIS on select cameras. so the stabilization is improved.

4. Focus is not lost while zooming - par focal behavior.

This video uses the new PZ 16-50 II lens in APS-C mode on the a9 iii (which coordinates the OSS and IBIS). Lots of subtle zooms, use of tracking. But the video is not a demo - it is a music video with dance:

 

[skanter]

I know that there is interest in whether the new version of the 1650 power zoom lens is better than the old one, as the published optical specs appear to be the same.

I have 2 examples of the original lens and one of the new 1650 v.II. I have compared the results and to my eyes there is a conclusive improvement in focus accuracy, contrast and sharpness with the 2nd generation example, especially with the Clear Image Zoom.

I know individual examples of the old lens could be variable in terms of performance with some people reporting their examples were excellent and others the opposite, so it may well be the same with the new lens, but from this limited sample I see a worthwhile improvement.

There are already white box examples of this lens available from reputable retailers at reasonable prices where I assume they have been separated from kits rather than the rather optimistic £280 that Sony ask for a lens alone.

From a personal perspective, there is more to a great photo than a great lens. This lens with my A6000 body seems to weigh around the same as my A6400 body alone, and allows me to enjoy photography when my ideal combination of A6400 + 18/135 would be a burden.

I’m a big fan of the underrated PZ 16-50 OSS, I must have a good copy that I’ve used for many years. In good light, it performs well, has a great range, OSS and is tiny. Because it’s retractable one can use the auto lens cap which is a great convenience. I have many “better” lenses, but still use it often.

I was hoping for improved optics if v.2, but Sony claims no change in the optics with the newer version. I think it’s variability that you are seeing.

1. The zoom is now quieter.

2. The AF is much quieter besides being better able to track subjects in motion.

3. The OSS coordinates now the IBIS on select cameras. so the stabilization is improved.

4. Focus is not lost while zooming - par focal behavior.

This video uses the new PZ 16-50 II lens in APS-C mode on the a9 iii (which coordinates the OSS and IBIS). Lots of subtle zooms, use of tracking. But the video is not a demo - it is a music video with dance:

I never used for video, so all of the above are irrelevant for me. If I was doing video production (I used to) I would use a better lens. A good copy (which I’ve had for years) is #1 priority. There is large sample variation with this lens.

 

[dgsjsj]

 

[bing041]

I know that there is interest in whether the new version of the 1650 power zoom lens is better than the old one, as the published optical specs appear to be the same.

I have 2 examples of the original lens and one of the new 1650 v.II. I have compared the results and to my eyes there is a conclusive improvement in focus accuracy, contrast and sharpness with the 2nd generation example, especially with the Clear Image Zoom.

I know individual examples of the old lens could be variable in terms of performance with some people reporting their examples were excellent and others the opposite, so it may well be the same with the new lens, but from this limited sample I see a worthwhile improvement.

There are already white box examples of this lens available from reputable retailers at reasonable prices where I assume they have been separated from kits rather than the rather optimistic £280 that Sony ask for a lens alone.

From a personal perspective, there is more to a great photo than a great lens. This lens with my A6000 body seems to weigh around the same as my A6400 body alone, and allows me to enjoy photography when my ideal combination of A6400 + 18/135 would be a burden.

I’m a big fan of the underrated PZ 16-50 OSS, I must have a good copy that I’ve used for many years. In good light, it performs well, has a great range, OSS and is tiny. Because it’s retractable one can use the auto lens cap which is a great convenience. I have many “better” lenses, but still use it often.

I was hoping for improved optics if v.2, but Sony claims no change in the optics with the newer version. I think it’s variability that you are seeing.

1. The zoom is now quieter.

2. The AF is much quieter besides being better able to track subjects in motion.

3. The OSS coordinates now the IBIS on select cameras. so the stabilization is improved.

4. Focus is not lost while zooming - par focal behavior.

This video uses the new PZ 16-50 II lens in APS-C mode on the a9 iii (which coordinates the OSS and IBIS). Lots of subtle zooms, use of tracking. But the video is not a demo - it is a music video with dance:

I never used for video, so all of the above are irrelevant for me. If I was doing video production (I used to) I would use a better lens. A good copy (which I’ve had for years) is #1 priority. There is large sample variation with this lens.

You missed the point, perhaps because you forgot what you knew when you shot video: what zoom lens is "better" when there are multiple attributes of lenses that matter especially for video? For example, what other zoom lenses are there that are 1. parfocal, 2. have power zooms, and 3. are very small. Hardly any. Are there more extended, wider- aperture zoom lenses? sure. Are there better zoom lenses optically? sure. But, if they are not power zooms and not parfocal they have important shortcomings, for video.

 

[skanter]

I know that there is interest in whether the new version of the 1650 power zoom lens is better than the old one, as the published optical specs appear to be the same.

I have 2 examples of the original lens and one of the new 1650 v.II. I have compared the results and to my eyes there is a conclusive improvement in focus accuracy, contrast and sharpness with the 2nd generation example, especially with the Clear Image Zoom.

I know individual examples of the old lens could be variable in terms of performance with some people reporting their examples were excellent and others the opposite, so it may well be the same with the new lens, but from this limited sample I see a worthwhile improvement.

There are already white box examples of this lens available from reputable retailers at reasonable prices where I assume they have been separated from kits rather than the rather optimistic £280 that Sony ask for a lens alone.

From a personal perspective, there is more to a great photo than a great lens. This lens with my A6000 body seems to weigh around the same as my A6400 body alone, and allows me to enjoy photography when my ideal combination of A6400 + 18/135 would be a burden.

I’m a big fan of the underrated PZ 16-50 OSS, I must have a good copy that I’ve used for many years. In good light, it performs well, has a great range, OSS and is tiny. Because it’s retractable one can use the auto lens cap which is a great convenience. I have many “better” lenses, but still use it often.

I was hoping for improved optics if v.2, but Sony claims no change in the optics with the newer version. I think it’s variability that you are seeing.

1. The zoom is now quieter.

2. The AF is much quieter besides being better able to track subjects in motion.

3. The OSS coordinates now the IBIS on select cameras. so the stabilization is improved.

4. Focus is not lost while zooming - par focal behavior.

This video uses the new PZ 16-50 II lens in APS-C mode on the a9 iii (which coordinates the OSS and IBIS). Lots of subtle zooms, use of tracking. But the video is not a demo - it is a music video with dance:

I never used for video, so all of the above are irrelevant for me. If I was doing video production (I used to) I would use a better lens. A good copy (which I’ve had for years) is #1 priority. There is large sample variation with this lens.

You missed the point, perhaps because you forgot what you knew when you shot video: what zoom lens is "better" when there are multiple attributes of lenses that matter especially for video? For example, what other zoom lenses are there that are 1. parfocal, 2. have power zooms, and 3. are very small. Hardly any. Are there more extended, wider- aperture zoom lenses? sure. Are there better zoom lenses optically? sure. But, if they are not power zooms and not parfocal they have important shortcomings, for video.

Professional video makers do not zoom while shooting - it’a amateurish. We do different shots and edit in PP.

I’m not talking about “vlogging”, but video production. I doubt the PZ16-50 is used by pros. But if it works for you - great. It’s a decent lens for street photography - my use, but not great.

--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” HCB
—
__
Smugmug Galleries:
http://skanter.smugmug.com
—
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/sam.kanter/

 

[bing041]

I know that there is interest in whether the new version of the 1650 power zoom lens is better than the old one, as the published optical specs appear to be the same.

I have 2 examples of the original lens and one of the new 1650 v.II. I have compared the results and to my eyes there is a conclusive improvement in focus accuracy, contrast and sharpness with the 2nd generation example, especially with the Clear Image Zoom.

I know individual examples of the old lens could be variable in terms of performance with some people reporting their examples were excellent and others the opposite, so it may well be the same with the new lens, but from this limited sample I see a worthwhile improvement.

There are already white box examples of this lens available from reputable retailers at reasonable prices where I assume they have been separated from kits rather than the rather optimistic £280 that Sony ask for a lens alone.

From a personal perspective, there is more to a great photo than a great lens. This lens with my A6000 body seems to weigh around the same as my A6400 body alone, and allows me to enjoy photography when my ideal combination of A6400 + 18/135 would be a burden.

I’m a big fan of the underrated PZ 16-50 OSS, I must have a good copy that I’ve used for many years. In good light, it performs well, has a great range, OSS and is tiny. Because it’s retractable one can use the auto lens cap which is a great convenience. I have many “better” lenses, but still use it often.

I was hoping for improved optics if v.2, but Sony claims no change in the optics with the newer version. I think it’s variability that you are seeing.

1. The zoom is now quieter.

2. The AF is much quieter besides being better able to track subjects in motion.

3. The OSS coordinates now the IBIS on select cameras. so the stabilization is improved.

4. Focus is not lost while zooming - par focal behavior.

This video uses the new PZ 16-50 II lens in APS-C mode on the a9 iii (which coordinates the OSS and IBIS). Lots of subtle zooms, use of tracking. But the video is not a demo - it is a music video with dance:

I never used for video, so all of the above are irrelevant for me. If I was doing video production (I used to) I would use a better lens. A good copy (which I’ve had for years) is #1 priority. There is large sample variation with this lens.

You missed the point, perhaps because you forgot what you knew when you shot video: what zoom lens is "better" when there are multiple attributes of lenses that matter especially for video? For example, what other zoom lenses are there that are 1. parfocal, 2. have power zooms, and 3. are very small. Hardly any. Are there more extended, wider- aperture zoom lenses? sure. Are there better zoom lenses optically? sure. But, if they are not power zooms and not parfocal they have important shortcomings, for video.

Professional video makers do not zoom while shooting - it’a amateurish. We do different shots and edit in PP.

I’m not talking about “vlogging”, but video production. I doubt the PZ16-50 is used by pros. But if it works for you - great. It’s a decent lens for street photography - my use, but not great.

 

[skanter]

I know that there is interest in whether the new version of the 1650 power zoom lens is better than the old one, as the published optical specs appear to be the same.

I have 2 examples of the original lens and one of the new 1650 v.II. I have compared the results and to my eyes there is a conclusive improvement in focus accuracy, contrast and sharpness with the 2nd generation example, especially with the Clear Image Zoom.

I know individual examples of the old lens could be variable in terms of performance with some people reporting their examples were excellent and others the opposite, so it may well be the same with the new lens, but from this limited sample I see a worthwhile improvement.

There are already white box examples of this lens available from reputable retailers at reasonable prices where I assume they have been separated from kits rather than the rather optimistic £280 that Sony ask for a lens alone.

From a personal perspective, there is more to a great photo than a great lens. This lens with my A6000 body seems to weigh around the same as my A6400 body alone, and allows me to enjoy photography when my ideal combination of A6400 + 18/135 would be a burden.

I’m a big fan of the underrated PZ 16-50 OSS, I must have a good copy that I’ve used for many years. In good light, it performs well, has a great range, OSS and is tiny. Because it’s retractable one can use the auto lens cap which is a great convenience. I have many “better” lenses, but still use it often.

I was hoping for improved optics if v.2, but Sony claims no change in the optics with the newer version. I think it’s variability that you are seeing.

1. The zoom is now quieter.

2. The AF is much quieter besides being better able to track subjects in motion.

3. The OSS coordinates now the IBIS on select cameras. so the stabilization is improved.

4. Focus is not lost while zooming - par focal behavior.

This video uses the new PZ 16-50 II lens in APS-C mode on the a9 iii (which coordinates the OSS and IBIS). Lots of subtle zooms, use of tracking. But the video is not a demo - it is a music video with dance:

I never used for video, so all of the above are irrelevant for me. If I was doing video production (I used to) I would use a better lens. A good copy (which I’ve had for years) is #1 priority. There is large sample variation with this lens.

You missed the point, perhaps because you forgot what you knew when you shot video: what zoom lens is "better" when there are multiple attributes of lenses that matter especially for video? For example, what other zoom lenses are there that are 1. parfocal, 2. have power zooms, and 3. are very small. Hardly any. Are there more extended, wider- aperture zoom lenses? sure. Are there better zoom lenses optically? sure. But, if they are not power zooms and not parfocal they have important shortcomings, for video.

Professional video makers do not zoom while shooting - it’a amateurish. We do different shots and edit in PP.

I’m not talking about “vlogging”, but video production. I doubt the PZ16-50 is used by pros. But if it works for you - great. It’s a decent lens for street photography - my use, but not great.

I agree with you that not many professionals use this lens, but I know of one.

That is arrogant and ignorant hogwash about "professionals" not zooming while shooting. It is used in many movies and TV shows for artistic effect. It is constantly used in sports broadcasts and videos and in concert and dance videos. Indeed, parfocal lenses were mostly confined to professional lenses and professional level video cameras. Sony's FE PZ 28-135 mm f4 lens, for example, is a cinema lens, and it is touted as achieving parfocal performance. You think it is aimed at vloggers and "amateurs"?

Maybe professional hacks never zoom while shooting. Any other claims you might share about what professional video makers don't do? I understand why you don't shoot video anymore. Good call. Truly amazing post.

I’ve won awards from the National Endowment for the Arts for my video work.

What have you done? Zooming with your PZ16-50? …lol!

I won’t continue with such a silly, irrelevant gear argument. Have fun!

--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” HCB
—
__
Smugmug Galleries:
http://skanter.smugmug.com
—
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/sam.kanter/

 

[piticoto]

I'll give you one example of zooming while video, one on my son's karate demo "fighting" another team member. Of course I will start the video at wide end, then at some moments I would zoom on my son, then wide again.

But, I just got the lens from a China seller on eBay, from a kit with ZV-E10. It was well packed, plenty of bubble wrap. First impression? After turning off the camera then on the lens goes back to the previous focal length, and it's surprising fast to turn on and zoom, guessing it's less than a second. I'll record both lenses, v1 and v2 with another camera to see the time difference to be ready for a picture. In the next few days I'll test for images with each lens, on tripod and same lighting. I'm glad that I got v2, for now.

 

[dgsjsj]

Another difference besides the new control chip. Autofocus control - an advanced linear motor and high-speed.

Loading…

www.sony.com

 

[piticoto]

Another difference besides the new control chip. Autofocus control - an advanced linear motor and high-speed.

https://www.sony.com/en-cm/electronics/interchangeable-lenses/selp16502

What happened to the thread? I posted something as reply to someone asking about serial numbers of v2, and now I don't find what I posted, and not the post with the serial number 18506xxx made in Thailand.

I have no reason to think that the lens I have is counterfeit, no way a complex lens like this can be made without the necessary minimum precision standards that can obtained only in dedicated manufaturing company. At the worst for me the lens may be an end of line quality reject. I do have 30 day to return if I don't want to keep it. But, it seems fine to me, no signs of wear, abuse, abnormal sounds, quick from being off to ready for a picture in almost half the time compared to the v1, and it save more time if I want the previous focal length as when the lens opens it goes straight to the previous focal length, not the wide end at 16. I'll do a pictures test against v1. This is the serial number I have, made in Thailand. About the thread, did they back up the server where the dpreview is hosted?