Sony 16-55 F2.8 G Lens vs Sony 16-50 Kit Lens

M Y G E A R :
Cameras -

Lenses -

Accessories -

DISCLOSURES:
I participate in the Amazon Affiliates Program, where I earn a small commission if you decide to purchase an item at no cost to you.

[TwoOneSeen]

That 16-55 performs way better than I thought it was going to. That’s a great one and done option. Even if the trio puts up a great fight, there’s something to be said for getting a lot done with ONE lens.

[thanhpham]

In my humble opinion, the 16-55 2.8 costs more than 10 times the kit lens but cannot produce an image that is even twice as good as the kit lens, I am personally not stupid enough to spend money on it. Just a big waste of money. Thank you so much for your caparison review of these 2.

[icedoutelite]

That len worth more than my 95 Toyota Corolla I use daily :).

[kingweddingmedia]

I have the new 16-55mm f2.8 and really happy with it as a one lens does it all option. It has horrendous vignetting at 16mm though when shooting raw, so much so I couldn't correct it manually, so they need to get a lightroom correction sorted for it asap! My advice would be if you prefer absolute image quality, get the 3 sigmas (I have the 16mm and the 56mm - both outstanding), but if you hate changing lenses over regularly get the sony 16-55mm. I use the sigmas at weddings for video, but love the zoom lens for when I'm out on a walk and don't really know what I may end up photographing.

[aryanenzo]

Arthur, I am looking forward to your review of the new 70-350mm G lens. I'm hoping for a quick comparison with the 18-105 and 18-135. Is this lens coming your way soon?

[tggentil]

Thanks great video ! Could you do a comparison aps -c with this lens versus A7 iii with 24-105 F4? Both Sony lenses have the same price tag, and 2.8 Bokeh on aps-c is kind of equivalent to F4 on full frame. That would be great to see which performs best.

[ElricX]

Looks like a great lens that I'll never own. If it had stabilization I might have considered it. For the price I'm really surprised it doesn't. I'll stick with my current lenses and remain happy. Excellent video Arthur as usual!

[samkanter]

The 16-50 kit looks pretty good to my eyes, with OSS, at 1/10th the cost, weight and size - and my copy is much better. After PP the difference is not so much. What a silly comparison. I’ll stick with my copy of the kit lens - unique and tiny.

[g]

Okay, now that's finally out of the way, Sigma 1.4 trio vs this lens please!

[paulfedorenko]

So... I have both lenses, and I mostly agree with you on your assessment (duh, the G lens was damn expensive)... However, with regard to the photos of your wife at 12:58, I think the photo taken with the kit lens is the better one overall. There's more contrast in the background. The colours pop more. There's more detail in the shadows on her shirt. The kit lens photo just... Pops. It looks less washed out. Sharpness isn't everything when it comes to a good photo. If the two images were either printed (say 4x6 or 8x10) or posted on social media, I honestly think more people (pixel peepers don't count) would prefer the shot taken with the kit lens for the reasons I mentioned. Just one guy's opinion, though.

[chrisau]

It's always interesting to see how much better these G lenses are over the kit!

[amirleshem]

Would be happy to see a comparison to the two tamrons 17-28, 28-75. They together cost almost the same . Make you FF ready and compared to GM they stand nicely

[ming]

would like to see 16-55 F2.8 vs sigma 16 30 56 F1.4

[MeAMuse]

I'd still choose the 16-50mmm. If I am using APS-C it's because I am looking for portability. Sadly I also hate the kit lens (they break so easily). I think an interesting comparison might be the 18-135mm (my wife's main lens) to the 16-55mm if you get a chance....

[bguerrero]

Please do this again with faster shutter speeds. 1/50th isn't fast enough to ensure a sharp image unless you're on a tripod.

[ColtCapperrune]

Really looking forward to the comparison to the sigma 16, and 30mm. Running both of those on my a6400 and would love to have one lens to cover both and then some.

[idfcs]

hope to see a video comparing the 16-70 F4 with this 16-55 F2.8 len

[DarkViperus]

@Arthur R : I like that you compared lens at the same settings (F5.0 vs F5.0) and best possible setting each lens has to offer (e.g. 40mm F2.8 vs 40mm F5.0) . In many of your previous videos, you would only compare lens using the same setting, and that didn't tell the whole story.

[LeeZavitz]

Once you've had the taste of a good lens you will never look back at your kit lens. Good glass is always a good investment. Great comparison bro.

[richbass]

Curious to see your upcoming video testing against the Sigma trio. I currently have both 16mm and 56mm both of which are great, but if this one Sony 16-55mm lens have similar results I'd be keen to switch them out for the benefit of having a single lens option