Sony 16-50mm and 18-135mm

Merlin5

Merlin5

Messages
2,249
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys. As I'm getting a Sony 70-350mm I also need a lens to cover wide angle to mid range. There are two kit lenses, 16-50mm and 18-135mm both f3.5-5.6. I can buy the 16-50 for £89 and the 18-135 for £339.

Since I'm already spending about £2000 on new gear, it would be preferable to spend another £89 instead of another £339! However, with a 16-50mm I wouldn't have a lens that covers the gap between 50-70mm, but I don't know how important that is. Also, I'm wondering if I'd get noticeably nicer wide shots with 16 versus 18mm. I'll be using aps-c, so that would be 24 v 27mm, Generally the 18-135 seems to be regarded as sharper and many say the 16-50mm is rubbish with lots of soft focus. But I saw a photo on flickr recently that I thought looked really good and he had used the 16-50mm. This is the photo,
https://flic.kr/p/JjswkG
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/164135755@N07/27775856158/


Do you think I could get the same wide angle effect with an 18-135?
Shall I just go with the 16-50mm? Thanks.
 
That 50 to 70 mm focal range gap? How many photos have you taken using a lens in that range? If you have not historically used that range of focal lengths then they do not matter. There is no need to have every focal length covered just for the sake of it.

I use a 18 to 135 mm lens, 300 mm and 600 mm. Lots of gap there but it does not matter as I have no wish to take photos at those focal lengths.
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
That 50 to 70 mm focal range gap? How many photos have you taken using a lens in that range? If you have not historically used that range of focal lengths then they do not matter. There is no need to have every focal length covered just for the sake of it.

I use a 18 to 135 mm lens, 300 mm and 600 mm. Lots of gap there but it does not matter as I have no wish to take photos at those focal lengths.
Click to expand...

Thanks John, you make a good point. I've only started photography recently so have no real experience or history to speak of. I just thought maybe most photographers had lenses to cover everything from wide to zoom.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps consider used 16-70mm f4
But you'll have some testing to make sure you have good copy.
 
nandbytes said:
Perhaps consider used 16-70mm f4
But you'll have some testing to make sure you have good copy.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks nandbytes, didn't know there's a 16-70mm! That would sort me out, then I'd have 16mm right the way up to 350mm. I just looked on mpb and there's a Sony Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS. Is that the one you're referring to? It has 'E' in it so can I assume that fits a Sony a6600? It's about £394 on there for excellent and like new, but they've got this well used one for £264 which would be fine by me. Shall I go for it? https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...io-tessar-t-e-16-70mm-f-4-za-oss/sku-1044887/
 
Merlin5 said:
Ah, thanks nandbytes, didn't know there's a 16-70mm! That would sort me out, then I'd have 16mm right the way up to 350mm. I just looked on mpb and there's a Sony Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm f/4 ZA OSS. Is that the one you're referring to? It has 'E' in it so can I assume that fits a Sony a6600? It's about £394 on there for excellent and like new, but they've got this well used one for £264 which would be fine by me. Shall I go for it? https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...io-tessar-t-e-16-70mm-f-4-za-oss/sku-1044887/
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the one and it'll work with A6600 or any Sony e-mount body for that matter.

But you should Google this lens and decentering issue. So make sure you test it well for that issue if you buy that lens.

I used to own one and I really liked it.
 
nandbytes said:
Yeah that's the one and it'll work with A6600 or any Sony e-mount body for that matter.

But you should Google this lens and decentering issue. So make sure you test it well for that issue if you buy that lens.

I used to own one and I really liked it.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. I'll google it then. Do you think mpb would know if it's decentred or would test it for me? And if I did it myself, is a decentred lens the same as a lens that front or back focuses and I'd have to do calibration via the camera?
 
Merlin5 said:
Ah, I see. I'll google it then. Do you think mpb would know if it's decentred or would test it for me? And if I did it myself, is a decentred lens the same as a lens that front or back focuses and I'd have to do calibration via the camera?
Click to expand...

I don't think the shop will do this for you.

Decentre and front/back focus are different things.

Decentering is when the lens is "off" in some way, such as when the right hand side is softer than the left. Here's a nice simple way of checking for decentring.... It's not difficult to test for...

FM Lens test for Centering (Mount tilt / swing)

Hi all,I have posted my personal lens decentering/test technique in another thread but it's difficult for some members to find it. I reposted it he...
www.fredmiranda.com

I don't think you need to worry too much about front and back focusing as this is something that affects DSLR's. Mirrorless cameras shouldn't suffer from it as unlike DSLR's they take their focus off the image sensor so there should be no alignment issues.
 
Thanks guys. I prefer the second methodology by using a tripod.

Christopher Frost ("howdy everyone") gave the lens a terrible review for soft focus in the corners and he said he'd checked for decentering and it wasn't decentered. He didn't recommend it. But others say it's a marvellous lens.
 
Merlin5 said:
Thanks guys. I prefer the second methodology by using a tripod.

Christopher Frost ("howdy everyone") gave the lens a terrible review for soft focus in the corners and he said he'd checked for decentering and it wasn't decentered. He didn't recommend it. But others say it's a marvellous lens.
Click to expand...

Yeah it gets very mixed reviews.

His tests kinda don't do the lens justice because it suffers from field of curvature.
I'll post some samples later if I remember but basically for non-flat subject i.e. real life its generally fine.
 
Merlin5 said:
Thanks guys. I prefer the second methodology by using a tripod.

Christopher Frost ("howdy everyone") gave the lens a terrible review for soft focus in the corners and he said he'd checked for decentering and it wasn't decentered. He didn't recommend it. But others say it's a marvellous lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd have thought a tripod is a given.

You can get over field curvature by focusing in the corner rather than the centre but maybe it doesn't matter as your looking for decentring and even if there's field curvature all your looking for is the corners to be... about the same.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Yeah it gets very mixed reviews.

His tests kinda don't do the lens justice because it suffers from field of curvature.
I'll post some samples later if I remember but basically for non-flat subject i.e. real life its generally fine.
Click to expand...

Would you say it's significantly better than the £89 16-50mm f3.5-56?
 
woof woof said:
Yes, I'd have thought a tripod is a given.

You can get over field curvature by focusing in the corner rather than the centre but maybe it doesn't matter as your looking for decentring and even if there's field curvature all your looking for is the corners to be... about the same.
Click to expand...

And since I bought a reasonably expensive new tripod yesterday, I'd want to use it! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top