16mm-50mm Kit lens vs 16mm F2.8 pancake

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by silvetti, Aug 26, 2013.

  1. silvetti

    silvetti New to TalkEmount

    8
    Aug 26, 2013
    Hey guys,

    Newbie here, so if my questions is stupid don't kill me.
    Tried googling this but still not quite sure.

    The PZ kit lense 16-50 has on the 16mm option a 83 degree angle, the 16mm F2.8 pancake has the same angle (on the specs).

    Does this mean that it would take more or less the same photos ? I mean in terms of wideness (not image quality).
     
  2. lowbone

    lowbone TalkEmount Regular

    99
    Oct 21, 2012
    If I understand your question the answer is yes. 16mm is 16mm whether it is on a zoom or a fixed lens
     
  3. silvetti

    silvetti New to TalkEmount

    8
    Aug 26, 2013
    So with each of them I can take the same wide-angle photos ?
     
  4. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    Yes. They even have same maximum aperture.
     
  5. silvetti

    silvetti New to TalkEmount

    8
    Aug 26, 2013
    Thank you for the clarification :)
     
  6. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    957
    Jul 3, 2013
    The 1650 is F3.5 the SEL16F28 is 2.8 :)

    I love the SEL16 but only when using it with the UWA and Fisheye...just an awesome combo and cheap too. It creates very interesting perspectives and compositions for me.
     
  7. Fiddler

    Fiddler TalkEmount Regular

    94
    Mar 8, 2012
    Edinburgh
    Colin
    I just got hold of the UWA, and it's better than I expected and fun to use.
     

    Attached Files:

    • UWA.
      UWA.jpg
      File size:
      110.9 KB
      Views:
      534
  8. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    957
    Jul 3, 2013
    Yes indeed. I got the Fisheye not thinking I would use it much but it is also awesome. Just a superb addition to my collection and I highly recommend them. :)

    Yeah that is the type of shot I love with this thing.
     
  9. Fiddler

    Fiddler TalkEmount Regular

    94
    Mar 8, 2012
    Edinburgh
    Colin
    Yeah, I'm looking for the Fisheye now!
     
  10. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    512
    Mar 1, 2015
    Maryland
    Tom
    I have the 16-50 kit lens and the 16/2.8 fixed lens also (I had the 20/2.8 but am returning that to B&H). I am using these with my a5100. Theoretically the two (16-50 vs 16/2.8) should have the same characteristics, but they are not identical optically, so the real proof is in the curves (which I have not looked at). Generally speaking when a device has a range of operation, that range is typically weaker at the two extreme - which would imply that the 16 fixed is probably better than the 16-50. I don't have enough experience with either of them to know for sure which works better. And by the way, notice that the fixed 16 is not an OSS lens like the 16-50 is.

    What I can say (and what brought me to this thread via a search for the 16-50) is that my 16-50 is not working very well at all! Today, at least 3 or 4 times, the 16-50 had a hiccup in which it did not retract when the camera was switched off and the next time the camera was switched on an error was displayed that implied that the camera could not recognize the lens. This happened once a week or so ago too and I was able to correct the condition by pulling the battery. That did not help today however. In one case I had to switch lenses (with my 50/1.8) to get the 16-50 to work when reattached. I will probably be calling B&H tomorrow to see if there is any way I can return the lens alone for replacement (rather than returning the entire kit).
     
  11. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    I have love-hate relationship with 16+UWA, sometimes it creates great shots and sometimes the corners are mushy with no apparent reason why (good lighting).

    I may give in and get Rokinon as I love the 12mm FOV, but since a lot of my shots are on the fly I really want the AF.

    However in good light it is very sharp in center and can make an excellent portrait lens with that special WA feel.

    I assume that 16-50 will not be as good at 16mm simply because zoom lenses are typically the worst at their extreme ends. But I may be wrong.
     
  12. slothead

    slothead TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    512
    Mar 1, 2015
    Maryland
    Tom
    My 16-50 really started acting badly this past week and I wrote to B&H to see if I could exchange just the lens (from a kit obviously). They wrote back that they could not but included the prepaid RMA for the entire kit. So I will send the kit back and hope the new 5100 I get with it is as good as the one I got originally. On the down side it won't do me any good to send it immediately as they (B&H) are in the middle of Passover and probably wpn't do anything with it until they return to work.
     
  13. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    Having another fit of GAS, and so resurrecting this older thread.

    I've been starting to get into architecture, interiors and real estate photography lately, and while the Rokinon 12/2 is so far serving admirably, there are times I've been thinking I might want to go a little bit less wide. I never had the 16-50mm kit lens as I received the 18-55mm kit with my old-ish a3000 before buying the a6000 body-only, so my focal lengths jump from 12 to 18. As such, I've been considering picking up either a used E 16mm f/2.8 "pancake" or a used kit E PZ 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS in order to obtain that 16mm focal length field of view (equivalent to 24mm on full-frame).

    Both lenses are fairly compact "pancake"-style, so that is a plus for both, though the 16 is easily the thinner of the two by a few mm's. I've wanted a truly pocket-friendly compact lens ever since I got the a6000.

    Image quality wise, from what I can tell there may not be much difference between the two depending on the condition of a particular copy. And price-wise, they seem to be in the same ballpark on the used market, with the 16-50 seeming to go for slightly more. The 16mm has the option of adding the UWA or Fisheye add-on adapters, but I have the 12mm Rokinon already and see no real need for the UWA other than to have AF at 12mm - not a big deal. The 16-50 has the benefit of including OSS which would be good for video. And finally, the 16mm at 2.8 has that 2/3 stop advantage over the 16-50 at 3.5, not a big deal, though possibly advantageous for low-light interiors (although I'm more likely to use plenty of flash to add light for interiors photography).

    Oh, and one last thing, I've seen several reports of how well the 16mm f/2.8 adapts to use on a full-frame A7-series body, especially with the rear baffle removed, as with the Sony 10-18/4 OSS and the Sigma 30/2.8.

    So, any advice or thoughts from all of you with experience with one or both of these unheralded lenses?
    Thanks in advance. :)

    P.S.-Oh, I know there is also the excellent Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS, but it's an order of magnitude more expensive, and I'd rather not sink much more into APS-C lenses with my increasing thoughts of a possible jump up to FF in the next year or so.
     
  14. JMM

    JMM TalkEmount Regular

    128
    Jul 29, 2016
    John
    All i can tell you, is 1650 got MUCH sharper corners (after all distortion/shading corrections)! And centers too, unless you stop 16f2.8 to 3.5...
    Im not sharpness maniac, but 16f2.8 is just... like photographing through ground glass.
    Also kit zoom got OSS... for me it was no brainer, but eventually i sold them both.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  15. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount Top Veteran

    650
    Sep 10, 2015
    Bob
    I had the 16-50mm kit lens for a while. I eventually sold it to my son-in-law, who uses it on my old NEX-6. The lens gets widely panned, but it can take decent images in the right hands. As with most zooms, it is better in the middle. Also bear in mind it does require software correction, particularly at the wide end. But this is normally handled transparently.

    I did have the 10-18mm. Yes it is not cheap, I think I paid $600 used but they can be had cheaper. It is a really good performer, and can be used for part of it's range on FF or in crop mode. If you really want to get serious about interiors and architecture, you might want to reconsider. I sold mine recently only to fund my A7ii. It was one of my favorite lenses.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  16. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    To quote a dearly-departed "Princess" of an actress from one of her other roles, with an air of resignation: "You're right, you're right... I know you're right."
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    I believe there are also some 14mm f/2.8 and 15mm f/2.8 third party lenses for that slot. Manual and AF. More middle ground between 12 and 18. I can't remember the brand, but the 15mm is compact, when compared to the Samyang 14mm.
    For architecture, the edges will be important, so the 16mm f/2.8 pancake may not deliver.
    I have the 16-50 and at 16, it does show some vignetting. OSS is not important if shooting interiors, since you're likely to frame the shots on a tripod. And IS should always be disabled. It's sharp enough. Of the two, the power zoom is more useful. But if you shoot RAW, be sure to reproduce the in-camera corrections.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  18. JMM

    JMM TalkEmount Regular

    128
    Jul 29, 2016
    John
    Sony is sneaky, even in RAW, files ARE AUTOCORRECTED. And your soft (i use Camera Raw) aint telling you anything.
    One day, something went wrong with sel1650 and i was suprized how distorted images are. It really was something like 14-15 mm rather than 16. That situation didnt repeated after remounting the lens.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    I recently sold my 16/2.8 and UWA, since I haven't been using them much lately. If I got into UWA photos, I'd get Rokinon 12 or 14mm. The Sony 16/2.8 and 16-50 lenses can definitely be used at 16mm with very good results, but the % of keepers is going to be higher with Rokinon.

    16-50 is very usable in good light, but at high ISO the already somewhat compromised corners really start to show.
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  20. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    I've had all the lenses you mentioned. I still have the 16-50 for times when convenience is top priority.

    Just so we're on the same page. There is a huge difference between 12mm and 16mm on APSC. Much more than you realize. It basically leads to a different type of photography.

    I believe the 16mm is the worst lens Sony has ever made. It doesn't matter if you've seen good photos with this lens because there are good photos with every lens. So if you you are a pixel peeper of any kind don't buy it.

    I would go with the 16-50. It's not great but it is very convenient and after corrections the results are acceptable.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1