TO11MTM

Agreed. One of my 18-55s is notably sharper than my 16-50, the other is a little worse. That said between the two, I prefer the 16-50 on my nex-5r for the insane compactness, and it also seemed to ...

I'd suggest taking a peek at your pictures and the EXIF data; Are more of your shots at 50 or 35? And, with that in mind, which would you rather see an improvement in? Personally speaking, I prefer ...

As a software developer, I can say with confidence there are most likely some 'fixes' that are either undocumented or underdocumented. For example, I'm pretty sure they won't be forthcoming about ...

All around: Depending on your budget, the 18-105 is arguably the best bang for the buck as far as zooms. It's about 600$, but I'd argue that it handles the range of 18-125 better than most other ...

Could we possibly see some at 1.8 vs 1.8 and maybe 2.8 vs 2.8 please? Otherwise it's a little more difficult to compare things like sharpness across the frame with equal settings. That said the ...

The optics are all there, although some are a little more pricey. Most of our ho-hum zoom lenses are as good as or better than similar Canons. Aside from the lenses Canon is known for, I'd say ...

Most lenses out there will be at their sharpest stopped down. The 18-105 is a little more drastic than the other E-Mount lenses I've used however (except the 16 2.8, which is never sharp).

What Zeiss 18-105 are people referring to? Are we talking about the Sony G actually? If we are, I can say comfortably that it's a bit sharper than my best 18-55 copy, FAR better than my 16-50.

I'd double check the firmware on the lens (doubtful it's the issue since you got it in a bundle, but still!) as older versions didn't support PDAF, That said, mine tends to be a LOT slower on the ...

In my experience, the A6000 does not do a great job correcting distortion from the 18-105 in body. There is noticeably more distortion compared to my NEX-5R or even my old F3. That said, Shooting ...

The 18-105 is my favorite lens. I will say that the JPEGs out-of-camera don't come out as good as a RAW run through post. On the older firmware it seems like it's over-corrected for distortion. I ...

It's a real shutter. You'll hear up to 2 shutter sounds for a picture. You'll always get at least one. Whether you get 2 depends on the 'Front Curtain Shutter' setting. If On (i.e. Electronic Front ...

Those were 100%, no crop. The item in question is a gift-card holder (about the size of two credit cards, one on top of the other.) It was sitting pretty, plus the finish/texture of the box seems ...

Not the best -Example Shot-, but these are decent comparison shots. These are AFTER PP, but only with the following corrections enabled in DXO: -RAW White Balance -Noise Reduction - RAW -Vignetting ...

I'd have to check my camera on that one, but I'm 90% sure the answer is yes, it should be a 100mm zoom. The 55-210 has some advantages, but they revolve around being the cheapest Tele Zoom for the ...

It works. Nothing to write home about. None of them are that great here; If that's what you need then it's not the system to go with. If you can make do with the 18-105, it's a solid choice however. ...

The 16-50 isn't always silent. Mine is barely noticeable when zooming via the power-zoom lever, but if I'm cranking it from wide to tele or the other way around via the collar, I get a high ...

Figured I'd throw my two cents in. I've got a Touit 32mm and an NEX-5R that I've used together. It's actually pretty good on the AF. No, it doesn't do as good in low light as the newer cameras, and ...

Although, in fairness to OP the 16/2.8 is a pretty crap lens, to the point that unless I'm using a Wide Angle/Fisheye, I just stick with the 16-50; The Software-corrected corner smudgies are still ...

The Sony EVF part exists (FDA-EV1S) but new is more than half the price of an a6000 body here in the states. Used isn't much cheaper either. I was looking into one for using on my F3/5R, but can't ...