Sony E 16-55mm f2 8 review: BEST premium zoom for Sony APSC

[@cameralabs]

In-depth review of Sony's best premium zoom for its APSC mirrorless cameras! Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/31wIF6B or Amazon: amzn.to/34Nc66o Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs Gordon's In Camera book at Amazon: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ Like Cameralabs? Get the T-Shirt: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop

[@RageCage1701]

This is *the* zoom lens to get if you're an aps-c shooter and cost is no object. Sony made a phenomenal lens, but is charging an astronomical price for it. As the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for."

[@cameralabs]

Exactly

[@sydneychuka4304]

Considering pairing this lens with the FX30

[@rvg1997]

Thanks Gordon. I always enjoy your reviews. The 16-55G is not for me since I do not do shooting that would require this lens but the 70-350 is a lens that I am very much interested in. Do you have a review planned for this lens?

[@cameralabs]

I certainly do and in a very similar format as I tested them side-by-side. I have it scheduled for next Monday, so keep an eye open! (subscribe to notifications if you haven't already!)

[@g43654]

Finally Sony gave us some new APS-C lenses and the a6600, but they put them in the fullframe price range. I'm starting to think Sony wants all of us to go full frame lol.

[@Thunderbird1337]

Great lens! Finally the perfect APS-C E-Mount lens for travelling that all Sony APS-C users were waiting for. I will wait until it's available for 1.000€ on sale somewhere.

[@Shulcyo]

Thunderbird1337 i highly doubt this lens will go on sale anytime soon. Might be years before it goes on sales as it’s currently unmatched for APSC cameras.

[@guigomes2139]

You have it in é infinity for 1065€

[@Thunderbird1337]

@@guigomes2139 Damn, that's a real good price. But that store doesn't look very trustworthy. Not even an impressum. Where do they send their goods from? Edit: I read they're selling grey imports and you only have 12 months warranty from them, no manufacturer guarantee.

[@bobhanuman65]

This lens is $1400. You can get the Fuji version used for just over $600. Sure it's a little bulkier but If you are a low light event shooter most likely you'll probably have a full frame because there are just so many more options like the Tamron. It would be interesting to do a head to head image quality comparison with the Fuji. Of course autofocus will be a lot better on the Sony.

[@arthurmermelshtein1767]

Nice review Gordon. Seems like a very good quality lens. Don't see too many people going for this lens though, it's very expensive. most people using the a6 series won't need it or won't be able to buy it, and the little more professionals using sony are using A7RIV or the A9. P.S - I loved the size of this lens.

[@focuspulling]

Sony keeps skimping on O.S.S. even though most of their camera bodies continue to lack I.B.I.S. They aren't going to get the message until reviewers step up and attack them for it.

[@markfleming9253]

But the 16-55 is already going to be so expensive that since I am shooting an a6500, I wouldn't want to pay even more for OSS. The problem is that Sony lenses are relatively expensive for what you get...period, but I believe they understand their niche, and that is that their aps-c system is the best extremely compact system. Fuji is a bit larger, and micro four thirds is sometimes smaller but perhaps not as "good."

[@railenmiles]

Fuji's version of this zoom doesn't have ibis either.

[@gabithemagyar]

@@railenmiles True, but they do at least have an 18-55 f2.8-f4 with stabilization as something of an alternative, at least at the wider end. This, by contrast, is SONY's first APS-C zoom that can reach f2.8 anywhere within its focal range. Without OSS it is useful for event photographers (where faster shutter speeds are generally used), tripod shots in low light if the camera does not have IBIS, or hand held low light shots (if you have an a6500 or a6600). Not so useful handheld in low light for static subjects if you don't have IBIS.

[@tomrhardwick]

What's with all this OSS? Surely it's OIS? Oh wait, it could be optical Sony stabilisation

[@gabithemagyar]

@@tomrhardwick Optical Steady Shot is Sony terminology for their stabilization.

[@Thumpr110]

Excellent video. I’m pretty impressed with the results here. I think this lens would be a hit if the price point was lower.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks, hopefully it'll settle down in price a bit

[@davidteer80]

@@cameralabs doubt it. The 18-135 never really dropped much

[@ceddo2511]

Looks a great lens but still would prefer an A7III with the Sony FE 24-105 mm F4 for almost the same cost, maybe not quite as sharp a lens but depth of field effects would be similar even at f4 and then there's that longer reach + plus it's got OSS for combing with the on-board IBIS.

[@cameralabs]

Yes, the A7 III with 24-105mm is a great combo, and that's a really underrated lens too

[@MS-tw3tj]

but much heavier and bulkier

[@JetBen555]

or the Tamron 28-75 f2.8

[@tuyenhoang5546]

@@JetBen555 24vs28mm?

[@JetBen555]

@@tuyenhoang5546 personally i think that 28 vs 24 is such a small difference but f2.8 make a big difference

[@charbax]

Where is the a7000 at with 4k60, Panasonic-level IBIS, dual SD card slots, flip to the side display, Z battery and unlimited 4k60 recording without a crop, and digital hot shoe? This perfect Sony APS-C camera is not happening, right?

[@cameralabs]

I think this is a fantasy camera that will never exist as it'd be more expensive than an A7 III. Let's put it this way, how much would you pay for it, and would it be a feasible price for them to manufacture it?

[@charbax]

@@cameralabs The GH5 is that perfect camera it's got everything I need except for a phase detect like video autofocus performance. I bought my Panasonic G9 (with better design, slightly better video AF and IBIS than GH5, with unlimited recording hack) at $1000 new about 9 months ago. If Panasonic could do the near perfect camera 3 years ago, then why can't Sony make one like that in APS-C now? I and the Camera Conspiracies guy and probably thousands of other camera fans are a bit disappointed the a6600 is barely even a true feature upgrade over that a6500. Bringing a new larger battery is a no brainer which should have been in the a6500 three years ago, flipping displays is also a no brainer but even for that Sony flips them totally wrongly making basic shotgun microphone setups unusable. And if Fuji can do 4K60 in a $1500 APS-C (even 10bit and HEVC codec options) with dual SD card slots, then why can't Sony do it too? I cannot consider the X-T3 though because I need IBIS, I need a flippy to the side display, I need unlimited recording, large battery, I need reliable tracking video autofocus (with the appropriate video AF optimized lenses to support that too).. I'd love it if Fuji makes a perfect camera in X-H2 or an X-T4 soon to come though, but somehow there is nothing to guarantee that Fuji is even considering to make one like that. I guess my most realistic hope is for Panasonic to add phase detect video AF in the GH6, but somehow Panasonic has never ever thought to improve their video AF as a priority, Panasonic's video AF performance is horrible even on their new $4000 full frame S1H "cinema" camera, so why should I hope Panasonic would start caring about implementing phase detect video autofocus now? They probably won't.

[@cameralabs]

@@charbax but how much are you willing to pay for this Sony camera?

[@charbax]

@@cameralabs $2000 why not. Could be considered a semi-professional "mini A9" kind of APS-C camera. Serious camera enthusiasts should never use a single SD card slot camera for example, and both SD card slots should be UHS2, and surely Sony must bring us 4K60, 10bit based HLG, their new HEVC codec options, digital shotgun compatibility, at some point. Or maybe Sony does it for $3500 in the A7S3 and decides not to do any of it in APS-C somehow. Or perhaps the A7S3 will be a disappointing slight A7S2 update also. I'm hoping Sony delayed that hotly anticipated A7S3 for something like a year (to hopefully be released/announced before CES or something) only for the reason of trying to support unlimited 4K60 on the full frame sensor without a crop.

[@cameralabs]

@@charbax I think there's definitely people who want a high-end APSC, like a 7D II but with a more modern feature-set, but I think it would be quite limited demand. Even Canon is steering people towards the cheaper 90D now. It's very hard to sell a non-full-frame for over $1500 which is why we see so few of them. So the question then becomes what spec can you create / well for $1500, and that's where we're at now. I agree it's frustrating though.

[@matthewcheung5136]

I got this lens for my a6600. I'm very happy with it but I can't seem to get the a73 + tamron 28-75 out of my head for a similar price

[@tnbtech5436]

Hi Gordon - Fantastic, detailed lens review. Thanks! I downloaded some of your sample images. The high-ISO images are VERY low noise. Are these JPEGS straight out of camera? If so how did you get the noise floor so low? Fantastic job!!

[@marshcolley1510]

Fantastic lens and one of the best reviews I've seen or read (bought you a cup of coffee :-) I'm considering using the lens in an underwater a6500 underwater housing. Can you tell me EXACTLY how much longer then lens is when fully extended? Also, It appears that the lens is 67mm wide at the extended rim? I've been told approximates so far in the neighborhood of 140mm, but no one has given me an exact measurement (from where it mounts to the front of the fully extended telephoto outer edge). Unfortunately the lens is too pricy to be found in town or I would check it out myself. Thank you M

[@radiantbladez]

Wish this came out earlier. I've had the a6000 since launch and had to settle with the Zeiss 16-70mm f4. The only things keeping me back from this new lens is the price and lack of IBIS.

[@nicholassmith7723]

Even as an A7III user wiith the Tamron 17-28, Tamron 28-75, and Sony 85mm fe... that combination of the A6600 and 16-55mm is tempting. If nothing else, it would serve as an incredible second body. Since it includes the same battery as the full frame bodies and has the 67mm filter thread size, it would slot in perfectly with my current kit. However, I'd say that $2800 price point would be the only thing holding me back from buying them.

[@GregThurtle]

Another fabulous optic from Sony. I cant help but wonder as you say if full frame is a better option for most given still no sign of a pro apsc body (dual slots is generally seen as a must still i think?) As you said before A7iii and 28-75 2.8 tamron is same price as the apsc combo. Interesting times Ps bring back Steven 😂

[@cameralabs]

I think this is in answer to everyone who demanded a high-end APSC lens, and who don't intend to go full-frame.

[@GregThurtle]

@@cameralabs I was probably one of them.. I just think the existence of the sigma 18-35/1.8 makes this much less desirable given the price point and equivalence. I have a6300/a6400 and was hoping for a pro body/fast standard zoom. As it stands I'll likely get the 18-35/1.8 sigma for my mc-11 and live with the slightly reduced FL I think although 2.8 is a standard fast zoom that was always for full frame.. in the same way at the 12-35/2.8 isn't as attractive for m43 this suffers from that too IMO of course :) Good to see the sony performs brilliantly well though! Kudos for your in depth testing and going all the way to the USA to test and show us what the quality is like.

[@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???

[@Lucamitm]

hi, you mentioned a fuji lens, do you have any videos discussing sony and fuji either another lens or camera body, or any comments on the 2 systems which is better for what ? thanks !

[@martinweber3859]

So, the US website tells you it has a maximum magnification of 0.66, while the German website says it has 0.2 only. If I got your video right it is a 0.2, not an 0.66.

[@cameralabs]

I didn't calculate it personally, I took that figure from the Sony UK site. But you can see actual examples of how close I was to those jars at the minimum distance, and you can calculate it from the closest distance of 33cm coupled with the coverage specs. It's not amazing in this regard.,

[@stefpix]

Fuji is 999 vs Sony 1198 USD at B and H. I wish Sony's price was the same. How do they compare?

[@melenriquez8985]

Thanks for this video. No doubt, this will spur Sgima and Tamron, at least, to start developing their own 16-55 f2.8 at a way much lower price! And with LIS too! This will make those lenses workable with non IBIS bodies and hopefully at sub U$1000 price.

[@cameralabs]

Yes, that would be good!

[@zyxyuv1650]

What we truly need is a V2 of the amazing $650 Sigma 18-35 F1.8 for mirrorless APS-C. Sigma innovated with these optics, but the lens has languished with unusable AF and DSLR mount.

[@stefpix]

yes that lens is better than primes, amazing results, but so heavy and unbalanced, and you may get focus hunting on a face at a dim event. I wish Sigma and Tamron may step in. I have the Sigma primes, but an all in one zoom like this lets you be more creative, and think less about switching lenses or bodies.

[@shaza5395]

Great review as always. Gordon, would you recommend this lens over the pairing of the sigma 16mm & 30mm f1.4’s? Looking to purchase this lens but not sure if I should purchase it outright or trade in the sigma lenses to put towards it (much favourable trade in value than selling separately after)

[@cameralabs]

Oooh, good choices... It depends of course on whether you want the flexibility of a zoom or the brighter apertures of the primes. The Sony zoom should also focus faster.

[@lkking8387]

Thinking the same, for travel use the 18 55 ist the better choice. If you don't want to miss out in certain situations you're just quicker. Most of the time I was annoyed by the fact that I couldn't zoom in the moment I wanted to because I used a prime. If you just take "planned shots" the primes will be the better choice

[@mattmitchell6157]

Can someone please do a direct comparison of the a6600 with 16-55 and a7iii with Tamron 28-75 with image quality / samples / af and noise. I think I know the answer but for the price these are the obvious 2 set ups to directly compare. I love my apsc but for the price and weight Sony is pushing me to go full frame. I’d just like someone to do a detailed comparison

[@cameralabs]

I think that'd make a great video. It's actually very hard for me to get all four of those items at the same time though.

[@mattmitchell6157]

Very hard for many people I’m sure. I hope someone does. It’d be the most obvious comparison. If Sony had just upgraded the sensor on the a6600 and improved low light a bit I wouldn’t be so torn, but for the price and size the Tamron zooms and Sony f1.8 primes make a compelling argument over the 6600 with 2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes.

[@tuyenhoang5546]

It comes down to the size and weight you prefer tbh. I'll still buy it for the weight saving and bc i'm not a pro

[@cameralabs]

@@tuyenhoang5546 you can achieve pro results with this system, no problem.

[@dasaauto2024]

Matt Mitchell Unless you don’t plan on buying any more lenses, the system your buying into is probably going to be a bigger deal than a one camera, one lens combo. Full frame lenses are generally 2-3 times larger, heavier and more expensive than equivalent APS-C lenses. What you get with full frame is an extra stop of light and an extra stop of subject isolation. Very few people (many pros included) can truly, honestly justify the 2-3X increase in price with full frame-let alone the size and weight issues-given what kind of images they’re producing. This lens on an a6500 or a6600 would be a really potent combo, and it’s size and weight can’t be touched by full frame. Sony mad push towards full frame has left a lot of people shooting on a sensor far bigger than they need, and confronted with 24mm lenses (like the recent GM) that cost $1,400 apiece. Sure, the quality is there, but not many people have $1,500 to drop on a single focal length lens, nor can many people truly appreciate the extra stop that lens gives you over, say, Sigma’s 16mm f/1.4 at $400.

[@stefpix]

i'd like to see a comparison with the 16-70 f/4 which is stabilized, I am tempted by this lens, but I would have to see a real IQ difference. I have the Sigma 30mm and 16mm, they are great and allow keep low ISO in the dark. But this zoom if it has good quality would just let you be creative and inspired without switching lenses or bodies! there is a 100 USD off rebate at the moment.

[@MAN-ul8lm]

is this a best lens for images quality on APSC?

[@colinsnowphoto]

I just got one 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!!!

[@saebacu]

hi Gordon, hope everything okay with you with the situation. Have a question for you.. Considering to buy one of each between the 16-55 f2.8 (this video) and the sigma 16mm f1.4.. Don't really have a particular field in photography.. Love to take picture of architecture, street, portrait, almost everything.. what are yours recommandations ? My though is 16-55 more versatile.. Give me more option, possibilities,.. just not good as the 16mm in low light but not taking lot of low light photos.. my wife like to make some "vlog" and for me it's a bit of video making

[@cameralabs]

Hi Seba, so the difference as you know is that the Sigma is four times brighter and allows a much shallower depth-of-field BUT obviously misses out on the flexibility of an adjustable zoom. If it's for general use, I'd go for the zoom as it'll give you much greater flexibility, and the f2.8 is still pretty bright and will allow for some blurring, especially when set to 55mm and used at portrait distance or closer. Hope this helps! PS - if you're ordering online, please consider using my links here or at cameralabs.com thanks!

[@rogerlopez9375]

$1400 but no oss....great

[@pop1348]

Good lens... but...the price...

[@BenjaminGib]

Thank you for this video, in 2024!

[@wymanair]

I’m glad it balances better than the Fuji setup- because the Fuji version is definitely unwieldy with the XT body in its stock configuration.

[@cameralabs]

I agree!

[@wymanair]

Hence the need for that blasted hand grip that was 10% the price of the whole camera! 😂

[@bobhanuman65]

@@wymanair you can find them used for a considerable discount.

[@Jgheiler]

Hi there. I bought your book! It look great in my library! Quick question. Do you think pairing a 6600 with a 16-55 is significantly smaller than an a7iii with a 28-70? I have a6100 and the sony 16-55. But sometimes I wonder if that extra dynamic range would be possible with a slightly bigger setup...i haven't gotten a full frame yet becasue the other zoom lenses feel so big. I had the tamron 17-70mm and I couldn't deal with its huge size. But I wonder if the 28-70 feels on the a7iii like the 16-55 feels on the a6100

[@cameralabs]

Thanks for getting my book Joel, glad you like it! I have to say the A7 III with 28-70 isn't hugely larger than the A6600 and 16-55. Bigger, yes, but not deal-breakingly so. But the 28-70 is a basic kit zoom, whereas the 16-55 is a premium zoom, so I'm guessing the 16-55 would out-perform it in terms of sharpness across the frame. So I would consider using the A7 III with a better quality lens and if the zooms are too big, maybe one of the smaller G series primes?

[@Jgheiler]

@@cameralabs thank you Gordon. That is actually incredibly helpful

[@Jgheiler]

Also, I was referring to the sigma 24-70 f2.8. Do you think the 16-55 is much shaper than that sigma 28-70mm f2.8?

[@cameralabs]

@@Jgheiler that's a tricky one without making a bunch of new comparisons. I'd suggest taking a look at some of the sample images from my reviews of both lenses to see how they compare.

[@fivezeroniner]

constant 33cm minimum focusing distance? wow.

[@stevenmuncy491]

Nice!

[@TechReflex]

I hope you have compared the sharpness against Fuji XF 16-55 F2.8 before declaring it as the best APS-C zoom.

[@cameralabs]

I declared it the best APSC zoom for Sony bodies. But yes I have tested the 16-55mm f2.8 thoroughly and found the Sony was a little sharper at the focal lengths I tested, plus it's smaller, lighter and focuses faster too. You can see all my Fujifilm lens reviews at www.cameralabs.com/fujifilm-lenses/

[@TechReflex]

@@cameralabs thanks for the response, missed that Sony mention in the title.

[@andrear9500]

I still don’t understand this lens. I may be ignorant, but I would not close the door to ff if already in sony e-mount ecosystem. And the super 35 mode is only appealing in restricted circumstances, not everyday shooting. For that I’d rather have full resolution. Great optical performance, undeniable. Thanks Gordon

[@cameralabs]

You're welcome!

[@tempofilm3347]

Can it be used on a super 35 censor???? :-)

[@cameralabs]

You mean APSC, yes

[@DamonSun-kz6ty]

Is there a need that i sell my sigma 16mm f1.4 and go for this sony 16 55 lens?

[@colinsnowphoto]

The Sigma focuses much closer than this lens.

[@DamonSun-kz6ty]

Koptervision is it worth invest this lens ?

[@colinsnowphoto]

@@DamonSun-kz6ty It depends on your needs and the camera you use. I have the a6500 and shoot both video and stills for travel. If I was shooting mostly people and portraits then this lens would be the best fit. As a side note, the latest release of Lightroom Classic CC now has this lens profile. I tried it and I can still see the same slight dark corners lower left and right just like the in-camera jpegs.

[@jackodon74]

Sony finally release the lens they should of 3 years ago. I am sure the optics are good but the price is off the charts. I was in the market for an new APSC 2 years ago and would of gone for the 6300 if this lens was about. In the end i went for the Fuji XT20 with the 18-55 f2.8-4 and do not regret it one bit. That combination was cheaper than this lens on it's own! Sony took there eye off the ball in the APSC lens line up because of there Full frame cameras. Most keen enthusiasts are not gonna entertain this lens at the price, Fuji offer a more comprehensive and affordable selection of primes and zooms. Quite simply this lens is a rip off compared to the Fuji 18-55 which you get white box versions for £350. Sony want people on there FF systems and to be fair you could pick an A7Mk2 and 24-105 for £2K or this lens with a 6500 for the same price. Sony again drop the baton on there APSC users. Plus to add insult to anyone who owns a6000,6300,6400 is not going to buy this with no IBIS built in so it's only for 6500,6600 users!

[@thekimenterprise4591]

You have big hands dude. The lens looks small on you.

[@jaredbellard2777]

No shit, I own one of those its not exactly small.

[@sonyitaliacommunity6486]

Sony top

[@akarshkc9329]

Please review Fuji xf 16 80 f4

[@cameralabs]

I'm planning to

[@richardgraham65]

Nice video again. Sony charge a lot for what they offer, very expensive.

[@cameralabs]

Thanks!

[@youknowwho9247]

I don't see this winning awards when comparing it to the FE 24-105 f/4 to be honest.

[@cameralabs]

I like the 24-105mm f4 a great deal - it's an unsung hero in the range.

[@olegvorkunov5400]

It is a good lens, and I would sell bunch of my APS-C lenses just to get this one, but only if it was for $999 no more. I hope it is not as bad as 18-105 "G" lens. I am confusing something here. I though it was the lens with internal zooming without extending, while zooming.

[@cameralabs]

No, as I showed in the video, the barrel extends while it zooms. I think the 18-105 was internal though.

[@RageCage1701]

@@cameralabs It was. The 18-105 had a lot going for it but its biggest downfall is at the end of the day large size and mediocre IQ. I think Sony tried to do too much with that lens while keeping its price point at $500, $600. I sometimes wonder how it would have turned out if the engineers were given the go-ahead to design something for the $1k price point instead.

[@kyriakosaronis5206]

@@RageCage1701 the 18-105, maybe is not the best zoom, but it s not bad either...and, considering the price, almost 1/3, of this one, and half the price of zeiss 16-70, the value you get for the money you pay is a tad less than excellent...

[@clarification007]

Oups! Dust on the front!Il

[@gregoryoutdoors]

Awww screw that lens for this price and 2.8... Would rather buy 16mm 1.4, 50+ 1.4 and 18-135 or 105 for traveling etc. Just saying my opinion;)

[@cameralabs]

I'm also fond of primes...

[@gregoryoutdoors]

@@cameralabs Well I am a completely new in this and just starting, new passion i thinking of buying a6400, gh5 or rx100 but anyway I would rather buy much cheaper lenses and also very good. I can imagine this one i also great...btw good job man i like your reviews maybe you can make one rx100 7 vs a6400 coz there is not much reviews sadly on youtube haha

[@ridsnepal]

Hi Gordon...Once again well presented video, thanks!! At 16mm the left side image with the Sony 16-55mm F2.8 is really terrible....very poor quality....or is my screen fouling me? My Rokinon 12mm F2.0 AND my Sigma 16mm F1.4 AND my Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 at 18mm are ALL FAR better on my a6500 right down into the corners....! The rest looks reasonable OK....but far from a lens costing US$ 1400.- ...don't you think.....keep the videos coming, they are very helpful, thanks.

[@cameralabs]

I thought it looked pretty good, but then I can see the entire image rather than just the crops. I uploaded a bunch to flickr if you're interested.

[@pblnlpalu]

Wow, maybe dust it!!!

[@cameralabs]

Filming in 4k under these kind of lighting conditions really shows up any dust, but in reality you could barely see it.

[@derweiwang8679]

Not a suitable price for SONY APSC camera!!