It's a great beginner lens for sure as people get introduced to more bokeh even with such dark apertures - compared to phones, and it's not so heavy so it's great to get used to as wearing a second camera outside a phone, which can make people to not take it if it's too heavy, in the end not using it at all. Well, until you realize that shooting great stills is mostly using equation: more heavy - the better photos. Lens is actually retractable, which makes it veeeery portable to use anywhere and stull produce a better results than just shooting with a phone. Having a heavy lens, I'm used to wear such, but sometimes it's impossible, so I use a phone, but I could use this one - I'm not shooting a lot tho. Autofocua definitely matters when shooting some action like kids or cats, tho a lot depends also on camera. The biggest downside is poor close focus capability, but there is a hack for it we old photographers know: set aperture to about f13 f16 f20 and such 😊 In the end, the biggest power of this lens is it's price, which is close to nothing, while having AF, OSS, zoom and being wiiide - even if you find cheap primes with AF, without OSS, they aren't so wide, mostly 27mm or 50mm, not 16mm definitely. I only find hard to find a cheap match of a camera for this lens, as even old ones like a5100 are going for almost 500 euro now...
While optically it's not amazing, where it shines is travel photography. I don't think there's anything similar on the market with such compact size and zoom capability. + everyone has 10 of them in the drawers, so on used market it's really cheap as well
I regret selling mine to be honest. Nothing else on the market that's as compact for Sony APSC that isn't a prime - and sometimes its nice to have both portability and multiple focal ranges.
@@PersianBaki f4 has just the right amount of blur. Very blurry background is overrated. Why tf would you take a picture of something and the background is indescribable? It makes no sense especially for travelling
Thanks for the comparison - I've not seen any 'real use' comparisons so far. I have the original kit lenses for both my cameras, the ZV-E10 (mark 1) still goes out wearing it, it slips in my coat pocket nicely!
The portable size of the kit lens is often overlooked in reviews. Even if the picture isn't perfect, a small lens can be very useful! Thankfully the mark 2 is exactly the same in that regard!
First, and most obvious, physical change I noticed was the design of the focus ring. A small point, but it does help to immediately differentiate the two lenses at a distance and I don't think you mentioned it. Nice, informative video in all other respects.
Very disappointed to see they didn't change the optics. The main things why I can never recommend the kit lens is its optics and the grinding noise the power zoom motor makes. Those two things is what they should have updated. So this is not a Mark 1.5, rather than a mark 2. 😑 Thanks for the comparison!
Agreed, I was hoping this version would have a faster aperture with similar zoom range, but they've kept it the same. Maybe we'll get a mark 3 in another 10 years!
@@ArronPrescott I don't think we can expect brighter aperture from a kit lens and at this price point. F3.5-5.6 is pretty much industry standard for kit lenses. As is poor image quality too; sony's full frame kir lens, the 28-70 f3.5-5.6 is also really bad (relative to the price you pay for camera + lens)
I was thinking about getting this just to have a compact lens on my 7cii for family trips. But then at that point I might as well just use my phone camera. lol
if youre on a budget id recommend having a look at either the zeiss 16-70 f/4, sony 18-135 f/3.5-f/5.6 or sony 18-105 f/4 👍the youtube channel "Arthur R" has done some great reviews and comparisons on these lenses so id definitely have a look! hope this helps
Why on earth did they not improve the image quality, its so bad that its become a bit of a meme. Especially with how good fuji and other apsc brands are when it comes to their kit lenses
So basically it's still cheerfully mediocre optically, but they finally made it fast enough to not feel sluggish compared to the ZV-1? The E10 always felt very handicapped by the lens compared to the fast and fun ZV-1 for me.
I still have my old 18-55mm which is way better than this, imo. I don’t shoot any video so the power zoom is useless and annoying to me on these 16-50 lenses.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Anyone still happy with their kit lens, or have you upgraded? Let me know what lens you use!
I sold off my mk 1 kitlens and upgraded to the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. The Sigma is much faster but I do miss the compact kitlens.
@@darontan1 If the SIgma 18-50 was smaller and had OSS it would be perfect. Still it's the closet upgrade for the kit lens
I have the 18-105 f4 G PZ with a6300 its my new camera
It's a great beginner lens for sure as people get introduced to more bokeh even with such dark apertures - compared to phones, and it's not so heavy so it's great to get used to as wearing a second camera outside a phone, which can make people to not take it if it's too heavy, in the end not using it at all.
Well, until you realize that shooting great stills is mostly using equation: more heavy - the better photos.
Lens is actually retractable, which makes it veeeery portable to use anywhere and stull produce a better results than just shooting with a phone. Having a heavy lens, I'm used to wear such, but sometimes it's impossible, so I use a phone, but I could use this one - I'm not shooting a lot tho.
Autofocua definitely matters when shooting some action like kids or cats, tho a lot depends also on camera.
The biggest downside is poor close focus capability, but there is a hack for it we old photographers know: set aperture to about f13 f16 f20 and such 😊
In the end, the biggest power of this lens is it's price, which is close to nothing, while having AF, OSS, zoom and being wiiide - even if you find cheap primes with AF, without OSS, they aren't so wide, mostly 27mm or 50mm, not 16mm definitely.
I only find hard to find a cheap match of a camera for this lens, as even old ones like a5100 are going for almost 500 euro now...
While optically it's not amazing, where it shines is travel photography. I don't think there's anything similar on the market with such compact size and zoom capability. + everyone has 10 of them in the drawers, so on used market it's really cheap as well
I regret selling mine to be honest. Nothing else on the market that's as compact for Sony APSC that isn't a prime - and sometimes its nice to have both portability and multiple focal ranges.
Kit lens + sigma 30mm f1.4 .. perfect combo for any photo or video
the sigma has slow AF and bad CA
@@BigPaco213 First time ever anyone said this … show me prove . Send me a link UA-camr says this ? You will find Zero ! Sigma made best lenses!!!
No. Sigma 18-50 f2.8
@ F2.8 in crop sensor is like 4.2 in fullframe !! A Big NO !!! I tried every lens .
@@PersianBaki f4 has just the right amount of blur. Very blurry background is overrated. Why tf would you take a picture of something and the background is indescribable? It makes no sense especially for travelling
Thanks for the comparison - I've not seen any 'real use' comparisons so far.
I have the original kit lenses for both my cameras, the ZV-E10 (mark 1) still goes out wearing it, it slips in my coat pocket nicely!
The portable size of the kit lens is often overlooked in reviews. Even if the picture isn't perfect, a small lens can be very useful! Thankfully the mark 2 is exactly the same in that regard!
No AF during zoom is the one thing ruining the 18-105 F4 PZ. I wonder when that is getting replaced
Does the auto lense cap fit the new one? The auto lens cap is the reason I picked sony
Thanks for review, I never liked this lense, pity Sony did not improve image quality on version 2, a missed opportunity..
Totally agree, I was hoping for something much better.
2:42 noted
First, and most obvious, physical change I noticed was the design of the focus ring. A small point, but it does help to immediately differentiate the two lenses at a distance and I don't think you mentioned it. Nice, informative video in all other respects.
Hi Arron, is the grinding noise normal when manually zooming in and out?
I’m a new Beginner & I had recently brought a new NEX 7 with the 16-50mm lens for $300
They should make a Zeiss edition of this lens improved but still similar size
Very disappointed to see they didn't change the optics. The main things why I can never recommend the kit lens is its optics and the grinding noise the power zoom motor makes.
Those two things is what they should have updated. So this is not a Mark 1.5, rather than a mark 2. 😑
Thanks for the comparison!
Agreed, I was hoping this version would have a faster aperture with similar zoom range, but they've kept it the same. Maybe we'll get a mark 3 in another 10 years!
@@ArronPrescott I don't think we can expect brighter aperture from a kit lens and at this price point. F3.5-5.6 is pretty much industry standard for kit lenses. As is poor image quality too; sony's full frame kir lens, the 28-70 f3.5-5.6 is also really bad (relative to the price you pay for camera + lens)
I was thinking about getting this just to have a compact lens on my 7cii for family trips. But then at that point I might as well just use my phone camera. lol
I have the Sony a6400 kit with the 18-50mm lens, and I'm looking for a lens with a longer focal range do you any recommandations ?
if youre on a budget id recommend having a look at either the zeiss 16-70 f/4, sony 18-135 f/3.5-f/5.6 or sony 18-105 f/4 👍the youtube channel "Arthur R" has done some great reviews and comparisons on these lenses so id definitely have a look! hope this helps
Here I thought I could buy this lens separately. Looks like I'll get a different lens then 😂
Why on earth did they not improve the image quality, its so bad that its become a bit of a meme. Especially with how good fuji and other apsc brands are when it comes to their kit lenses
i need this review and now i found it
So basically it's still cheerfully mediocre optically, but they finally made it fast enough to not feel sluggish compared to the ZV-1? The E10 always felt very handicapped by the lens compared to the fast and fun ZV-1 for me.
For video creators these lenses have OSS whereas the Sigma ones you are recommending would be crap with gimbal.
I still have my old 18-55mm which is way better than this, imo. I don’t shoot any video so the power zoom is useless and annoying to me on these 16-50 lenses.
Man, why'd they even bother refreshing this lens if the optics aren't even improved? Waste of potential.
🤷 It's a great question, the "improvements" are very minimal