The 18-55 is bulkier but has superior image quality. The 16-50 is more compact, lesser iq. Is there any difference in af speed on the a6000 if anyone has them both? Currently got the 18-55 with the 5r. Wondering if the convenience is worth getting the other lens for. Or if I should just get the body only. If it's able to focus faster and since it's smaller I would definitely do the pz if it did acquire my subjects faster even if I lose a little quality. Thanks! Sony a6000 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 Assuming you aren't willing to hover around either lenses "sweet spot," the IQ differences are likely to be inconsequential in actual use. If really interested in "speed," however, I have a feeling that the PZ's retraction on power down/sleep and return to 16mm is going to be a bigger issue because one might need to keep the camera "on" or fuss with that and that is a different kind of speed (or lack of speed). Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 I can't answer your question since I don't have them but one other thing to consider, especically if you don't have other lenses and aren't limited to taking one "style" of photo, is to consider another lens with a different focal length or aperature. If convenience is of utmost importance--say you travel a lot or don't have bags to carry around when shooting photos--then pancake lens are very useful. I know I would give up quality for smaller size since I use cameras during travel. In this case, the 16-50mm is worth getting, even if the image quality is apparently a bit worse than the 18-55mm, because you will get the lens subsidized for a cheap price if you buy it with the camera. But... if you mostly shoot photos around the house, can carry a camera bag, or don't need very small lens, then you should consider a different type of lens. The 18-55mm and the 16-50mm provide almost the same style of photos but if you, say, went wide-angle or telephoto or very fast prime (say the 50mm 1.8). For instance, going from an aperature of 3.5 to 1.8 can open up different types of photos. It would be difficult to blur the background with the kit lens but at 1.8, it will be very different (say for portraits, macro-type close-ups, etc). Sony a6000 Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Nokia Lumia 1020  pew pew • Contributing Member • Posts: 775 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 I´m not sure if the 18-55 is better I have heard people saying the contrast on the 16-55 was better and also the edge sharpness of the 16-50 Photos by Agostino Maiello - from http://www.nadir.it/ob-fot/SONY_NEX16-50/nex16-50.htm Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony a6000 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 2 The 1650 will let you pocket the whole kit in a jacket pocket, which is very valuable when it comes to not missing an opportunity for a shot because you can casually carry your gear around. Plus, when the 1650 is corrected(the only way you are supposed to use it), it has fantastic IQ and even somewhat comparable to the 1670 Zeiss. Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 2 The PZ is very usable as is little, but effective.But if you want to enjoy doing pics, choose the 18-55. Very much better sensation on the zomm and focus rings. As for the IQ, every lens is different, I have ¡4! 18-55 and there are considerable differences in big aperture pics. But the worst of 18-55 is better than the best of PZ in handling. Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-3 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX-5T Pentax K-S1 +5 more gkstar • Contributing Member • Posts: 654 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 I have my camera set to go in sleep mode in 10sec of inactivity (the minimum) to save battery - as per Gary Friedman suggested settings. In that case the 1650 would make the whole process slower and would loose zoom setting on every cycle - so not for me. If your setting is say 1 min or more, this problem may not bother you at all. The compactness of the 1650 is a great feature. Sony a6700 Sony E 16-55mm F2.8 G Sony E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS Tamron 17-70 F2.8 Di III-A VC RXD Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 +4 more semifast • Contributing Member • Posts: 780 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 1 I have both because I have an A3000 and an Nex-3n. I don't see much difference in image quality as far as the lenses go, switching them between the two cameras. For a smaller body like an A6000 I would definitely prefer the 16-50mm. Unless size is not a factor for you. For me it makes a considerable difference in the size of bag I have to use. And I also like that its wider on the wide end, 24mm is nice to have. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 Sony SLT-A58 JaviB • Regular Member • Posts: 274 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to semifast • Apr 16, 2014 The quality of a lens seems to be directly related to the amount of people who have it. When I bought my NEX two years ago, the general opinion was that the 18-55 was better than most of other brands kit lenses and better than the 16-50 (this one was just released with the NEX5R and NEX6 and was not very popular). Now that NEX or Ax000 cameras come with the 16-50 (and therefore most of the people buy the camera with it), It is more and more common to read that the 16-50 is better than the 18-55 and even comparable to the 16-70z. [Ironic mode OFF] Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS +4 more ryan92084 • Contributing Member • Posts: 521 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 I can dog u up the link (it was posted here yesterday) but techversus has the 16-50 add ~0.35 seconds so the start up (1.86 v. 2.21). So not terrible but depending on the photographer could be a nuisance. Sony a6000 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +3 more semifast • Contributing Member • Posts: 780 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to JaviB • Apr 16, 2014 Maybe I wasn't clear. The A3000 comes with the latest version, black 18-55mm; some people seem to think its a better version of the 18-55mm than older versions. So that is what I'm comparing the 16-50mm too. Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Samsung Galaxy Camera 2 Sony SLT-A58 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 But it always wakes up to 16mm and that often isn't where you were or want to be so more fiddling is needed. Leaving longer wake times programmed works but can still surprise you or lower battery life. I like the pz's zoom range, the size is less important to me. I doubt any subtle differences in performance, iq wise, are that important to most users. jafary • Forum Member • Posts: 86 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 1 Based on the constantly contradicting opinions between the 16-50 and the 18-55, I would say that they have very similar IQ, and any difference is due to sample variation than anything else. I have the 16-50 and considered getting the 18-55, because it just looks and feels like a better lens, with its manual zoom, especially the black one. But I always hold back because the 16-50 has two advantages: the wider 16mm (decent when corrected) and the smaller size, that allows you to put your kit in a big pocket. (another slight advantage of the power zoom is the ability to zoom remotely if you have an app compatible camera and you use the playmemory app) In the end, I think it depends on how much you value look and handling over size. Sony a6300 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 +1 more GaryW • Forum Pro • Posts: 10,074 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to JaviB • Apr 16, 2014 JaviB wrote: I don't think it was ironic, it is just people with expectations, and some of that is wearing down over time. I don't think it's all that common to read that the 16-50 is better there is still a large reluctance to like this lens. I think a lot of people expected the 18-55 to be better. It seems like that would make sense, that the collapsible lens would compromise the quality, as well as the need for software correction. The problem is that both lenses have their compromises and are pretty good at the middle focal lengths; even if you object to the 16-50's distortion, the 18-55 isn't exactly great at 18mm when wide open the corners are soft there as well. As for being comparable to the 16-70, there were a couple of comparisons posted a couple of weeks ago. Whether they or similar enough is up to each person. In some cases, I think the 16-50 held up well, but there were situations (focal lengths and apertures) where the 16-70 was better. You pay more money for ever diminishing returns. -- hide signature -- Gary W. Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 +10 more Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 This may or may not matter for you but I call my NEX 3n with the 16-50 my "Selfie King". The lens is an inch or 2 shorter and 16 is a much bigger difference in FOV than you would think given it's just 2mm smaller. Using it at 16mm I can easily get selfies of me with my kids (my wife won't touch a camera). And I'm not just talking head shots, I can take a selfie of me teaching one of my kids to rollerblade and get all of both of us in the scene. The main reason I take selfies is for my mom who is like 4K miles away.... They show up automagically on her photoframe and she talks to them during the day. I also take them because I found that when my brothers/sisters send 20 pictures of their kids I'd FF through most of them looking for pictures of my brothers/sisters, so when I send out batches of kids shots to torture family and friends I make sure to include a few with myself in them. Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 550D Canon EOS M Sony a6000 Sony a5100 +1 more captura • Forum Pro • Posts: 27,478 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 I also have a 5R with the 18-55. I would pocket the approx. $150 savings by not getting the 16-50 kit lens. Instead, I'd pick up the VERY useful detachable EVF used for about the same money. (In fact, I did.) Alternatively, try to find a decent Vintage Olympus F.Zuiko 38mm 1.8 Lens (For PEN F Half Frame Cameras) http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52349014 There are other sizes too, as big as f1.4. These are small flat pancake lenses and notably, the adapter is very thin making the combination just as pocketable as the 16-50. These old Pentax lenses are renowned for high quality results. Sony Alpha NEX-7 Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Sony a7 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +3 more Re: Software corrections ... In reply to silver07 • Apr 16, 2014 2 silver07 wrote: If you ignore all the noise about 'un-corrected' images with either lens, and only consider 'corrected' images with both lenses, then consider this: The 1855 is optically mostly ok, except at either zoom-end, when it needs correction for barrel and pincushion distortion. However, un-corrected images can still be used as is, they are not that distorted. The 1650 needs corrections throughout its range (only mid range it is optically acceptable). Its distortion is very heavy at either end of the zoom range and un-corrected images can (should) not be used as is. After correction, and specifically after post-edits (or non-default JPG), both lenses produce near identical images. There are semantics as to which correction is worse and degrades the IQ faster, but I think that is pixel level nit-picking, not really visible in the overall image IQ. As to shooting both lenses wide-open, with longer exposure times and soft edges, I would use neither lens then - just pick up the E35/1.8 OSS lens and you'll be much happier. In this context, the E35 for low light, and the image IQ being considered after post (or non-default JPG), I would consider the performance of these two (kit) zoom lenses near identical, and above average as kit zoom lenses go. Handling and size (bulk) wise, it is totally up to you. Some find the power-zoom a plus, other a nuisance, (and it feels like a P&S camera). I find the smaller size a definite plus. Durability of both lenses is also different - the 1855 can handle more abuse, it seems. Working with the power-zoom is always slower than working with a manual zoom, something to keep in mind. But, assuming that you have/will have other lenses (primes?), I would wholeheartedly recommend the 1650, but if you end up preferring the 1855 that is totally understandable. Keep in mind that these are $150 (street price) lenses... -- hide signature -- Cheers, Henry Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a7R II Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Sony 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 +35 more OP silver07 • Regular Member • Posts: 148 Re: Software corrections ... blue_skies wrote:silver07 wrote: I think I may forego the pz. Played which a friends 5t, didn't really like the power zoom. The size was awesome though. I also have a sigma 30 on the way and own the sel50. I really want the Zeiss 16-70, it's just so darn expensive! The wife will probably use the kit lens more than me, I'm a sucker for great bokeh which is a little harder to get on the kit lens and I prefer shooting wide open or near it anyway. Anyway, thanks for the replies everyone. Sony a6000 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 areichow • Senior Member • Posts: 1,591 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to pew pew • Apr 17, 2014 This is consistent with my copies of the 18-55mm (MIJ FWIW) and 16-50mm. Optically, 18-55mm beats my 16-50mm hands down is sharpness at the long end. My 16-50mm is quite soft at 50mm, even in the center at f/8. The 18-55mm focuses a bit closer at the long end as well. Canon PowerShot SD1000 Sony RX100 NEX5R Sony a7 Re: 18-55 vs 16-50 on a6000 In reply to silver07 • Jan 20, 2020 Hi, I have both and a large selection of bodies to try them on, in short if your videoing go for the 16-50 the 2 mm at the wide end makes a big difference and the power zoom is very smooth, if you want a better image (all be it marginally) and a much better built lens go for the 18-55. The 16-50 is so plasticky and Nablus built I’d have the 18-55 and pick up a 16mm f2.8 later, there only about £80 on marketplace now |
