There are 3 standard zooms for APS-C E-mount. Typically DXO would be a source for objective feedback even if some believe it is flawed. However, DXO doesn't seemed to be interested in testing APS-C e-mount these days since they have not tested the Ziess or the G. As a result, we basically have a lot of subjective views with little more than eye test to work with. After almost giving up, I found that PCmag uses Imatest for its sharpness tests. I didn't find any charts like DXO, so I compiled excerpts from the individual reviews. I hope someone finds it useful. SEL1650PZ (kit) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412815,00.asp At its widest aperture and the midpoint of its zoom, 33mm, it just barely hits the 1,800 lines per picture height that we used to mark a sharp photo—at 16mm it scores 1,666 lines and it drops back down to 1,663 lines at 50mm. Closing the aperture down to f/8 improves the score—that gets you 1,802 lines at 16mm, 1,885 lines at 33mm, and 1,777 lines at 50mm. (PCmag, 12/2012) SEL1855 At 18mm f/3.5. It scores 1,744 lines using a center-weighted test, but as is typical with entry-level zoom lenses, the edges are a bit soft at 1,350 lines. Stopping down to f/5.6 improves performance; the average sharpness is 2,052 and the edges top 1,600 lines At 35 sharpness at the maximum f/4.5 aperture is 1,735 lines, again with a sharp center and edges that are a bit soft (1,154 lines). Stopping down to f/5.6 improves things a bit (2,042 lines across the frame, 1,470 lines at the edges), but you'll get the best performance at f/8. When you narrow the aperture to that setting you'll get images that average 2,129 lines, with edges that are a very respectable 1,700 lines. At 55 The sharpness here is 1,713 lines, with just a slight drop-off at the edges (1,629 lines). You'll get a bit better performance at f/8; the center-weighted sharpness is 2,069 lines, and the edges are just shy of 1,800 lines. SELP18105G http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2454698,00.asp At 18mm f/4 is scores 1,770 lines per picture height on our center-weighted sharpness test, just a hair shy of the 1,800 lines we use to call an image sharp. The center is quite sharp, but there's softness at the outer two-thirds of the frame. Stopping down to f/5.6 bumps the score to 2,327 lines, and only the outer edges show some softness, scoring 1,705 lines. At 35mm improves sharpness; at f/4 the lens manages 1,901 lines, and even the outer edges hit 1,746 lines. That center-weighted score jumps to 2,260 lines at f/5.6, and the edges kiss the 1,800-line mark. At 70m the lens remains sharp, notching 1,951 lines with edges that top 1,700 lines. Stopping down to f/5.6 bumps the center-weighted score to 2,432 lines with edges that top 2,100 lines. At 105mm the center-weighted sharpness is good, 2,039 lines, but the edges are soft at just 1,331 lines. Stopping down to f/5.6 doesn't do much to improve the overall score (2,059 lines there), but the edges do improve to 1,552 lines. (PCmag, 3/2014) SEL1670Z Source http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2454653,00.asp At 16mm f/4 it does much better than the center-weighted 1,800 lines per picture height score that we use to define an image as sharp; it manages 2,475 lines there, and maintains its sharpness through all but the outer edges of the frame (1,538 lines).Stopping down to f/5.6 bumps the center and edge scores (2,529 and 1,674 lines respectively At 35mm The center-weighted sharpness at f/4 is 2,239 lines and at f/5.6 it's 2,437 lines. at 70mm; the lens shows 1,951 lines using the center-weighted score. The mid-parts of the frame—the area between the center third and the outer edges—are a tad soft at 1,733 lines. Stopping down to f/5.6 bumps the overall score to 2,246 lines with all but the outer edges topping 2,000 lines. (PCmag, 3/2014) First off, this is actually saying the kit zoom is pretty sharp. However, it is outclassed by the Ziess and the G. In addition to the constant F/4 aperture, the G and the Zeiss are sharp across the zoom range. The Ziess is sharper at the center but the G has more balance across the frame as edge sharpness doesn't fall off as much as the Zeiss at equivalent focal lengths. I believe factors such as price, size, zoom range and features will dictate which you choose; meaning there's pros and cons for each. That said, optically, any of these zooms can work for most applications especially if light permits stopping down slightly. Pet peeve: The one thing reviewers seem to be stuck on when it comes to mirror-less is distortion. I'm not sure what the big deal is because most lenses are designed to be software corrected in camera or in PP software with very little user intervention. Haven't these guys heard of a lens profile?