Chris, I just want to let you know how much your videos mean to me. I have really awful depression, and found your videos as I was researching a camera to buy for my small business. Fell in love with the relaxed atmosphere and your positive vibes, and I used to turn these on just as something to fall asleep to. That isn't to say they aren't entertaining or educational, they are. But they're so comforting to watch. I hope you're reaching your own goals and doing well. Take care.
Man i do the same thing...i listen to his review for the purpose of falling asleep quicker because of his relaxing voice...and i prefer his reviews over anything on youtube, he's not bias or merciful with his reviews...straight to the point and true..
What a lovely comment! I'm sorry to hear about your depression - that can be so very difficult. I'm glad you enjoy these videos though :-) God bless :-)
Got this lens for a nice price, it's realy something speacial on my A6400. The only bad thing is the extrem crop on 16mm when the software needs to cut the image down so you don't see the dark corners anymore.
Vignetting can for the most part be easily dealt with in post and is normal at wide apertures. Or...just love it. I often add vignetting to my pictures because it focus attention and has a long precedent in historic pictures.
It's always better to start with high price and gradually start dropping a price then put a low price tag and regretting when product turns out to be to good and sold for very little.
What I'd really like to see is a 16-55 (or thereabouts) full frame lens, even if it were only f4. Hope you're reading this, Sony. Carry two lenses instead of three with my 70-200.
“Relative mediocrity...” such a polite way to put it! Nice review as always. Not in the market for the lens, but really appreciate the insights into what makes a good lens.
I have wondered how these crop lenses fare on the full frame cameras in crop mode compared to the crop bodies? You do give resolution comparisons on test charts but there are other considerations such as the high iso performance and larger photo sites. My problem is I don't like the ergonomics of my a6000 and would not mind the increased size of a full frame body but keep my crop lenses that I am very happy with. You must be the best qualified person to comment on this having both cameras. Many thanks for all your great videos, I even enjoy watching the ones I have no interest in buying.
Yeah for this price, it literally needs to be perfect in every way I'd say. It's a great lens, but still no where worth the price for me. There are several cheaper options that are still very good.
That's what I was thinking too. The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is my go-to lens. My copy was bought well used, borderline abused, for $300, but its only operational flaw is a sticky zoom ring. New presumably the zoom ring would operate better, and new it's around $550 in the United States, less than half the price of this Sony, and features image stabilization to boot. I would expect double the price to result in at least half-again the quality but it certainly does not appear to be 50% better.
Better if Sony actually never made this lens and maybe leave Aps-c all together. This lens was released too late for anyone to care, too pricy and everything else seems like an afterthought like the lackluster a6600.
@@caldera878 That seems rather harsh. Sony has a whole lot of APS-C cameras in the 5000-series and 6000-series ranges, it would seems logical to support those cameras with as many great lenses as possible. Unfortunately for the money this does not seem to be a great lens. It either needs to be cheaper or it needs to be better. Hell, the Canon superzoom 24-240 for the EOS-R full-frame cameras has many times the zoom and yet comes in several hundred dollars cheaper even with similar poor uncorrected optical performance. That lens is obviously targeted to owners that want a take-on-vacation lens to avoid having to lug around a bag full of lenses, but even its performance is reasonably right to be criticized even in such a compromise situation. the kit-range zoom with such poor performance is not good even wit hthe better aperture.
TWX1138 You’re comparing lenses that are in totally different categories, not to mention for different sensor sizes. The price on this new Sony lens is ridiculous, but it really is the best f/2.8 standard zoom ever made for an APS-C camera-as Chris points out. The high price doesn’t make its flaws any bigger, it just makes the lens less likely to sell in higher volumes. I think it’s been 10 years since anyone but Fuji (and Samsung, I guess) have released a standard f/2.8 zoom. I think this is the biggest oversight in Canon and Nikon’s lens portfolio. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a crappy 24-105mm f/4 zoom mounted to the front of a $5K to $15K Canon Cinema EOS camera. Canon’s 17-55mm f/2.8 (T3.5) lens needs to be taken out back and put out of its misery. Same for Nikon’s 15 year-old version. Kit lenses often try to copy the focal length of a standard zoom, but almost always miss either the wide end or the telephoto range.
The long awaited native Sony lens for APS-C shooters finally arrives and they put a ridiculously high price on it without OSS. So this week I left Sony and went with the Fuji X system and their 18-55 f/2.8-4 lens with OIS 👍🏻
Wow! This lens is ridiculously sharp! I think that's a bargain even considering it's price which is not weird in sony's world...please notice that for videography this lens equals perfection! Chris says it's the best apsc zoom lens he has ever tested in all brands...that means a lot to a manufacturer only making lenses decades after the analog era!
Hello Christopher. I'm curious if the lens test chart images where you compare center and corner sharpness are the pure raw images or if some level of sharpening has been applied?
Hi Chris - would it be wise to buy Sony 16-55mm f2.8 (Aps-C) for my Sony a7II? I have 70-350mm E4.5-6.3 G which I am very happy with. Do you have a better suggestion? Thanks for your nice reveiws!
The change on TH-cam comments location on the mobile app is killing my ability to post first. So... Nice review, as always. I'm not very fond of Sony reviews, but I had the opportunity to try an A7III past week and I can say that I am impressed (Canon user here). I'm considering it.
Mee to. Even if i was disappointed by front ring position and poor quality view finder. I don't do video, so I probably will consider the a7r III, I hope in a price drop, 4000€ for camera and lens (2470) is still to much in my opinion.
Nice review ! Actually I love the APS-C format ! I'm only a casual photographer, and mostly take photos while travelling. I just need a relatively small and lightweight camera lens combo. I hope the price on this lens comes down to something affordable in the future. It looks like the performance is very good, especially since I want to do more video.
Hello, this Lens is on sale right now for $899 on BH Photo vs $799 for FUJIFILM XF 16-80mm f/4. I am thinking about buying XT-4, would spending $100 more worth getting 16-55mm F2.8 over 16-80 F4 for 1st general purpose zoom lens? I am thinking of getting 23 vs 35mm F2 along with 16 F.14 for prime and ultrawide.
Do you prefer this lens on the full frame A7 bodies or the APSC a6xxx bodies? Also, do you like this or the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 more? Thanks for the reviews.
Chris, love this video. I have the 16-55mm f/2.8 which I bought 2 years ago with an a6100. I've recently switched to the A7C. Do you think I should keep this lens or invest in the Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens? Which I believe gives around the same focal length. Thanks
I wonder what's more impressive - the optical quality of the lens or the correction software in-camera? With such pronounced barrel distortion the edge performance should be fairly poor. But it isn't - impressive, especially compared to the new Fuji 16-80 which pales by comparison across the image! I'm almost tempted to go back to Sony... if only they could build enjoyable cameras.
I guess this only is gonna be the choice for social video makers using sony cameras, as Sony A7RIII and IV cameras crop mode specially greets a good apsc lens, and they are always looking for a suitable standard zoom lens on social work, and also for gimbal use. Apart from this, I cann't see this lens be used by a professional for stills, being full frame 24-105 a much more reliable solution. And on APSC cameras, I cannt see the point of using a so expensive lens, as these cameras are hardly being picked by professionals, and the price tag of this lens puts it far away from many amateurs.
Hi sir, sorry maybe its abit too late for me to ask. But how does the lens fare when youre using it in on full frame a7. I currently just bought this lens as a hobbyist for my a6300 but planning to get a 2nd hand A7ii. Does the apsc mode on A7 really reduce the image qualily/ resoluton from the lens? I really have no idea how it would work on full frame since ive never owned any full frame cameras, but I do love this 16-55mm f2.8 lens.
You can use aps-c lenses on a FF body like the A7. On 24mp FF bodies, the resolution would be reduced to 10.6mp (if im not mistaken). The resulting fov will also be similar to using the lens on aps-c bodies. The image width on the A7 would result to about 4600px wide as opposed to 6000px wide on a 24mp aps-c camera.
You going to review the SEL70350G lens? It looks like it could be a great one for Sony APS-C. Many seem to think its better to get the full frame SEL70300G though.
This lens is sharp as Sigma primes for Sony E apsc system, if not sharper, which is quite impressive.Obviously it's leaned towards pro's ,but also for anyone willing to elevate it's work on whole new level be it in videography or in stills.Price is high and they could include OSS.Overall i think it's worth getting this one.
@@ArenDavy This lens is excellent in the daytime. In low light, it needs a tripod because of F4 but the results are very good as long as you can avoid shaking by maintaining higher iso
Great review, as usual, thank you very much! I had the chance to work with the lens for a white. Excellent lens with one bug. Too much colour aberration in the bokeh (longitudinal chromatic aberration). Even up to higher aperture. For most, it might not be a problem but it is good to keep it in mind imho, as cleaning of those require quite some manual work with the brushes in Adobe Photoshop.
The A6600 as Top End Model with aging Sensor, and this Sony E 16-55 2.8 is ~1450 EUR Body only, plus another whopping 1250 EUR min. for the Zoom. For that APS-C Class price combined, the X-T3 with XF 18-55/2.8-4 is 1700 EUR, and the Sony A7 II with the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 FE is 999 EUR plus 1199 EUR....and the Nikon Z6 is
So after 8-10 years into the mount, Sony finally decides to release a decent, fast zoom designed for their crop sensor cameras? Imagine, with all those a5xxx and a6xxx bodies that exist in the world, this lens never penciled out for Sony until now.
Hi Christopher, I shoot mostly landscape photography since I'm a backpacker and live in the mountains. With my A6300 would I notice any difference in picture quality with this 16-55mm lens over the 18-105mm F4?
This lens would be a bit sharper. TBH I would prefer this lens for the wider angle of 16mm although bear in mind that it doesn't have image stabilization
I got that lens. It is also a great one for apsc. But the price is more user friendly. It should be the second best zoom for Sony apsc. I am using it on A7R4, It's unbearable in long zoom range.
How does this lens compare to the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8? I noticed you said it's the best standard APS-C zoom lens you've ever tested - does that mean you prefer this to the Fuji 16-55?
I’m on the fence, I need portrait lenses. I currently have the Sony 85 1.8 and the Zeiss 16-70 4.0 on my a6500. I was thinking of getting the Sigma trio or should I sell my Zeiss 16-70 4.0 and get this Sony 2.8 lens???
Nice Test. Thanks. Would it perhaps also be possible to test the 70-350 from Sony? There are not much Apsc lenses coming for the e mount these days, so we should celebrate it ;-) Also it will be interesting how tit performs against the Tamron combo of the 17-28 combined with the 28-75. They are also doing a great job at the apsc camera, but it is still a little difficult to switch between them as the wide lens doesńt cover a great range, even at apsc. But on the other side they are prepared if you want to switch to ff sometimes in the future or want to use the lenses on both worlds. And at least they are also very light and balancing ok on the 6000er series’s.
I initially thought this was a review of the 16 to 35 f/2.8 for full frame... glad to see Sony taking APS-C seriously. That being said, I just picked up new 7RIV-between the sigma 14-24 and the Sony 16-35, which do you believe performs better, price withstanding?
@@caldera878 Not true. Fuji makes great APSC cameras and lenses. Good to see Sony getting serious about glass for smaller sensors. Have not seen that from Canon or Nikon.
Hi, could you please let us read the subtitles? I watch most of your review videos, even if the lens isn't compatible with my camera (like this video, I own a Fujifilm X-T20). They are really nice to see. But I'm italian and reading the text helps me a lot to better understand what you say. Thanks :)
Great review, looking for a versatile lens like this for travel! Do you think this lens is worth it when paired with a Sony a6100 for solely photography?
would you suggest the same lens for a Sony a7iii or do you have another suggestion? This lens is already at the top of my budget! Thanks for the video!
Great, informative video Chris 👍🏻 I have an A6400 with no built-in stabilisation so was considering the F4 18-105mm mainly for the nice focal length range and the built-in stabilisation. I only shoot stills (landscape, architecture and motorsport for which I mainly use a F4 70 - 200mm and all in RAW) and no video so would you go for the F2.8 16-55mm and bite the bullet on the difference in cost? Tia
Oups! I'm not Chris, but i can telle you the Sony 18-105mm is excellent for video shooting, while the Sony 18-135mm is the best choice for photography with a better stabilisation almost the same size and weight. I have and older model of Sigma 60mm with excellent optical quality, but no stabilisation and I've done excellent photos at 1/25 sec (I didn't took 5 coffee and without 7 beers! ) 😁
I like your reviews very much you’re honest and true I would like to ask you to make a video comparison between sony apsc lenses like this one to the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 for the people how are considering one of the systems to move to from dslr . And also sony 35f18 to fuji 35f2 and sony 50f1.8 to fuji 50f2 I know that’s a lot to ask but If you can do it will be appreciated
The closest equivalent would be the 24-70 f/2.8 G Master but honestly, save your money and get either the Tamron 28-75mm or the upcoming Sigma 24-70 Art. They’re significantly less expensive and will offer very strong optical performance
@@caldera878 Really? I did feel a bit sad when I first found out that Sony apsc lenses are much cheaper and much more diverse than full frame lenses. I bought A7iii just because I work mainly needs to be done in low light environment.
It just makes no sense tho if you compare it to buying an A7ii and Tamron 28-75. Sony just haven’t made aps-c a valid middle ground choice. The size and cost are too similar to it’s full frame brother.
I’m not sure Canon will he developing many more lenses for EF-M, after deciding to create another mirrorless mount for FF. Too bad they couldn’t do what Sony has done and use only one mirrorless lens mount. 🤷♂️
... if you use this lens on the a7R IV you will see: It‘s a great option for filming and shooting in APSC-mode at 26 MP. So the a7R IV ist a perfect „B-Cam“ to my a6600. 😁😁😁
I don't see the point in that, why would you use an A7R IV to shoot in APSC mode when the smaller, lighter and about 3 times cheaper 6600 will give you pretty much the same result? Spending that much more for the A7R IV without getting some appropriate Lenses sounds like a huge waste. If I would be using these two cameras with a single lens, I would much rather get the 24-105mm. Will deliver comparable results on the 6600 and vastly superior ones on the A7R IV.
Well, about that full frame equivalent: after a short comparison of FOV, I would say that this 16mm (24 FF) is much wider than some other 24 mm FF lenses such like canon's 24-105. Maybe Sony give us the real numbers for that lens (it being only APS-C). What do you think about it? BTW - thanks a lot for your videos! They really help to choose the right lenses! =)
Just curious. Did you compare the images after corrections has been applied? These compact lenses tend to need massive amounts of corrections to remedy the distortions & abberations from the raw capture.
When it becomes available used for half the price then I'll consider it. Maybe. For me it would need f/1.8 and OSS to pay that much. Thanks for a great review as always!
I don’t have all three lenses to compare at the moment, but I’m quite familiar with the 50mm & 35mm f1.8 primes. When it comes to centre sharpness, this zoom lens outperforms both of the primes (more so against the 35mm) The primes will have better corner performance since they require less software correction. I reckon the difference will be very slight with the 35mm at f2.8 and more prominent with the 50mm. There are a few other areas where the newer zoom lens will be better, for example resistance to flare (worse on the 35mm), AF speed (worse on the 50mm) and lateral CA control. Similar to the zoom, both of these primes also suffer from quite heavy LoCA when used wide open.
@They Caged Non And yet it's Sony numpties we see moaning on almost every other camera gear review video ever made regardless of manufacturer .... funny that
Who would buy prime lenses at 1mm intervals? 🤣 On a serious note, three sigma 1.4s costs a bit more (abt usd53 more) than the sony zoom - current pricing in my country. Not having to change lenses is very convenient; and would be very fitting for day-time shooting. In lower lighting conditions, however, those f1.4 apertures would be a huge advantage, especially paired w bodies that has IBIS.
@@Pccpy I’ve been contemplating getting an f2.8 normal zoom to replace my primes as well ( i hv the 16 & 56 sigmas and the sony 35 oss) Probably will get this sony zoom used, and sell the rest except the 56.
@@Pccpy Update: Just bought a Sony 16-55 g last month (used, for about usd720). I still have the Sigma 56 (sold the Sony 35 and Sigma 16) I'm very satisfied with the performance. Sharpness is very good, almost as good as the best primes, I would say. (sharper than the Sony 35). AF speed and accuracy is the best I've seen in any lens so far. There are some niggles here and there (LoCA particularly) but I knew that before buying. All in all.. an excellent performer.
Super sharp, plenty of distortion, some color fringing -- sure sounds like my Fujifilm 16-55. The major advantage of the Sony is they were able to engineer all the goodness into a smaller package. I would gladly pay the $300 upcharge (if not more) to put my Fuji 16-55 on a diet.
@@otaviobehling I only own a 42mp full-frame Sony camera, so it wouldn't really work as a comparison. Just look at my review of that lens for a good idea how it performs
Great review! About your photos, I never know with what camera they were taken, is it full frame or is it APS-C? I would recommend to use APS-C bobies when making reviews for APS-C lenses, or at least put a sticker on pictures with the camera details...
Great video as always, but it's difficult that a person would consider to buy a 6600+16/55 instead of a a7iii+2875. I have an 80d + 1755 2.8 and the results, speaking about pictures, are really close, with much less money.
I would rather save for a mint second hand Leica 50/2 Summicron or 35/2 Asph. Have owned both in the past and despite very high cost, both gave superb IQ. This Sony lens, sure it's a zoom, has nothing like Leica quality but the appallingly high price immediately had me thinking of Leica. How much of this lens performance was as the result of Sony tweaking inbody software.
Well, needing a stabilization means only a6500, which is an older (buts still expensive) model or the obscenely priced a6600 from the new models. So a simple calculation here: £1,359 for the camera + £1,199 for the lens = thank you very much, but no from me. Simple math.
Chris, I just want to let you know how much your videos mean to me. I have really awful depression, and found your videos as I was researching a camera to buy for my small business. Fell in love with the relaxed atmosphere and your positive vibes, and I used to turn these on just as something to fall asleep to. That isn't to say they aren't entertaining or educational, they are. But they're so comforting to watch. I hope you're reaching your own goals and doing well. Take care.
Man i do the same thing...i listen to his review for the purpose of falling asleep quicker because of his relaxing voice...and i prefer his reviews over anything on youtube, he's not bias or merciful with his reviews...straight to the point and true..
What a lovely comment! I'm sorry to hear about your depression - that can be so very difficult. I'm glad you enjoy these videos though :-) God bless :-)
I have been reading studies that show a small amount
I'm a simple man. I see a new Chris Frost lens review, I click on it.
Got this lens for a nice price, it's realy something speacial on my A6400. The only bad thing is the extrem crop on 16mm when the software needs to cut the image down so you don't see the dark corners anymore.
Vignetting can for the most part be easily dealt with in post and is normal at wide apertures. Or...just love it. I often add vignetting to my pictures because it focus attention and has a long precedent in historic pictures.
@@gregmiller9957
Yeah vignetting always exist even at wide ff lenses but it is so easy to fix in post
Any issues with your everyday shooting with the lack of oss?
@@avstars I dont shoot with shutter speed less than 160, so Im fine with this lens. Its quite nice but I only bought it on a sale.
I'm always disappointed when I see the prices for the Sony lenses 😕
I was not disappointed by the Sony 18-105mm f4, though. This lens is great!
mhm...tell me more...nobody belives your nonsense, fanboy.
Sony cameras and lenses = useless gimmicks with subpar quality for simple minded people who are ready to spend a lot.
The 12-24 f/4 and the 24mm f/1.4 are actually priced very well. The other Sony lenses... not so much.
It's always better to start with high price and gradually start dropping a price then put a low price tag and regretting when product turns out to be to good and sold for very little.
The best lens reviewer on TH-cam strikes again. I still wouldn't get this lens though. A little too exy
Wow. An incredible well done review! It feels so different than the majority of reviews you see online. Great job!
What I'd really like to see is a 16-55 (or thereabouts) full frame lens, even if it were only f4. Hope you're reading this, Sony. Carry two lenses instead of three with my 70-200.
“Relative mediocrity...” such a polite way to put it! Nice review as always. Not in the market for the lens, but really appreciate the insights into what makes a good lens.
I have wondered how these crop lenses fare on the full frame cameras in crop mode compared to the crop bodies? You do give resolution comparisons on test charts but there are other considerations such as the high iso performance and larger photo sites. My problem is I don't like the ergonomics of my a6000 and would not mind the increased size of a full frame body but keep my crop lenses that I am very happy with. You must be the best qualified person to comment on this having both cameras. Many thanks for all your great videos, I even enjoy watching the ones I have no interest in buying.
I have a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for my D7500. It's basically glued to it at this point - does everything!
The price of this lens makes its flaws much more offensive.
Yeah for this price, it literally needs to be perfect in every way I'd say. It's a great lens, but still no where worth the price for me. There are several cheaper options that are still very good.
That's what I was thinking too. The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is my go-to lens. My copy was bought well used, borderline abused, for $300, but its only operational flaw is a sticky zoom ring. New presumably the zoom ring would operate better, and new it's around $550 in the United States, less than half the price of this Sony, and features image stabilization to boot. I would expect double the price to result in at least half-again the quality but it certainly does not appear to be 50% better.
Better if Sony actually never made this lens and maybe leave Aps-c all together. This lens was released too late for anyone to care, too pricy and everything else seems like an afterthought like the lackluster a6600.
@@caldera878 That seems rather harsh. Sony has a whole lot of APS-C cameras in the 5000-series and 6000-series ranges, it would seems logical to support those cameras with as many great lenses as possible.
Unfortunately for the money this does not seem to be a great lens. It either needs to be cheaper or it needs to be better. Hell, the Canon superzoom 24-240 for the EOS-R full-frame cameras has many times the zoom and yet comes in several hundred dollars cheaper even with similar poor uncorrected optical performance. That lens is obviously targeted to owners that want a take-on-vacation lens to avoid having to lug around a bag full of lenses, but even its performance is reasonably right to be criticized even in such a compromise situation. the kit-range zoom with such poor performance is not good even wit hthe better aperture.
TWX1138 You’re comparing lenses that are in totally different categories, not to mention for different sensor sizes. The price on this new Sony lens is ridiculous, but it really is the best f/2.8 standard zoom ever made for an APS-C camera-as Chris points out. The high price doesn’t make its flaws any bigger, it just makes the lens less likely to sell in higher volumes.
I think it’s been 10 years since anyone but Fuji (and Samsung, I guess) have released a standard f/2.8 zoom. I think this is the biggest oversight in Canon and Nikon’s lens portfolio. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a crappy 24-105mm f/4 zoom mounted to the front of a $5K to $15K Canon Cinema EOS camera. Canon’s 17-55mm f/2.8 (T3.5) lens needs to be taken out back and put out of its misery. Same for Nikon’s 15 year-old version.
Kit lenses often try to copy the focal length of a standard zoom, but almost always miss either the wide end or the telephoto range.
after using mine for a year the zoom ring is still perfectly smooth without the slightest hint of stick slip
The long awaited native Sony lens for APS-C shooters finally arrives and they put a ridiculously high price on it without OSS.
So this week I left Sony and went with the Fuji X system and their 18-55 f/2.8-4 lens with OIS 👍🏻
I don't blame you. I got my copy of this lens for £600 off Ebay, very lucky indeed. No way I would have paid new retail price for it.
@@hughjohns9110 Just bought this lens a month ago at a similar price. Still expensive, but man... what a lens!
What are those black corners at 7:11 ??
I've got this lens and now I'm changing to fullframe body, do you think it works as good in FF body of 42 mp in crop mode?
Looking forward to see a review on Tamron 35-150 F2.8-4
One day, yes :-)
Wow! This lens is ridiculously sharp! I think that's a bargain even considering it's price which is not weird in sony's world...please notice that for videography this lens equals perfection! Chris says it's the best apsc zoom lens he has ever tested in all brands...that means a lot to a manufacturer only making lenses decades after the analog era!
Uhmm, Minolta lenses..? ;)
Hello Christopher. I'm curious if the lens test chart images where you compare center and corner sharpness are the pure raw images or if some level of sharpening has been applied?
Hi Chris - would it be wise to buy Sony 16-55mm f2.8 (Aps-C) for my Sony a7II? I have 70-350mm E4.5-6.3 G which I am very happy with. Do you have a better suggestion? Thanks for your nice reveiws!
The change on TH-cam comments location on the mobile app is killing my ability to post first. So... Nice review, as always. I'm not very fond of Sony reviews, but I had the opportunity to try an A7III past week and I can say that I am impressed (Canon user here). I'm considering it.
Mee to. Even if i was disappointed by front ring position and poor quality view finder. I don't do video, so I probably will consider the a7r III, I hope in a price drop, 4000€ for camera and lens (2470) is still to much in my opinion.
Ooh, I've been waiting for this review. Thanks Chris!
Nice review ! Actually I love the APS-C format ! I'm only a casual photographer, and mostly take photos while travelling. I just need a relatively small and lightweight camera lens combo. I hope the price on this lens comes down to something affordable in the future. It looks like the performance is very good, especially since I want to do more video.
1:40 Is this lens parfocal?
Hello, this Lens is on sale right now for $899 on BH Photo vs $799 for FUJIFILM XF 16-80mm f/4. I am thinking about buying XT-4, would spending $100 more worth getting 16-55mm F2.8 over 16-80 F4 for 1st general purpose zoom lens? I am thinking of getting 23 vs 35mm F2 along with 16 F.14 for prime and ultrawide.
Awesome review as usual! Could you review the Sony 35mm 1.8?
A review of that lens is coming
Do you prefer this lens on the full frame A7 bodies or the APSC a6xxx bodies? Also, do you like this or the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 more? Thanks for the reviews.
Chris, love this video. I have the 16-55mm f/2.8 which I bought 2 years ago with an a6100. I've recently switched to the A7C. Do you think I should keep this lens or invest in the Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens? Which I believe gives around the same focal length. Thanks
You said it’s not made for full frame cameras but you have it connected to a full frame camera???
By any chance, does this lens support focus breathing compensation on the cameras that have it?
I wonder what's more impressive - the optical quality of the lens or the correction software in-camera? With such pronounced barrel distortion the edge performance should be fairly poor. But it isn't - impressive, especially compared to the new Fuji 16-80 which pales by comparison across the image! I'm almost tempted to go back to Sony... if only they could build enjoyable cameras.
I guess this only is gonna be the choice for social video makers using sony cameras, as Sony A7RIII and IV cameras crop mode specially greets a good apsc lens, and they are always looking for a suitable standard zoom lens on social work, and also for gimbal use. Apart from this, I cann't see this lens be used by a professional for stills, being full frame 24-105 a much more reliable solution. And on APSC cameras, I cannt see the point of using a so expensive lens, as these cameras are hardly being picked by professionals, and the price tag of this lens puts it far away from many amateurs.
Chris is this better than the 18-105 for an all rounder
Did you take out that black plastic dust cover on rear of the lens for FF testing? The vignetting is too controlled
This, or Sigma trio prime lenses?? I can't decide.
Does the distortion happen only on pictures or video as well?
Hi sir, sorry maybe its abit too late for me to ask. But how does the lens fare when youre using it in on full frame a7. I currently just bought this lens as a hobbyist for my a6300 but planning to get a 2nd hand A7ii. Does the apsc mode on A7 really reduce the image qualily/ resoluton from the lens? I really have no idea how it would work on full frame since ive never owned any full frame cameras, but I do love this 16-55mm f2.8 lens.
You can use aps-c lenses on a FF body like the A7. On 24mp FF bodies, the resolution would be reduced to 10.6mp (if im not mistaken). The resulting fov will also be similar to using the lens on aps-c bodies.
The image width on the A7 would result to about 4600px wide as opposed to 6000px wide on a 24mp aps-c camera.
You going to review the SEL70350G lens? It looks like it could be a great one for Sony APS-C. Many seem to think its better to get the full frame SEL70300G though.
I will eventually - I'm holding for the Black Friday sales...
This lens is sharp as Sigma primes for Sony E apsc system, if not sharper, which is quite impressive.Obviously it's leaned towards pro's ,but also for anyone willing to elevate it's work on whole new level be it in videography or in stills.Price is high and they could include OSS.Overall i think it's worth getting this one.
Price is yet another Sony lens deal breaker.
Thank you Christopher, you are back again! You made my day!
I have a Sony a7 rii, I looked at other video for 24-105. I'm planning to get that since it looks sharper. I hope I'm making the right decision.
How did it turned out ? I’m curious, since I’m planning to shift to a7m3 and buying this lens
@@ArenDavy This lens is excellent in the daytime. In low light, it needs a tripod because of F4 but the results are very good as long as you can avoid shaking by maintaining higher iso
how is the hand zoom on this? like is it nice and smooth or steppy like the Tamron?
Sorry if you mentioned this and i missed it.. im hearing impaird, but, will the lens work with the on-camera power zoom W/T switch??
can i use this for sony @7r4 camera??
Great review. Thank you, just ordered.
How are you liking it so far?
Would this be compatible with a Sony A7Iv?
Could you also do the new 70-350?
a beautiful lens that i own
Great review, as usual, thank you very much! I had the chance to work with the lens for a white. Excellent lens with one bug. Too much colour aberration in the bokeh (longitudinal chromatic aberration). Even up to higher aperture. For most, it might not be a problem but it is good to keep it in mind imho, as cleaning of those require quite some manual work with the brushes in Adobe Photoshop.
So that black corners mean, that the advertised 16mm aren't "real" 16mm?
Hi and thanks for this video! Would you like this lens on an aps-c or would you prefer your a7r II with the 20-70mm f4??
Hi Chris! Any plans on reviewing the tamron 17-70mm in the near future? Sounds like a tough competition for this one.
Best!
Sure
Crazy price for this lens. The Fuji 18 - 55 mm f 2.8 is far cheaper, has OIS and more. They would make a great comparison video.
Let me correct you.fuji 18-55 is 2.8 to f4.not just 2.8
The A6600 as Top End Model with aging Sensor, and this Sony E 16-55 2.8 is ~1450 EUR Body only, plus another whopping 1250 EUR min. for the Zoom. For that APS-C Class price combined, the X-T3 with XF 18-55/2.8-4 is 1700 EUR, and the Sony A7 II with the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 FE is 999 EUR plus 1199 EUR....and the Nikon Z6 is
Marc P. You don need to have the lasa6 k serie to use this lens, a6500 can be found at 850
So after 8-10 years into the mount, Sony finally decides to release a decent, fast zoom designed for their crop sensor cameras? Imagine, with all those a5xxx and a6xxx bodies that exist in the world, this lens never penciled out for Sony until now.
Not to mention the 10 or so NEX cameras they’ve sold and all their S35 camcorders that have also been without a standard f/2.8 zoom. 🙄
this os sigma 16-50 2.8 ?
Please compare with Sony's sharpest FE F4 lens (24-105?) on full frame on sharpness, they are similarly priced
Look at my review of that lens
Hi Christopher, I shoot mostly landscape photography since I'm a backpacker and live in the mountains. With my A6300 would I notice any difference in picture quality with this 16-55mm lens over the 18-105mm F4?
This lens would be a bit sharper. TBH I would prefer this lens for the wider angle of 16mm although bear in mind that it doesn't have image stabilization
@@christopherfrost Thank You! :-)
Hi, nice review as usual. Can u plss review new e mount 70-350mm f4.5-6.3 lens?
A review will come in the next couple of months I think
I got that lens. It is also a great one for apsc. But the price is more user friendly. It should be the second best zoom for Sony apsc. I am using it on A7R4, It's unbearable in long zoom range.
thanks from Russia! Great review
How does this lens compare to the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8? I noticed you said it's the best standard APS-C zoom lens you've ever tested - does that mean you prefer this to the Fuji 16-55?
I’m on the fence, I need portrait lenses. I currently have the Sony 85 1.8 and the Zeiss 16-70 4.0 on my a6500. I was thinking of getting the Sigma trio or should I sell my Zeiss 16-70 4.0 and get this Sony 2.8 lens???
Sell the zeiss, 70mm on that lens is soft af
Get the 16 to 55 it's worth and will hold its value
@@MonicaHolly143 thanks for the rely. I might do that.
Agree.. although I would also change the 85mm to the Sigma 56mm. Best portrait lens for Sony aps-c.
Thank you for great review. Please make review of Tamron 17-28mm for Sony E-mount.
Nice Test. Thanks. Would it perhaps also be possible to test the 70-350 from Sony? There are not much Apsc lenses coming for the e mount these days, so we should celebrate it ;-) Also it will be interesting how tit performs against the Tamron combo of the 17-28 combined with the 28-75. They are also doing a great job at the apsc camera, but it is still a little difficult to switch between them as the wide lens doesńt cover a great range, even at apsc. But on the other side they are prepared if you want to switch to ff sometimes in the future or want to use the lenses on both worlds. And at least they are also very light and balancing ok on the 6000er series’s.
It's on my list of things to do :-)
Great vid as usual! I am wondering how does it perform compared to the sigma 18-35 f1.8 ?
You would need an adapter for that lens which means slower AF and video tracking..Also about 2x as heavy and 2x as big maybe even 3x as big...
I initially thought this was a review of the 16 to 35 f/2.8 for full frame... glad to see Sony taking APS-C seriously. That being said, I just picked up new 7RIV-between the sigma 14-24 and the Sony 16-35, which do you believe performs better, price withstanding?
Same here, initially thought it’s 16-35 f/2.8 and was glad to see it. Still though watched that video
Same here, initially thought it’s 16-35 f/2.8 and was glad to see it. Still though watched that video
Even you guys don't care about aps-c.
@@caldera878 Not true. Fuji makes great APSC cameras and lenses. Good to see Sony getting serious about glass for smaller sensors. Have not seen that from Canon or Nikon.
Can you make review about canon 15-85 vs 18-135 mm. I need a good walk around lens
Just watch my reviews of them - you can easily draw your own comparison :-)
Please review Meike MK-35MM F/1.4
Hi, could you please let us read the subtitles?
I watch most of your review videos, even if the lens isn't compatible with my camera (like this video, I own a Fujifilm X-T20). They are really nice to see.
But I'm italian and reading the text helps me a lot to better understand what you say.
Thanks :)
Sony 16 55 or fuji 16 55
Which more shaper..
fuji 16 55
@@6042833 i dont think you have tested both lenses , so why dont you let mr. Frost decide and answer my question..😊
Great review, looking for a versatile lens like this for travel! Do you think this lens is worth it when paired with a Sony a6100 for solely photography?
Sure
would you suggest the same lens for a Sony a7iii or do you have another suggestion? This lens is already at the top of my budget! Thanks for the video!
Mike D thank you!!! I almost purchased till I caught this.
As I talked about in this video, it's not for full-frame cameras I'm afraid
Great, informative video Chris 👍🏻 I have an A6400 with no built-in stabilisation so was considering the F4 18-105mm mainly for the nice focal length range and the built-in stabilisation. I only shoot stills (landscape, architecture and motorsport for which I mainly use a F4 70 - 200mm and all in RAW) and no video so would you go for the F2.8 16-55mm and bite the bullet on the difference in cost? Tia
Oups! I'm not Chris, but i can telle you the Sony 18-105mm is excellent for video shooting, while the Sony 18-135mm is the best choice for photography with a better stabilisation almost the same size and weight. I have and older model of Sigma 60mm with excellent optical quality, but no stabilisation and I've done excellent photos at 1/25 sec (I didn't took 5 coffee and without 7 beers! ) 😁
I like your reviews very much you’re honest and true I would like to ask you to make a video comparison between sony apsc lenses like this one to the Fuji 16-55 f2.8 for the people how are considering one of the systems to move to from dslr . And also sony 35f18 to fuji 35f2 and sony 50f1.8 to fuji 50f2 I know that’s a lot to ask but If you can do it will be appreciated
And only you can do it because you have a lot of experience in Lenses
There would be too many variables between systems for a video like that - not a bad idea though :-)
Thnq , enough for me that you replied
I’m using Sony A7iii. Is there any similar lens with this for full frame? Thanks.
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 It's way cheaper and f/2.8 of full frame is like twice the amount of light gathered compared to this sony lens.
The closest equivalent would be the 24-70 f/2.8 G Master but honestly, save your money and get either the Tamron 28-75mm or the upcoming Sigma 24-70 Art. They’re significantly less expensive and will offer very strong optical performance
Thank you all. I see it now. All are excellent lenses. I will wait for the upcoming sigma and find some comparison to decide.
Good for you. Sony e-mount aps-c cameras and lenses is a dead end system and this pointless lens reaffirms it.
@@caldera878 Really? I did feel a bit sad when I first found out that Sony apsc lenses are much cheaper and much more diverse than full frame lenses. I bought A7iii just because I work mainly needs to be done in low light environment.
Does anyone get heavy vignetting at 16mm, F/2.8 when viewing on the computer? (on the camera screen it looks fine).
Lightroom corrects it automatically but Luminar 4 does not. Very hard to correct unless one has LR.
Please check out meike 35 1.4 for us please🙃
It just makes no sense tho if you compare it to buying an A7ii and Tamron 28-75. Sony just haven’t made aps-c a valid middle ground choice. The size and cost are too similar to it’s full frame brother.
Damn! Why not the same for canon ef-m??!! Although, for the money he is not needed for an amateur camera. I will continue to use 22mm f2...
Totally agree with you. No fast zoom for Canon M series.
I’m not sure Canon will he developing many more lenses for EF-M, after deciding to create another mirrorless mount for FF. Too bad they couldn’t do what Sony has done and use only one mirrorless lens mount. 🤷♂️
Sony needs to make a lens like this with OSS
... if you use this lens on the a7R IV you will see: It‘s a great option for filming and shooting in APSC-mode at 26 MP. So the a7R IV ist a perfect „B-Cam“ to my a6600. 😁😁😁
I don't see the point in that, why would you use an A7R IV to shoot in APSC mode when the smaller, lighter and about 3 times cheaper 6600 will give you pretty much the same result? Spending that much more for the A7R IV without getting some appropriate Lenses sounds like a huge waste. If I would be using these two cameras with a single lens, I would much rather get the 24-105mm. Will deliver comparable results on the 6600 and vastly superior ones on the A7R IV.
Thank you chris, been waiting this review
Hey man appreciate the effort always a fan of your videos!! Waiting for the rf 15-35 review!!!
is there a 70-200 2.8 e mount?
victor saloum Yep, it’s $2,600. 👍 😂
@@tyroney2 id rather spend the money on that lens such much versatility but i guess this is just a kit lens replacement
Which camera is used for the image stabilization test?
a7R ii (I mention it in the description)
Well, about that full frame equivalent: after a short comparison of FOV, I would say that this 16mm (24 FF) is much wider than some other 24 mm FF lenses such like canon's 24-105. Maybe Sony give us the real numbers for that lens (it being only APS-C). What do you think about it?
BTW - thanks a lot for your videos! They really help to choose the right lenses! =)
Just curious. Did you compare the images after corrections has been applied? These compact lenses tend to need massive amounts of corrections to remedy the distortions & abberations from the raw capture.
When it becomes available used for half the price then I'll consider it. Maybe. For me it would need f/1.8 and OSS to pay that much. Thanks for a great review as always!
Half price for this? Never.
@@Princeton_James in 5 years used yes..it will take a while
Now to compare this with the Tamron 17-70 F2.8 🤗🙏
Quality wise how does this compare with Fuji 16-55?
This lens is slightly better quality IMO
Christopher Frost Photography Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to more brilliant reviews!
What do you think would be a more fair price for this lens in an ideal world?
I’d probably replace a lot of my prime lenses with this lens if it’s around 900 usd..
Can anyone confirm, if this lens is superior (at least sharper) to the sony 50 and 35 1.8? I suppose, it is sharper at 2.8, or even at 5.6?
I personally believe the primes will be sharper
I don’t have all three lenses to compare at the moment, but I’m quite familiar with the 50mm & 35mm f1.8 primes.
When it comes to centre sharpness, this zoom lens outperforms both of the primes (more so against the 35mm)
The primes will have better corner performance since they require less software correction. I reckon the difference will be very slight with the 35mm at f2.8 and more prominent with the 50mm.
There are a few other areas where the newer zoom lens will be better, for example resistance to flare (worse on the 35mm), AF speed (worse on the 50mm) and lateral CA control.
Similar to the zoom, both of these primes also suffer from quite heavy LoCA when used wide open.
Smaller, lighter, and SHARPER than Fuji?
Yes!
Also more expensive
Yup, but only very slightly sharper, they're both excellent
@They Caged Non And yet it's Sony numpties we see moaning on almost every other camera gear review video ever made regardless of manufacturer .... funny that
Low hanging fruit.
I wonder how much does it cost to buy 40 prime lenses at f2.8? At least you don't have to change lens with this one.
Who would buy prime lenses at 1mm intervals? 🤣 On a serious note, three sigma 1.4s costs a bit more (abt usd53 more) than the sony zoom - current pricing in my country. Not having to change lenses is very convenient; and would be very fitting for day-time shooting. In lower lighting conditions, however, those f1.4 apertures would be a huge advantage, especially paired w bodies that has IBIS.
@@saifaldin_ I know that, just wondering how much those would cost all together.
@@Pccpy I’ve been contemplating getting an f2.8 normal zoom to replace my primes as well ( i hv the 16 & 56 sigmas and the sony 35 oss) Probably will get this sony zoom used, and sell the rest except the 56.
@@saifaldin_ Go for it, I have one and it's super sharp and has very good IQ.
@@Pccpy Update: Just bought a Sony 16-55 g last month (used, for about usd720). I still have the Sigma 56 (sold the Sony 35 and Sigma 16) I'm very satisfied with the performance. Sharpness is very good, almost as good as the best primes, I would say. (sharper than the Sony 35). AF speed and accuracy is the best I've seen in any lens so far. There are some niggles here and there (LoCA particularly) but I knew that before buying. All in all.. an excellent performer.
Super sharp, plenty of distortion, some color fringing -- sure sounds like my Fujifilm 16-55. The major advantage of the Sony is they were able to engineer all the goodness into a smaller package. I would gladly pay the $300 upcharge (if not more) to put my Fuji 16-55 on a diet.
Compare this lens with an APS-C câmera with the 24/105 f/4 G lens with a Full-Frame câmera please.
Take a look at my review of the 24-105, I tested that on APS-C
@@christopherfrost I meant to compare the E 16-55 f / 2.8 G lens on an APS-C camera vs the FE 24-105 f / 4G lens on a Full-Frame camera.
@@otaviobehling I only own a 42mp full-frame Sony camera, so it wouldn't really work as a comparison. Just look at my review of that lens for a good idea how it performs
@@christopherfrost You finally threw away those terrible Sony aps-c cameras.
This great lens is a clear signal the APS-C format will be there long time, Sony proved extremely sharp lens could be made for the APS-C camera.
Many thanks for a great review.
Great review! About your photos, I never know with what camera they were taken, is it full frame or is it APS-C? I would recommend to use APS-C bobies when making reviews for APS-C lenses, or at least put a sticker on pictures with the camera details...
Very nice lens but sony a6000 serie body is not of my like, I wish it could have the evf in the middle 🤷🏻♂️
Great video as always, but it's difficult that a person would consider to buy a 6600+16/55 instead of a a7iii+2875.
I have an 80d + 1755 2.8 and the results, speaking about pictures, are really close, with much less money.
I would rather save for a mint second hand Leica 50/2 Summicron or 35/2 Asph. Have owned both in the past and despite very high cost, both gave superb IQ.
This Sony lens, sure it's a zoom, has nothing like Leica quality but the appallingly high price immediately had me thinking of Leica.
How much of this lens performance was as the result of Sony tweaking inbody software.
Well, needing a stabilization means only a6500, which is an older (buts still expensive) model or the obscenely priced a6600 from the new models. So a simple calculation here: £1,359 for the camera + £1,199 for the lens = thank you very much, but no from me. Simple math.