I have a 16-50 that I brought second hand for a little under half price. So a good deal there.
I brought it so I could have a good WR walk around lens for when I travel. I have recently returned from a 3 week trip to the Nordic countries where I took the 16-50 as my main walk around lens (also had a 55-300. 35/2.8 limited and 21 limited with me). I was very pleased to have the 16-50 on the wet days, and also indoors in low light where I wanted 16mm wide. I also have a 14mm prime, but decided the 16-50 was sufficient to cover wide, and left the 14 behind.
I was happy with the shots I got with the 16-50. I have attached 4 examples below - two from the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Helsinki, one from the Lutheran Cathedral in Turku and one from the Castle in Turku, Finland. The point being the stuff we often complain about with lenses isn't as relevant when shooting real world, or at looking shots taken. Shots are all 16MP Jpeg with very minor PP
Of the 5100 shots I have currently taken with the 16-50, 1722 (33%) have been at f2.8 - mainly indoors and many in low light in various forts, castles, churches and palaces on the recent trip to Finland, Estonia, Sweden and Denmark.
Whilst I know the 16-50 has a lot of detractors, like all things - it is a matter of the compromises on the day with the lenses at your disposal.
I have found in real world use the 16-50 holds up reasonable well. It clearly isn't as sharp as my 35/2.8 limited, and has no where near the micro-contrast detail of my Zeiss 35/2 but then the 35's have compromises as well, as they often aren't wide enough, and nor are they WR.
Last edited by NZ_Ross; 07-07-2012 at 07:17 PM.