sony 16-80mm lens?

mastertrinity

mastertrinity

Messages
3,614
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
ive been looking at the sony 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 lens to replace my 18-70mm kit lens, however i have a few concerns if all at TP could help me with:

1. it doesnt have a constant aperture which i was quite looking ofrward to, however is it neccessary?

2. can you recommend me another replacement lens just in case if i dont get this one? i do prefer a zoomier lens than a wide angle so a 24-105mm or something like that would be aduquate enough.
 
mastertrinity said:
ive been looking at the sony 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 lens to replace my 18-70mm kit lens, however i have a few concerns if all at TP could help me with:

1. it doesnt have a constant aperture which i was quite looking ofrward to, however is it neccessary?

2. can you recommend me another replacement lens just in case if i dont get this one? i do prefer a zoomier lens than a wide angle so a 24-105mm or something like that would be aduquate enough.
Click to expand...

no experience of the 16-80 myself,but it's supposed to be a cracker of a lens,and definately an improvement on the 18-70 kit lens i'd say.as regards the constant aperture(F/2.8),i would say it depends on wether or not you shoot in low light often.having said that,i love the D.O.F. that a wide aperture lens gives...sony don't make a 24-105,but do make a 16-105.personally,if you don't need the width of 16mm..then you won't go far wrong with the sigma 24-70 F/2.8 EX DG macro lens...

this one

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1007006

this is going to be my lens of choice today at my daughters wedding(i'm not the main tog ;))along with my 70-200 SSM G.

hope this helps:thumbs:
 
stan the man said:
no experience of the 16-80 myself,but it's supposed to be a cracker of a lens,and definately an improvement on the 18-70 kit lens i'd say.as regards the constant aperture(F/2.8),i would say it depends on wether or not you shoot in low light often.having said that,i love the D.O.F. that a wide aperture lens gives...sony don't make a 24-105,but do make a 16-105.personally,if you don't need the width of 16mm..then you won't go far wrong with the sigma 24-70 F/2.8 EX DG macro lens...

this one

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1007006

this is going to be my lens of choice today at my daughters wedding(i'm not the main tog ;))along with my 70-200 SSM G.

hope this helps:thumbs:
Click to expand...

they do make a 24-105mm its the FF version of the 16-105mm but cheaper. i dont shoot in low light however i dont know if im being paranoid because i would love constant apertures because they dont change in the zoom range. i just get put off because sometimes i want my 55-200mm to shoot fast and it needs a wider aperture because its max is 5.6. i still dont know what to do:'(

i'll have a look at that sigma 24-70mm it does seem worth the price, i do hear that sigma over contrasts and is a little soft at wide apertures of f5 or more.
 
mastertrinity said:
they do make a 24-105mm its the FF version of the 16-105mm but cheaper. i dont shoot in low light however i dont know if im being paranoid because i would love constant apertures because they dont change in the zoom range. i just get put off because sometimes i want my 55-200mm to shoot fast and it needs a wider aperture because its max is 5.6. i still dont know what to do:'(

i'll have a look at that sigma 24-70mm it does seem worth the price, i do hear that sigma over contrasts and is a little soft at wide apertures of f5 or more.
Click to expand...

ooops,my bad...took a look on the WHE site,and it's not listed on there,so i took it as read that sony didn't make one :bonk:

i shoot a lot at 2.8,and the images are pretty sharp to me..but then i'm not a pixel peeper.if you get a good copy,you will be over the moon with it.another worth considering is the the tamron 18-50 2.8,i've not heard a bad word said against it.
 
I have the CZ 16-80, and am very happy with it.

Is 80mm 'long enough'? - well that depends on what other lenses you have (or are aiming on getting soon) and what you are shooting:)

A lot of the longer zooms are 70-300 ish, which matches up fairly well to give 16-300 in 2 lenses.

I then have the 50 f1.7 and 100 f2.8 macro if I need something faster, but that sort of setup may not suit all.
 
When I had my a700, I thought the 16-80 was one of the best lenses that I had for the a700 (although I stupidly sold it on, as I thought I needed f2.8).
Nice thing about the 16-80, is it's very sharp wide open - unlike the Tamron 17-50 which is fine at 2.8, but sharp by f4.

Think it depends on whether you need the f2.8 or not, and whether the extra length is better than the aperture speed.

Personally I found the 24-xx lenses not wide enough on APS-C for a general lens. But 24-70 on APS-C is great for portraits IMO. And the Sony 24-105 is now discontinued (and was not really considered to be that good anyway).
 
i am planning on getting the 70-300mm G SSM but because of the price increases its gone fromm £450 to around £550, what my plan was to buy the 16-80mm then get the 70-300mm when affordable, i could then get a sony 50mm f1.4 and a sony 100mm macro f2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top