Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Sony's New Kit Lens? 18-135 vs 16-50
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 сер 2024
- Do you think Sony will upgrade their kit lens?
Get the 18-135mm here: amzn.to/2GJjdzT
Kit lens: amzn.to/2FsAtgH
Camera pictures were taken with: amzn.to/2GlsoaR
Camera Video was shot with: amzn.to/2FIGyok
Lens video was shot with: sigma 18-35mm f1.8 canon
Dont forget to subscribe! goo.gl/vHL3s3
Follow me on instsagram: / christopherburress
Check out my instagram instagram.com/christopherburress/
imagine you just got the 16-50 as kit lens and then find this video ⚰️
This man HATES the 16-50mm 😂
He’s not the only one
LoL!!! Sure he does!
bruh i had the 16-50 now the 18-135 and the difference is night and day
@@V0ID_beatswell one is like 4 times the price
I have the 50, 35, 28, 20, 55-210, and Sigma 16. I honestly don't think the 16-50 kit is that bad. My copy isn't anyway. It's small, it's cheap and has OSS. Plus, unlike the Sigma which has noticeable autofocus noise, in-camera audio with the 16-50 is actually usable. And did I mention OSS? Great vids, though. Keep them coming.
Interesting, I've only used the 16-50 a couple of times for video, and while the AF noise is not noticable, the ZOOM noise is horrendous. And why have power zoom on the lens if it's so loud it can't be used?
You're right, the zoom noise on the 16-50 is terrible. And don't get me wrong about the Sigma 16mm... it's takes beautiful images. Just bizarre that Sigma can't make a silent autofocus system
I love the 16-50 kit lens too. I didn't know it was hated so much. Tbh the small size makes up for it. I recently went on a Europe tour and the pictures came out very well. I'm just an amateur photographer, nothing much, but I think the lens is worth the compactness.
Fire Escape Griller I use the kit lens for professional real estate work (exteriors mainly) at f8, the lens is so sharp!
Why are you zooming constantly in video, would be crappy viewing experience even with no zoom noise. Zoom less and try to keep still, screens today don't handle panning well either, nothing to do with the lens.
The 16-50 is fine for general JPEG snaps and is very handy due to its compact size. Similar in intent to the Olympus 14-42 pancake. It's also ridiculously cheap as a kit lens. You can get an a6000 with this lens for less than the full price of the 18-135 lens alone. The 16-50 only adds CAD 100 to the price of a kit, the 18-135 adds CAD 450. I don't dispute that the 18-135 is better but, for the price, the 16-50 is a great deal and fully useable for casual shots where portability is important and you don't intend to edit/crop the hell out of your pictures. In addition to the 16-50 kit lens I also have the old kit (18-55), the Zeiss 16-70, the 18-105 F4, and the original silver 18-200 zoom as well as a few primes (16mm. 20mm, 50mm) but find myself using the kit quite often. They all have their uses, depending on the situation and your intention with respect to the photos (just memories to be posted online vs shots meant to be high quality for prints or formal sharing). :-)
Sorry, Christopher, I am an experienced photographer and enjoy using my 16-50mm. There are a lot of bad copies of this lens out there. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if both of your copies were duds. Quality control is definitely an issue with this lens. Having said that, there are some good copies out there too. I have a good copy and the images are very satisfactory. It does have some basic limitations due to its design, but most of those issues are easily handled in post. This type of lens will never give you superb corner to corner image quality wide open and it will have issues with distortion and chromatic aberration. But sony designed this lens to mainly be used with in-camera software correction. When used in this fashion, the lens produces some very nice quality images. If you are a RAW shooter, you will need to do this yourself in post or use the lens profile in your editing software (Lightroom) to correct for these issues. Presently, this is the way manufacturers like Sony get away with building such a small, inexpensive, and practical lens for such a large sensor.
People need to understand the design philosophies and choices that Sony chose in designing this type of lens. In doing so, you will have reasonable expectations and you won't be disappointed. With this lens you get convenience and portability in a small package. You get a great general focal range for wide angle and short zooming. You also get image stabilization, a zoom ring, and a dedicated video zoom button. You can also use it seamlessly with Sony's clear image zoom to double it's perceived focal range, without having to assign this function to a custom button or menu dive as you do with other Sony lenses. It is capable of going through its entire zoom range in a split second, while still having the ability to do some slow nuanced zooming...and you get all this in a sub $300 lens.
If you get a good copy, you will get a lens capable of producing very sharp images in the center of the frame at F8 and very acceptable quality (not great, but acceptable) at the edges. If you are a pixel peeper, then drop the zooms all together and get good quality primes and then you won't be disappointed. This lens is a swiss army knife. This is a lens designed to be part of a light travel kit for the A5-6 thousand style cameras. If you go on vacation with just this lens, you get just about all the functionality that you need for most situations. That is the purpose of this lens. Keep all this in mind and you will truly enjoy it...just be sure to test your lens to ensure that you have a good copy. Otherwise, return it and make sure you test the next one before keeping it.
P.S. One last point with respect to your picture comparison with the hands of the statute and building in the background. Notwithstanding the obvious quality issues with your 16-50mm. You will always have better subject isolation and out of focus backgrounds when you are zoomed in closer to the subject. That was an unfair observation on your part. I am sure that had I walked right up to the statute and taken the photo with the 16-50mm at 50mm, from the same angle, the out of focus background would have been much better than that which you obtained with 18-135mm from your vantage point. Defocused backgrounds are the function of the distance to subject and background separation. If up close to your subject with a very distant background, you will have the desired effect. Add a wide aperture to accentuate the effect.
My copy was just like his
hey what country is the 16-50mm lens made in? there is a camera store near me that sells this lens for $140..i am wondering if there is something i can check for when i go see it in the store like the country it was made in or something. wondering why it is so cheap it could be bulk packaging i don't know.
I've had at least 3 of these lenses over the last years, all of them were terrible. I don't think there are "good" copies out there, just people with lower expectations. Every serious review that I've seen so far seems to confirm that.
@@RMSFAM09 If nobody answered, the lens are made in Thailand. Actually a poor comparison, considering the 16-50 kit is almost free with the body ($548 body only) purchase, depending where purchased, or (+$100 USD on Amazon when buying the body+16-50 kit, or $300 stand alone) and the 18-135 cost shy of $600 USD on Amazon, stand along, and $300 added as kit/body. I live in Thailand, and just picked up the a6000, w/16-50 kit, for $527 USD / ฿16,560 THB. Just picked up the 55-210 for $215 USD / ฿6790 THB. I'm not a profession, but for the price point, I quite like the a6000 / 16-55mm kit.
What/how would you test on the lens to see if it is a good copy in your opinion?
I have to defend the 16-50 lens. To make a 30mm long pancake zoom 24-75 equivalent with OSS AND include power zoom for video is a technical acheivement in itself. The actual wide angle is more like 14.5mm, if you compare both these lenses at 18mm you'll see the 16-50 looks slightly wider. OK, it has epic distortion but the copy I have is pretty sharp where it counts in the center. Also, it's considerably cheaper than the 18-135. I can also put my camera in my coat pocket which I wouldn't be able to do with the 18-135. And afterall the best camera is the one you have with you!
It's pretty common knowledge that the 16-50 has a sweet spot around 24-35mm. All of your examples were shot at the extreme ends of the zoom (16mm or 50mm) where is it weakest. It would be nice to see some examples shot in the middle. When I use my 16-50 I always try to compose the photo between 24-35mm, or as close to the range as possible, and it I'm able to get photos that are way clearer than the ones here. I also have the 16-70 which is definitely better, but there are times I wouldn't even bring the camera if it wasn't for the small size and weight of the 16-50 (especially if I'm out with kids). It's still far better than any smartphone, and I prefer it for video. It's not surprising that the 18-135 is better, but maybe you did get two bad copies of the 16-50.
Personally, I love the versatility of the Sony E 18-135 mm. I am a hobbyist and haven't progressed to the level of skill and experience to progress to prime lenses, but the principal complaint I had with the Sony E 16-50 mm is the limited focal length. With the 18-135 mm, I get a lot more options in terms of subject and composition, and the lens feels really solid and well-made. I particularly love the manual zoom, and the well damped action of the zoom ring makes it really enjoyable to operate and shoot. Being slightly heavier than the kit lens, the 18-135 mm gives a really nice well-balanced feel to the entire camera. And compared to the comparable lenses from established DSLR manufacturers, the Sony E 18-135 mm is a firecracker in a mini package! I compared it to a Canon EOS 80D with a Canon 18-135 mm USM lens that a friend of mine owns, and my Sony Alpha a6000 with the Sony E 18-135 mm looks tiny compared to the Canon giant! And yet, performance is almost similar. Quite a bit pricey though, but it is an investment I made after a lot of research and I am happy with it.
So right about the old 16-50 small lens. It has OSS, power zoom, and is quite small. The problem is the image quality is simply crap. It is in my drawer with my other 7 lenses. I'm tempted from time to time to use it on my A6400 as a pocket camera. It will actually fit in my down vest/jacket pocket. Then I remember my phone produces better images than the 16-50. I really should sell it as it just takes up space.
After watching many video reviews (like this one) on the 18-135 I ordered one. It should arrive tomorrow. I already have an 18-105 but wanted a good but smaller lense for vacation travel. I'm sure the 18-135 will perform well.
for image quality which one is better 105 or 135? is it really different with the 16-50 kit lens at the widest length?
I bought the SEL18135 recently and can only confirm your impressions. The saving grace for the kit lens is its portability. For situations when you just need to document something it fits the purpose. If you need just a hint of artistic quality - certainly take the 18-135. I find that for typical uses I may end up carrying the 18-135 plus an old Minolta prime 50/1.7 lens with an adapter for portraits.
I must have gotten a good one because the 16-50 I have is nothing like that.
Mine was just like his.
My 16-50 is excellent as well.
If you pixel peeped and compared it to a more expensive lens, you would have seen the difference. The truth is, no one in the real world is looking at images that closely. 16-50 is a great and versatile lens. The only thing 18-135 has over it is the range, which admittedly, is a very useful lens characteristic.
You have a6000 ? I have 6400 and it’s amazing . Good for detailed close ups
I bought the A6000 in 2015 based on a reputation of good image quality. I struggled or a month to obtain anything good with the 16-50 mm kit lens. I even returned the camera to Sony for warranty repair. It came back no better. Sony could have saved themselves some bucks by saying to me: "Dude, the kit lens sucks; open up your wallet and buy some good glass." Once I figured out new lenses were needed, I was off to the races. My most recent purchase is the Sony Zeiss 24 mm hoping to benefit from its sharpness.
The new zoom lens seems better and it should replace the 16-50 mm.
I don't know why they put their name on such a terrible lens.
I have a good copy of the 16-50. If you know its limits and use the best settings for it, you can get some real good results.
My experience of the 16-50 is completely different to yours, I think it does a very good job both with photographs and video.
Maybe your lens is defective. Also I’d say photography isn’t all about perfect image quality anyway, art has never been about perfection. Of course we are all entitled to our opinions so thanks for the video anyway.
I was thinking this, I saw some dude that had a decentered 10-18 from sony, so maybe his is faulty ?
I've had 3 of them at this point, all identical
I recently got this 18-135 lens, to replace the 16-50 and 55-210. I really like the flexibility of almost the same range in one lens instead of two, very much like my old 18-200 Nikon lens. I'm new to the world of cameras and lenses, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a good lens for replacing those two lenses.
This is an awesome video and has helped me decide which lens kit to get. Thank you very much.
Actually, I have no money to buy other lenses at the moment and because of that I use only the kit lens on my a6000 and to me it isn’t that bad! It’s one of the best kit lenses I have ever experienced.
Well wonder no more...the 18-135 lens is now offered as a kit lens with the a6300 and the a6500. I just bought the a6300 with 18-135 kit and it is a nice camera to use. It takes a bit of getting used to shooting with a mirrorless camera from my DSLR but like anything, a little practice can go a long way.
I get amazingly sharp and clear photos from the 16-50, nothing like the ones you're showing.
widebreeze same!
What small lens would you recommend instead of the 16-50mm OSS? I want to get the new 6400 but I'm torn between the 16-50 kit or the 18-135. I would really prefer not carrying the 18-135 as it's much bigger.
I will be buying A6400 with 16-50mm because it's fits easily in budget. It even have electronic zoom in great for videos. And you can even buy 18-135 later or even go with G series.
i have the 16-50 and im planning on changing lens but ive been researching many videos on the 16-50 and other lenses with the a6000 and they all seem to be kinda the same like i dont see any day and night difference and i dont think its worth sending $500+ on a lens and i think the 16-50 is probably the best lens :( if u dont want to spend much money and if your a avg consumer.
i dont like the 16-50 but most lens that i see doesnt seem to be worth the upgrade in my opinion :/
Wow... Way biased out of the gate! Yes, I think the 18-135 is probably better image quality wise, but I am still going to remain with the 16-50 firstly because of its convenience, but secondly - I think that is way too much to spend for an 18-135mm F3.5-6.3. That should be $400 at most. While the 16-50 is not the sharpest lens, it's sharp enough - it's about what you expect for a kit lens (if anything I would say it is a better kit lens than the canon 18-55). I was also a little surprised previously how well it held up to the Zeiss 16-70 F4 - now there is a lens that is overpriced for its performance. Until Sony gives us an F2.8 standard zoom for the APS-C I doubt I will upgrade - I will just continue to shoot primes for the most part.
I did go on to say that my feelings weren't important and proceeded to show side by side comparison images. While I don't like the kit the tests aren't biased.
sir which lens would be best for travel photography and vlogging
Love the 18-50 kit lens (For videos) its compact and nothing beats that. The 18-135 is so overrated, i would never pay $500 for a kit lens
I really like the 16-50 kit lens. The biggest advantage is the size. If I'm in a casual situation I can literally keep my a6500 in my large jacket pocket. The image quality is about equal to a high end point-and-shoot which is fine with me because I was able to sell my high end point-and-shoot.
As for the 18-135 I prefer the 18-105 because of the constant f/4. The extra range of the 135 isn't much but the variable aperture is a big deal. Tests show that the 105 and 135 are about equal in sharpness depending on the aperture.
Great review. I would also like to see a comparison to the older kit lens, the “18-55 f3.5-5.6” (Model SEL1855). This lens is almost the same size as the new lens but you can get it now for about $150. I have found it to have slightly better quality of pics then the smaller 16-50 kit lens but not by much. Thanks for what you do.
Hey, I have a question, I want to buy the A6500 and get the kit lens, but everytime I hear about it, people say it's bad.
Should I get another lens to start with the A6500? I'm a beginner, it's my first "good" camera, and I would love a polyvalent, multi-purpose 150-200€ lens that I could use for everything (video, portrait, landscapes...).
Any suggestions?
if you want image quality, then yes you should skip the kit lens... if you want cheap easy to carry zoom lens then you can consider to buy it...
but then what lens should I consider getting?
@@Bluesky35102 Ti consiglio di comperare l'obiettivo del kit 16-50 per quello che costa ne vale la pena, ho acquistato il sigma 30 2.8 e confrontato con il kit sony si era più luminoso il 30 ma non ho notato una grande differenza di qualità e l'ho restituito, il mio kit non è così male come dicono, poi puoi incrementare con un altro a tua scelta, adesso penso al prossimo obiettivo ma il kit lo tengo, Ciao
enrico riva
enrico riva
1 second ago
@Bluesky I recommend you buy the kit 16-50 for what it costs is worth it, I bought the sigma 30 2.8 and compared with the kit sony was brighter on 30 but I did not notice a big difference in quality and I returned, my kit is not as bad as they say, then you can increase with another of your choice, now I think of the next goal but the kit I keep it, Hello
Would love to see a 16-70 against the 18-135
I own the 18-55mm kit lens as well as this one, 18-55mm is fairly sharp very decent, the 16-50mm not so much but I believe for what it is is very good general point and shoot pictures, and for video is very good, one needs a 30mm 1.4, 16mm, 60mm 2.8 or 50mm 1.8 OSS to take pictures of bricks and Pixel peep or for portraits, one thing I learned is: one thing is people that don't even do photography for clients and do theory on internet and other or people that have really have their experience and try things for themselves, great channel keep up the good work
This was helpful in making my decision for my UA-cam video camera. Thanks.
I am wondering if with video the difference would be so great. 16-50 has a use in underwater housings.Interesting for me would be comparison between the 16-70 and 18-135, as they are similar in price and size. Overpriced. I am quite happy with Sigma 16mm and 30mm. I hope Sigma adapts the 18-35 mm to e mount or makes a 16-80mm 2.8 or something like that
With 1080p I don't notice a difference with the kit lens. But in 4k the kit lens makes it look like 1080p again.
@@ChristopherBurress So the lens is useless for video, which is bad, I will shoot video. this lens seems so bad it sohuld be discontinued.
travel light, small printing, casual snap....the len is good enough
but if you have habit of pixel peeping for personal pleasure at night, or shooting professional, or...just want more zoom....
so just sold and look for other lenses then
Christopher, thank you for showing both of these lenses side by side under several different conditions.
Mate, 1650 takes only 1.5 seconds to zoom. Also, it's great for HD movies or party snaps.
My cellphone is great for party snaps
Great video. Thanks for the advice. I was very confused which one should I get. Now I will definitely get 18-135mm.
Having that moment now. 😂
Really glad I bought mine with the 18-135 now that I've seen this. Wasn't sure if I made the right decision. Thanks for posting.
Great video, thanks. I bought this lens with the Sony a6600. What lens would you recommend for low light?
I must've got a good copy of the 16-50. I have some pretty sharp photos from it. However, I recently bought a used 18-135 and the 16-50 has been left in storage since. I just always have leaned towards longer focal lengths anyway so I'm holding onto the 16-50 for it's tiny size and lack of resale value.
I mostly use my kit lens for video work with a LUT in Premier that closely matches the vintage look of Agfa film etc for a nostalgic vintage look and it does just fine for producing character. Creative solutions for everything.
Thanks for the info. It would be greatfull if u can compare 18-135 and 18-105 mm sony lens.
I just bought and received a used copy of the 18-135mm lens based your excellent review. The lens doesn't display its focal local in the evf. It is a useful feature that is in my only other zoom lens, the 16-50mm kit lens? I would like to have it if it's not broken on my copy. Do you recall seeing that displayed in your copy?
Will it be not advisable to use manual zooming with the kit lens with power zoom facility?
Sony battery is high in price.. so can you tell me which other company battery is good for a6300 ?
Wasabi power makes decent ones.
Christopher Burress ohk :) thank you.
Which lens do you recommend for just normal touristy pics? I’ve got the 16-50 kit lens but I’m looking to invest in a better lens for when me and the wife go to Europe in the summer. Thanks!
I have had 2 of these lenses before and certainly have not had the results you have had? I have just bought the A6400 body only, as I have an A7iii and several lenses I use on the A6400 too, however for lightness I have just ordered yet another 16-50mm lens so I can just pop this camera out at anytime, it's easy to carry around and of course it is stabilised as the A6400 lacks IBIS. I think your views are harsh and may dissuade people from trying it. My advice is try a friends, rent one, but do not throw it to the way side before giving it a chance. My last lens cost just £80.00 and is like new (White boxed).
I agree mostly what you said. However, you can't expect the cheaper lens to be as good. Also, there is no was the 18-135 could be the kit lens unless people are prepared to pay the extra along with a new camera. Not a fair comparison my friend.
Thx for making this vid, it was what I was looking for. I will go for the 18-135 lens. Unless I can get a better lens separately. If so which ones do you recommend?
18-135 lens Is a no brainer in comparison. I see there is a deal on 6700 with 18-135 lens, so might e a good deal. But curious if I should get a different lens.
Christopher Burress could you please compare the 18-105mm vs 55-210mm how does the portraits ob 105mm @ f4 compare to 210mm @ F6.3 please, i know its a stupid question but I am in a situaton between buying one of theese lenses for sem more reach than 16-50mm kit lens, and also I would use that lens for portraits untill I get a 30mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.8. I know the bokeh wont be nearly as good but I cant afford buying a telephoto and a prime lens, for now. Please just two pictures one at 105 f4 and other at 210mm F6.3 (when you back up to get about the same field of wiew). I realy cant find anything like that on the internet and it would realy help me make the right choise.
I’d be super surprised if Sony made this a new kit lens. The current kit lens is about $200 or so new, vs $600? That’d raise the base price of every camera kit purchase. Also, and this is just my opinion, but for $600, I’d rather get the 18-105 F4G lens.
I agree. I was more responding to what many others had already mentioned. I don't think this lens comes close to the build quality of the 18-105mm so Sony probably has quite a margin built in. I would like to see this lens come down 150-200 bucks, then it might make it into kits. We will see.
thats a really good point. i hadn't thought about how much more of a profit margin that lens probably has. if thats the case, and sony could find it in themselves to drop the price, that would be huge. i know that when i was a beginner, if i saw a kit lens that had that focal length, it could have caused me to chose that camera over another brand.
Thanks for your effort. The 16-50 is not the best kid lens in term of IQ, however, I don't think it is that bad. Both lens are designed for 2 different groups of users and applications. Yes I agree the 18-135 has better IQ, what it given up is the light weight and convenience of the 16-50. Last year I went to Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, I basically hand carried the A6000 with 16-50 all day. It was a great little lens for quick snap shots and street photography (without drawing much attention). The lens is dirt cheap with bundle. It well worth the price.
What about the older manual 16-50mm? I had it on my nex5N now moved it over to my A6500 but not had the camera a week yet so getting to grips with it but I like the lens and feel connected to it as it's manual zooming
Kind of comparison that i needed! Thanks!
Thanx for compare video. It would be very interesting compare this new lens with same lens for micro 4/3 camera.
Hurry up and get your 18-105 back for comparison, the fate of my hiking shots hangs in the balance! Lol
It's next! I've already shot the stuff for it I just have to edit it!
Yes! been waiting for that one :)
I too am rather unsatisfied with my 16-50mm and would like your opinion on the 18-135mm, given that I have a SEL55201 already, so maybe too much overlap. Would a 18-105mm OSS perhaps be a better choice as a replacement? Any comments from anybody are welcome. PS not a movie filmer
My New Tech lenses
Sony 16-50mm kit lens OSS
Samyang 12mm/F2 wide angle
Sony SEL55S210/f4.5-6.3 zoom non-OSS
Vintage Tech, but not only usable for a nostalgic day off with an MD adapter
Rokkor MD 50mm/f1.7
Rokkor MD 28mm/f3.5
Rokkor MC PF 135mm (vintage 1969!! and suuper!)
Tamron 35-105/f3.5-4.5 from the 80's and still not bad
I call BS. I’ve seen outstanding photo examples on Flickr from that pancake zoom. Good photographers don’t blame the gear.
They don't blame the gear, but gear can still suck sometimes. And in every instance that I have compared the kit lens to it is head and shoulders below 5he opposition. It's a technically poor lens. You can get great photos from a 3mp point and shoot from the early 2000's. Is it preferable? No.
I think the point of the 16-50 is it's size. Finding a zoom lens that size at that price point with better image quality would be very difficult if not impossible. I bought an NEX/A6xxx camera for it being by far the most capable for it's size. Having the option of the very compact zoom when required was one of the top reasons for my purchase. Having said that, this video is very useful for me to compare 18-135 with a lens I already have. Thanks.
Awesome, helped me decide, thanks!
Anyone would think you don’t like the 16-50 haha great video thanks I’ll get the 18-135
This is the best video I could find for both lenses.
I am wondering if that 18-135mm lens works with the sony a6700 and would you recommend an even better lens for approx the same price? (Since this video was shot 5 years ago)
I don't think that much has come out to contend, I think the 17-70 tamron and the 16-55 sony are probably better lenses but at a higher price for their larger aperture. Man it's been 5 years... Time flies.
Is the 17-70 tamron supported on a6700?@@ChristopherBurress
Is this 16mm equal to 24mm on full-frame lens?
I'm seeing a 18-135mm kit listed on Bestbuy's website for 1699, release date of 05/01/2018
I see it too! a6300 kit for 1300. I've seen worse deals.
Certainly, just got into photography. Picked up a Rx100 V and now I've tasted the fruit and want more. I'm eyeing up the a6500 and your videos don't exactly help me not want one haha. I might hold off until the next generation comes out and learn with this Rx100. Thoughts?
The rx100 is one of the best point and shoots to learn on as its got great image quality and versatility.
I'm not sure when a new one will be released but you can definitely take some remarkable pics with that point and shoot.
Thank you!
Thanks for the video.
The purpose of this lens - is simple: promote use, portability and ultimate purchase of the hosting cameras, at the cost - its great.
does the 18-135 automatically do lens correction in light room? the 28-70 kit lens does. that might be why the distortion is different.
It does, when I released my first review the Lightroom update wasn't out but now it does correct automatically.
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the E 18-135 and the FE 24-105 on the A6500 - Twice the price but maybe worth looking at for someone that might go FF later on
What’s a better lens to get than the 18-135 with around the same range
Tamron offerings, super sharp, very reasonable pricing, unique and useful zoom ranges, wide apertures.
17-70 tamron or 18-50 sigma, tamron is better on paper (its stabilized and longer) but its huge
I have a shit ton of high end sony glasses and the 16-50 is by no means bad for the price. Its so lightweight and small its almost like having a point and shoot. Also, you can get it for 150 bucks almost new since everyone sells them instantly. This new kit lens is 4 times more expensive. Should a lens that is 4 times more expensive be better? It should. For the price and the weight, the 16-50 is a great video-streaming-vlogger lens. Coupled with Image clear zoom on video, it works as a 16-75 (24/112 once accounted for crop).
Now for 550 bucks I dont see myself buying a lens kit. I rather have a tamron 28-70 2.8 for 650 bucks. Or 2 sigma lenses, (30mm 1.4 and 55 1.4 for example) for almost the same price. The sigmas are god damn sharp and f***** 1.4 aperture.
There is simply no place for this kit lens, while there is a place for a cheap 150 bucks 16-50 even with the god awful distortion at 16mm.
For normal UA-camrs you just need some relatively close range videos. 16-50mm is a great lens and comes at an affordable cost.
I have both lens, and 18-135 is most of time in my camera cos is kind of all i one! The only problem i find is the vignette at 18mm when u shot in raw and photoshop dont make good job in correction!! So when i need take picture in short distance i use the 16-50 that make amazing job at 16mm. But like i say. Most time i use the 18-135 when im outside on streets.
What would you advice between the 18-135 and the 18-105? I can buy the 18-135 in a bundle(so cheaper), not the 18-105.
Would you possibly compare the 18-135 to the 16-70 F4 please? Would be a great comparison :) thank you.
My copy of the kit lens is great
Thank you very much for your honest review.
As I've stated in another video from you that I own the 16-50mm and on top of that the 55-210 one.
I found myself using the 55-210 more often than the 16-50 due to the background seperation. Your comment on how the 16-50 takes more "snapshots" than something else is my feeling aswell. The 18-135 sounds a bit steep for my taste and especially because I own (maybe not the best zoom but) a zoom lens that occupies around half the spacde of the 18-135. Do you have a tip on an alternative to the 16-50?
I bought a Minolta 50mm 1.7 lens (manual) for the 1.7 F-Stop so I get more light and since then it's usually the Minolta or the 55-210 lens that comes on my camera. The 16-50 is usually the go-to if I need the short end. For 50mm Auto-stuff I usually stick with the 55mm - so a comparison against that lens would be appreciated (if you have the ability to borrow / grab one).
Other than that - thanks as always. Appreciate the work you put into your videos.
Black3ternity I'd buy 2 primes instead. Get the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Sigma 16mm f1.4 . They are very sharp even wide open.
At that price why not go with the 18-105 instead?
Good question.
My advice with the 16-50 is to use it more toward the middle of its range where at least mine is quite good rather than the extreme ends. Zooms have all sorts of inconsistencies. I have quite a few that are weakest at 20% and 80% of their range. Some are worst at their widest end. Many are worst at their long end--the 16-50 falls into that camp.
Good to know, I probably should have tossed a 35mm comparison in there.
I find my 16-50 PZ is best around 25 mm--about where the front element is the least extended.
I actually love the 16-50mm Kit lens. its small, light and perfect for a small gimbal. I also have the 18-135mm lens. Both are excellent kit lenses.
i honestly think you have the greatest review!! thank you!
I'm a pixel peeper and almost thought you were being sarcastic. Never heard such over the top hyperbole. Absolutely not worth the cost and bulk if 16-50 is sufficient range. 16-50 is the perfect fit for mirrorless. If you want 5% more performance for 2x bulk, get a DSLR.
You never heard such over the top hyperbole? That's sounds a bit like hyperbole lol. The fact of the matter is that in my experience the kit lens comes up short of every other lens I have compared it to. And for the $300+ they are asking for it new, it's not good.
@@ChristopherBurress now it's only $100 extra. I think it's totally worth it. In my opinion.
My 16 to 50mm is nothing like that - might be worth getting it checked as something is very wrong it seems in those images.
I've tried 3 of them so far and they all have performed the same. I think the good versions are much harder to come by.
Sony 18-135 lens is one of my favorite for travel, I also have e 3,5/30 2/28 2.8/90 ,but most of time i use my 18-135 🤭
Thanx Bro🙏
Are you still doing an A7/6500 comparison? Am thinking about upgrading from the A6000 and can't decide between the 6500 and one of the older A7 series.
The 16-50 is just not a great lens. Everything you mention, plus the low-light performance is abysmal -- a problem really magnified by the fact that the performance is so bad both at wider apertures and at shorter focal lengths. Even if you wanted to shoot at F/3.5 -- which you don't -- you wouldn't want to shoot at 16mm anyway.
I think it mostly gets defended by my fellow amateurs who haven't put better glass on the camera. And that's fine: Of course it's going to be a huge step up from a phone or most cheap compacts. If you're happy with your photos that's all that matters. And honestly, some of the image-quality issues aren't all that important if you're sharing your pics to smartphone apps and never intend to do anything larger.
But I'd still recommend just going to a camera shop, asking to test a cheap Sigma prime on your body, snapping a few photos, and then pulling up the images at home. Odds are most defenders of the kit lens would be stunned. A lens like the Sigma 30/F2.8 only runs $150, will be more than twice as bright as the kit lens at the equivalent focal length, and obliterates the kit lens in terms of image quality.
I am still doing that comparison with the a7r2 and a6500. Life makes production slow down lol. I think I'll wrap it up in the next video or two so keep an eye out
Ho acquistato il sigma 30mm 2.8 e confrontato con il 16-50 kit sony, si è più luminoso ma mi aspettavo una grande differenza con il sony che non ho visto e l'ho restituito
Is these lenses have image stabilization?
Thinking about this lens, but I have the 16-50 and 18-55 (both silver and black). The 16-50 is very compact like a pancake lens, but the stabilization for video is not great. The 18-55 has better stabilization for video. My favorite lens of all time is the Canon 24-120 so I may get the Zeiss 16-70, but this was a while back when I used to lug around a Canon 5D. At 18, the Sony video crop is kinda tight. If not for the video jitterness, I would use the 16-50 for its compactness. Here is a video with the 16-50 mostly with video and some stills: ua-cam.com/video/Oqoo0oIDT7k/v-deo.html At mid focus ranges, it looks great. I need something compact with great stabilization for video. Also, remember, most modern Sony bodies have "Clear Image" which is electronic magnification, which is pretty good for 1.5x, so you may not need a longer lens, especially for video (since the resolution is lower anyways).
As an amateur photographer, the 16-50 is good enough for me. I have 2 copies, and they're both sharp, although my 18-55 is a bit sharper. If you don't pixel peep you probably can't tell the photos were shot by the 18-135 or the 16-50.
I like the new place you use to shoot for IQ comparisons. This is much better than the trees in my opinion. Nice video as always.
Wich Has a better stabilization in video?
Thanks you Christopher!!
I have a question for you. I want to buy the Sony a6500, but I'am not sure if buy it with de kit lens (Sony 18-135 mm) or the Sigma 16mm F1.4. What is your advice?
Many thanks for the help. (I want to shoot landscapes, some travels and family portraits with a nice and blury backgroud)
Get the 18-135, it'll be a better all rounder than the 16mm.
Christopher Burress many thanks Christopher!!!
What camera did you use to record this video?
I think you must have been pretty unlucky to get two kit lenses so bad. While I hate mine, it's cheap, mechanically nasty and just not nice to use, it is pretty reasonable at f8. I've got to admit that I only use it on my old NEX-6, it sits in the pannier on my bike when I'm out cycling, but I've got one or two nice pics out of it. Personally I use the 18-105 with my A6000 and I don't think this new lens will cause me to switch from that. Looking forward to your comparison with that.
thinking to buy one but which one would be better for streaming?
Probably the 16-50 because you can get a little wider and it's plenty sharp enough to stream with.
@@ChristopherBurress Thank you. One more question how would I make my stream more unique with lens or 18-135 is fine?
Either will produce identical results in your use case.
you did switch off the oss?
I have several e lenses for my A6300 and I'm happy with most of them. What Sony really needs to correct is it's lousy battery performance.
I don't mind the battery issue. While it's definitely an issue, it doesn't bother me to swap a battery one or two times a day. I wish it did a better job with standby though. If you walk around and leave the camera on, you're gonna have a bad time.
Great, I've decided to hate both lenses. Definitely going for the 18-135 though, until I can get a decent Sigma. Thanks for the video, subbed.
Lol my guy!
Great comparison
Is it just looks like, or video is really choppy? do you film at 30p and render at 24p? Might be the cause of the problem. *About the kit lens* . I also thought that kit lenses are shit, but the fact is - kit lens is not THAT soft. I did an experiment. Took same landscape picture - one with kit lens (16-50 at 30mm@f8) and I took one with sigma 30mm@f8. While sigma IS actually noticeably sharper on screen, all of that sharpness did not improved final print. I printed same image on A3+ size photo paper and looked at the images from 1 and 2 meter away. The differences were so minimal it almost made it hard to distinguish which picture was taken with which lens. I'm not saying that kit lens is a great lens. It has a lot of limitations. For example you can't crop in and still have all that detail like with sharper lenses, you can't take clean photos in darker environments when shooting hands on, can't have beautiful bokeh and so on. But I will say this. If one is shooting landscapes and don't mind carrying around tripod (tripod for landscapes is a must anyway), the kit lens will do a bang on job for ANY beginner OR amateur photographer.
So you're saying u wouldn't recommend the 16-50?
Not unless you need the zoom range and you need it to be as compact as possible, at the expense of aperture and image sharpness.
What camera are you using in this vlog?
A7rii links in the description of everything I used.
18-135 or 18-105 G?
That's my next video.
get that 18-105 bro you get f4 constant aperature, the zoom is internal, and has the power zoom feature if you're into videography.
I had both, kept the 18-135
Thank you very much
Has time and, perhaps using another example of the kit lens, lessened your criticism?
As others have said, the kit lens has ,almost, been universally well received and Sony native alternatives are far from economically priced?
The kit lens is still $350 and after two copies that I have used it's still one of the worst lenses I have had, even the oss is worse than any other oss lens I have had. I understand that many people say it's fine, but sometimes you just got come to terms with the fact that it's not very good.