Sony 16-55 F2.8 G vs Zeiss 16-70 F4 Lens Comparison

[@Thumpr110]

I love seeing these types of comparisons. I look forward to seeing this face off with the 18-105

[@gabithemagyar]

Very thorough comparison. One thing I felt was missing was that most of the shots were done outside in daylight where the max aperture values of 2.8 vs 4.0 really only matter in terms of bokeh. It would have been interesting to see some comparison shots handheld (no flash) with a non-stabilised body in a dim indoor setting with moving subjects (such as is often the case at a wedding or similar social event) to compare the effects on exposure and sharpness of the relative max apertures of the 2 lenses as well as the 16-70's OSS . That's what these moderate zoom range lenses are often purchased for. To be honest, outside on a bright day a fast aperture is really not that much of an issue if the zoom range is sufficient to get you the bokeh you want.

[@nerakomentaru]

Thanks for a comparison. As I never go into 100% crops, I found that in terms of colour reproduction 16-70 is much better

[@TVe200]

I own both. I bought the 16-70 5 years ago and when I compered it with the Sigma 56 1,4 at F4 the Zeiss was very soft in the corners. So I bought the 16-55 2.8 two months ago.

[@redskinfaithful]

I have that zeiss lens. Is it worth the upgrade?

[@TVe200]

@@redskinfaithful Yes and no. Most people see my pictures only on Instagram and there your can't tell the difference. When I just take the camera with me in case I find something to take pictures of I often take the Zeiss. It is much smaller and lighter even if it goes ut to 70 mm. The 16-55 2.8 is Sony's best APS-C lens so I don't regret buying it. I use it a lot, the primes are mostly collecting dust.

[@redskinfaithful]

TVe200 thanks for the reply. I’m looking for a couple for portrait lens. I’m thinking of getting it and selling the Zeiss lens or keeping the zeiss and getting the sigma 30mm and 56mm. Any advice?

[@kalef1234]

I got the 16-70 for my a6300. Used it today while flying for some aerial shots and I really have noticed it can be quite soft. I even found that OSS seems to make things worse...I turn it off and have a fast shutter speed for better results

[@HBZERaviation]

Interesting. It can be very sharp but today i shoot in a forest and the photos was very soft and i was asking why. The OSS can be the answer. But I have the A6500 with inbody stabilization and it's not possible to disable only the lens stabilization.

[@jan-nilss.680]

Hey Arthur a comparison between the two G-Lenses 18-105 and 16-55 would be interesting. Your Videos helped me a lot with desion makeing!

[@ChristianPecksteiner]

yes please! want it too.

[@KertArt]

16-70 zeiss sharper than 18-105, better at the corners so what do you want to see ?

[@PatrickJaszewski]

Great comparison! I just bought the 16-55 on Tuesday and I'm super impressed with it. Sharp as a tack.

[@mahmud-ahsan]

and lightweight what i love

[@254033775]

how about HORRIBLE distorsion on 16mm?

[@AndreiGrigorean]

Please do a 16-55 F2.8 vs 18-105 F4 comparison.

[@danielurenabenitez2777]

The 18-105 is pretty similar to the kit lens

[@JonathanBarrow]

Andrei Grigorean I have the 18-105 but I’ve been thinking about selling it for the 16-55. I have the wider view of 16 (24mm) and the extra stop of light. But also love the versatility of the long 105

[@trym2121]

@@JonathanBarrow get 70-350 then

[@FRENCHGATMAN]

@@trym2121 or even maybe the 18-135 reviewed by Arthur which is sharper than the 18-105.

[@DCmite1]

aside from focal length no other sony telephoto lens looks to beat the new 16-55 2.8...talking apsc format. Would be awesome if Sigma made a 16-56 f1.4 👍

[@MrJokasama]

I would like this comparison to explain if the lack of stabilization in the sony a6100/6300 is a real issue if you are using the sony 16-55 f 2.8 without tripod?

[@gotchie1591]

I bought this 16-55 F2.8 few weeks ago. And the lens is sharp!. Btw. Piece of advise dont buy any filter/protection glass in front of the lens. Because it will make your 16mm /F2.8 shoot to have Vignetting effect. And is quite hard to correct in light room.. but the lens is worth it though. Super light and sharp.👍

[@ThePianoNest]

I used this lens with filter, few days ago accidentally dropped it (not that high, maybe 30cm from hand to table and hit my laptop. The lens is fine. The filter's ring was dented.

[@yoginwidhi6676]

@@ThePianoNest with its weight i wonder hows your laptop doing

[@NickL0VIN]

Wow, is that why with my clear UV filter it is causing that horrible Vignetting?!? I was wondering why! I was thinking of getting it replaced hahah. That’s so weird.

[@gotchie1591]

@@NickL0VIN yup even with clear filter it will cause vignette. I used sigma clear filter though. And quite expensive..😂. But for longer focal length it will be fine. The vignette will be gone.

[@NickL0VIN]

@@gotchie1591 thanks! Okay I took my UV filter off and the vignetting is less, but still there and very noticeable at 16mm! Is that normal?

[@scottwylie8568]

5:38 the Zeiss is back-focussed, the tree behind is sharp. So the camera missed focus at that time. Surprised you do not see that.

[@scottwylie8568]

And the exposure is totally off at 7:49. These tests do not seem very well controlled.

[@leonard1987os]

Hi Arthur, thanks for keeping this time the ISO and shutter speeds as low as possible (at least in the first several shots) for the best possible comparison. Keep up the good work!

[@aksikanal6507]

Such a beautiful family, regardless of the lens =)

[@254033775]

How about horrible distortion on 16mm on sony G?

[@JonathanBarrow]

I like the introduction of the gimbal shots into the product shots

[@ArthurR]

Tripod shots lol

[@rcpanorama]

I have had the Zeiss 4/16-70 for over 2 years and it is in my A-6500 camera most of the time. I do travel across the country 60% of the time, I have over 10,000 pictures with it (I fully depreciated the $800 in 2017). It is fantastic, not only sharp enough but the weight factor, 24-105mm equivalent makes it fantastic. I would say that my pictures are much more about composition and the ability of the photographer. I carry a bag with 2 other lenses, a super-wide and a prime for low light. For traveling, landscapes and street, why should I need this beautiful and great Sony with 15 mm short of mine and a f/2.8 when for lowlight I use 30mm f/1.8? Thanks Arthur for your great video, always food for discussion.

[@henri.witteveen]

Sometimes I get the impression an image is not exactly in focus or that you're not sure if a camera/lens focussed correctly. So why don't you set the camera in DMF focus mode. The camera will still autofocus but now you will see the focus peaking indicators so you know exactly what is in focus

[@NickL0VIN]

Only if you shoot in very low light without flash.

[@BassTiiii]

So, did anyone test the 16-55g against the Sigma 16mm in terms of Astrophotography?

[@VacationFor]

Sigma 16mm is way to good for astrophotography because of their wide aperture 👍

[@maserahvlog1175]

better if the name of the lens in this comparison was more recognizable, i find it hard to see because of the small letters.

[@BrianTheCameraGuy]

What's up Arthur? I love my 16 to 55 g len. I don't mind the price for what you get. My only complaint is that there is no OSS. If they put that in this lens then it could keep me in the ASP-C cameras for a long time. Maybe they will come out with a 10 to 18 g lens with OSS.

[@AlergicToSnow]

Thank you. Exactly the comparison I was after. I have the 16-70 bought with my a6000. I’ve now upgraded to an a6600. I have an a7rii and fantastic FF lenses so my standards are higher, but I still prefer the smaller form factor for travel. I only want to carry one aps-c lens with me that will cover all typical scenarios. That’s been tougher than I’d imagined and I had high hopes for the 16-55 f2.8.

[@PaulDuggan]

How necessary is stabilization at 16-55? Is this really a lens only for A6600s?

[@andreklooster6058]

I would like an answer to this question ..

[@leonardmitchell935]

why no barrel distortion comparison? for architecture photografy this is quite a big point...

[@dhretimanmallick4714]

Hi, can you please make a video for Picture Profile? I’m curious to know, what colour settings you are using for photography. I mean, when you show us the photo comparison, what PP or colour settings you are using? I believe, all of them was before edit photos. Thanks in advance.

[@stefpix]

Are you going to keep the 16-70? I compared the 2 and I got similar results. My 16-70 shows wear and also the white numbers on the barrel tend to fade. I was thinking about keeping it for travel, as selling it would not be worth it. I still need the Sigma primes for dark interiors. Swapping lenses is a pain, it makes you miss shots and/or increases the risk of dropping one or having dust on the sensor.I think for 500 USD the 16-70 is decent. I wonder about the 18-135, but as a general lens I prefer the wider end of 16 mm to extra reach.

[@RafaelPortoMediaServices]

it's an older lens combo but how would you compare the new G lens to the Sigma 18-35 1.8 with adapter combo? Thank you so much Arthur!

[@lilrr1431]

Hey can you do a video about backup and how you store your files. Im confused wether to go for external hard drive or have a cloud backup confused 🤷🏻‍♀️

[@frdim867]

As it seems to me your example of 16-70 has some out of focus problems because on some pictures you show faces with different sharpness but some hairs has almost the same sharpness on both lenses.

[@giuliannomoroni7860]

There are many decentralized versions of the 17-60, its results do not please, perhaps tested with a problematic copy.

[@zayismatGiri]

How about g 16-55mm it has image stabilizer??

[@roberts2714]

Would you please compare photos from the 16-55mm f2.8 and the 18-135mm f3.5-5.6? I want to see if the image quality improvement is worth the cost of upgrading? Wide open and stopped down a stop or two would be most helpful. Thanks

[@jdmran]

1:48 WALL-E

[@OLuvin]

Johnny 5!

[@ngantw1126]

😂😂😂

[@pernoren2450]

Haha great!!

[@muctrun9me7768]

Nice imagination!

[@victorwilson3814]

would love to see how the 16 55 compares to the Sigma 24 70.. I can't decide which route to go. I have the Sigma 16 and 30 for a6400.

[@nadergadelrab2669]

amazing work man keep it up, your channel is the best for apsc sony lenses comparison, could you provide a comparison between full-frame lenses sharpness when used on apsc vs full-frame bodies ? also I am looking forward to see Tamron 17 28 vs sony 16 50 2.8 .

[@jmackultra]

Are you going to pit it against the 18-105 next?

[@sneakergearz]

If you need more reach, would you recommend the 18-135 or 18-105? I love the constant F4 but if I’m using the reach its generally for outdoors or sporting.

[@HighRoller3X]

@Foto4Max I have the 18-105 f4 and haven't had any issues with it at all. It has been a great walking around lens especially for outdoors shooting. I use an A6400 for reference so it works out to a 24-157mm.

[@franks9133]

Hi Levi, if you plan to shoot any video with it, possibly for your channel, get the 18-105 f/4. I recently picked up a used one from amazon warehouse with 20% off and it’s flawless. Love your channel. Keep up the good work. I actually just got the CP3.xii today after your last video. Have high instep and wide mid/fore foot just like you. It’s fitting a little tight. Hope it breaks in soon.

[@AiurMedia]

@@HighRoller3X 18mm becomes 27-28mm fullframe equivalent

[@HighRoller3X]

Aiur Productions True, my miscalculation there, I must have been thinking 16mm and not 18mm.

[@JonathanBarrow]

He has a video comparing those two lenses. Essentially the 105 is better for the consistent F stop. But 135 is very lightweight

[@GentlemanMasterclass]

@Arthur, for spending my first $1000 now, what's a better buy, the Sony 16-55 G? Or the Sigma trio? If you didn't own any of these four, which route would you take?

[@mirrorlessny]

1.4 aperture collects 4 times more light than 2.8,,,,,,,, I feel that apsc sensors especially need the fastest lenses you are willing to carry,,, I made so many videos with apsc cameras & 1.4 aperture Sigma 16mm its painful using 2.8 now,, unless its the 20mm pancake :)

[@redskinfaithful]

Same here. I’m trying to choose which route to take.

[@NickL0VIN]

How about a Sony 24-70mm F/2.8 GM full frame vs Sony 16-55mm F/2.8 G APS-C video?!

[@skewcrap]

I just did my own comparison between 16-55, 16-70 and 18-135. My Zeiss is really crappy, especially at 24mm it is really garbage due to field curvature. Would have been interesting to see how your copy performs near infinity @24mm. I still don‘t know if it is normal or If I have a bad copy. The result of my comparison was that 18-135 will be my future standard lens. 16-55 just feels a bit front heavy and it just does not fit well to the A6400 due to missing OSS. I tested and an unstabilized camera/lens combo in 2020 is just a nogo for me.

[@cusebike5391]

For $800. I bought a Fuji X-T20 with a 18-55 2.8-4.0 lens. Much better than my Sony zooms. I picked up a 6100 so I can continue to use my Sony/Sigma lenses. It works for me. YMMV.

[@phucdinh7490]

that 18-55f2.8 4.0 lens has a very good p/p

[@gordonyz4]

I tested against my Z 24-70mm 2.8S on Z6, both equally sharp till 45mm. The 16-55 is so awesome!

[@carloscunha5933]

Arthur I always enjoy your comparisons. It would be nice a comparison between 16-70 and 18-135. Thanks

[@mihaiserbanescu8676]

how about video on these lens?

[@siddhantkhanal4043]

Need some suggestion How is the samyang 18mm f2.8 on sony a7iii as compared to sony10-18mm f4 on a6400? I am planning to go on sony system. And i am confused between sony a7iii or a6400 because of that ultrawide lens. I have two sets in mind but I can’t choose which one to go 1. Sony a7iii+ tamron 28-75 f2.8+ samyang 18 f2.8 2. Sony a6400+ sigma trio + sony 10-18 f4 I mostly shoot in the range of 24-70 but sometimes I need that ultrawide lens(near 16 mm) for covering the whole landscape and some creative photos with unique perspective that ultrawide gives. I am not much into video or vlogging. Photo is my priority. F2.8 on full frame will give me sufficient amount of blur and low light capability. It would be much better to just zoom in and out on tamron than changing lens each time with the sigma trio. And it will be easier to carry one lens than carrying three lens while travelling. But If I go with a7iii and tamron 28-70 I couldn’t afford more than the samyang 18mm lens. If the samyang lens is as good as sony 10-18 I would easily go with a7iii but I don’t know if the photo quality of samyang is as good as the sony 10-18. since it is a cheap lens I have some doubt. Can you tell me about those lens which one should I go for?

[@mirrorlessny]

I would go a7iii,,,, what about the new Sony 20mm 1.8 instead of samyang? good low light there

[@patconlon5757]

Is the Sony 16-55 a kit lens? To they make e mount?

[@olegm3820]

I have Sony 18-105G and Sony 16-55G and Sigma 30-1.4 and 16-1.4. 16-55 and sigma primes shoot very very close. Primes is a little little bit sharper in certain cases. You won't be able to distinguish images by sharpness and micro contrast.. Sigma adds quite a little bit of magenta. Sony gives a slightly more correct color. But. If you add just a little unsharpen mask to the 18-105 images in a graphics editor or lightroom you won 't be able to distinguish images between 18-105 and 16-55 in color or sharpness if u doing ur shoots outside. Yes - bokeh are differents. And microcontrast 16-55 is marginally better. And thats all. But the price difference is huge. 16-55 is unnecessarily expensive and you can get very close results with cost cheaper lenses, only adding a little processing in the editor.

[@andrewfreeman88]

Hi can you speak more on the "unsharpen mask" want to know more about this.

[@olegm3820]

​@@andrewfreeman88 You can use Adobe Photoshop with menu filter-sharpen-unsharpen mask if u shooting in JPEG and use lightroom with sharpen option if you shoot in RAW. Just add a little sharpe with 18-105"pictures and u get really nice picture which has no differents beetween 18-105 and 16-55. Sure if u shooting outside. Inside 16-55 get wins with F 2.8 for low light. Its clear that 18-105 has fewer opportunities in some low light situations. But the difference in price far exceeds the difference between the quality of photos anyway.

[@andrewfreeman88]

@@olegm3820 Thank you, great info.

[@slam5]

I think most people are buying 16-55 to replace the Sigma trio. The convenience of carrying one instead of three lens is huge.

[@igormaslov2016]

Excellent review, Arthur!! 16-55f2.8G -my dream🤩 If you can compare 18-105 to 16-55,then what will be better?..

[@ArthurR]

The 18-105 is good, but no where near the sharpness of the 16-55.

[@igormaslov2016]

@@ArthurR Arthur, thanks for your reply! I'm starting to save money on 16-55f2.8G😎

[@WilliamWallaceRoss]

I never go lower than F/11 on my 16-70, mainly because I shoot landscapes with a tripod. The 16-55 should be a sharper lens overall, as you have shown. Thanks for comparing the 2 lenses.

[@sdflysha]

16-55 is much better(I can see it from price😂)

[@jayholland3147]

This has nothing to do with the lens, but I was wondering if you could do a tutorial on the A6000 and high speed sync flash. I cant seem to find a solid explanation of the right configuration of flash(s), on camera or triggered to take advantage of HSS. Thanks!!

[@lost_places_global9008]

Can you do the new 16-55mm F2.8 G vs a new and solid version of the 18-105mm F4 G? Expensive G zooms lens vs cheaper G zoom lens

[@SirMaaaxDE]

Yep, that 16-55 is definetly better than the Zeiss. But I don't think it may be uninteresting for a lot of people simply because it is expensive. It doesn't have OSS and for anyone who doesn't have an A6500/A6600 and wants to film freehanded, it isn't a viable option... Sony should've included OSS.

[@wilo_vera001]

If you have to choose between Sony 16-55 F2.8 and Sigma 18-35 F1.8 which one do you choose? what about from 35mm to 55mm, is it an important difference?

[@Jml2475]

The sigma 18-35 is for a mount isn't it? I'd personally rather have the native 16-55

[@wilo_vera001]

Yes, but with the canon mount + Sigma MC11 Adapter. it cost around $1000 lens + adapter, and sony lens $1300

[@Jml2475]

@@wilo_vera001 what is more important to you the extra low light performance of a 1.8 or the extra reach of the 55?

[@stefpix]

@Foto4Max I sold the Sigma 18-35. As the quality and rendering was great, it was so heavy and uncomfortable ergonomically with the MC-11 adapter. Not really the weight itself, but how unbalanced it felt. Also it was focus hunting in dim interiors on dark faces. AF was not terrible overall, but not reliable in some circumstances. I bought the 16-55, which is great, but you give up one stop. I wish Sigma made a native E mount 18-35, more balanced and with better AF.

[@ASVP5]

How does he take these comparison shots!? Does he use a tripod and two camera with mounting base swaps?

[@akirahojo2]

That shot at 11:50 is gorgeous!

[@CodyPraud]

Thanks for all of the reviews that you provide, they've helped me out a lot over the years.. Now that the Tamron 17-70 is out and you've had a chance to work with it, would you be able to do a comparison between the 16-70 and the 17-70? nobody has done a comparison between these two lenses yet and I'd love to see just how much of a difference there is and whether it's worth selling off my 16-70 and picking up the Tamron for travelling. It would be roughly about $600 dollars Canadian more for the 17-70 based on the market prices for used 16-70 lenses here.

[@stephenduong2402]

I still have a NEX6 , is the purchase of 1655 better option to buy before an a6400.

[@Jerry0488-s7d]

Did you have the Face Detection feature on, for the portrait shots? And did you use Eye-Af? Thank you.

[@Jgheiler]

For handled video, will I be able to get better footage with the OSS? Or can I stabilize the footage post with the 16-55mm, to get similar performance? I have steady hands, but there is always some shakiness...:(

[@gers709]

Hello. Please do the comparison of sigma 18-35mm with mc 11 vs sony 16-55mm. I am curious of the difference of these lens mostly in low light situation. I dont care about the af speed because we already know that the sony native lens wins on that. But i'd rather sacrifice some af speed if I can get better output on sigma lens with mc11

[@victorlolo2008]

look forward toSony update the whole apsc lens lineup

[@mirrorlessny]

wonder what body design it will be

[@SkymenKing]

Would you help to have a comparison of the following on Sony APSC: 1) Sigma Trio 2) Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art 3) Sony 16-55 F2.8F 4) Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di III I really like to see the image quality comparison between the Sigma Art and Sigma Trio. Also, the three F2.8 lens comparison.

[@sandorcayon992]

Please do 18-105 f4 vs 16-55 f2.8. We need it

[@chich22]

Hi, what camera did I you use and were all the shots handheld. Just seeing if you used a body with ibis. Thanks.

[@ArthurR]

Sony A6100, so no IBIS.

[@chich22]

@@ArthurR thank you Arther. Could you do a comparison between 16-55mm and 18-105 please or would you say you can't compare these lens as they're so different. Thanks and love your content. I've just bought the a6400.

[@redskinfaithful]

I’m on the fence, I need portrait lenses. I currently have the Sony 85 1.8 and the Zeiss 16-70 4.0 on my a6500. I was thinking of getting the Sigma trio or should I sell my Zeiss 16-70 4.0 and get this Sony 2.8 lens???

[@geefreck]

Arthur, or anyone - can you comment on how the 16-55 does without OSS (optical steadyshot)? I'd like some real world thoughts on this. I shoot landscapes, and I want a complimentary lens for my 10-18. Don't have any new models with in-camera stabilization.

[@SimonLawHoChun]

is lack of OSS an issue? (a6400 user)

[@Thumpr110]

I’m disappointed they didn’t include OSS, given its price

[@SimonLawHoChun]

Tyler exactly, if it had OSS it wouldve been the perfect all-in-one lens for aspc

[@Gxost14]

Yes. In low light Zeiss 16-70/4 outperforms Sigma 16/1.4 just because of OSS

[@Thumpr110]

Олександр Банах The difference between f/1.4 and f/4 is 3 full stops of light. That’s a difference in shutter speed from 1/30 second and 1/250 second. With an aperture value of f/1.4, I find the lack of OSS to not be a hindrance whatsoever (especially if the focal length is short). Comparing f/2.8 to f/4, however, only provides one stop of light to work with. So the question will be- how slow does your shutter speed need to be? That stop of light allowed by the aperture may be enough to compensate for camera shake, if comparing shutter speeds of 1/30 second and 1/125 second.

[@amberescobedo9736]

What is the best lens for the Sony A6000 for landscapes? Really want to get the best for travel. Thank you! So glad I came across your videos

[@delltan]

which one is bokehier, 70mm at f4 or 55mm at f2.8?

[@mirrorlessny]

was just doing a video tutorial on bokeh the other day,,,,,,,,,,,, 56mm sigma 1.4 beats them all :)

[@Gxost14]

When I saw this comparison I thought "maybe this Zeiss too soft, mine one should be better" and checked photos from my lens. They were as soft as yours, so I ended up buying 16-55/f2.8. But I kept 16-70/f4. I checked it again, and I'd like to say it's a good lens. It's not as sharp as 16-55/f2.8, but it's not that soft. If focused perfectly, without micro-shakes, it produces decent shots with sharpness enough for 100% crop wide open. But only for focal range 24-60. 15-23 and 61-70 are softer. It's a good walk around lens, it's relatively small and lightweight, it has good focal range, constant aperture and great coating. But it's pricey, and it should be tested before buying. And sometimes f4 is not wide enough for portraits.

[@ettoreleiduan]

I have 60-70 f4 and 70-350...if i will buy a 16-55 what lens from 55 to 79/90/105? Thanks... Italy here ;-)))

[@andreapittinimusic]

Great video! I'd like an advice, I'm considering to get the 16-55mm F2.8, should I keep my Sony 35mm F1.8? Thanks

[@howi]

Finally! THANKS Arthur!

[@lin339]

How about 1655 compare with Tamron 28-75 2.8?

[@rifz42]

Thanks for this! the Zeiss seemed bad, it would be interesting to see a few test shots vs kit lens. how much worse could the kit lens be?

[@jochenkraus7016]

Sony: Hold my Sushi Seriously, the powerzoom kit lens is really not good. I think he reviewed it and compared it to some other lenses. But it's small, light and has OSS, I heard that it's great for HD video.

[@rsmith02]

Horrendous. The smeary sides are painful and it's as far from flat field as you can get. I had the misfortune of having to post-process shots with these for work.

[@grillmeister7]

I use the 16-70 on my NEX-6 for walk around shooting and can't justify $ 1300 for a new lens. I like the extra reach. My next purchase will be an A6700.

[@kevinz2000]

The Zeiss lens has inconsistent QC issues. I had 2 copies, and both were softer on 1 side (or 1 corner) compare to the others.

[@suzijames5601]

Hi, that was great! Now I know what I want, the Sony.....but I can’t quite afford it. So I am now trying to decide between the Sony 70-350 that you recently reviewed or the Sigma 16 mm 1.4. Currently I have only 4 lenses. Two zoom lenses that I got with my a6000 5 years ago, a Sony 85mm 1.8 and a Sony 28mm 2.0. as you with a Sony a6100. Does it make more sense to get the Sony telephoto or the Sigma 16 mm?I’m a beginning photographer so I don’t have a niche yet.

[@mirrorlessny]

Sony 70-350 is like a super telephoto, amazing for wildlife photography, Sigma 16 is very wide lens & got that magical 1.4 aperture (if you can force it)

[@suzijames5601]

mirrorlessNY Thanks for your input, I’m still in a quandary. I’d love to shoot my super fast whippets running at full speed. Maybe that’s a reason to get the telephoto.

[@jemd]

Hey Arthur, do you use the EFCS setting or do you leave it off? I have noticed on my a6400 that by turning it on, my photos have gotten sharper but maybe I'm just hallucinating 🤪 I've done my research but I'm still on this debate whether to use it or leave it turned off. What are you thoughts? Maybe make a video? Thanks.

[@SebiKoerner]

At that price point, not having OSS on the 16-55 is a dealbreaker. I have an a6400 that I mostly use for filming and I’m in the market for a stabilized native E-Mount lens in that zoom range or a prime at 16/18, 35 or about 50mm. Any recommendations?

[@BICIeCOMPUTERconGabriele]

Sony does the 50mm prime with oss, that is a good lens and not expensive.

[@orbisexplorers]

Hi Arthur! Did you test the new 16-55 2.8G with extension tubes, for macro photography?

[@raffaelebarone3134]

Sony zeiss 16-70 f4 vs Tamron 17-70 f2.8 ?

[@phillipec9720]

Hi Arthur, I think you do the best comparisons. I love your reviews. I have one request because I am not sure what I would get. I am thinking of getting the 16-55 or the 16 mm. Therefore, I wanted to ask you if you could do a comparison between the 16mm and the 16-55 mm ? Thank you

[@mirrorlessny]

Sigma 16mm ? it has 1.4 aperture, the 16-55 is f2.8 which is 4 times less maximum light transmission vs f1.4

[@bennielaars]

I'm not sure why people asked you to do this comparison as you've done exhaustive tests before: B is marginally better than A and C is far better than A. Why then compare B to C if we already know the result?

[@erich_w]

Thank you for this! Any thoughts on the zeiss vs the new sigma 18-50 2.8?

[@tomaszmagruk4845]

What camera were you using with those shots?

[@ChrisParayno]

I noticed you tend to focus on the looks for the first 5 minutes, not really that important. F4 price.....brutal.

[@manuelg5188]

Got the Zeiss on ebay for 350€. Almost new. And for that price it's simply amazing!

[@WilliamWallaceRoss]

WOW! Might have to trade in my Zeiss 16-70mm. With my Photo Suppliers closed, going to have to find one somewhere, that takes a trade-in, or sell it online. We shall see. Thanks for the comparison.

[@mytube2013]

Maybe compare 16-70 F4 with 17-70 F2.8?

[@UdeySri]

Please do a review of sigma 30mm f1.4 with newly released sony 20mm f1.8 😀

[@ArthurR]

Its on the list! I was thinking Sigma 16mm vs the new 20.

[@UdeySri]

@@ArthurR Great ! Yes please :)

[@BartCab]

I would like to see a similar comparison on the a6XXX series with the new Sigma A 24-70 mm f/2.8 DG DN

[@andrewfreeman88]

Some photos I preferred the Zeiss F4 but overall the 16-55 F2,8 wins but price is double so

[@vagant1221]

This lens (Sony SEL 16-55mm f/2.8) was supposed to be released in 2011 with Sony NEX 7.

[@olegb3544]

Made test VILTROX 85mm f/1.8 stm vs sony 85mm f/1.8, please.

[@CocoKoi321]

good about the sony is it has that in house cased ois but does the sigma? hopefully:(

[@thomasbreuer2462]

Great comparison! That‘s the Video, I‘ve watend for. Think you!

[@mahmud-ahsan]

I have the a6600 and 16-55 f/2.8 and I love it. The combination is specially great for travel.

[@MrJokasama]

For travel that combo is heavier than the full frame sony a7c with the sigma 28-70 f2.8...

[@maisummarceneiroumdemuitos8037]

it's a rare example of a Zeiss product that have only the famous name but not the great quality. 😢 The Sony G, in other hand, it's a unbelievable product that can extract unbelievable photos in some old a6000. A shame for Zeiss.

[@padsen2837]

if the Sony 16-55 beats the Soyn 35mm I would instantely buy it. Sony 35mm is my favorite lens so far.

[@aristotlevelasco8869]

I have 16-55 f2.8. I used it for video and yes it so awesome for my needs