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

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

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.

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

kaval wrote: 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.

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.

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?

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.)