Loading ...Posts tagged with Sony DT 16-50mm F/2.8
Sony A77 with 16-50mm SSM lens, and update news
The Sony A77 kit with 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM lens is in stock here, (now out of stock, you snooze, you lose), you’ll save $100 over buying both separately. I don’t think I’ll be reviewing this camera as I have too many irons in the fire right now, which brings me to the updates; the Tamron 18-200mm e-mount review will be available mid-week or so, then it’s on to the Sony 55-210mm NEX lens.
It looks like the NEX-7 review will be finished mid-February.
Also coming up is a product shot how-to, using an inexpensive shooting tent with lights. And don’t forget the cool little Canon G1-X!
More test samples from Sony 16-50mm, including comps with CZ 16-35mm at 24mm!
Here are a few full size test samples from the Sony A580 and Sony 16-50mm taken at 16mm. I’ve also included the same shots using the A900 and CZ 16-35mm lens at 24mm, so the coverage is the same.
All images were taken in RAW, converted in ACR 6.6 and saved at level 8 jpegs. I tried to keep the exposure values and white balance the same for each camera, however, there are still minor differences, but that really doesn’t matter for our test here.
Sony DT 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM review
Check out the review of Sony’s newest alpha mount lens. Like all recently released Sony ‘A’ mount lenses, the DT 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM turned in a very good performance. What stands out on this lens is the very sharp, (and somewhat expansive) central area; if fact, you won’t be able to tell whether you’re at F/2.8 or F/8 unless you scroll over to the image sides when magnified. There is a contrast boost at F/4, but that’s only noticeable if you compare image crops side-by-side, like I do in the review. The mid-sections are quite sharp at F/4, with the corners staying a little soft at all focal lengths.
The Sony DT 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM is a lens that would be perfect for low-light, hand-held street shooting, or portrait photography; the lens is optically maximized at F/4 in my opinion—really! I’m still on the fence about which lens I like better, this one or the CZ 16-80mm. For those of you wondering about how it compares to the CZ 16-80mm, I worked up a comp; it’s located at the very bottom of the review page. People wanting instant gratification read below.
Comparison with CZ 16-80mm results in a nut-shell: the Sony DT 16-50mm has a slightly better build quality, SSM focusing; it’s about one stop faster; and less expensive by about $150; it also weights a little more, and is slightly larger. Optical performance is very similar between the lenses at all focal lengths. People that normally only shoot in daylight would probably enjoy the CZ 16-80mm more.
How does the 16-50mm F/2.8 SSM compare (in sharpness alone) to the full frame Carl Zeiss 24-70mm F/2.8 SSM? I don’t have that lens on hand, but based on memory, and by looking at old comps, I’d say the CZ 24-70mm is about the same, to marginally better, depending on focal length and aperture. Would I rather carry the A900 and CZ 24-70mm? Are you kidding? I’ll take the A580 and 16-50mm every time, the full frame combo is too darn cumbersome; try wearing a 4lb (1.8kg) necklace all day!
More samples from the Sony DT 16-50mm F/2.8 lens
Check out the full size samples from the Sony 16-50mm F/2.8 lens. These images were taken at 16mm, and focused for the trees in the background, although just about everything is in the range of focus here, just don’t compare between samples at the very bottom edge. Manual focus was set properly for the first shot using live view focus check, and all subsequent shots used that same setting. No tripod was used. Additionally, RAW was used, and converted to level 8 jpegs in ACR 6.6. No adjustments have been made other than the conversion.
Full images from Sony 16-50mm at 50mm.
Feel free to inspect the two boring, but useful full size test images from the new Sony DT 16-50mm F/2.8 lens. They were shot in RAW and converted to Jpegs in ACR 6.6, no adjustments. One was taken at 50mm, F.2.8, the other at 50mm, F/5.6. Perfect focusing came at just past infinity, everything but the very bottom should be in focus, so don’t look at the bottom corners when making comparisons. The mountain shows the same level of details across the middle of the image, so it’s easy to tell the sharpness pattern at each aperture. Their actually isn’t much difference between F/4-5.6, so that makes the long end of this zoom pretty good! BTW; I don’t have an F/4 shot from this random batch of photos, I was just out walking around and took a few snaps.
