joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Just recently I purchased what DXOMark lists as one of Sony's worst lenses, the 16-50 kit lens (APS-C). I believe it is 2nd or 3rd from the bottom. I had it before but sold it along with the A6300 last year when the A7R3 arrived.

I also have some of Sony's best lenses so I know what excellent optical quality is. All are relatively big, heavy and expensive.

I expect that DXO rates each lens without any digital enhancement, as well they should.

However if you post process, as I do with sophisticated software characteristics such as distortion, sharpness, color, chromatic aberration, vignette, and more can be adjusted.

My lens is the international version and I paid less than half of the USA one. Spare me the pros and cons, I know the difference. At the price I paid if it breaks I discard it and get another, although in 50 years plus I never had a failure or mishap, USA or Gray Market and I've had a few.

This is my go to lens for the A6400. The processed images are great and I believe that most people would hard pressed criticize its apparent DXO short comings from the image.

I'm sure my opinion may ruffle the feathers of the hard core among us, but so be it. Spend your money any way you like.

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

Good report, Joe. I have that little lens and I'm glad to hear you like it, too. A lot is subjective in photography. Skill of the photographer, processing, lighting and conditions such as weather all go into the making of a good shot. I'm sure some of the super expensive lenses produce a quality that would be hard to imitate but for most purposes, decent equipment in skilled hands will win out!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I agree completely. Many of the images from the Masters are technically imperfect and yet they are admired, respected, imitated and fetch enormous amounts of money.

repleo Loc: Boston

The 16-50 came as a kit lens with my A6000. Even though I have thousands of dollars of FF and APS-C Sony lenses now, I still use the 16-50 regularly. I think for what it is, it is a marvel. Very light and compact and with power zoom. Granted, it would not be my first choice if I was going out on a mission with expectations of getting a 'great' shot, but it is perfect for when I want a walk-around combo I can carry in my pocket.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Pardon me if I missed something, but as I read your post, it appears you had an A6300 with the 16-50 lens, and sold the combination when you got the A7R3. Next you say you have an A6400, and, I assume, another 16-50 lens. So I’m assuming you got two cameras, the A6400 and the A7R3? I think I got that right. So, that being said, I have to agree that, despite where DXO rates the 16-50, I find that it is a decent lens. My A6300 came with that lens, as well as the 55-210, another lens that seems to be underrated. However, I purchased the Sony 18-135 lens earlier this year, and I consider it to be superior to the 16-50, and is only 2mm short of covering everything the 16-50 does.

jcboy3

You can take a good picture with a bad lens, but the image quality will not be what makes it a good picture.

I hate using crap lenses.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I have never put much value on DXO scores are for that matter, any lens test reporting.
I only know one thing, and that is DXO cannot take the photo for me. It will always come down to the skill and knowledge of the photographer.
I remember once the late great Arnold Palmer took a used banged up set of clubs from a patron and went out and shot under par with them to prove a point, and that point was, experience and practice beats the best equipment EVERY TIME.

Canisdirus

You are correct in that post processing will help your kit lens....
It's just that you need to post process to get where other lenses are ... out of the box.
Now there are a few Sony 'kit' lenses that are pretty good.... the 18-135mm comes to mind.

But you will still be playing catch up.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Post processing is not playing catch up. Its as important as getting it as right as possible in the camera. I don't take images, I make them.

I tried the 18-135 lens and found the center to be very sharp and the edges and corners less so. I almost bought it but it would have been some what redundant in my kit...besides I have a full compliment in FF lenses.

The appeal of the 16-50 for me is not the image quality (all my others lens are far better)...its the size. Mounted on a small camera its ideal for candid photography.

Canisdirus

Well, if you don't care about image quality... you are in a very...very small category of photographers.
But for the rest of us.... it counts.
There's a reason why some lenses cost more than others..... image quality.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

When I want a lens, something uncommon for me these days, I do my own testing. If I like what I see that is it and I keep the lens. Case in point is the Olympus 17mm f2.8. a lens that has many unfavorable reports but it has done its job for me.
Before I go any further let me tell you that today, with the excellent technologies available to all lens manufacturers it is very difficult to buy a lemon. There is always the possibility of decentering while in route due to a fall or a blow but that is kind of unusual.
DXO gave very poor ratings to the Nikon 85mm f1.4 portrait lens and it has been one of the most used portrait lenses by professionals to the point that they call it "the cream machine."

If you are satisfied with the performance of your Sony 16-50 that is what is important and the rest is irrelevant.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

My a6000 came with the 18-55 and 55-210 lenses. And until I bought an 18-105/f4, they served me well and still do, on occasion. There are DXO comparative test results that I casually pay attention to, but the total score they assign can be misleading imho.

puku8849

Here we go again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1MfQKPcDBs&t=1384s

markwilliam1

Are you referring to the Sony 16-50mm SSM f2.8 lens? I think it’s Wonderful!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

No, the e-mount f3.5/5.6.