07-19-2018, 03:37 PM
I'm no fan of "them standardzooms", but that's meant for the 18-55/2.8-4.
Although it's considered to be a great kit lens, it's too short and too long FL. Giving it 2 mm more wide makes a real difference and giving it 25 mm more tele, but not giving up speed at the tele side could well make a new real standard zoom. The 16-50/2.8 is nothing to write home about except it's price. So, if that's a serious zoom, we're talking again. And if it's coming also with real aperture ring and a C-position instead of the 18-55's black ring with no numbers on it - but can't be dialed by the front dial - all the better.
Although it's considered to be a great kit lens, it's too short and too long FL. Giving it 2 mm more wide makes a real difference and giving it 25 mm more tele, but not giving up speed at the tele side could well make a new real standard zoom. The 16-50/2.8 is nothing to write home about except it's price. So, if that's a serious zoom, we're talking again. And if it's coming also with real aperture ring and a C-position instead of the 18-55's black ring with no numbers on it - but can't be dialed by the front dial - all the better.