Sony 16-55 F2.8 G Lens vs Sony 16-50 Kit Lens

[@asterix908]

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.

[@icedoutelite]

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

[@kevogoeswild-wildlifenatur7411]

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

[@medianikophotography]

You’re a legend sir

[@TwoOneSe7en]

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.

[@thanhpham7737]

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]

agree

[@t0tobi]

totally my take away as well

[@jpb10]

...and the kit lens has OSS

[@g43654]

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

[@edwardfenyesgyorgy265]

@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]

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]

Already done here ! kzbin.info/www/bejne/hn_UmISYnr2LrNU A very quick comparison ! ok but a comparison =)

[@samkanter25]

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.

[@ElricX]

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]

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]

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

[@PatrickWithCamera]

@@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.

[@kingweddingmedia]

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.

[@LeeZavitz]

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]

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?

[@chrisau2159]

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

[@LucaBorghesan]

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!

[@joaodz8]

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

[@Jeremy-gm4ng]

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]

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

[@tuyenhoang5546]

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

[@trym2121]

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

[@patmat.]

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

[@aryanenzo]

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]

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

[@Thumpr110]

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

[@madebyPure]

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

[@stang8913]

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

[@JG7Racer]

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

On the bright side: you don't have to do skin corrections with the kit-lens...

[@andreip9378]

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

[@andrzejjaniak6849]

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]

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

[@rollingshutter3834]

@@tszabon do you use sony a6400 with it?

[@samsargdong1135]

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!

[@amirleshem7344]

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

[@bguerrero0410]

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.

[@tggentil]

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.

[@vannakfinale]

Have been waiting for this Thanks for the review

[@ming509]

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

[@paulfedorenko2301]

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.

[@idfcs]

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

[@pop1348]

"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]

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

[@stang8913]

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

[@j.w.9561]

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

[@Midane85]

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

[@pop1348]

@@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 !!!

[@karlv.tinero2660]

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]

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]

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.

[@LevsRagasa]

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

[@justinstraver24]

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]

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.

[@cuterey90]

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

[@hosumyeung9776]

yes please!!

[@Reinh4]

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

[@MeAMuse]

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]

The SEL1650 is pretty good. It even has OSS.

[@Jeremy-gm4ng]

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]

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]

@@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

[@richbass]

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

[@DarkViperus]

@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.

[@johnbecich9540]

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.

[@JG7Racer]

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]

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

[@JG7Racer]

@@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!!

[@davelee7736]

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

[@Midane85]

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.

[@just_inhawaii]

Why couldn’t they sprinkle some OSS on this one? Why? For us handheld video shooters who just bought A6400s 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@jespero94]

Agree!

[@pavelvon6147]

Yep bro, I'm in the same situation. Why? For the price ...

[@moskvichshowarchive]

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

[@stevensmedia1904]

I have the 16-70, so I don’t think I’ll buy the 16-55mm. Because of your reviews, I bought the sigma 16mm & 56mm lenses along with the Sony 35mm. Thanks for you honest reviews.

[@RageCage1701]

The 16-70 isn't a great lens. You should sell it because it still holds its value pretty well thanks to the Zeiss name and put the money toward the 16-55.

[@gabithemagyar]

@@RageCage1701In strictly edge to edge sharpness terms the Zeiss is nothing to write home about but is not terrible. On the plus side, it has a very useful range, is quite compact, light weight and delivers pleasing colours. For these reasons many people are happy with it for photos, particularly for travel/vacation photos. Me too, even though I have an 18-105 as well which I use only for video since I dislike the power zoom for photos and the weight to reach ratio. There's more to a lens than just sharpness. The Zeiss is overpriced though … but, as you point out, at least it holds its value well. If I had an a6500 or a6600 (IBIS models) I would probably get the 16-55 instead as you suggest, however.

[@RageCage1701]

@@gabithemagyar Don't get me wrong -- I do think there are positive attributes to the Zeiss 16-70. It's a lens I've always *wanted* to love, if that makes sense, because on paper it's a great zoom lens -- essentially, the 16-55 before the 16-55 was made. I think the issues I and many others have with this lens can be boiled down to two points: (1) the well-known quality control issues -- you're never quite sure if you're going to get a "good" or "bad" copy, even in 2019; (2) the image quality doesn't match the price, meaning you'd expect much better IQ at a $1,000 price point; as Arthur and other reviewers have demonstrated, there are focal lengths where the kit beats the Zeiss on IQ! I admire what Sony/Zeiss was trying to do when they released this lens, particularly as it was in the relatively early days of the aps-c system, but time has passed this lens by and I just don't see how anyone could justify buying this anymore with the release of the 16-55 -- at the point you're going to spend $1,000 on a mediocre zoom, you may as well spend the extra $400 to get an excellent one.

[@gabithemagyar]

@@RageCage1701 I actually agree with you :-) If I had a camera with IBIS I would snap up the new 16-55 even at its current price. Without OSS though, I'm just not sure that in the scenario for which I want it (handheld still shots indoors at slower shutter speeds without flash ), if it would give me better enough results than the 16-70 f4 OSS on my a6300 and a6000 bodies to warrant the expenditure. Springing for the a6500 or a6600 at roughly the same cost might be a better idea in that I could then used unstabilized primes like the Zeiss 23mm f1.8 or the Sigma 16mm f1.4 instead although in some instances (castles, churches etc.) switching prime lenses can be risky, Decisions … decisions :-)

[@geotoub]

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!

[@cantkeepitin]

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

[@stang8913]

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

[@ArthurR]

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]

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]

​@@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]

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

[@gabithemagyar]

​@@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.

[@4.7m_views]

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 KZbin camera community!

[@realpokski]

Sounds a bit funny when hearing all through the video that these lenses can't be compared... as that's what the entire video is about :D

[@someone_at_large]

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.

[@Jalexander61]

I'm surprised how well the kit lens held up considering the price difference. The G didn't blow me away!

[@Wakodaf]

1/60? R u sure its right speed?

[@neilcameron434]

The price of this lens is nuts, if i was in the market to blow this much on a lens I'd have a full frame camera. I'll stick to my Sony (with oss) and sigma primes for now

[@ColtCapperrune]

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]

He done that already

[@tuyenhoang5546]

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

[@ColtCapperrune]

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

[@BestmobilesInUa]

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

[@ThePrybra07]

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.

[@kenholmes7999]

The G absolutely crushes the kit. I have had the kit for years now and while I am very much an amateur I can't stand blurry fuzzy shots. Whats the point of saving money if these priceless shots of my family and travels are crap.

[@davidteer80]

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

[@Lalitaditya100]

Okay, i thought the background was a green screen for a second, that's insane bokeh

[@happy030]

Obviously a lot better! So folks: Let´s get the dough together for the 16-55 f2.8

[@TexpatOTG]

Yeah, am looking for a night job for that reason ...

[@paulfeiger]

Love your stuff. This one left me confused because comparing a $1,300 lens to a $150 lens seems a little unfair.

[@rsmith02]

There aren't so many APS-C standard zooms. He also compared the Zeiss 16-70.

[@John_Grole]

I was seriously thinking of upgrading my 16-50. C'mon Mr Reutov - firstly some of these comparisons were not exactly on the same bases. Secondly the differences even viewed on a 40" monitor were mostly modest, not "huge". This comparison was not quite what I expected and I'm now unsure if it's worth paying megabucks for such a minor improvement. I do wonder whether Arthur comparison techniques are valid though. On the back of this video who would want to buy the 16-55mm?

[@darksideemt]

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

[@joaopauloferreira2585]

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

[@nightcoder5k]

If you don't pixel peep they mostly look the same. I have 2 copies of the SEL1560 and one is slightly sharper than the other. I wonder if you have a defective one. Yours looks a bit on the unsharp side.

[@Blerpa]

I've the SEL16-50 kit lens for my a6000: it is so bland and mediocre even my Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 from 1986 in total manual and with a cheap adapter takes better photos.

[@RageCage1701]

Come on--we're not talking about "pixel peeping" here. There are obvious differences in image quality; there is a ton more detail that you're pulling in with the 16-55 vs. the kit. Whether it's worth $1,400 for that upgrade is a different question, but you're kidding yourself if you think this is just pixel peeping. By the way, this is coming from someone who thinks the kit lens is a very strong starter lens and is one of the most underrated aps-c lenses out there.

[@rsmith02]

Non-peeped the kit lens looks horrendous. The sides are smeared. I never saw that with Canon or Nikon DSLR kit lenses, which are good enough.

[@franciscoromero800]

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

[@maybejensen]

aw man that is some crispy footage

[@Barnyz]

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

[@TW-iu9zy]

... 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 ...

[@vladimirsemenchenko3966]

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.

[@TexpatOTG]

This lens is definitely out of my price range. I would like fast lenses in that range, but can buy a 16mm Sigma, a Sony 35mm and 50mm for less than that 1 lens. 2nd hand I can pickup those 3 for about $675 USD. ... for the same money as the 15-55mm, I could also pickup a 2nd 6400 body. This lens will not be in my future.

[@ShinDongJi]

I'm with u Man. One problem I have with Sony is Lenses. My body is old, It's 2019 and iM still using my A6000 with a 50 and 35 1.8 OSS. Im patiently waiting for a decetly priced zoom to complete what I needed but I guess Sony really isn't going to release any good zoom lenses under the 1K bracket. The closest I am deciding to is the Tamron 28-75 2.8 in which I have to give up the wider end in the process.

[@stang8913]

To be able to get rid of several lens on my trips, I still believe it worths the price. Its time consuming with all the process of changing all the lenses on your trips too.

[@larsge]

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

[@13Hangfire]

Great review Arthur... thanks!

[@SUBHENDUMAJI]

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 ?

[@dwmspace]

Nice review. What was used to record this video?

[@ArthurR]

Sony A6400 and Sigma 56mm!

[@dwmspace]

Arthur R Awesome! Subject separation is unreal

[@ozTomSawyer]

the 1655F2.8G is definitely on my list, image quality is impeccable, it's just a little bit too big and heavy for the apsc system, it sony could make a new version that is less than 400g it would be perfect

[@markrobinson891]

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.

[@abilliever]

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

[@colinsnowphoto]

I just got one in for use on my a6500 and returned it. The vignette at 16mm is huge - complete with black corners in RAW. The jpegs have it too. Also, there is no Lightroom lens profile yet. So to correct for it you have to crop. I am very disappointed!!!

[@marckummer3950]

David Marques Neves this lens is not an 18-55, this lens is wider at 16mm than the 16mm sigma. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHqakJ-IabeIobc

[@colinsnowphoto]

@@marckummer3950 Thanks for the link to video review. I was comparing this myself. I have that Sigma. One thing he didn't seem to point out is the Sigma has a better minimal focus distance. The spec says Sony is 33cm and Sigma is 25cm. But my informal test indicated it's a bit further away on the Sony. That matters to me because I like close focus / wide-angle shots.

[@rsmith02]

LR profile is out.

[@skydevils666]

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]

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

[@mylogify]

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

[@waiyanlin845]

I watch alot of your videos. those are very informative and very useful. Now I am thinking of buying a new Sony camera and lenses and I have 3 options in my mind but not sure which one will be the best bet. I will be taking mostly photo and a few videos. Please sugguest as I have a limited budget. Option - 1 Sony A6400 Zeiss e16-70mm F4 Sigma 16mm F1.4 Option - 2 Sony A6600 Sigma 16mm f1.4 Sigma 56mm f1.4 Option - 3 Sony A6400 Sony e16-55mm f2.8

[@rsmith02]

Sony a6600. Used Zeiss 24mm 1.4. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8.

[@bloomfield295]

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

[@nolifuncion]

I'm excited for the upcoming sigma trio comparisons!

[@rookiereviews9059]

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?

[@scottschultz7645]

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]

Scott Schultz I thought the same thing. lol

[@johnatanlopez8510]

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

[@pizzablender]

My 16-50 was a lot better around 20-30 mm. The corners at 16 were poor like Arthur's copy, and mine was really more hazy above 35. Got a used 16-70 after that. My 16-70 is worse at 25 mm, but that is side softness and not a general hazyness.

[@pop1348]

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

[@mduoba]

Someone needs to make lenses that are only as sharp as what is needed to take sharp 4k video. Pixel peeping photos is for folks blowing up large photos. We need compact, fast zoom lenses for video. Somebody make it!! We just need something sharp enough so that we get the best change at clear slow motion on a Sony camera (notorious fuzzy slow mo)

[@MsQwerasdf1234]

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)

[@Pccpy]

just picked a 16-55 f2.8 for $800 from my friend. Haven't test it yet, hope it is worth $800.

[@something2tell]

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_]

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.

[@bloomfield295]

Don't know who this lens is for at 1400$ USD, Sigma 16mm, 30mm and 56mm could be had for almost the same price and all three of them kill at low light because all three are f1.4 vs this f2.8 zoom. Maybe under 1000 USD this lens could be justify but 1400$ no way for me.

[@gigiilmilionario2]

PLEASE do the comarison with Sigma 17-50mm with mc11 adapter, it's half the price. Thank you.

[@adolfogalvez4593]

Please, that comparison would be great

[@davidsameshima1184]

tunor erton He did a review of this combination, back in 2017. The combination works, but there are definitely issues. The 17-50mm f2.8 is not on Sigma’s official compatibility list for the MC-11. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYbYlaF3fa1nj5Y

[@gigiilmilionario2]

@@davidsameshima1184 Yes I know, but I can accept these issues if the photo qulity is good. 1400 dollars are too much, the lens is very good but for that price it must be amazing 😁

[@rsmith02]

I use the 17-50 and it works quite well with the MC-11 on my a6500 and a6600. Of course, no video autofocus. I would be interested to see how that lens compares optically to the 16-55.

[@OptLab]

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

[@robertcudlipp3832]

Why should there be any surprise given the huge price differential? I have been a little surprised at how charitable you have been to the kit lens over the years. The 2.8 lens is so expensive that there is prospect of my purchasing an example. Historically, many of your longstanding viewers have been both,attracted to, and remained loyal as your channel was focused towards quality and affordable quality, both for camera bodies and glass. Have your priorities altered?

[@HappyHands.]

i think you got a bad kit lens. I think its odd that your Sony 16-50mm Kit vs 16-70mm Zeiss Comparison favored the kit lens and now all the sudden its blurry... seems suspicious Im wondering if you cut the OSS off in the kit lens for this comparison.

[@SirMaaaxDE]

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]

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

[@SirMaaaxDE]

@@ArthurR Thanks!

[@MrJohnnyMel]

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

[@MrCameraJunkie]

Great vid, but you showed that there really wasn’t a comparison.

[@schoeferfilm]

Great video Arthur 👍🏻i need a lighter lense for my a6500 (filming) and my crane m3 😉 I think the kit lens would be ok for this 👍🏻 best cinematic greetings from a small german KZbin filmmaker 😂

[@YellowSnowGR]

As an owner of the kit lens, I watched this review to see how much better the F2.8 G is and if it is worth the price. Sorry but this review didn't help me. The reason is that you shoot at low shutter speeds. Especially in the 4:52 part of your video, the kit lens is at 41mm and you shoot at 1/30 of a second with the kit lens. I think that at such speed most of the sharpness will be lost due to camera blur.

[@rsmith02]

Have you used the kit lens? See the sides of the image- the smearing and blurring. That's not camera movement but how the lens works.

[@googlefriend7685]

The thumbnail 👌

[@joshua4578]

Are you using the same camera or two different bodies?

[@tanman99]

Now on the kit lens side put 12 $100 bills and see which one looks better.