Sony 16-55 F2.8 G Lens: FINALLY.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Head to skl.sh/arthurr to get your 2 month free trial of Skillshare!
BUY THIS LENS on Amazon here: amzn.to/2VQnQ3O
or B&H here: bhpho.to/30KGHyQ
FILMED WITH:
Sony A6500: amzn.to/2VSfPv7
Sigma 56mm: amzn.to/3013I4p
Overkill Gimbal: amzn.to/301AulT
M Y G E A R :
Cameras -
📷 WHAT I USE TO RECORD: geni.us/qEib
📷 BACKUP CAMERA: geni.us/eWBG
📷 BEST STARTER/BUDGET CAMERA: geni.us/Ujn1TC3
📷 BEST FULL FRAME FOR THE $$$: geni.us/8PxAj
Lenses -
❤️ MY #1 MOST RECOMMENDED LENS: geni.us/BbGlnB
❤️ BEST PORTRAIT LENS: geni.us/bvwq
❤️ BEST ULTRAWIDE LENS: geni.us/ARXj
❤️ BEST DO-EVERYTHING LENS: geni.us/dDLwY
❤️ WHAT I FILM MY VIDEOS WITH: geni.us/ojGKI
❤️ MY FAVORITE CHEAP/MANUAL LENS: geni.us/cQoztp
Accessories -
🔋🔋 CAMERA BATTERIES: geni.us/TXaeo3B
🎤 AUDIO RECORDER: geni.us/L5dejj
🎤 MICROPHONE: geni.us/O8UzW
⚙️ BEST CHEAP TRIPOD: geni.us/4uf5
⚙️ BEST GIMBAL: geni.us/iYiy
⚙️ SD CARD: geni.us/7BhUrBj
🛒 SHOPPING ON AMAZON? geni.us/yn7t0 (Paid Amazon Link)
🌍 OUTSIDE OF THE US? USE THIS LINK: geni.us/ezoD (Paid Amazon Link)
🎦 MY E-MOUNT PAGE: www.amazon.com...
👧🏼 MY WIFE'S UA-cam: goo.gl/P7D5RW
🖼️ INSTAGRAM: / arthur213
DISCLOSURES:
I participate in the Amazon Affiliates Program, where I earn a small commission if you decide to purchase an item at no cost to you.
I participant in the B&H Affiliates Program, an affiliate advertising program in which I earn commissions by linking to bhphoto.com at no cost to you.
In this video I review the long-awaited, longingly-dreamt-of lens that is the Sony 16-55mm F2.8 G. I am thoroughly impressed with it's build and sharpness.
MUSIC:
Valcos & Chris Linton - Without You (Instrumental)
DOWNLOAD: www.mediafire....
[Valcos]
• / valcos
• / valcosedm
• / officialvalcos
[Chris Linton]
• / chris-linton-1
• / chrislintonmusic
• / chrislintonmusic
Bro.. The video is 16 minutes and 54 seconds. 16-55... So close
Did anyone else die a little inside when they clicked the Amazon link to see the price?
I'd buy a New a6600 before I spent that much on a single lens. I can't imagine it being 3X better than the 18-135mm!!!!
not really since it was known for months now at announcement time and many had preordered already
I did not yet click it....... Now I really fear to click it............
Yup
sheesh
The video is 16 mins and 55 seconds. Love that!
16:54 😑
The quality of your video production and story telling has improved dramatically congratulations
This all because of his wife love for him
Great overview but I was distracted by the beauty of the Sigma 56 the entire time!
Couldn't agree more. Sigma 56 way better in low light
I think when you review cameras and lenses the review itself should be shot with the thing you review. That's a real test.
For that damned price they could’ve included OSS not all apsc bodies have ibis. Why, why Sony!
OSS and/or zooming with no extended barrel. I would have bought it if had at least 1 of those 2 features
The same can be said for the fujifilm 16-55 f2.8! Boils down to usage I guess. OSS is most significant for video work and in those cases sharpness is not important, 18-105 f4 work well. So this lens is more for photography works!
@@jlexploretheworld1164 Yes Sony should update the 18-105mm idk a firmware update... its a good lens.. just the sharpness
Was thinking the same thing . I’ll be skipping 1; price 2; no OSS .. wtf ??
@@OGtalks the thing is not even IBIS can stabilize it that good... Sad waste of money on most bodies
People buying sony apsc cameras with only Signa lenses in mind.
Literally the only reason I nought a6400... otherwise would've been the Fuji Xt30 or Xt3
That’s because they are that good.
They still do, since this lens pricing is too unthinkable for the casual shooter.
@@stantheman3674 same bought A6400 to buy sigma 30
Same. Despite having A7iii I bought A6400 just because of the Sigma Trio and the interchangeable Sony mount. I also sold FE85 just because the bokeh on 56 1.4 is so good.
..unfortunately too expensive for me...
Exactly!
@ f/4.0 vs 2.8 thats a huge difference
It's definitely expensive, sure, but if it can actually take photos as good (maybe even better?) than the Sigma trio then you're potentially replacing three different lenses with it. Suddenly that price seems more reasonable then...
@@kevadu You got a point there, (but Sigma's f/1.4 lenses are still a tad better in low light).
@ True Sony should upgrade the 18-105mm f4!! Idk maybe a firmware update it deserved more as a G series
Cant wait to see your lens comparisons, especially with the sigma trio!
Though keep in mind that you could buy the sigma trio + kit lens for lower price than just the 16-55 G lens
Gabriel Lui You are 100% right. The question will then be if the convenience of only using one lens and not swapping between three is worth the difference in price.
he probably knows, being he has all of the above.
Arthur R but, f1.4 vs f2.8 in that range it’s a lot. I am sure the sigma trio stills gets better photos and the price is high. Yes it is easier to carry one lens but it is too much expensive I think.
Also don't forget you can also buy another camera for sub camera with one of the sigma lens
@@ArthurR but you get more light as well with Sigma f/1.4 less noise at low light , I already have the Sigma TRIO so it will be a waste of money \o/
if you do a video comparing this to the sigma trio, try to include shots with the sigma at 1.4 vs this lens at 2.8 if possible. i think the sharpness and colors, etc, seem close enough to each other. so i wonder how much better the bokeh is on the sigma at 1.4. that would be helpful in choosing this lens vs the trio.
Great recommendation
and ofc a low-light comparison along with that
I'd be curious to see more comparisons with the Sigma trio and the 18-105
18-135mm. 😇👍
I am too. I’m hoping the sigmas win 🤞🏼
@@Thumpr110 I hope so too, cause I already own them! But then again, if one lens can replace all 3, that'd be very convenient.
SAME! But 18-105 f4 is better then the 18-135mm f4 i thought.. lol
@@Thumpr110 I must have got a bad copy but I had the Sigma 16 for a few days but returned it - very soft and smeary on the edges, especially on the right. Must have been de-centered. My 16-55 though, sharp all the way!
Wow and this video was exactly 16:55 in length
SONY Adicto says 16m 54s for me
16:54
A55tech When watching the video the UA-cam player says 16:54 but when browsing the channel the thumbnail says 16:55
@@SONYAdicto u sure u wasn't looking at the thumbnail that says 16-55G?
A55tech Obviously not, I’m not stupid
Wow, I have to say that this video is very dynamic and definitely better than you just sit and talk about lenses. Love how in-depth and detailed all your reviews are anyway. Ps. I can’t afford this lens 😅
I have bought a second hand Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 three days ago also mainly because of the much cheaper price. But some how this great Sony lens keeps flirting with me. Only one thing will always stay weird. The absence of build in image stabilisation. Even the cheap 16-50mm kit lens has OSS but a +$1200 and premium G-series lens doesn't. Very odd but true! Would like to know or find out why Sony did this??
Also confused why they didn't put OSS in this G lens at this high price, big miss when most of the aps-c range doesn't have In body stabilization
If this was a $600 or $800 lens, definitely would be worth to buy.
But at $1400? That's too much, even though the performance of this lens is amazing.
I'm looking forward to the sigma trio comparisons.
*I hope that race with Hoovies, happens in the future :)
very nice review. will get this lens maybe after 15years.
Miko Laud Hahahahaha yes. Long-term planning, I like it.
After another mount is invented.
the lens will still be expensive after 15 years. i got back into photography with my Nikon camera. the same lens that i wanted to buy a long time ago still cost the same price as it did in 2006. also, there were no good deals on the used market. terrible!
@@mentuemhet yes it would still be expensive if you'll buy it as brand new, but by that time a lot of people are going to sell them at a lower price and maybe I'll be able to afford it.
@@mikolaud3810 you'd be surprised. get back to me in 15 years and tell me how it goes 🤣😜😎✌
your best bet is to probably just buy an "open-box item" from Best Buy when they become available.
I remember when I first got my a6000 in 2016 all I watched were your videos . They’ve always been so helpful. Now I’ve moved on from Sony but I’ll always watch your stuff Arthur ✊🏾
I’ve been wanting to upgrade my APSC and lens to move from my a6500 but spending 2800 dollars for the 16-55 & a6600 was crazy. I decided to get an A7iii w/ Tamron 28-75 for basically the same price.
This.
If I wasn't already heavily invested in a6000, a6500 and a bunch of lenses that's what I would do.
A part of me thinks this was intentional on Sony’s part
Yeah, it's a tough choice. I had to decide that I was firmly committing to the compact form factor of APS-C for a few years before I sprung for the two new Sony zooms. What helped the decision is that I hike a lot in the mountains and appreciate the lighter weights.
@@jameshoiby Same here. I did research for months and months trying to decide APSC with this lens vs A7III & the Tamron. Ended up with APSC still for the heavy traveler that I am (going to 6 continents this year).
Those walks talking to the camera... you just look like the host of a documentary or something... anyway, improving a lot since your first videos, I enjoy a lot your reviews and it´s nice to watch how this channel and your video style changes for the good, cheers!
Video duration: 16:55. Noticed 😁😁.
16 54
Its 16:54 actually ))
let's all just pretend it's 16:55 for the video's sake shall we?
wtf, it costs more than my car dude
Whaat? Dude, you're joking, right?
@@hishgay2734 what the fuck is wrong with you xD
@@miloradstrbacki4248 bcs hes gay
I have been following your channel for a long timr and man your review are better and better. thanks for the quality content. All my lenses buy were done after your reviews!
I would love to watch a video about lenses that are still missing from the Sony's aps-c lineup. If you make one I will like it :D
I have recently purchased this lense for about 1050 USD (down from 1200 USD) where I live. I gotta say it is super sharp and has amazing color reproduction. I'm shooting with A6400 with no IBIS. Even though neither the lens or the camera have stabilization you can get really sharp images above 1/80th shutter speed, hand held. I've been shooting before mainly with 18-105G F4 which is ok after post processing if you're not pixel peeping or zooming in 100% but Sony 16-55 G blows 18-105 G out of water. When Sony finally releases an APS-C camera that has decent IBIS the combo will be one helluva beast even for low light situation where shutter speed can go down to 1/10th sec. I don't think this lense will ever drop to 900 USD for the quality images it produces and I don't expect the competition to deliver a similar lens; Sigma has already released 16/30/56 F1.4 lenses therefore a zoom lens covering that range would kill the sales of these 3. My recommendation is if you see it on sale for about 1000 USD just grab it and wait till Sony releases a camera body with upgraded IBIS which must happen in the forseeable future.
The ending was funny! Please compare to Sony's latest APSC zoom, the 18-135! 😄
Its worse then the 18-105mm f4
Care to describe please ??
I must say your wife is freakin gorgeous 😍
Not just gorgeous, she seems a lot of fun. Very hard to piss her off
And she's a mom, wow, lucky man.
I noticed her also ... very beautiful girl.
Shucks that sharpness is absurd! The fact that it goes toe-to-toe with the Sigma Contemporary E-mount trio is insane! Shucks I want one. I don't have the money to buy it, though.
Btw, your wife looks amazing in this vid. More so than in the past vids.
1400$ for 16-55 f2.8 or Sigma 16/30/56mm f1.4 (and yeah you save 400$)... does anybody really needs to think about this, you get all 3 Sigma lenses and you save 400$ !?!
This Sony lens (also) brings...
- ease of use.
- no lens swaps ( = no dust in camera).
- lightness and compactness.
- better colorimetry.
- taylor-made electronics inside (lens designed with in-house cameras in mind !).
- single adjustment when using gimbals/tripods/handles/grips.
- better foreground and background blur effects, even in chaotic light conditions (indoor, shops, birthdays, events, streetlights, etc.).
- constant data between lens and camera ( = constant corrections, accurate EXIF, better post-production).
- focus breathing reduced and compensated.
- etc. etc.
Arthur is your brother really Hoovie? If so I’ve been watching yalls channels for years and and that would be so cool haha.
Hi arthur. Could u please put the sony 16-55 f2.8 in a6000 and compare it with sigma trio in a6000? I like to know the color render and sharpness those 4 lens in an old a6000 camera. Thanks 👍
The production quality of your videos just skyrocketed, they look super professional. I look forward to seeing more videos!
Hello, please if you got a minute answer me.... Is the Sony 16-55 F2.8 G absolutely silence like the 16-50 oss kit lens... at video work...? because i got the sigma 16mm 1.4 (an exelent lens, BUT unfortuantly the electronic moter on it, makes mach noise at video work at autofocus ...! Thank you for your time ..
11:19 "For video shooters this lens is great because of that constant F1.8 aperture". Shouldn't this be F2.8?
I also thought that.
He did that on purpose to see if we even notice it. j/k . I started searching for this comment after noticing it. :)
The length of the clip is exactly 16.55.
Such a beauty - and also the lens ;) Thanks for making these videos !
If I make the move over to Sony from Canon, this will probably be my setup. The Sigma trio is amazing, but there’s something empowering about not having to constantly swap lenses. If you want a small, VERY capable camera and lens setup... then this is it. Either the 6100/6400/6600 and this 2.8 G lens. If swapping lenses is fine with you and you need the moat light possible or crave the shallowest DOF, then go with the Trio bundle for a tad cheaper.
Finally! Thanks for the review. Are you going to make a full comparaison of this lense versus the Sigma trio? This trio is awsome but heavy. Waiting for a 3 in 1 lense since so long...
Waiting for 1655G vs 1670Z
Thanks for the review Arthur, I’ll be waiting for more of your reviews with this lens coz I’m also considering selling my sigma 16 and Sony 18-105 for this one. 😁👍
sıgma 16 f1.4???
@@canerimo4531 yup
Sad that Sony shoots himself in the foot by pricing the lenses higher than FullFrame lenses.
Shame... But this is exactly the reason why I am totally disappointed in the new lenses by Sony for APS-C.
The new 70-300 is more expensive than the FullFrame equivalent. Why? Because it's smaller? You would think you need way less glass and thus drop the price - But no. Sony milks the APS-C fanbase.
I'm happy with my 70-300G Lens for FullFrame and will buy something to replace my 16-50 pancake aswell for FullFrame.
But great work Arthur, keep it up.
Btw, I had a HUGE a-ha moment when you mentioned your brother!!
I'm subscribed to you both and every time I watched either one of you I have that "boy he seems familiar" thought...
Creative brothers, excellent content.
Stepping up your game with 4K and gimbal work I see.... Nice
Dude the low light footages from sigma used in this video... Damn, sigma gained my respect on a Sony lens review...xD
$1400 lens that doesn't have OSS......would go for Sigma 18-50mm instead at less than $600
Love the new “wandering reviewer” video style, the bits at dusk near the end especially.
I just got this lens too. For sharpness and image quality it beats the pants off my 18-105 G. I think I can justify the hefty price of the new lens ($1,450 Canadian) partly because I didn’t get the Sigma 16 and 56 and I’m going to sell my 18-105. I figured after waiting 5 years for this lens I might as well get it. When I switched from Canon I hung on to my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 with an adapter but the new Sony outperforms it by miles.
Just one caveat: Sony cut some corners to bring us this lens. Its image is very, very distorted especially at the wide end, but you wouldn’t know if from the camera JPEGs. Bring a raw file into Adobe Camera Raw though and you’ll see some crazy distortion, including the edges of the image circle in the corners, since there is no profile for it yet. I found that applying the *kit lens* profile provides a temporary fix. I decided to save myself some time by creating the following preset, until Adobe updates their lens profiles:
Lens Corrections -> Lens Profile: Sony E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS.
I have “Remove Chromatic Aberration” unchecked because it makes very little difference.
Lens Corrections -> Manual: Distortion: -2
You’ll want to adjust vignetting to taste, as it varies by focal length and aperture.
I found this setup seems to work well enough through the entire zoom range.
Any reviews on using the lens with a a6000 which doesn't have IBIS? Would that be a problem?
I believe you did watch that cinematographer skillshare video because this review was nothing like your previous review videos and that’s a good thing I liked the style of this review
Time for sigma or tamron to come up with something similar
Sigma 16-35 f2 ? & less expansive than 16-55Sony :)
I wish sigma launch its 18-55 f1.8 ,or 50-100 in E mount.
I imagine a zoom f/1.8 would be much bigger.
@@nightcoder5k ,its already out there for canon and Nikon..but not for Sony cameras..and its a big glass..
Hmm...good try but not enough to pry the sigma lenses off my a6400. Thanks for the review.
Will you Review the 70-350mm?
Jonas Lippert Yes, as soon as it comes out.
@@ArthurR 70-350mm and a6100 review, please :D
Luckily you didn’t start with the price because I would have definitely been gone lol but good video I will be purchasing the a6400 and trying to find a good vlogging lens that can also take pretty good pictures
Great idea to compare this zoom with Sigma trio. The funny thing is that the whole trio is less expensive than the zoom, but the price difference is very small (at least in my country), so it would be a tough decision to pick the best solution at one go.
Are you planning a review for the new 70-350 Sony lens?
Yes.
I am looking forward to see the comparison between this lens and 18-105 Sony G....
Same
There would be no comparison. It would blow the 18-105 out of the water. The 18-105 has always been a mediocre lens.
@@RageCage1701 I've been using it, and it has been EXTRA USEFUL and adequately (but not super) sharp.
That isn’t going to be much of a comparison, unfortunately. The 18-105 is a super useful lens, but it isn’t going to compare with the 16-55/2.8 in terms of resolution.
Any good for self vlogging on this lens? Want to only buy like 2 lenses if possible. Would like to see more video using that lens.
really great dynamic filmmaking in this one, loved all the tracking shots of you walking and the outdoor product shots. honestly this ended up being a better recommendation for the Sigma 56mm1.4 than the lens under review!
Caleb Latreille I wish I had a Sony camera for that lens alone!
Jeremy you really want the Sigma 16f1.4 that lens is the best ever.
Dexter Rutecki I believe it, it looks fantastic. But unfortunately I’m just not a big fan of 16mm focal length.
Jeremy I hear you, everyone has their own preference, but it is actually a 24mm equivalent.
@@alexnelson8 Of course I know that, that's what I meant. I prefer something more standard, or even wider. 16mm (24 equiv) is kind of a no man's land for me.
Onyl 3.5/2.8 * 3.5/2.8 = 1.56x more light at 16mm than with kitlens. I still prefer my sigma 16mm "lowlight monster" which has 6.25x more light than kit and 4x more than this new lens :) for this price it should have oss
Saw this, instantly clicked and out loud said; "Oh yeah I'm watching this"
Oh did ya..
Yazeed Saber yes. I did. :p
Arthur, hi. Great review, exceptional. Now did you have any additional artificial lighting when filming this video, especially the street scene where you stopped to explain IBIS’ use when static vs when filming. If so what is it?
I spent UNDER $1250 on a New a6400 and a Sony 18-135mm!!! INSANELY GOOD SETUP. For $1400 for this lens, I'd get a a6600 BEFORE I'd get this...
I agree that that's probably the best bargain for new APS-C users. I originally had an a6300 and an 18-135mm and it was a great combo for single-lens all around use. I recently bought an a6600 and both new zooms but in situations where I can only take a single lens, like on a SAR mission, that 18-135mm is my hands down favorite!
@@jameshoiby I sold both kit lenses leagues ago which paid for my 18-135, and now I never need to swap lenses for 95% of all my photos. Will be my primary apsc for awhile...😋👍
@@JG7Racer What convinced me was when Arthur R showed that the crops from the 18-135 @135mm were sharper than the original images at 210 on the kit zoom.
I am awaiting for your comparison between the Sigma Trio and 18-105.
When comparing, not only comparing side by side on the sharpness.(for sure sharpness is very important)
I would like also like to know how much paying off when comparing their maximum range.
For example, please also compare the maximum bokeh between the Sigma 56mm at F1.4, the star shooting/night scene between the Sigma 16mm at F1.4 . Similarly when comparing the 18-105 at their maximum Ampeture and focal length.
The lenght of the video is the name of the lens lol
i appreciate the night time videos but i wish you showed us some night time still images. overall great video
The lens and camera for this post is insanely good. The os is smooth, the bokeh crazy creamy, and the AF quick.
Nice review. Too expensive though. Hi Arthur, would like to ask and I hope you can give me your thoughts, which is better between the 2 options:
- Sony 10-18mm f4 + Sony 18-105mm f4 combination or
- Sigma 16mm f1.4 + Sony 18-105mm f4 ???
I hope you can help me. I'm using a Sony a6400 with Sony 35mm f1.8 on it. Thanks a lot and more power :)
got it already? I would pick Sigma 16mm f1.4 + Sony 18-105mm f4
Please, compare this with Sony 18-135mm.
That lens isn't the best for video or pro photography due to aperture changes. Sigma 56mm f/1.4 for photos & SONY (SELP18105G E PZ) 18-105mm F4 for video to start.you ccan have both under $950.This lens is too expensive
Master Baby Yoda But its sharper and you dont need 3 lenses.
The walking and talking footage is incredible! As good as CBS Blue Bloods and a steadicam. I’ll get a gimbal eventually.
You lucky dog! Your wife is a hottie! Nice lens review BTW.
For this price range, not including OSS in this lens is the reason why I stopped buying Sony lenses and go for Sigma and Tamron counterparts instead.
Arthur, in video you tested this lens with a6400. Did you try to use this lens with a6000? I have a6000 and i'd like to buy this lens. I don't know perhaps there are some problems in using a6000 + Sony 16-55 F2.8 G. I have no wish to waste money
you will have no stabilization, for photography it's fine, but things will get tricky in video
When can we expect the new APS-C camera body review
Well for $1400 it has it's own niece who will buy the lens anyway, but imho for shallower DOF, the 18-105 at 105 f4 is better than at 55/2.8. how do i know it? Well the diameter of the aperture show them: 55/2.8 (19.6) is smaller than 105/4 (26.25). Ofc all other factor should be factored in but on a perfect occation it will be able to do just that.
Ofc the low light is gonna be better with 2.8 but the 18-105 lens will gonna stay as my fav.
0:21 it comes in a large box and expecting to be compact???
Love my a6400, but I still shoot my personal 'best' images with my Huawei mate20. Simply because it's always with me, always. And ready within a second.
Never closed pornhub so fast in my life!
Is it possible to have this lens compared to Sony 18-105?
It looks super weird when you move outside with that extremely blurred background. Like a bad greenscreen in a studio. You could REALLY benefit from more DoF.
1300 bucks and no stabilization? Apparently Sony figures only 65 and 6600 owners will buy it?
probably yeah
For my personal needs, money, and taste, and ego, i will choose to buy the sigma 56mm.
It's not an either or decision. You just need both :)
@@Thunderbird1337 I agree. I bought the Sony zoom, but the 56mm is next on my list for a low light lens!
Love the channel, thank you for so much great Sony alpha content, but why not at least 1080p?
Finally the review we have been waiting for.
It sounds good but I think the bigger zoom and the larger and power zoom of the 18-105mm is still more what is needed for cinematic videos... Including the front of it not coming out like this lens has coming it out when u zoom... and the missing OSS(18-105 perfect for gimbal is the 18-108mm nice)... Kinda a bit dissapointed for the price and all taht stuff missing but yeah... Nice aperture and focal lenght also very sharp without much distortion... Still should be more cheap in my opinion(Not for videos.. more like wide angle and portrait also street photography shots)
At 11:23 you said f1. 8 aperture
Well, people make mistakes sometimes
Great review with really awesome picture quality👍🏻. Will be my successor of ZA f4 16-70mm. Cheers DrDuu
me: my kind of lens , im waiting for this
my wallet: nope
Also love the music you use at that montage at 4:58.
I burst out laughing when Arthurs wife was walking with the tripod then turned around at 11:30
Okay. We all get it. It's the best Sony aps-c zoom lens ever made. Genuinely impressed by what Sony has done here. But my question is: At $1,400, does it still make sense to stick with the aps-c system or should we start thinking about making a move to full frame? That's the conundrum I'm having as an aps-c shooter. One of the whole selling points of the aps-c system is that the lenses are lighter, smaller, and cheaper than their full frame equivalents. But suddenly I'm realistically considering spending $1,400 on an aps-c lens and it has me asking more "existential" questions about my photography--e.g., if I'm going to drop $1,400 + tax on a lens, is it time to sell my 6500 and just start shopping for, for example, a good condition A7R III?
It's a slippery slope! Once you get the A7RIII youll want the A9II....
My contribution to your dilemma is this: glass is 70%, the body is 30%. Also lenses dont depreciate nearly as quickly as camera bodies.
I want to know why this lens is so expensive, sony 16-50 2.8 is less than half of this price, more than 50% of money for just.5 mm?
So, sell my Sigma lenses to buy this one? Pretty convenient to have just one lense i think. Also, buy that that truck and do a review on it!
Fantastic review! If you have the 18-105 mm is getting this an upgrade? ?
16-55 f2.8 is a tiny bit wider & doubles the maximum light transmission, but you loose A LOT of zoom, power zoom, OSS, & it extends = risking internal pollution
Holy crap, I've watched you and Tyler Hoovie forever and didn't realize you were twins! Crazy. I have twin girls myself (4yrs old)!
Great review! Your video quality looks beautiful and should not go unmentioned! Bravo!!!
The camera and 16-55 have my interest... but, then I think of the 3g’s. And for 1400 on the lens... no oss?! Bad on you Sony! I keep holding the Fuji lately.
Could you please compare the new sigma 24-70mm 2.8 with the new Sony 16-55 mm 2.8 Thanks
Awesome review! Great lens. Also really like the video footage while you were walking around. Your camera man did a great job.
Definitely gonna stick to 18-105mm f4... Still a good lense in this level.. They should make more dynamic or firmware updates.(in case of sharpness and distortionl
Nice review Arthur. Thanks for uploading this in 4K. Some might not know it but 15 minutes of video in 4K is a very large file and can take awhile to upload depending on your internet provider's upload speed (some are horrible). When I watch reviews of cameras or lenses, seeing the reviews in 4K is a must.
It maybe a good lens, but it is way TOOOOOO expensive!!!!
After seeing the price (1400.00!) of this Sony zoom lens at f 2.8 although convenient, it looks like the Sigma trio at 1.4 is safe for now. The Sony would have to be around 700.00 to have any impact.
I took the plunge and bought this with the $100 discount. I am really happy with it. It is very sharp and I do have the Sigma trio also. Great video and I hope you pay your wife modeling fees!