There are currently 2 lenses available for the E-mount used by the Sony NEX cameras: a 16mm f/2.8 prime and a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 zoom. The 16mm kit is cheaper by about £40/$50 but here’s some reasons why I think you should opt for the 18-55 zoom:
- A fixed prime can open up a different world of photography but it can take some getting used to. If you’re not used to a fixed focal length, then you’re probably going to be disappointed with your NEX + 16mm kit
- I think 16mm is too wide for a prime lens. Portraits will look distorted and it gives you a very wide field-of-view which isn’t suitable for all types of subject. It’s also hard to really use the shallow depth-of-field that f/2.8 should give you when the focal length is 16mm.
- The 18-55 zoom is only 2mm longer at it’s widest setting, which is close enough to 16mm that you won’t know the difference
- The 18-55 zoom has a maximum aperture of f/3.5 at its widest setting, which really isn’t too far from the f/2.8 of the 16mm prime (only half a ‘stop’).
- We know that Sony (and more-than-likely Zeiss) will be broadening the E-mount lens range. We already know there an 18-200 zoom coming in September but most of the forthcoming lens are expected to be primes. So, by buying the 18-55 zoom now, you can get a better feeling for what type of prime focal length would suit your photography (in Lightroom, the Data plot plugin will help). Personally, it seems that a 28mm or 50mm prime would mostly suit me.
- The 18-55 zoom has turned in some fantastic photos so far so I don’t feel that I’m losing out on image quality
- The 18-55 zoom is going to hold its resale value. There’s a reason that 50mm f/1.7 primes are so cheap secondhand: they were the standard kit lens for many film cameras.
The 16mm prime does have the advantage of being very small and making the NEX very pocketable. However. within a year I don’t believe that the 16mm lens will be the best prime available so I’m saving my prime lens slot for a to-be-announced Sony or Zeiss prime.
Join in the discussion here on which lens you’ve chosen!
Good points and I totally agree. The difference between 3.5 and 2.8 is 2/3 of a stop, isn’t it?
You’re totally right, 2/3 stop difference. I was trying to work it out in my head when I should have just looked up this very informative wikipedia article!
I think you’ll find that AF in poor light will be very different between the two lenses. The 16mm will still focus long after the zoom can’t manage any more.
You’re right… a faster aperture is going to help the autofocus system, no doubt about it.
But the lens I want in my pocket right now is the 18-55 because the 16 f/2.8 still isn’t really fast enough to make a huge difference. Really I want a 30mm f/2, or a 50mm f/1.4 as they are the right focal length for my photography and they provide real low-light capability. Ultimately, the 16mm f/2.8 just doesn’t do it for me.
Of course, money no obstacle, I’d have got the twin lens kit and replaced the 16mm lens once some better primes come along