4 out of 10 points and not recommendedLight weightPoor image quality
Having had decades of experience with film SLRs, this lens came with my first dSLR (Sony A350).reviewed June 24th, 2009
The camera is fine, but the lens - what a disappointment. Might as well have stuck with a digital compact.
I've since replaced it with a Tamron 18-200. Not perfect by any means, but a considerable improvement on this Sony lens.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedSmall, light, pretty good IQIQ not outstanding
In absolute terms this lens is good but not outstanding. I also use a Nikon D7000 and that camera's 18-105 kit lens is quite noticeably better than this.reviewed June 7th, 2014 (purchased for $500)
However, I was one of the early buyers of the NEX7. I was a little disappointed with the camera and hugely disappointed with its 18-55 lens. A year or so later, after a lot of thought, I decided to buy this lens. That was indeed a good decision. This 16-50 is dramatically better in every respect of image quality. Plus, it's smaller and lighter; much more suitable for the NEX7 (bought it as a small, lightweight alternative to my Nikon).
Bottom line: it's a pretty good lens, but an absolute no-brainer if you are going for a Sony NEX camera.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedExcellent for the priceNone
Over the decades I've owned lots of cameras and lenses - good, bad and indifferent.reviewed June 7th, 2014
This is one of the better lenses I've owned and by far and away the best kit lens I've ever owned.
I'm simply amazed at how good it is given that Nikon bundle it with their DX DSLRs for such a low price.