I appreciate that you put a lot of time into this review for the benefit of us viewers. However, there are a few problems here which you might want to consider when doing another review: (1) This is NOT a lens review. It’s a lens comparison. There’s a difference. (2) Your audience is composed of Sony users - why compare the Sony 16-50mm to a Canon lens?? It would make more sense to compare to a comparable Sony lens - another Sony kit lens, a third party E-mount lens, or even a Sony G or GM lens - something that Sony users are likely to own. (3) Why did you take only one still photo of a single subject? To reach any conclusion, you need to take multiple photos of several subjects, at varying focal lengths and varying apertures. Other reviewers have found that this lens suffers sharpness in the corners - just opposite of what you found. This should have been a red flag to do more testing with a variety of subjects. And why a wooden board as a subject? There are an infinite number of subjects that better show off sharpness and depth of field and dynamic range. The side-by-side imagers of the board are different. Why aren’t they the same? (4) The Sony stabilized lens did a better job stabilizing the shot than did the non-stabilized Canon lens. Not an earth-shattering conclusion. (5) Lens flare -You expressed an odd preference. Both lens flares look bad but the flare on the Sony lens is less intrusive whereas the flare from the Canon dominates the scene.
Thanks for your comment, yeah, as I mentioned at the beginning of the video, it was my first video going over equipment, so I still had some learning to do. 1) You're right, I do compare, but I also review the lens. And while it is a comparison, it was mostly to show how well the kit lens performs under certain conditions compared to the 24-70 2) At the time, 2 years ago, sony did have fewer lenses, and I was a converted Canon user, as I assume many Sony users are. And I was not well off enough at the time to repurchase or even rent comparable Sony lenses. That was literally the only lens I had 3) I figured taking a photo of a flat textured plane would give a good idea of sharpness across the image. If I were to redo this review again today, I would do some things differently, and that is one thing I would do differently. Again, this was just my 3rd or 4th video I think I ever made for UA-cam, so I was learning. 4) As I have stated in many comments, this entire video was mainly done to show beginners that if they only have the kit lens, they shouldn't be so eager to feel the need to spend huge money on new lenses because the kit lens has great features. 5) Agreed. I think it was mainly my inability to cope with the fact that the $200 kit lens dealt with lens flares better than a $2000 lens I owned. However, sometimes lens flare like that isn't bad, just a personal preference and also very dependant on what you shoot. Thank you for giving me some good constructive criticism, I really do appreciate it. This has made me reconsider redoing this review, and doing it much more thoroughly!
It really does work surprisingly well! And I actually find myself using it even more lately now that I have a gimbal. I'm not a huge fan of using autofocus for video, but the AF on this lens works really well when I can't do manual focus on a stabilizer.
Thanks for the comparison , very interesting. I got the 16-50 with a s/h a5000. On first use I thought this is a crap lens, especially when compared to Nikon 28 and 50mm af-d and also Pentax M 28 and 50mm lenses, both with K&F converters . But given a second try I think that the main problem is soft auto focus. With af off it performs much better. Also if you must use af I've found it's better set to centre mode rather than wide or zone. Best stay away from the 16mm end too. Conclusion: Not a bad lens but needs some thought to get the best out of it.
I bought a6400 with 16-50mm kit lens with zoom kit lens. I think that 16-50 is so small and not bad at all for image and video. I like it. Above the lens is all I have so I can't compare it but nice lens for a price. Lately on my UA-cam Channel, I shot all of it with kit lens so if you can check it out it will be awesome.
I have two of the kit lenses because they came with the camera at no extra cost compared to the body only price. I use it mainly on an A5100 which is still a good camera and the kit lens makes it pocketable. If you are aware of the limitations of the lens there is no reason why you would not get great pictures with it.
Being a traveler I thought about upgrading my 16-50 which I almost never use. After looking at all the reviews online, they pretty much confirm what you found... it's not a bad lens. It's fairly good and REALLY SMALL which is wonderful for traveling. Plus I have it and it saves $$$. Most of the other options are for a much bigger 18 - XX lens, and the 16 is really nice. But I suspect it's really closer to 15mm.
Excuse me... Isn't the Canon 24-70mm a full frame lens? If it is then it doesn't sound scientifically right to compare it's performance to that of a crop lens both used on an APS-C camera... I'm a Sony shooter and I'm not saying the kit lens is not good especially when considering the price tag difference... I'm just saying that the performance of the Canon lens is weakened by using it on an APS-C sensor body
Yes, that's absolutely correct. But this is still a good example of how well the kit lens performs against what is considered to be a great lens. So, yeah the kit 24-70 is made for a full frame, but its still impressive to see that if you're thinking of getting some full frame lenses for your a6000/6300/6500 you might not realize just how well the kit lens already performs in certain ways.
Well, he shot crop-to-crop, but what he could've done is shot the Canon at 70mm (the same AOV at the same aperture & focus distance). Assuming the mid focal length on the Canon zoom was its sweet spot, the Canon underperformed in the corners. The question I'd like to see answered was how well either lens shot at f/8 or f/11 (typical DOF use for wide angle landscape / architectural...).
Good:Fast:Cheap. Pick Any Two! IDK if you were shooting wide open there in the fence shot, but all things being equal, the Sony is no doubt a better "walk-around" lens. The Sony NEX 16/2.8 is also much maligned, and yet stopped down (for landscape work) it serves the purpose quite admirably. Having chased after "sharp" glass, and found some truly tack-sharp examples in Mamiya 645, Pentax 67 & old-school Minolta Maxxum A-Mount, if you want speed you're struggling against sharpness & it's gonna cost ya. But for decades 'togs in medium format land were usually shooting with quite a bit slower lenses & did just fine. Now we have clean ISO800 & we're supposed to want every lens to be f/1.8? WHY? They WEIGH MORE, they're harder to repair, there's more crap to break!! Seriously? The OEM's have concocted this koolaid that we're all supposed to shoot wide open all the time, and yet the lightest, most reliable lenses are invariably a bit slower & simpler. FFS, it's a wide angle lens with inherently great DOF, it's not a portrait lens, so stop it down, set it to ISO-400, & stop crying about the bokeh!!
Hey Kaz - Nice video. I tend to do a lot of my YT viewing with headphones late at night. I couldn't help noticing the differences in volume of your voice from scene to scene. If somehow you can level this out in the future, it would make for an even more enjoyable experience. 10/10 on the content though. Please see this as a suggestion rather than a criticism. Keep up the great work.
one question about the sharpness comparison of wood that you took. the 24mm-70mm wasn't sharp enough isn't it because you lost the quality with using the adapter for the cannon lens?
Thank you for this video...but the reason this is cheap is because Sony downgraded the price to make it easy to purchase to couple with their mating cameras. If another vendor made this available they would have artificially increased the price.
This is a great Video! The one thing that kinda bothered me was the shutter speed in the video.. there was no motion blur at all.. which sometimes throws off the flares.. a nv filter would have helped a lot.
Scored a A6000 with this lens on it for $8.00 at a thrift store. After buying a battery the lens was froze up but after working it a little it came to life. But images in RAW don't look that great but then the camera has 93k shutter count and was dusty. I swabbed the sensor it was scratch free. The glass inside and out is clean no scratches, fungus or dust. My guess the lens is tired.
Pete Lucchini that's very possible. this lens has been around for a while. so if the a6000 you purchased was heavily used with that lens on it for many years, it could have some issues. especially since it has optical stabilization, it has extra motors and elements that can run into problems.
I ordered a adapter for my Nikkor lenses I am happy with manual focus, I use them on my D700. Lets see what the outcome will look like. I am with you on the lens I am surprised it actually zooms but the images just look low res not very crisp around the edges sort of a haze effect. But if the camera works for $8.00 I cant complain, lets see what happens with the Nikkor's. Thanks! Pete
@@michaelscolfield14 They wanted $16.00 but it was half off day at the same time. After getting it working i felt a little guilty. It's been going strong ever since, i just use manual lenses on it. It has hickup's from time to time but still puts out some amazing images.
I didn't have another apsc lens to compare this to, with the exception of a canon 18-55 kit lens, which wouldn't have been a useful test. I was trying to show a comparison between a kit lens, which many regard as not good, to a lens which many regard as one of the best lenses out there.
Every reviewer has a mahantra "Sharp" - "Sharp" - "Sharp" ! - Well if one seeks out the greatest images in photographic history, most every old-school optic was inferior to either of these computerized ED & Aspherical Element zoom lenses; in other words, critical pixel peeping (or gear) simply doesn't make one a better photographer...
I totally agree that they are 2 different ranges, but I do still think that still matters. The 16-50 will still work well handheld regardless of it being an inexpensive lens. And it does also have stabilization, which helps a lot too. Again, I'm not hating on the 24-70, I own that lens, and it's my favorite lens that I own. I'm simply showing people out there that have the kit lens, that they can be happy with the lens they have because it performs very well over all
Strange, I've found the opposite to be true, but just in terms of sharpness. It seems sharper to me at 16mm than at 50mm. However, it could be the copy that I have.
I will add some more in future videos! But if you're wondering how it performs in other situations, all of my travel videos were filmed with this exact lens!
You're right, I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Maybe you can point out a specific part that you're noticing the bad color and low contrast. Either way, whatever minor imperfection you're noticing can be corrected slightly to make up for what you're seeing. But still, this isnt me hating on the 24-70, I'm just trying to show people that have the kit lens that it's not a bad lens to have.
All of the greatest pictures ever taken , never had auto focus/image stabilisation or weather sealing. . Stop creating problems and start practicing stable camera techn7que
There are circumstances that stabilization will benefit you without having to purchase or lug around additional equipment. Also, while weather sealing might not affect image quality in any way, most of the professional shots from the last 20 years were taken with weather sealed lenses regardless of how much its actually needed. I agree that technique is incredibly important though
I think 16-50 lens' sweet spot is F8 onwards. Ever since I experienced this, my perspective has changed about this lens. And of course if we don't know what shutter speed we should keep at what focal length, we can't blame this lens. If anybody is unhappy with this lens and wants to give it away for free or cheap, I'm always there. :D Love this lens.
Hey man. Picking up the a6400 this week. (Body only) Going to be used just for videos I do car diy videos for my youtube channel. (You can look if you want at my page) Do you think the kit lens will be sufficient enough? I just need clean shots of car engines and shocks and whatnot. Any advice will be appreciated!
@@BuddysDIY I think getting started this will function very well for you. There's a reason they pack this lens with the crop sensor cameras, it's a very good utility lens. I would say if you end up trying to do any sort of "vlog" type material, like pointing the camera at yourself from arms length away, you may need a wider lens eventually. But you might also consider putting the money towards other equipment like lights or some other piece of equipment that may benefit you for your channel.
I would love to see a comparison with some expensive lens in low light/dark/night situations. I will travel to Korea and Japan next November, and I want to do a lot of night street pictures (without tripod) with all that amount of lights, neons, lanters, etc, and I don´t know if this lens "Sony 16-50" would do a good or decent job, even with high ISO. I have a Sony A7R 1 + 16-35 F4 lens, and I wonder if the 16-50 lens would make a similar job like in the video with the Canon 24-70.
I'm afraid that you would not be able to use this APS-C format kit lens with your full frame body! For better low light performance go with a lens with a lower F number. Maybe even with OSS, but I don't know if that would make all the difference which would justify the price difference. You can compare camera bodies and lenses on www.dxomark.com/ Just for your to know I currently don't own on any gear, but I used to take photo with my Canon ages ago. I'm just looking to buy either a A6400 or a A7RII and read a lot in the topic recently. Hope this helps.
It takes a certain amount of boldness to come out to defend and even promote a kit lens such as the 16-50. For video, it actually seems to stand up perfectly to the more expensive lenses. And your comparison with a lens costing almost 17 times more is most instructive. So, many thanks for this. You've got a new subscriber here.
Yeah, its certainly not the popular opinion, but everybody that I show the lens to, and what it's capable of, is eventually convinced that it's a great little lens. I use it so much, and with autofocus constantly improving with the newer cameras, it continues to get better!
Yeah, its certainly not the popular opinion, but everybody that I show the lens to, and what it's capable of, is eventually convinced that it's a great little lens. I use it so much, and with autofocus constantly improving with the newer cameras, it continues to get better!
Thanks so much for the review, it has been incredibly helpful to see the sharpness compared! The only question that I still have is whether the autofocus in video is reliable when tracking something, especially just having myself in the frame moving around a bit while talking; will this lens do a good job with that, compared to some of the different native sony lenses you've used, or does it hunt around or simply don't find focus as much? Thanks a lot for taking the time to make the review and your answer is much appreciated! You might have saved me a few hundred dollars after seeing how capable this lens actually might be!
Glad it was helpful for you! As far as autofocus goes, I think the camera will make a bigger difference when keeping a good track on a subject. The native sony lenses do work VERY well keeping tracked on a subject, especially if it isn't moving too much. However, I still never use autofocus while shooting video because the autofocus isn't perfected yet. I've used this lens to shoot some of my youtube videos before, using the autofocus tracking, and it's worked great everytime, except once, it lost focus and never focus properly again the entire time I was talking, making the footage completely un-usable. So while it does work well, I personally still don't trust it completely
Had my A6000 for 3 years and never use the 16-50. The lens I use the most is the 18-105 F4 G lens. I do still use the 55-210 sometimes when I need the reach. The other lens I use is the F1.8 50mm. Really want to get the 70-200mm as soon as possible.
I would use my 24-70 more often but that lens is too heavy for my gimble, and can't use the AF (it's a canon lens). But to be honest, a lot of the lenses coming out these days are pretty incredible!
Thanks for the comparison review. 👍🏼 So few reviews give something against which to compare & so are less useful. Part of the reason the Sony lens did so well is that the sony bodies firmware automatically correct for distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration etc. Corner performance would be a lot less impressive w/o this but as we do have it as part of the total "recipe" for the finished image ... 🤓
I’m a new beginner with the NEX 7 & I wanted to know if the video quality shows better on the 16-50mm with a hood? I ask because even though the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my NEX 7 I heard that the 16-50mm is the better lens for video
I honestly haven't u sed the 18-55mm kit lens, just the 16-50. However, I'd say just try it out and see if it works for what you're needing it to do. I'm sure the lenses are both very similar at the end of the day
Hey I really like your channel, A6300 got me here which I'm thinking of buying but am absolutely confused about which lense. I wanna shoot mostly 1080p 120fps and 4k videos with the Zhiyun crane-M. But I dont wanna go all crazy on a lense but I do want quality videos., is the kit lens up for it? Is there anything else maybe under 400 USD that you would suggest? Obviously autofocus is very important to me shooting video.
I really do think this lens is great for almost anyone. Especially with the Zhiyun Crane, it will be fantastic. If you want to get a better idea of what this lens looks like shooting more video, check two of my recent videos, one called "sierra nevada, 2017" and another called "San Francisco, 2017". Those two videos were shot 100% on an a6300 with the kit lens, hand held, no stabilizer, with a lot of slow motion, and if I remember correctly, I think almost all of it was shot with autofocus on.
Great video, thank you. Are those clips at the end using manual focus? I actually love using the kit lens, but for my film work, I almost always use manual focus, unless I'm using my 35mm f1.8 Sony OSS lens for close up dialogue or just close shots of someone. Other than that, even though my Sony a6400 manual focus is pretty amazing, I still don't really trust any manual focus for most things.
so confused.. christopher frost slated this lens, it appears to have massive distortion on the wide and end extrememly soft on the edges. your real workd review however, shows different
The 16-50 has had all sorts of reviews- from extremely negative to very positive. I have read many as I own the lens- came with my Sony NEX-5r. A lot of flaws can be fixed in post with the right software if needed...the reviews veer to the positive overall I would say when you take all things into consideration, size, price etc. I've managed to get some very nice shots out of it- it's a perfect beginners lens and good all rounder. I just picked up the Sony Prime 50mm F1.8 OSS last week (for portraits and street shooting) so looking forward to comparing them. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to purchase the 16-50 but since it came with my camera I was fine with it- and it's so tiny you will hardly notice it in your bag! I'll prob add 1 more lens to my simple set up eventually and leave it at that. (Have also read some people received defective 16-50mm lens and had to return them...the new ones fared much better)
Westham66 pretty much said it all. But just to answer myself, I too have seen quite a range of views on this lens. I can't say for sure why there is such a huge range of opinions on the lens, other than there may be a sort of "luck" with these lenses. I have two of them and they both perform very well, so I just have not had the same negative experience with them as some other reviewers have. There are certainly better lenses that exist, but this one will do the job very well. This review was mainly to show people that the kit lens is worth getting with their camera, in case they're on the fence about getting body only.
I can not chose to buy Sony A6400 with kit lens or buy the body only and then go with 50mm f/1.8 OSS can you assist? Im gonna be spin like 90%photo 10%video, and mainly photograhing gaming setups, custom keyboards, and other tech gear Best regards Uniq
I bought one on Amazon. My image is blurry and I got no auto focus. I think it’s defective or maybe if you have a tip? Maybe I have to move a setting. Thanks.
Huge thanks man! Gonna research some more, but this is probably going to be what I go with. My current lens is a crappy $30 manual lens that was just to get me by. Looks awful even with the a5000, as expected lol
Its definitely a good buy. I use it on my camera alllll the time. Check out my Iceland video. That was filmed 100% with this kit lens (with the exception of the drone shots)
@@KazCanning Yeah I made up my mind, getting this lens XD. Actually have a question, I found a slightly more expensive kit on Amazon (comes with a few extra things) but says that it is the international version. Think it's safe to go with that, or just get the barebones for only about $15 less?
@@seeker2273 I'm not really sure what would make it an "international version" vs standard. I would say that as long as you have a lens cap and a microfiber cloth (even that's optional) you should be good
@@KazCanning Alright cool, I'm pretty new to this. Most experience I had was taking passport photos when working for Walgreens lol Thanks for the help!
I don't know what to tell you. I have used the kit lens quite extensively for several years now, and have never had an issue with it. It is possible that either you have a bad copy of the kit lens (which can happen with any lens out there), you have a preconceived idea that it's bad, or you don't know how to use it.
i got a sony nex3n years ago with a 16-60 3.5-5.6 OSS. I'm wondering if it's the same exact lens or if they made imporvements on this lens. reason i ask is i am probably getting an a6400 this week and wouldnt need the kit lens if i can use the one i have for the kit lens. I'm getting a Sigma 16mm! and some others ;)
Never had any regret of my choice to trade this lens in for the Sony 18-135mm after a week of purchasing a Sony A6000 with the 16-50mm kitlens. The 18-135mm seems to be also a kitlens. But i see a clear difference between these lenses in image quality.
It’s because Sony cameras handshake with modern Sony lenses and certain flaws are corrected in-camera, while that won’t be the case for 3rd Party lenses? Maybe?
I know many people that think just because they spent lots of money they have better equipment ( money makes up for lack of skills ?) ! I'm not so good that I can tell if it works a little better ! I just want it to do what I want it to do ! If it looks good to me that's what I buy even if I have to pay a tiny bit more ! But I ain't paying a lot even if I have the money because I would feel like a I got fooled every time I use it ! And I'm only having fun ! It ain't my job !
Believe it or not, a lot of it has to do with UA-cams compression. The scene has a lot of tiny details, like the grass blades, tree branches and leaves. All those details moving around in the scene makes for relatively bad image quality when it gets compressed on youtube. It was also mid day lol, which never looks great. But I can assure you, the a6300 does have great video quality for the price.
I dont know what about f8 in soft light on wall, but in shots on nature - canon lenses has much more sharpness, contrast, and colour. Sony looks badly, with some violet on trees too.
got a5100 recently. I am mostly going to use it take indoor pics of our kids,..loving the flip screen to take selfie and 16-50mm kit lens is quite nice to start up..Can you recommend any value wide angle lens or shall I use an converter ?
I already have an A6300 and a 18-105 F4 lens. It's a great combination. I want a second A6300 so I can do two camera shoots. I'm thinking about getting this kit lens but I'm put off by the lack of manual focus. I'll probably use the 18-105 F4 as the A-Cam and the 16-50 kit on the static B-Cam. Will it be a good choice?
I think it depends. What kind of shoots are you doing with your cameras? You can still do manual focus, you just have to change it in camera. However, the manual focus is focus by wire, so it's basically useless to pull focus, but it is usable if it's for static subjects
Thank you for the excellent comparison! I like how you looped footage to highlight something, I've been researching cameras lately and it's crazy how many times people will just say something and show just a super quick demo, or no demo at all. I just ordered a Sony a6400 with this lens so I'm glad to know it's worth it!
Yeah, I thought the looping would help because I would often find my self going back and looking at the same clip over and over! Hope you enjoy the lens and the camera! I've used that exact combo many many times before!!!
I use my Canon 5DMkIII and 24-70 2.8L professionally. I use my SONY a6000 and 16-50 for travel and family outings. Very pleased with both but for different reasons. The magic is in the cameras' processors, and they're both great. Canon lens is weather sealed. The SONY is not. Different strokes...
It really is an underrated lens, obviously not for professional use, but 99% of the people out there use their cameras for hobby anyways, and I think this lens would be good for most people. I do love my canon 24-70 too though!
I think that green flair moving around on the Sony lens is because of the optical stabilization. The canon doesn't have it, but also doesn't have optical stabilization. Even though this is kind of an apples to oranges comparison, it really shows how much can be achieved by the Sony kit lens.
Definitely. I know the lenses aren't really similar, I'm just showing people that might only have a kit lens at their disposal, that the kit lens is actually better than they might realize
It's somewhat hearsay, but the Sony rep at my local BB recalled getting an order for 10 a6000 kits with the 16-50mm for what turned out to be set shooting for Game of Thrones. It would appear that they were seen as good for shooting shots that had a high risk of lens damage
I used my friend's sony a6400 ( comes with 16-50mm lens) which she just bought to shoot a short film, it works very well! Although in some shot I kinda wish the dof is more shallow and longer focal length
Yeah, it's definitely not the perfect lens for all situations, but it still works really really well. I think a lot of people have no interest in it because they assume it's bad
What aperture should you use this lens at? IIRC I've read that most lenses should be used at f8? Is that a thing? Also I'm super surprised the corners of the fence weren't blurry in this video, you sure you didn't have the photos the wrong way around? lol.
I typically use this lens as wide open as it will go, like 3.5-5.6. I would imagine it would perform fine at higher aperture values though. I will say that I have not tested it thoroughly at small apertures like that though, simply because I don't typically like to shoot at those apertures.
@@Spacemonkeymojo I actually use this lens 100% for video! And yeah that is a reason I like using it wide open, however, at 16mm there is almost no bokeh at all. I typically shoot slow motion video (120fps) around sunset time, so I usually need all the light I can get! Check out some of the videos I have on my channel, specifically the one called "Iceland 2018" that was filmed entirely on this kit lens! (and a drone)
I felt hard to make focus by this 1650 kit lens as for Potrait shoot. For landscape shoot there is lack of sharpness. May be becasue of I'm not a pro or lens itself isn't capable.
For the focusing on your portrait shoot, it may have been the lens, or it could've just been as simple as placing the auto focusing spot at the wrong spot. And while this lens is pretty sharp when it's zoomed out, I would say it's not that sharp when you zoom in with it. It does help to use this lens at a higher f-stop like f8 to get better sharpness.
Very true. This 16-50 on a 1.6 crop is the equivalent of roughly 24-80mm lens on a FF body, which honestly isn't too bad. The 24-70mm lenses are some of the most widely used lenses in the world, and this kit lens does cover that range.
It's so funny , this stories about lenses. Show your photos guys! I've seen great photos with kit lenses and horrible photos with 1k $ lenses. If you know how and what , then everything is much easier. And if you don't know to drive car even Ferarri doesn't help you.
I wish I did have more photos with this lens to show off! The only reason I don't is that I use my a6300 mostly for video, and my a7r for photos mostly. I'm not opposed to taking photos with it, but man, it's super impressive for a kit lens for shooting video too!
Thanks man, I am just about to upgrade from my old Nex to a sony a6300. The a6300 comes in a kit here in Bangkok with the 16-50, so I will get that. I was going to avoid the 16-50 because my last one just stopped working, and my pancake sony 16,mm is soft as, and I have probably dropped it a couple of times , but of course I blamed Sony. Good video, and good comparison. paul scott New Zealand
hi, if i buy the a6300 this is my first camera, i want to take pics for my dog, baby, family, want to add the 35mm-1.8, question its necesary buy this lens? or i can work only with 35mm to start?
That's very possible. I've had the 24-70 for over 5 years and used it very heavily. In terms of sharpness it is still very very sharp, just sort of soft at the corners wide open.
Your observation is fantastic. And with regards to landscapes the difference could be less obvious. Though it still not very justified to pay thousands of dollars for a pro lenses. Also, I would suggest to do a comparison of pro lens with a kit lens with regards to a portrait and it might give different result. I use to take pictures with Sony kit lens 28-70 and then bought 90 mm G lens. The comparison was like a difference of night and day.
Thanks for the vid! My fiancee wants to start taking vlogging seriously but knows nothing about cameras. I watched this video to ensure that if we invest $350 into this body and lens, it won't be a waste of money. The footage actually looks pretty good tho!
Yepp, this lens will work really well! I'm guessing that you're thinking of getting the a6000 with this kit lens? I'm not super familiar with the a6000 autofocus in video mode. It might work really well, I just don't know. I would suggest checking out some video tests with the a6000 and this lens to see how they work together in video mode, because not all cameras work well like that. I was using the a6300, which does have some different features. I hope you guys have a great time with your camera when you get it!!!
This might not be the best lens suited for a wedding, but the continuous autofocus works incredibly well, so if you're just looking for a lens to have fast continuous autofocus, it will work!
I was under the impression that with most cameras, when using a tripod, as you did with the video tests, that vibration reduction/optical stabilization is supposed to be turned off. Yes? No?
Yes, when using a tripod, especially for long exposure shots, it's ideal to turn the stabilization off, as it will wiggle a little bit during those long exposures creating blurring that is avoidable. In the video tests however, I was hand holding the cameras to try to show the difference between the two.
I, too, had low expectations for this lens. While I normally shoot with pro-level lenses on full-frame cameras, there are outdoor applications where I am limited to only a tiny camera and single lens. Not wanting to go any smaller than APS-C, I chose the Sony a6XXX cameras for the trade-off between style and image management. I bought the a5100 with a kit lens because it was so affordable I couldn't pass it up. I also own an a6000 and a6500. At first I shot with the 16-50mm only when I was restricted to the tiniest payload (I lead tours and bike rides and my pack is usually stuffed with personal and contingency gear), and found that photos with little pancake lens to surpass my expectations. The zoom range is nearly ideal as my 24-70mm is my walking-around lens for my full-frame. No, it isn't as sharp or as highly performing in low light as my f/2.8 but, yes, for $1,550 less, it's remarkable how well it does.
For someone on a budget, tight on space (or needing lightweight) it really is a great lens. I've been using it for about 90% of my video shooting lately
I appreciate that you put a lot of time into this review for the benefit of us viewers. However, there are a few problems here which you might want to consider when doing another review:
(1) This is NOT a lens review. It’s a lens comparison. There’s a difference.
(2) Your audience is composed of Sony users - why compare the Sony 16-50mm to a Canon lens?? It would make more sense to compare to a comparable Sony lens - another Sony kit lens, a third party E-mount lens, or even a Sony G or GM lens - something that Sony users are likely to own.
(3) Why did you take only one still photo of a single subject? To reach any conclusion, you
need to take multiple photos of several subjects, at varying focal lengths and varying apertures.
Other reviewers have found that this lens suffers sharpness in the corners - just opposite of what you found. This should have been a red flag to do more testing with a variety of subjects.
And why a wooden board as a subject? There are an infinite number of subjects that better show off sharpness and depth of field and dynamic range.
The side-by-side imagers of the board are different. Why aren’t they the same?
(4) The Sony stabilized lens did a better job stabilizing the shot than did the non-stabilized Canon lens. Not an earth-shattering conclusion.
(5) Lens flare -You expressed an odd preference. Both lens flares look bad but the flare on
the Sony lens is less intrusive whereas the flare from the Canon dominates the scene.
Thanks for your comment, yeah, as I mentioned at the beginning of the video, it was my first video going over equipment, so I still had some learning to do.
1) You're right, I do compare, but I also review the lens. And while it is a comparison, it was mostly to show how well the kit lens performs under certain conditions compared to the 24-70
2) At the time, 2 years ago, sony did have fewer lenses, and I was a converted Canon user, as I assume many Sony users are. And I was not well off enough at the time to repurchase or even rent comparable Sony lenses. That was literally the only lens I had
3) I figured taking a photo of a flat textured plane would give a good idea of sharpness across the image. If I were to redo this review again today, I would do some things differently, and that is one thing I would do differently. Again, this was just my 3rd or 4th video I think I ever made for UA-cam, so I was learning.
4) As I have stated in many comments, this entire video was mainly done to show beginners that if they only have the kit lens, they shouldn't be so eager to feel the need to spend huge money on new lenses because the kit lens has great features.
5) Agreed. I think it was mainly my inability to cope with the fact that the $200 kit lens dealt with lens flares better than a $2000 lens I owned. However, sometimes lens flare like that isn't bad, just a personal preference and also very dependant on what you shoot.
Thank you for giving me some good constructive criticism, I really do appreciate it. This has made me reconsider redoing this review, and doing it much more thoroughly!
Very cool! Everyone likes to knock the 16-50 kit lens but you have shown that it’s perfectly usable.
It really does work surprisingly well! And I actually find myself using it even more lately now that I have a gimbal. I'm not a huge fan of using autofocus for video, but the AF on this lens works really well when I can't do manual focus on a stabilizer.
Please Come and watch my channel here ....and do not forget to traveling Sri lanka & Subscribe my channel .thank you
Thanks for the comparison , very interesting. I got the 16-50 with a s/h a5000. On first use I thought this is a crap lens, especially when compared to Nikon 28 and 50mm af-d and also Pentax M 28 and 50mm lenses, both with K&F converters . But given a second try I think that the main problem is soft auto focus. With af off it performs much better. Also if you must use af I've found it's better set to centre mode rather than wide or zone. Best stay away from the 16mm end too. Conclusion: Not a bad lens but needs some thought to get the best out of it.
"Normalize volume" is one of the most useful tools in video editing.
I bought a6400 with 16-50mm kit lens with zoom kit lens. I think that 16-50 is so small and not bad at all for image and video. I like it.
Above the lens is all I have so I can't compare it but nice lens for a price. Lately on my UA-cam Channel, I shot all of it with kit lens so if you can check it out it will be awesome.
I have two of the kit lenses because they came with the camera at no extra cost compared to the body only price. I use it mainly on an A5100 which is still a good camera and the kit lens makes it pocketable. If you are aware of the limitations of the lens there is no reason why you would not get great pictures with it.
Being a traveler I thought about upgrading my 16-50 which I almost never use. After looking at all the reviews online, they pretty much confirm what you found... it's not a bad lens. It's fairly good and REALLY SMALL which is wonderful for traveling. Plus I have it and it saves $$$. Most of the other options are for a much bigger 18 - XX lens, and the 16 is really nice. But I suspect it's really closer to 15mm.
Excuse me... Isn't the Canon 24-70mm a full frame lens? If it is then it doesn't sound scientifically right to compare it's performance to that of a crop lens both used on an APS-C camera... I'm a Sony shooter and I'm not saying the kit lens is not good especially when considering the price tag difference... I'm just saying that the performance of the Canon lens is weakened by using it on an APS-C sensor body
Yes, that's absolutely correct. But this is still a good example of how well the kit lens performs against what is considered to be a great lens. So, yeah the kit 24-70 is made for a full frame, but its still impressive to see that if you're thinking of getting some full frame lenses for your a6000/6300/6500 you might not realize just how well the kit lens already performs in certain ways.
Well, he shot crop-to-crop, but what he could've done is shot the Canon at 70mm (the same AOV at the same aperture & focus distance). Assuming the mid focal length on the Canon zoom was its sweet spot, the Canon underperformed in the corners.
The question I'd like to see answered was how well either lens shot at f/8 or f/11 (typical DOF use for wide angle landscape / architectural...).
i have a 24-70 om my 5d iii and its sharper than in this video, i love that lens
Good:Fast:Cheap. Pick Any Two!
IDK if you were shooting wide open there in the fence shot, but all things being equal, the Sony is no doubt a better "walk-around" lens. The Sony NEX 16/2.8 is also much maligned, and yet stopped down (for landscape work) it serves the purpose quite admirably.
Having chased after "sharp" glass, and found some truly tack-sharp examples in Mamiya 645, Pentax 67 & old-school Minolta Maxxum A-Mount, if you want speed you're struggling against sharpness & it's gonna cost ya. But for decades 'togs in medium format land were usually shooting with quite a bit slower lenses & did just fine. Now we have clean ISO800 & we're supposed to want every lens to be f/1.8? WHY? They WEIGH MORE, they're harder to repair, there's more crap to break!!
Seriously? The OEM's have concocted this koolaid that we're all supposed to shoot wide open all the time, and yet the lightest, most reliable lenses are invariably a bit slower & simpler. FFS, it's a wide angle lens with inherently great DOF, it's not a portrait lens, so stop it down, set it to ISO-400, & stop crying about the bokeh!!
Hey Kaz - Nice video. I tend to do a lot of my YT viewing with headphones late at night. I couldn't help noticing the differences in volume of your voice from scene to scene. If somehow you can level this out in the future, it would make for an even more enjoyable experience. 10/10 on the content though. Please see this as a suggestion rather than a criticism. Keep up the great work.
one question about the sharpness comparison of wood that you took. the 24mm-70mm wasn't sharp enough isn't it because you lost the quality with using the adapter for the cannon lens?
I wouldn't think so as there's no glass in the adapter. Not in the one I have anyways.
I agree with your comment, the 16-50 is not that crap at all!
That's good to know because I'm trading my 50mm for a 16-50. I have no use for the 50mm
You did not mention one has to x 1.5 for Sony APSC, 16-50 effectively 24-75.
just curious why you wouldn't set the lenses to equivalent focal lengths and apertures?
Thank you for this video...but the reason this is cheap is because Sony downgraded the price to make it easy to purchase to couple with their mating cameras. If another vendor made this available they would have artificially increased the price.
What camera body are you using? Sony A7s?
This is a great
Video! The one thing that kinda bothered me was the shutter speed in the video.. there was no motion blur at all.. which sometimes throws off the flares.. a nv filter would have helped a lot.
Yeah, I would normally do that, but my ND filter set doesn't fit the filter size of the kit lens. But good eye on that!
@@KazCanning can you use a nd filter on the kit lens, dont see any hatch
How did you get film in it ?
how is the video recording?
Scored a A6000 with this lens on it for $8.00 at a thrift store. After buying a battery the lens was froze up but after working it a little it came to life. But images in RAW don't look that great but then the camera has 93k shutter count and was dusty.
I swabbed the sensor it was scratch free. The glass inside and out is clean no scratches, fungus or dust. My guess the lens is tired.
Pete Lucchini that's very possible. this lens has been around for a while. so if the a6000 you purchased was heavily used with that lens on it for many years, it could have some issues. especially since it has optical stabilization, it has extra motors and elements that can run into problems.
I ordered a adapter for my Nikkor lenses I am happy with manual focus, I use them on my D700.
Lets see what the outcome will look like. I am with you on the lens I am surprised it actually zooms but the images just look low res not very crisp around the edges sort of a haze effect.
But if the camera works for $8.00 I cant complain, lets see what happens with the Nikkor's.
Thanks! Pete
@@bigstick5278 damn, 8 dollars for an A6000?
@@michaelscolfield14 They wanted $16.00 but it was half off day at the same time.
After getting it working i felt a little guilty.
It's been going strong ever since, i just use manual lenses on it.
It has hickup's from time to time but still puts out some amazing images.
I use this only apsc kit 1650 for years, others I use full frame 28, 55, etc even 70200. i have no other apsc glass
You use de super 35 option on the 16-50?
I believe super 35 is basically equivalent to a crop sensor, and this lens will only work properly for crop sensor cameras
isn't the kit lens apsc lens? you should have compared it to another apsc lens...
I didn't have another apsc lens to compare this to, with the exception of a canon 18-55 kit lens, which wouldn't have been a useful test. I was trying to show a comparison between a kit lens, which many regard as not good, to a lens which many regard as one of the best lenses out there.
Every reviewer has a mahantra "Sharp" - "Sharp" - "Sharp" ! - Well if one seeks out the greatest images in photographic history, most every old-school optic was inferior to either of these computerized ED & Aspherical Element zoom lenses; in other words, critical pixel peeping (or gear) simply doesn't make one a better photographer...
cant compare the sony 16-50 with canon 24-70 when it comes to what you call "shake".....2 different range. wider lens will have less shake
I totally agree that they are 2 different ranges, but I do still think that still matters. The 16-50 will still work well handheld regardless of it being an inexpensive lens. And it does also have stabilization, which helps a lot too. Again, I'm not hating on the 24-70, I own that lens, and it's my favorite lens that I own. I'm simply showing people out there that have the kit lens, that they can be happy with the lens they have because it performs very well over all
did you shot raw or jpeg?
Aad Gym I shot RAW for all of the images shown here
He raw dogged
Doesn't qualify as a pancake, imo. Especially once you turn it on. It is very compact tho. And pretty good at 50mm, but really bad at 16mm.
Strange, I've found the opposite to be true, but just in terms of sharpness. It seems sharper to me at 16mm than at 50mm. However, it could be the copy that I have.
nice video love it bro
Thank you!
u've got to add some b-roll in your video...
I will add some more in future videos! But if you're wondering how it performs in other situations, all of my travel videos were filmed with this exact lens!
I think your eyes have problems. This Sony lense is terrible, low contrast, low sharpness, not great color. You can notice immediately when you use it
You're right, I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Maybe you can point out a specific part that you're noticing the bad color and low contrast. Either way, whatever minor imperfection you're noticing can be corrected slightly to make up for what you're seeing. But still, this isnt me hating on the 24-70, I'm just trying to show people that have the kit lens that it's not a bad lens to have.
All of the greatest pictures ever taken , never had auto focus/image stabilisation or weather sealing. .
Stop creating problems and start practicing stable camera techn7que
There are circumstances that stabilization will benefit you without having to purchase or lug around additional equipment. Also, while weather sealing might not affect image quality in any way, most of the professional shots from the last 20 years were taken with weather sealed lenses regardless of how much its actually needed. I agree that technique is incredibly important though
This is comparing apples to an orange.
How do you figure?
Cut the "uhm"s from your video it will be so much smoother
If it were crap then people wouldn't sell the A6000 with out the kit
Looping the test shots is much appreciated. Almost no one else does that.
Nice video. What I missed was a low light comparison though.
I think 16-50 lens' sweet spot is F8 onwards. Ever since I experienced this, my perspective has changed about this lens. And of course if we don't know what shutter speed we should keep at what focal length, we can't blame this lens. If anybody is unhappy with this lens and wants to give it away for free or cheap, I'm always there. :D Love this lens.
Only one negative about this lens is that it sucks the battery power quite fast because of the motor.
Hey man. Picking up the a6400 this week. (Body only)
Going to be used just for videos
I do car diy videos for my youtube channel. (You can look if you want at my page)
Do you think the kit lens will be sufficient enough? I just need clean shots of car engines and shocks and whatnot.
Any advice will be appreciated!
Hey! Awesome man, that should work great! The fact that it's compact too will work great for some of those tight spots too!
@@KazCanning alright cool. Any others you think I should take a look at? Or is this 15-50 gonna be all I need?
@@BuddysDIY I think getting started this will function very well for you. There's a reason they pack this lens with the crop sensor cameras, it's a very good utility lens. I would say if you end up trying to do any sort of "vlog" type material, like pointing the camera at yourself from arms length away, you may need a wider lens eventually. But you might also consider putting the money towards other equipment like lights or some other piece of equipment that may benefit you for your channel.
I would love to see a comparison with some expensive lens in low light/dark/night situations. I will travel to Korea and Japan next November, and I want to do a lot of night street pictures (without tripod) with all that amount of lights, neons, lanters, etc, and I don´t know if this lens "Sony 16-50" would do a good or decent job, even with high ISO. I have a Sony A7R 1 + 16-35 F4 lens, and I wonder if the 16-50 lens would make a similar job like in the video with the Canon 24-70.
I'm afraid that you would not be able to use this APS-C format kit lens with your full frame body! For better low light performance go with a lens with a lower F number. Maybe even with OSS, but I don't know if that would make all the difference which would justify the price difference. You can compare camera bodies and lenses on www.dxomark.com/
Just for your to know I currently don't own on any gear, but I used to take photo with my Canon ages ago.
I'm just looking to buy either a A6400 or a A7RII and read a lot in the topic recently.
Hope this helps.
I use a Sony a5100 with a kit as my gimbal cam. Most shooting is outside and it does a great job, Never had a complaint. Good show! Cheers
It takes a certain amount of boldness to come out to defend and even promote a kit lens such as the 16-50. For video, it actually seems to stand up perfectly to the more expensive lenses. And your comparison with a lens costing almost 17 times more is most instructive. So, many thanks for this. You've got a new subscriber here.
Yeah, its certainly not the popular opinion, but everybody that I show the lens to, and what it's capable of, is eventually convinced that it's a great little lens. I use it so much, and with autofocus constantly improving with the newer cameras, it continues to get better!
Yeah, its certainly not the popular opinion, but everybody that I show the lens to, and what it's capable of, is eventually convinced that it's a great little lens. I use it so much, and with autofocus constantly improving with the newer cameras, it continues to get better!
Please Come and watch my channel here ....and do not forget to traveling Sri lanka & Subscribe my channel .thank you
Thanks so much for the review, it has been incredibly helpful to see the sharpness compared! The only question that I still have is whether the autofocus in video is reliable when tracking something, especially just having myself in the frame moving around a bit while talking; will this lens do a good job with that, compared to some of the different native sony lenses you've used, or does it hunt around or simply don't find focus as much? Thanks a lot for taking the time to make the review and your answer is much appreciated! You might have saved me a few hundred dollars after seeing how capable this lens actually might be!
Glad it was helpful for you! As far as autofocus goes, I think the camera will make a bigger difference when keeping a good track on a subject. The native sony lenses do work VERY well keeping tracked on a subject, especially if it isn't moving too much. However, I still never use autofocus while shooting video because the autofocus isn't perfected yet. I've used this lens to shoot some of my youtube videos before, using the autofocus tracking, and it's worked great everytime, except once, it lost focus and never focus properly again the entire time I was talking, making the footage completely un-usable. So while it does work well, I personally still don't trust it completely
Had my A6000 for 3 years and never use the 16-50. The lens I use the most is the 18-105 F4 G lens. I do still use the 55-210 sometimes when I need the reach. The other lens I use is the F1.8 50mm. Really want to get the 70-200mm as soon as possible.
I would use my 24-70 more often but that lens is too heavy for my gimble, and can't use the AF (it's a canon lens). But to be honest, a lot of the lenses coming out these days are pretty incredible!
Thanks for the comparison review. 👍🏼
So few reviews give something against which to compare & so are less useful.
Part of the reason the Sony lens did so well is that the sony bodies firmware automatically correct for distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration etc. Corner performance would be a lot less impressive w/o this but as we do have it as part of the total "recipe" for the finished image ... 🤓
1650 was really nice lens. Thx for information.
blog! Glad I was able to help!!
Please Come and watch my channel here ....and do not forget to traveling Sri lanka & Subscribe my channel .thank you
Those beach videos at the end were stunning.
somehow on the footage which shows a stabilisation ... the canon looks a lot more sharpen than sony...
the canon lens is much more expensive, hence the comparison
so you are the Flash...
"i am going to take some shots in real world ..."
(5 seconds later)
i am back!!
xaxa
I’m a new beginner with the NEX 7 & I wanted to know if the video quality shows better on the 16-50mm with a hood? I ask because even though the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my NEX 7 I heard that the 16-50mm is the better lens for video
I honestly haven't u sed the 18-55mm kit lens, just the 16-50. However, I'd say just try it out and see if it works for what you're needing it to do. I'm sure the lenses are both very similar at the end of the day
Hey I really like your channel, A6300 got me here which I'm thinking of buying but am absolutely confused about which lense.
I wanna shoot mostly 1080p 120fps and 4k videos with the Zhiyun crane-M. But I dont wanna go all crazy on a lense but I do want quality videos., is the kit lens up for it? Is there anything else maybe under 400 USD that you would suggest? Obviously autofocus is very important to me shooting video.
I really do think this lens is great for almost anyone. Especially with the Zhiyun Crane, it will be fantastic. If you want to get a better idea of what this lens looks like shooting more video, check two of my recent videos, one called "sierra nevada, 2017" and another called "San Francisco, 2017". Those two videos were shot 100% on an a6300 with the kit lens, hand held, no stabilizer, with a lot of slow motion, and if I remember correctly, I think almost all of it was shot with autofocus on.
Thank you for the good comparison! Really good 👍
Just show people your videos/photos without telling them you used the Sony 16-50 mm and no one will tell, guaranteed.
Great info bro...today only i purchased sony alfa 5100 .it works amazingly
Awesome! I'm glad it works well for you, and I hope you enjoy it for a long time!
Please Come and watch my channel here ....and do not forget to traveling Sri lanka & Subscribe my channel .thank you
Great video, thank you. Are those clips at the end using manual focus? I actually love using the kit lens, but for my film work, I almost always use manual focus, unless I'm using my 35mm f1.8 Sony OSS lens for close up dialogue or just close shots of someone. Other than that, even though my Sony a6400 manual focus is pretty amazing, I still don't really trust any manual focus for most things.
what camera is he using it with
so confused.. christopher frost slated this lens, it appears to have massive distortion on the wide and end extrememly soft on the edges. your real workd review however, shows different
The 16-50 has had all sorts of reviews- from extremely negative to very positive. I have read many as I own the lens- came with my Sony NEX-5r. A lot of flaws can be fixed in post with the right software if needed...the reviews veer to the positive overall I would say when you take all things into consideration, size, price etc. I've managed to get some very nice shots out of it- it's a perfect beginners lens and good all rounder. I just picked up the Sony Prime 50mm F1.8 OSS last week (for portraits and street shooting) so looking forward to comparing them. I probably wouldn't go out of my way to purchase the 16-50 but since it came with my camera I was fine with it- and it's so tiny you will hardly notice it in your bag! I'll prob add 1 more lens to my simple set up eventually and leave it at that. (Have also read some people received defective 16-50mm lens and had to return them...the new ones fared much better)
Westham66 pretty much said it all. But just to answer myself, I too have seen quite a range of views on this lens. I can't say for sure why there is such a huge range of opinions on the lens, other than there may be a sort of "luck" with these lenses. I have two of them and they both perform very well, so I just have not had the same negative experience with them as some other reviewers have. There are certainly better lenses that exist, but this one will do the job very well. This review was mainly to show people that the kit lens is worth getting with their camera, in case they're on the fence about getting body only.
I can not chose to buy Sony A6400 with kit lens or buy the body only and then go with 50mm f/1.8 OSS can you assist? Im gonna be spin like 90%photo 10%video, and mainly photograhing gaming setups, custom keyboards, and other tech gear
Best regards Uniq
My Version is total crap, or better call it bullshit.
I bought one on Amazon. My image is blurry and I got no auto focus. I think it’s defective or maybe if you have a tip? Maybe I have to move a setting. Thanks.
why is your baseball cap backwards?
Huge thanks man! Gonna research some more, but this is probably going to be what I go with. My current lens is a crappy $30 manual lens that was just to get me by. Looks awful even with the a5000, as expected lol
Its definitely a good buy. I use it on my camera alllll the time. Check out my Iceland video. That was filmed 100% with this kit lens (with the exception of the drone shots)
@@KazCanning Yeah I made up my mind, getting this lens XD.
Actually have a question, I found a slightly more expensive kit on Amazon (comes with a few extra things) but says that it is the international version. Think it's safe to go with that, or just get the barebones for only about $15 less?
@@seeker2273 I'm not really sure what would make it an "international version" vs standard. I would say that as long as you have a lens cap and a microfiber cloth (even that's optional) you should be good
@@KazCanning Alright cool, I'm pretty new to this. Most experience I had was taking passport photos when working for Walgreens lol
Thanks for the help!
will the auto focus on this lens work with my sony a7 iii?
Yes it will, used it with my A7s
Sony kit Lens Is HORRIBLE! Something Is wrong with your comparisson.
I don't know what to tell you. I have used the kit lens quite extensively for several years now, and have never had an issue with it. It is possible that either you have a bad copy of the kit lens (which can happen with any lens out there), you have a preconceived idea that it's bad, or you don't know how to use it.
i got a sony nex3n years ago with a 16-60 3.5-5.6 OSS. I'm wondering if it's the same exact lens or if they made imporvements on this lens. reason i ask is i am probably getting an a6400 this week and wouldnt need the kit lens if i can use the one i have for the kit lens. I'm getting a Sigma 16mm! and some others ;)
Never had any regret of my choice to trade this lens in for the Sony 18-135mm after a week of purchasing a Sony A6000 with the 16-50mm kitlens. The 18-135mm seems to be also a kitlens. But i see a clear difference between these lenses in image quality.
It’s because Sony cameras handshake with modern Sony lenses and certain flaws are corrected in-camera, while that won’t be the case for 3rd Party lenses? Maybe?
What adapter did you use to adapt the canon lens to the A6300 E mount?
I used the Metabones IV EF-E
thanks
I know many people that think just because they spent lots of money they have better equipment ( money makes up for lack of skills ?) !
I'm not so good that I can tell if it works a little better ! I just want it to do what I want it to do ! If it looks good to me that's what I buy even if I have to pay a tiny bit more ! But I ain't paying a lot even if I have the money because I would feel like a I got fooled every time I use it !
And I'm only having fun ! It ain't my job !
Why does the video quality of the A6000 look so crappy (regardless of the shaking)? I could probably get better results with my 200$ smartphone...
Believe it or not, a lot of it has to do with UA-cams compression. The scene has a lot of tiny details, like the grass blades, tree branches and leaves. All those details moving around in the scene makes for relatively bad image quality when it gets compressed on youtube. It was also mid day lol, which never looks great. But I can assure you, the a6300 does have great video quality for the price.
I have seen quite a few people have 4k looking footage with this camera
I dont know what about f8 in soft light on wall, but in shots on nature - canon lenses has much more sharpness, contrast, and colour. Sony looks badly, with some violet on trees too.
I got a NEX-6 with this lens used very cheap, and it fits in my pocket. It takes really nice photos so I'm happy.
got a5100 recently. I am mostly going to use it take indoor pics of our kids,..loving the flip screen to take selfie and 16-50mm kit lens is quite nice to start up..Can you recommend any value wide angle lens or shall I use an converter ?
Wow! Very objective video about, what I think is a great little pancake lens offering from Sony. For the money, you'd be hard pressed to beat it!
Hi good thing to know with this video! I'm just a beginner so can I ask you if there is autofocus on the kit lens?
Yes, there is autofocus! It works fantastic for stills, and on my a6300, it works excellent for tracking focus on video
thanks a lot Kaz!!!!
Were those outro shots taken on the a6300 with the kit lens?
Yepp, they were all taken with the a6300, kit lens, at 4k with slog2
I already have an A6300 and a 18-105 F4 lens. It's a great combination. I want a second A6300 so I can do two camera shoots. I'm thinking about getting this kit lens but I'm put off by the lack of manual focus. I'll probably use the 18-105 F4 as the A-Cam and the 16-50 kit on the static B-Cam. Will it be a good choice?
I think it depends. What kind of shoots are you doing with your cameras? You can still do manual focus, you just have to change it in camera. However, the manual focus is focus by wire, so it's basically useless to pull focus, but it is usable if it's for static subjects
Thank you for the excellent comparison! I like how you looped footage to highlight something, I've been researching cameras lately and it's crazy how many times people will just say something and show just a super quick demo, or no demo at all. I just ordered a Sony a6400 with this lens so I'm glad to know it's worth it!
Yeah, I thought the looping would help because I would often find my self going back and looking at the same clip over and over! Hope you enjoy the lens and the camera! I've used that exact combo many many times before!!!
I use my Canon 5DMkIII and 24-70 2.8L professionally. I use my SONY a6000 and 16-50 for travel and family outings. Very pleased with both but for different reasons. The magic is in the cameras' processors, and they're both great. Canon lens is weather sealed. The SONY is not. Different strokes...
It really is an underrated lens, obviously not for professional use, but 99% of the people out there use their cameras for hobby anyways, and I think this lens would be good for most people. I do love my canon 24-70 too though!
What a load of rubish
What do you disagree with?
I think that green flair moving around on the Sony lens is because of the optical stabilization. The canon doesn't have it, but also doesn't have optical stabilization. Even though this is kind of an apples to oranges comparison, it really shows how much can be achieved by the Sony kit lens.
Definitely. I know the lenses aren't really similar, I'm just showing people that might only have a kit lens at their disposal, that the kit lens is actually better than they might realize
It's somewhat hearsay, but the Sony rep at my local BB recalled getting an order for 10 a6000 kits with the 16-50mm for what turned out to be set shooting for Game of Thrones. It would appear that they were seen as good for shooting shots that had a high risk of lens damage
I can absolutely believe it. The lens especially can be exceptional for the size and price. I spent years using this lens for a lot of the work I did!
I used my friend's sony a6400 ( comes with 16-50mm lens) which she just bought to shoot a short film, it works very well! Although in some shot I kinda wish the dof is more shallow and longer focal length
Yeah, it's definitely not the perfect lens for all situations, but it still works really really well. I think a lot of people have no interest in it because they assume it's bad
What aperture should you use this lens at? IIRC I've read that most lenses should be used at f8? Is that a thing? Also I'm super surprised the corners of the fence weren't blurry in this video, you sure you didn't have the photos the wrong way around? lol.
I typically use this lens as wide open as it will go, like 3.5-5.6. I would imagine it would perform fine at higher aperture values though. I will say that I have not tested it thoroughly at small apertures like that though, simply because I don't typically like to shoot at those apertures.
Kaz Canning Is that because you like to have bokeh in your photos? Thanks for the quick reply!
@@Spacemonkeymojo I actually use this lens 100% for video! And yeah that is a reason I like using it wide open, however, at 16mm there is almost no bokeh at all. I typically shoot slow motion video (120fps) around sunset time, so I usually need all the light I can get! Check out some of the videos I have on my channel, specifically the one called "Iceland 2018" that was filmed entirely on this kit lens! (and a drone)
I felt hard to make focus by this 1650 kit lens as for Potrait shoot. For landscape shoot there is lack of sharpness. May be becasue of I'm not a pro or lens itself isn't capable.
For the focusing on your portrait shoot, it may have been the lens, or it could've just been as simple as placing the auto focusing spot at the wrong spot. And while this lens is pretty sharp when it's zoomed out, I would say it's not that sharp when you zoom in with it. It does help to use this lens at a higher f-stop like f8 to get better sharpness.
A FF equivalent of APS-C lens at 50mm is 75MM! You need to adjust the APS-C lens to 33mm to get the same composition of the FF at 50mm.
Very true. This 16-50 on a 1.6 crop is the equivalent of roughly 24-80mm lens on a FF body, which honestly isn't too bad. The 24-70mm lenses are some of the most widely used lenses in the world, and this kit lens does cover that range.
It's so funny , this stories about lenses. Show your photos guys! I've seen great photos with kit lenses and horrible photos with 1k $ lenses. If you know how and what , then everything is much easier. And if you don't know to drive car even Ferarri doesn't help you.
I wish I did have more photos with this lens to show off! The only reason I don't is that I use my a6300 mostly for video, and my a7r for photos mostly. I'm not opposed to taking photos with it, but man, it's super impressive for a kit lens for shooting video too!
Thanks man, I am just about to upgrade from my old Nex to a sony a6300.
The a6300 comes in a kit here in Bangkok with the 16-50, so I will get that.
I was going to avoid the 16-50 because my last one just stopped working, and my pancake sony 16,mm is soft as, and I have probably dropped it a couple of times , but of course I blamed Sony.
Good video, and good comparison. paul scott New Zealand
Yeah, it's a plastic lens, so it's probably not the most sturdy, luckily it's inexpensive!!
just returned the Sony A5100 with this lens...its just too damn soft for my liking. Crap in low light.
for around 50-80$ the kit lens is a bargain
Both cool and crap.
hi, if i buy the a6300 this is my first camera, i want to take pics for my dog, baby, family, want to add the 35mm-1.8, question its necesary buy this lens? or i can work only with 35mm to start?
No, you don't have to buy the 35mm 1.8. That is a great lens though! That lens might be sharper and better for low light than the kit lens is
thanks, only buy the camera body and the 35mm, then. thanks and nice videos i learn all you said.
man there must be something wrong with that 24-70. It smokes just about every 24-70 lens out there. It's even sharper than the 24-70 GM
That's very possible. I've had the 24-70 for over 5 years and used it very heavily. In terms of sharpness it is still very very sharp, just sort of soft at the corners wide open.
Your observation is fantastic. And with regards to landscapes the difference could be less obvious. Though it still not very justified to pay thousands of dollars for a pro lenses. Also, I would suggest to do a comparison of pro lens with a kit lens with regards to a portrait and it might give different result. I use to take pictures with Sony kit lens 28-70 and then bought 90 mm G lens. The comparison was like a difference of night and day.
Hemal Karambelkar that's a fantastic idea! I think in the next few weeks I'll make a video for something like that!
good job
Thanks for the vid! My fiancee wants to start taking vlogging seriously but knows nothing about cameras. I watched this video to ensure that if we invest $350 into this body and lens, it won't be a waste of money. The footage actually looks pretty good tho!
Yepp, this lens will work really well! I'm guessing that you're thinking of getting the a6000 with this kit lens? I'm not super familiar with the a6000 autofocus in video mode. It might work really well, I just don't know. I would suggest checking out some video tests with the a6000 and this lens to see how they work together in video mode, because not all cameras work well like that. I was using the a6300, which does have some different features. I hope you guys have a great time with your camera when you get it!!!
Good enough for me.
If I use this lens at a wedding I was thinking of turning the camera to continuous autofocus and getting people dancing.
This might not be the best lens suited for a wedding, but the continuous autofocus works incredibly well, so if you're just looking for a lens to have fast continuous autofocus, it will work!
nice, I was about to dump it without using it. nice pictures
I was under the impression that with most cameras, when using a tripod, as you did with the video tests, that vibration reduction/optical stabilization is supposed to be turned off. Yes? No?
Yes, when using a tripod, especially for long exposure shots, it's ideal to turn the stabilization off, as it will wiggle a little bit during those long exposures creating blurring that is avoidable. In the video tests however, I was hand holding the cameras to try to show the difference between the two.
I, too, had low expectations for this lens. While I normally shoot with pro-level lenses on full-frame cameras, there are outdoor applications where I am limited to only a tiny camera and single lens. Not wanting to go any smaller than APS-C, I chose the Sony a6XXX cameras for the trade-off between style and image management. I bought the a5100 with a kit lens because it was so affordable I couldn't pass it up. I also own an a6000 and a6500. At first I shot with the 16-50mm only when I was restricted to the tiniest payload (I lead tours and bike rides and my pack is usually stuffed with personal and contingency gear), and found that photos with little pancake lens to surpass my expectations. The zoom range is nearly ideal as my 24-70mm is my walking-around lens for my full-frame. No, it isn't as sharp or as highly performing in low light as my f/2.8 but, yes, for $1,550 less, it's remarkable how well it does.
For someone on a budget, tight on space (or needing lightweight) it really is a great lens. I've been using it for about 90% of my video shooting lately
can u tell me , what camera and lens did u use for filming yourself indoor @3:00 in this video, thanks.
Yepp! I used the sony a6300 and a canon 24-70mm 2.8, with the metabones 4 adapter