FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony 16-50mm F2.8 vs Tamron 17-50mm vs CZ 16-80mm

Page  123 4>
Author
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 3565
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Sony 16-50mm F2.8 vs Tamron 17-50mm vs CZ 16-80mm
    Posted: 24 September 2016 at 14:28
Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM
Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 DT Vario-Sonnar T*
Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical
Minolta AF 24-50mm F4
Minolta AF 24mm F2.8
Sony AF DT 30mm F2.8 Macro SAM
Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM
Sony DT 50mm F1.8 SAM

16 mm Center



16 mm Top Left



16 mm Bottom Right



18 mm Center


18 mm Top Left


18 mm Bottom Right


20 mm Center


20 mm Top Left


20 mm Bottom Right


24 mm Center


24 mm Top Left


24 mm Bottom Right


30 mm Center


30 mm Top Left


30 mm Bottom Right


30 mm f/5.6 Center


30 mm f/5.6 Top Left


30 mm f/5.6 Bottom Right


35 mm Center


35 mm Top Left


35 mm Bottom Right


50 mm Center


50 mm Top Left


50 mm Bottom Right


50 mm f/5.6 Center


50 mm f/5.6 Top Left


50 mm f/5.6 Bottom Right


It looks like I missed focus with the 16-50 at 50 mm. These clutched focus systems just don't allow tiny manual adjustments. The manual focus control on the 16-50 is a bit worse than the one on the 18-135. The optical performance is like a better, slightly wider version of the Tamron 17-50--sharper wide-open, a bit more lateral CA.

Field of View and Distortion Comparisons
16-50 mm at 16 mm


16-80 mm at 16 mm


17-50 mm at 17 mm


18-135 mm at 18 mm


50 mm F1.8


17-50 mm at 50 mm


16-50 mm at 50 mm


Edited by QuietOC - 12 October 2016 at 15:19
Sony A7RIV LA-EA5
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9
 



Back to Top
kaval View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 03 September 2016
Country: India
Status: Offline
Posts: 15
Post Options Post Options   Quote kaval Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 September 2016 at 13:13
Many thanks for these detailed comparisons.

One query: In which range and aperture, you found Tamron 17-50 performing better than 16-50? What would you consider the sweet spot of Tamron 17-50?
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 3565
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 September 2016 at 13:44
I don't see this Tamron 17-50 performing anywhere better than this Sony 16-50 except for showing less lateral chromatic aberration. The 50 mm shots here look a little better with the Tamron, but I suspect I missed focus a bit on the Sony. I'll probably redo those and see if I get different results.
Sony A7RIV LA-EA5
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9
Back to Top
kaval View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 03 September 2016
Country: India
Status: Offline
Posts: 15
Post Options Post Options   Quote kaval Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 September 2016 at 16:00
Okay. I look forward to your results.
Back to Top
seeky View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 31 January 2012
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
Post Options Post Options   Quote seeky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 September 2016 at 10:20
Very good test indeed.
I did a similar test with the Minolta 28-105 RS, 18-55, 35 f1.8 SAM and 16-50 f2.8 and the 16-50 f2.8 clearly came out on top. The 35mm f1.8 seemed a hair better stopped down past f4, but it was almost impossible to see.
This lens is one of the reason I'm using it on the A6300 since there's no equivalent E-mount zoom lens.

Edited by seeky - 26 September 2016 at 10:38
Back to Top
kaval View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 03 September 2016
Country: India
Status: Offline
Posts: 15
Post Options Post Options   Quote kaval Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 September 2016 at 10:22
Originally posted by seeky seeky wrote:

Very good test indeed.
I did a similar test with the Minolta 28-105 RS, 18-55, 35 f1.8 SAM and 16-50 f2.8 and the 16-50 clearly came out on top. The 35mm f1.8 seemed a hair better stopped down past f4, but it was almost impossible to see.
This lens is one of the reason I'm using it on the A6300 since there's no equivalent E-mount zoom lens.


Good to know your findings.

How about pz 16-50 E mount? How did it compare to 16-50/2.8?
 



Back to Top
seeky View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 31 January 2012
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
Post Options Post Options   Quote seeky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 September 2016 at 10:39
Originally posted by kaval kaval wrote:

Originally posted by seeky seeky wrote:

Very good test indeed.
I did a similar test with the Minolta 28-105 RS, 18-55, 35 f1.8 SAM and 16-50 f2.8 and the 16-50 clearly came out on top. The 35mm f1.8 seemed a hair better stopped down past f4, but it was almost impossible to see.
This lens is one of the reason I'm using it on the A6300 since there's no equivalent E-mount zoom lens.


Good to know your findings.

How about pz 16-50 E mount? How did it compare to 16-50/2.8?


I don't have the PZ 16-50, only the 16-50 f2.8. I should have been more clear. At that time, I only tested A-mount lenses.
Back to Top
kaval View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 03 September 2016
Country: India
Status: Offline
Posts: 15
Post Options Post Options   Quote kaval Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 September 2016 at 10:41
How is the performance of autofocus when you attach 16-50 to a6300 via an adapter? Is there any loss of light? do you use AF or manual adapter?
Back to Top
seeky View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 31 January 2012
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
Post Options Post Options   Quote seeky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 September 2016 at 11:34
The AF performance is very good, except for AF during continuous drive where it doesn't seem to refocus between frames.
I use the A6300 with the LA-EA3 and AF performance is better than the A57 for example.
There is no loss of light with the LA-EA1 or 3 adapter. With LA-EA2/4 you have a little bit of light loss and you lose the on sensor PDAF system.
All these adapters are AF adapters on the A6300. the difference between LA-EA1/2 and 3/4 is that the 3/4 are suitable for full-frame and only the 1/3 adapters utilize the on sensor PDAF.
Back to Top
nandbytes View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 09 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: London
Status: Offline
Posts: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Quote nandbytes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 September 2016 at 12:25
Originally posted by kaval kaval wrote:



Good to know your findings.

How about pz 16-50 E mount? How did it compare to 16-50/2.8?


One is a constant f/2.8 zoom and other is a compact variable aperture pancake zoom. basically what you gain in size and price here you lose both in light (f-stop) and quality/sharpness.

16-50mm f/2.8 is a pretty sharp lens across the zoom range across the frame unlike SEL 16-50.
my flickr
A7IV, G100, GM5, G5xii, DJI Air2s
Back to Top
kaval View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 03 September 2016
Country: India
Status: Offline
Posts: 15
Post Options Post Options   Quote kaval Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 September 2016 at 12:30
Originally posted by seeky seeky wrote:

The AF performance is very good, except for AF during continuous drive where it doesn't seem to refocus between frames.
I use the A6300 with the LA-EA3 and AF performance is better than the A57 for example.
There is no loss of light with the LA-EA1 or 3 adapter. With LA-EA2/4 you have a little bit of light loss and you lose the on sensor PDAF system.
All these adapters are AF adapters on the A6300. the difference between LA-EA1/2 and 3/4 is that the 3/4 are suitable for full-frame and only the 1/3 adapters utilize the on sensor PDAF.


Okay.

I have heard that when using LA-EA1 or 3 adapter, AF speed is slow as compared to EA2/4. Is it true?
Back to Top
seeky View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 31 January 2012
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
Post Options Post Options   Quote seeky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 September 2016 at 12:59
Originally posted by kaval kaval wrote:

Originally posted by seeky seeky wrote:

The AF performance is very good, except for AF during continuous drive where it doesn't seem to refocus between frames.
I use the A6300 with the LA-EA3 and AF performance is better than the A57 for example.
There is no loss of light with the LA-EA1 or 3 adapter. With LA-EA2/4 you have a little bit of light loss and you lose the on sensor PDAF system.
All these adapters are AF adapters on the A6300. the difference between LA-EA1/2 and 3/4 is that the 3/4 are suitable for full-frame and only the 1/3 adapters utilize the on sensor PDAF.


Okay.

I have heard that when using LA-EA1 or 3 adapter, AF speed is slow as compared to EA2/4. Is it true?


That is not true for the A6300, according to my findings; it is true for the A6000. However, this seems lens specific. I've found that the 35 f1.8 SAM is not as fast with the LA-EA3 compared to the LA-EA4.
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 3565
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 September 2016 at 13:41
I am a little annoyed that I bought this lens without the hood. I knew the original hood was rare and expensive. There are tons of cheap clones of the little mostly useless ALC-SH108 hood for the 18-55--maybe since it is identical to the first Minolta 28-80 hood. Does anyone know of a good alternative for the 16-50? Is there another Minolta/Sony with an identical hood? The hood from the Sigma 28-105 F2.8-4 can almost be forced on (The Sigma is 3 lobed instead of 2 lobed, but the diameter is identical.)
Sony A7RIV LA-EA5
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8 8.5/1.9 11.5/9
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 4023
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 September 2016 at 14:19
72mm filter size seems a bit uncommon nowadays; maybe the Sigma 28-200mm hood would fit?
I found the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di hood fitted my Minolta 24-105mm (though the hood angle was wrong for the wide end), and that had a bayonet rather like the Sony, so maybe a Tamron one might fit as well? I ended up with a collapsible rubber hood on the 24-105 and I'm happy with that.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A7Rii, A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras ...
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.