My takeaway here is how amazing the little 16-50 is if you don't need that extra sharpness and don't wanna spend the extra money and don't wanna carry the extra weight and size of the bigger lens.

In my humble opinion, the 16-55 2.8 costs more than 10 times the kit lens but cannot produce an image that is even twice as good as the kit lens, I am personally not stupid enough to spend money on it. Just a big waste of money. Thank you so much for your caparison review of these 2.

@rommelluis8770

3 жыл бұрын

agree

@t0tobi

3 жыл бұрын

totally my take away as well

@jpb10

3 жыл бұрын

...and the kit lens has OSS

That len worth more than my 95 Toyota Corolla I use daily :).

@kevogoeswild-wildlifenatur7411

2 жыл бұрын

Is it more worth or does it just more cost?😋

@medianikophotography

3 ай бұрын

You’re a legend sir

The 16-50 kit looks pretty good to my eyes, with OSS, at 1/10th the cost, weight and size - and my copy is much better. After PP the difference is not so much. What a silly comparison. I’ll stick with my copy of the kit lens - unique and tiny.

That 16-55 performs way better than I thought it was going to. That’s a great one and done option. Even if the trio puts up a great fight, there’s something to be said for getting a lot done with ONE lens.

Have been waiting for this Thanks for the review

Okay, now that's finally out of the way, Sigma 1.4 trio vs this lens please!

@edwardfenyesgyorgy265

4 жыл бұрын

@g43654 ... for what??? photo or video? it really does matter! If photo than go with Sigma because its a bit sharper, lets more light in due to F 1.4 and you can create much better bokeh background and shallow-to-depth. If VIDEO then ONLY SONY, because if you shoot moving subject then you will have issues with Autofocus system as only native Sony lens works 100% perfectly with Sony's Phase Detect Auto Focus system and can benefit totally. I gave back my Sigma 30mm F 1.4 because of unreliable focus. In my videos autofocus does matter, by portrait photo there is nothing moving and delay of autofocusing does not matter. Plus if your camera has no Internal Body Image Stabilisation (IBIS) you will shaky and jittery images with Sigma as it has no Optical Steady Shot (OSS)!

@alexnelson8

4 жыл бұрын

If money was no object I would want the 16-55mm vs the Sigma trio simply for ease of use, regardless of sharpness. That said, my Sigma lenses take fantastic photos on my A6300.

@Antonybec

4 жыл бұрын

Already done here ! kzread.info/dash/bejne/goKlybObmbu-ptY.html A very quick comparison ! ok but a comparison =)

Thanks for this video. I look forward to seeing comparisons with other zoom lenses hopefully.

I’m already readying my popcorn for the sigma trio comparison, really looking forward to that..Thanks Arthur, Great review as Always 😁👍

great review! im sure everyone is waiting for a video like this

Great review Arthur... thanks!

... thx, Arthur! 👍🏻 Great review of the new Sony lens. BTW: The 16-55/2.8 is a great option to shoot in APSC-mode on the a7R IV - stills and video ...

I have the new 16-55mm f2.8 and really happy with it as a one lens does it all option. It has horrendous vignetting at 16mm though when shooting raw, so much so I couldn't correct it manually, so they need to get a lightroom correction sorted for it asap! My advice would be if you prefer absolute image quality, get the 3 sigmas (I have the 16mm and the 56mm - both outstanding), but if you hate changing lenses over regularly get the sony 16-55mm. I use the sigmas at weddings for video, but love the zoom lens for when I'm out on a walk and don't really know what I may end up photographing.

It's always interesting to see how much better these G lenses are over the kit!

Thanks great video ! Could you do a comparison aps -c with this lens versus A7 iii with 24-105 F4? Both Sony lenses have the same price tag, and 2.8 Bokeh on aps-c is kind of equivalent to F4 on full frame. That would be great to see which performs best.

@Arthur R : I like that you compared lens at the same settings (F5.0 vs F5.0) and best possible setting each lens has to offer (e.g. 40mm F2.8 vs 40mm F5.0) . In many of your previous videos, you would only compare lens using the same setting, and that didn't tell the whole story.

Once again thanks for a great review. I wonder how this would compare to the 18-105 f/4 G

Would be happy to see a comparison to the two tamrons 17-28, 28-75. They together cost almost the same . Make you FF ready and compared to GM they stand nicely

Curious to see your upcoming video testing against the Sigma trio. I currently have both 16mm and 56mm both of which are great, but if this one Sony 16-55mm lens have similar results I'd be keen to switch them out for the benefit of having a single lens option

hope to see a video comparing the 16-70 F4 with this 16-55 F2.8 len

I would buy the new lense, but having at least one Wow like reaching to 70mm (to complement the 70350G), or starting at 14mm, or having OSS (to fit

would like to see 16-55 F2.8 vs sigma 16 30 56 F1.4

Love the videos. I know in the past you said you were not interested in telephoto photography. You should try out a doubler and make some comparison videos with it.

Great video! i like the update visual from "mafia" to Arthur. Great job. I am curious to see is the 18-135 to the 70-350. what's the quality diference, sharpness/price. if only sony would make something like 35-180 our just a better 18-135 with constant aperture to go in pair in quality with the 16-55 and the 70-350. have fun

Thanks for all the reviews and comparisons that you make with all the lenses, you have helped me a lot making purchasing decisions!

Nice video, also i think would be very helpful compare 16-55 2.8 with zeiss 16-70 f4 oss.

I got my 16-55 last week. I love it so far.

aw man that is some crispy footage

Excellent comparison, thank you very much Arthur! Would it be possible to compare Sony's G-Master 24-70 2.8 on a full frame body (preferably A7iii) with this new awesome lens on an apsc body (sharpness, bokeh, low light image quality)? I suspect the results will be similar, at least in terms of sharpness, for a much lower budget. That would be an amazingly interesting comparison!

The price is outrageous but If this lens delivers the same quality of the trio with the huge benefit of carrying around one single lens, I think Sony did i good job and priced it correctly. So looking forward to the next video!

Спасибо за очередное хорошее видео. У вас там хорошая погода!)) Как же сильно хочется такой объектив!..

Hi Arthur, which camera and lens did you use to record this video?

Looks like a great lens that I'll never own. If it had stabilization I might have considered it. For the price I'm really surprised it doesn't. I'll stick with my current lenses and remain happy. Excellent video Arthur as usual!

@PatrickWithCamera

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed, if it had stabilization I would buy it to replace sigma trio, without stabilization it's not worth it, will stay with sigma trio probably forever.

@BK-du9wc

2 жыл бұрын

@@PatrickWithCamera Now you have 18-50 2.8f Sigma for much cheaper :)

@PatrickWithCamera

2 жыл бұрын

@@BK-du9wc yep, got it already and I love it! :), maybe its darker, but this size and weight is so perfect that i barely use trio now.

An interesting comparison would be with the Sony E 35mm f/1.8 too, a lens I bought on your good advice.

So... I have both lenses, and I mostly agree with you on your assessment (duh, the G lens was damn expensive)... However, with regard to the photos of your wife at 12:58, I think the photo taken with the kit lens is the better one overall. There's more contrast in the background. The colours pop more. There's more detail in the shadows on her shirt. The kit lens photo just... Pops. It looks less washed out. Sharpness isn't everything when it comes to a good photo. If the two images were either printed (say 4x6 or 8x10) or posted on social media, I honestly think more people (pixel peepers don't count) would prefer the shot taken with the kit lens for the reasons I mentioned. Just one guy's opinion, though.

Hi. Great comparison thanks. Will there be a comparison with the 18-105mm f4.0? He would interest me very much. Thank you from Germany.

Thanks for this video. Arthur, сan You compare 16-55/2.8 and 16-50/2.8 sonyA? They have similar parameters, but 16-50/2.8 sonyA with LA-EA2 has half price from 16-55/2.8.

Thanks for this one, really useful. Any Chance of comparing the E 16-55mm F2.8 G SEL1655G Vs. E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS SEL18135 ?

I’m a relatively new a6400 user. Upgraded from a6000. Do you have a favorite “creative style” contrast, saturation, sharpness for portraits? Or do you play with them for conditions? Looking at two more of the Sigma trio as I have the 16 mm. $1400 for the lens in question is tough to swallow.

Thanks for great comparison, Arthur! Are you going to test new FE35f1,8 full frame lens on a6400 body? That would be grateful, because I'm not happy with sharpness and details of my SEL35F1,8 lens and looking forward to see the difference...

I'm assuming against the 18-105 this is much sharper, but I wounder which makes the better travel/ walk around set up? Does having f2.8 and a bit more sharpness make up for the lack of range? Or are you better of taking the 18-105 and the sigma 16mm and covering all bases but just knowing you are going to have to swap out?

I'm excited for the upcoming sigma trio comparisons!

Hi,thanks for the comparison. I love the colours and contrast of the kit lens. Considering the price and weight of the Sony 16-55 mm f/2.8 lens,my clear winner is the kit lens for general purpose. It's better to invest the money in other lenses such as the 10-18 mm;the 18-135 mm;the 16-70mm; the 35 mm,etc. Bye!

Nice work Arthur! I'm curious after a comparison with the 18-105, 18-135 and the sigma trio. As I would like to use the 16-55 as my run and gun lens. Would you also recommend this lens to someone that shoots land/cityscapes with an a6000 that doesn't have ibis? Tnx!

@EvanNakagawa

4 жыл бұрын

I'm in a similar position. I have an a6300 with the 18-105 and Sigma 56. I love both lenses, but I think the 16-55 would be a much nicer run and gun lens.

Oh boy! Looking forward to the battle vs. the Sigma trio. Arthur, it would be awesome if you could compare them wide open (1.4 vs 2.8), 2.8 vs 2.8 and 5.6 vs 5.6. To this date the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 has been my favorite lens on my Canon 70D. I'm curious why this lens never made it to Sony.

hello arthur, this lens and the newest sigma 24-70 f2.8 full frame lens are about the same price, should i just buy the sigma one?(a6400user now with kit lens)

THE RIGOR of this study, and demonstration, is COMMENDABLE! Huge respect here for Arthur R. @13:30 Huge difference in performance, apples to apples comparison. Thank you. And, of course, the price of the better lens today is $1400 USD + tax (new) while the lesser lens is $300 + tax, new; on Amazon.

Okay, the expensive lens is sharper, but no 1300 bucks sharper

@Jeremy-gm4ng

4 жыл бұрын

it doesn't make sense to me, for that money you can perfectly get a tamron 28-75 plus Sony a7 III considering the price of the 16-55mm G + any aps-c body.

@tuyenhoang5546

4 жыл бұрын

@@Jeremy-gm4ng not every one wants a heavy FF camera

@tuyenhoang5546

4 жыл бұрын

@@simpleboy3457 carry 3 lenses and changing out for every shot? Yeah no

@trym2121

4 жыл бұрын

It is if you're a pro. Missing shots cost more than $1300

@patmat.

4 жыл бұрын

@@trym2121 yes that's the great confusion with these reviews, they mostly apply to pros but are mostly viewed by amateurs.

What's your opinion on the Sony FE 35mm f1.8? Can you make a video about it? Thank you!

It's so nice to see how much your skill have improved over time(along with your wife's modeling skill!). Comparing with that, the difference between lenses is really negligible.

Great comparison.

Please do this again with faster shutter speeds. 1/50th isn't fast enough to ensure a sharp image unless you're on a tripod.

Please tell How to know how much optical zoom a lens can give ,just by knowing the mm values

Arthur, I am looking forward to your review of the new 70-350mm G lens. I'm hoping for a quick comparison with the 18-105 and 18-135. Is this lens coming your way soon?

@ArthurR

4 жыл бұрын

Yes it is. I also just picked up the 70-300 G OSS for full frame just for fun....

@Thumpr110

4 жыл бұрын

Arthur R I can’t wait to see that also. I’ve been wondering about that lens. That’s exciting

@madebyPure

4 жыл бұрын

@@ArthurR Awesome, would love to see that compared to the new 70-350 as they are similar in price

@stang8913

4 жыл бұрын

If you don’t mind comparing it with 55-210 affordable lens.

@JG7Racer

4 жыл бұрын

The 18-135 is my absolute favorite lens right now. For about $400 barely used, it's a steal!

Hello. Would be interesning to compare this lens with Sony 24-105/4 on the FF sensor camera (A7iii for example). Would be interesting to see boke on 16-55/2.8 at 50F2.8 and 24-105/4 at 75F4. Some people says that result will be the same.

Do you think it's worth the upgrade for a Nex 5R with 16 megapixels?

What software do you use to compare 2 photos?

Once you've had the taste of a good lens you will never look back at your kit lens. Good glass is always a good investment. Great comparison bro.

@mylogify

10 ай бұрын

But if you record videos as well, then would you search for the OSS kit lens has? Or you wouldn't mind it, and still use this 16-55 lens? Doesn't Catalyst Browse make stabilization after all?

I'd still choose the 16-50mmm. If I am using APS-C it's because I am looking for portability. Sadly I also hate the kit lens (they break so easily). I think an interesting comparison might be the 18-135mm (my wife's main lens) to the 16-55mm if you get a chance....

@nightcoder5k

4 жыл бұрын

The SEL1650 is pretty good. It even has OSS.

This will definitely be my next lens purchase once I pay off my camera and lens I just bought.

A comparison with the Zeiss 16-70mm would be interesting too.

Hi Thanks for the nice video Im using Sony a6300 with kit lens and Sigma 16mm F1.4 Is Sony 16-55 2.8 G lens a good alternate ? As a hobby I like landscape and travel photography, not much in to video Appreciate if I can have some suggestions Thanks Shalika

Waiting for the 'Sigma trio vs Sony 16-55 f2.8, most anticipated video for me!

The new lens is superior for photography. No doubt. But for occasional free hand filming only the kit lens has OSS! And the kit lens is optically just good enough

@ArthurR

4 жыл бұрын

Agree with you. Good enough for casual use. The 16-55 is geared more toward professionals/people who make money with their camera.

@karlv.tinero2660

4 жыл бұрын

Arthur R Right Arthur. I also have pro gear for my Alpha 7III when I need to deliver pro work and it makes sense there. But I also take my A6400 as B cam along and many times I get very good pictures with it along with the kit lens, which is good enough for filming... if you don’t shoot in low light. Then I take prime lenses. But I love OSS and miss it in the new Sony lenses, because it gives a lot of freedom for free hand filming.

Arthur , we would like to see a comparison of this 16-55 f2.8 vs Tamron 28-75 in a full frame camera, cause the price of this lens its like having a Full frame Gear, i've been searching for this comparison but nobody has done one yet. Cheers from Chile :)

@gordonyz4

4 жыл бұрын

16-55 f2.8 on APSC should be comparable to 24-82mm f/4.2 FF. It gets wider than Tamron but that's the end of story. At a mere 55g heavier, Tamron is great! of course the 16-55 is being sold for around $1000 USD in China, which should be a fair value.

@gordonyz4

4 жыл бұрын

@@dn2644 yes. Depth of field and don't forget light gathering capability. You can shoot at lower ISO on 2.8 vs 4.2, but again FF ISO sensitivity is 1+1/3 better normally. So just bump your FF ISO, it will look similar with same shutter speed

Would like to see a comparison with the Sony 18-105 F4!!

Will you test the Fujifilm XT3 vs the A6600 one day ?

Please tr/review sigma 18-35 with newer body. Some says it has improved but you are the one who have tried it before with older body.

I do love your channel and have bought the Sigma 16 from ur recommendation , and it truly is an amazing lens. Was thinking of getting the Sigma 55 for better portraits ...., But am sitting on the fence. I know you say it is amazing, but are u really going to get much better results, or are u better just to use your feet to get closer to the subject and save yourself a few hundred pounds....., Or is there far more benefits to using it, This would be a really interesting video.

@saifaldin_

2 жыл бұрын

What people categorise as ‘portrait lenses’ usually satisfy a few areas. Firstly, more emphasis on the person you’re photographing - this is done via a longer lens (narrower FOV) as well as FG/ BG separation (shallower DOF). Secondly, having perspective distortion that is more ‘pleasing’ for facial features for a chosen framing (full body, half body, head & shoulders etc). Traditionally, most people prefer around 85 to 135mm FF for this. Now, to answer your question on whether or not we can just zoom with our feet: the answer is yes and no. YES - if we are using a lens that is not too far from our intended look. For example, using a 35mm lens (on aps-c) for a half body shot. Sure, a 50 to 60mm lens might get us more separation and less distorted facial features, but a 35mm would be usable. NO - if you’re asking can we get the exact same look just by walking closer. When we use a wider lens to achieve the same framing as a longer lens (for example a head shot) the facial features would distort quite a lot. If say, we want less distortion, we would have to get the subject smaller in the image (for example a full body shot instead) We will then lose the shallow DOF.

Good job Arthur! Does someone have the experience to use it with a6400? What quality of photos for the camera without stabilization? Or it is not a big problem for such focal length?

@unbreakablealex2732

2 жыл бұрын

You don’t need stabilization for moving subjects like humans and such. Stabilization is useful if your filming for smoother pans or shooting in darker situations but even the best stabilizer don’t make moving leaves, animals or other moving subjects less blurry. It’s how you chose your shutter. I use like 1/250 for portraits or shorter.

What camera did you use to make this video?

was waiting for it. Please compare 16-70 4.0 and 16-55 2.8 too :)

@ArthurR

4 жыл бұрын

The 16-70 is a disappointing lens in my opinion. Both the 18-105 and the 18-135mm are sharper and cheaper (and better in my opinion). I don't think I'll ever buy another 16-70 even for a comparison. This 16-55 is SIGNIFICANTLY better in every way.

@stang8913

4 жыл бұрын

I personally own 18-105 4.0 and 16-70 4.0, but I still prefer the picture from Zeiss. Could be because of the name of Zeiss :)

@gabithemagyar

4 жыл бұрын

​@@stang8913 Me too :-) Having said that, I also prefer the 18-200mm silver lens to the 18-105 for photos. Just as sharp, more reach, stabilization better and the colours are nicer. I may have a really good copy though since no reviewer seems to have an interest in this older, big and heavy lens for some reason …

@stang8913

4 жыл бұрын

@@gabithemagyar the 18-200 is super heavy, but it worth carrying one lens instead of at least 2 lenses for the range.

@gabithemagyar

4 жыл бұрын

​@@stang8913 I think so. I usually travel to Europe just with it for outdoor shots and the 20mm f2.8 pancake and wide adapter for indoors. I had been hoping for an f2.8 zoom with OSS to replace the 20mm but seems I may go for the 10-18mm f4 instead.

Compare the new G lens with the Zeiss 16-70 f4. I’m thinking of selling the Zeiss for the new G lens and I preordered the a6600 😁

Hi, Can you review the new “Kamlan 21mm f1.8” vs the older “Zeiss 24mm f1.8” ????? $140 vs $800

Are you using the same camera or two different bodies?

Hmm what about the 18-135? It's really sharp in the range 22-120, I think that it would be a more interesting comparison with the sony 16-55 2.8G than the kit lens

Looking forward to the Sigma trio comparison, if close I will be making a purchase of the Sony

Sony 16-55 F2.8 vs. Zeiss 16-70 F4.0 next please.

@hosumyeung9776

4 жыл бұрын

yes please!!

@Reinh4444

4 жыл бұрын

Why should he? 16-70 is crap, as he already tested with sample photos. Why again telling us that 16-70 is disappointing?

Really looking forward to the comparison to the sigma 16, and 30mm. Running both of those on my a6400 and would love to have one lens to cover both and then some.

@anthonysamuel716

4 жыл бұрын

He done that already

@tuyenhoang5546

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think it's that much sharper than 16mm but definitely better color than the 30mm

@ColtCapperrune

4 жыл бұрын

Anthony Samuel He literally said in this video that that will be the next video LOL

I have the 18-135mm lens and love it on my a6400. Crazy just how much better the a6400 is than the a6500. JUST LEAGUES. Spot AF to medium and in some cases, manual af. Really working at sharper images and one can do it if they learn real photography. I'm making more of an effort and my images are amazingly better than good now. -THANKS ARTHUR. YOU INSPIRED MY SONY CROSSOVER FROM CANNON AND HAVE HELPED ME ALOT. 😁👍

@ArthurR

4 жыл бұрын

The A6400 is the best Sony camera I own! All of the samples and this entire video was shot on the A6400.

@JG7Racer

4 жыл бұрын

@@ArthurR A month after I bought the a6500, the a6400 came out. 😳 I didn't like a6500 at all. I missed so many shots of my active little girl, I couldn't see any real benefit over my a6000! CONSIDERING also an A7iii eventually as I broaden my landscape photography. I don't see letting go of the a6400 anytime soon. BEST $700 I EVER SPENT NIB!!

16-55 is much sharper, but surprisingly 16-50 images don't look terrible either - they are ok.

@andrzejjaniak6849

4 жыл бұрын

Except for the corners. Nowadays a lot of cheap lenses are sharp in the center. It's the corners that you pay more for.

@tszabon

4 жыл бұрын

mine look terrible. 16-50 kit lens should be banned.

@rollingshutter3834

3 жыл бұрын

@@tszabon do you use sony a6400 with it?

Great comparison! Had to laugh when you said here is a wide shot of your wife from behind looking over the fence. I know if I made that comment I would have to do some back peddling with the wife. Great video!! Looking forward to the trio comparison.

@TwoOneSe7en

4 жыл бұрын

Scott Schultz I thought the same thing. lol

"A lot of the Sony lenses are not sharp wide open" hum... When you see the price 1400 USD I hope this lens is sharp wide open !!! I really hope Sigma will make a affordable zoom lens for APSC...

@tmjay

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed! I don't understand why Sigma doesn't make an affordable and sharp zoom lens for APS-C.

@stang8913

4 жыл бұрын

Limitation on the technology & the price. Sigma maybe able to make it, but the price could be high

@j.w.9561

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, I hope too. SIGMA, come on, make us happy :)

@Midane85

4 жыл бұрын

Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is to this day a fantastic lens. Unfortunately, it never made its way to Sony.

@pop1348

4 жыл бұрын

@@tmjay If Sigma make a 16-35 F2 or 16-50 F2.8 at the same price I will take the Sigma ! Just to tell Sony I'm not okay with the price ! Again for the combo A6600 and 16-55 F2.8 I prefer the A7M3 and Tamron 28-75 F2.8 a FULL FRAME option !!!

How do you do two indentical shots to compare lens?

Nice review. What was used to record this video?

@ArthurR

4 жыл бұрын

Sony A6400 and Sigma 56mm!

@dwmspace

4 жыл бұрын

Arthur R Awesome! Subject separation is unreal

could you do some testing using unstabilized camera bodies (a6000,a6100, a6300, or a6400) of the 16-55 vs an f4 stabilized lens (18-105 ?) in a hand held (no tripod, monopod or flash) , dim light, indoor setting similar to what one finds in museums, churches, galleries etc. ? Pictures of still objects/surfaces where widest available aperture and slowest practical shutter speed consistent with sharpness are required to keep ISO low. What I'd like to know is what gives better results in that travel photo scenario : an F4 stabilized lens shot at F4 or an F2.8 lens without OSS shot at F2.8 i.e. how much difference the lack of OSS makes at low shutter speeds hand held. .

finally release your review on this type hahaha, waiting to buy new tele lens for my lovely a6000. thanks bruh

Wow! I’m shocked at how trash my kit lens is in comparison. I thank you for helping me realize it’s actually time to upgrade. You’re a Gem in the KZread camera community!

Great video as always, Arthur. Too bad this kind of lens is too pricey for me. Do you think second hand 16-70mm f/4 za at around $400 is worth it for a6000?

@ArthurR

4 жыл бұрын

I personally dont, but again, I dont like the 16-70 zeiss.

@mylogify

10 ай бұрын

There are 16-55mm used available for like 615 Euro. In my country... Still expensive : D

@Arthur R, What is that comparison software that you are using for the video? Thanks.

@loftboysixtyseven2889

4 жыл бұрын

He's using Adobe Lightroom

What about comparison Sony 16-55 F2.80 and Sony 18-105 F4?

Would be cool a lenses selection for shooting all terrain video ( OSS + wide angle + wide aperture under f/2 ) between lack of sensor stabilisation in APS-C ( except a6500 ) and lowlight noise surprisingly there isn’t much lenses for shooting video handheld worthily. Nice videos :)

@rsmith02

2 жыл бұрын

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is good for this.

@IsaacRC

2 жыл бұрын

@@rsmith02 yeah but i wish it had oss (optical stabilization)

What lense do you recomend for landscapes?

@saifaldin_

3 жыл бұрын

In general, you’d want lenses that has good sharpness across the frame. The focal length can vary (even longer focal lengths can be good for landscapes) Then there’s the choice between primes & zooms. The answer would be different for different people, depending on what kind of landscape you shoot, and your shooting style..

I have a copy of the SEL 1655 F2.8 and is almost perfect (supersharp and fast focus) except for the bokeh at 55 that give a double imagen. All the reviews and samples I have seen has this problem. Can you check your copy?

@CurroBlanquer

4 жыл бұрын

I made some test this morning and at 16mm is perfect the bokeh but increasing the zoom increasing the double imagen increase a lot (remaining the perfect sharpness). A very good real word example is this picture photos.app.goo.gl/kfcikGsZvQyLzV876

@CurroBlanquer

4 жыл бұрын

I bought another copy, and the same result, almost identical, like a software issue. I upgraded from 1.05 to 1.06 my Sony a6500 and no difference, still correction in-camera no available. SN 1808XXX and 1810XXX. Could some one test this problem with the SEL 1655G?

Hey Arthur, could you compare this 16-55 to the 16-70 Zeiss? Since I would call both the "premium" APC-S zoom lenses in the standard range, I'd like to see wether it's worth paying more for the 16-55. Ignoring the aperture of course, that's obvious. :)

@ArthurR

4 жыл бұрын

I'll save you some time: dont buy the Zeiss. The 18-105, 18-135, and especially 16-55 are all better.

@SirMaaaxDE

4 жыл бұрын

@@ArthurR Thanks!

It would be great to compare with 1670z lens.

The thumbnail 👌

Can you compare sel2470g 2.8 too?

Will this work on e mount?

1/60? R u sure its right speed?