[Klaus]

https://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha...ron1770f28

Good optically ... less so mechanically.

[Mistral75]

"Jackyl and Hyde", really? A member of the Kennedy clan?

[Klaus]

Ok, ok ;-)

[Rover]

Not a HR? :o

[Klaus]

We don't want to start an inflation of HRs, right? ;-)

[Rover]

Well, you don't often find optical properties like these in a consumer APS-C zoom, right? But of course, it's your call.

[toni-a]

Well, you don't often find optical properties like these in a consumer APS-C zoom, right? But of course, it's your call.

At least for me build quality is the first thing I care for, once a lens starts suffering serious wobbling its optical qualities will severely deteriorate. Even worse if it's fragile or prone to break, I have four broken 16-50......

[Klaus]

Well, you can't expect wonders from the 16-50mm - that's the cheapest lens on the market.
The Sony 18-55m is quite nice in terms of BQ, less so optically though.
The best shot for reasonable money in this arena is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8.

[Rover]

I'm keeping my Nikon 16-50 on the camera at all times. It's barely bigger than the mount adapter (when retracted, of course) and the image quality is fine.

[toni-a]

I'm keeping my Nikon 16-50 on the camera at all times. It's barely bigger than the mount adapter (when retracted, of course) and the image quality is fine.

that's what I used to say about Sony 16-50, till one day, collapse mechanism failed and I ended with a dead lens, bought same lens three times, every time same story....