Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even put vintage Minolta lenses alongside modern Sony lenses. These lenses also notoriously cripple the focal range of the Sony FF cameras, making them even more unwanted.
+
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even added some vintage Minolta lenses alongside modern Sony lenses. These lenses also notoriously cripple the focal range of the Sony FF cameras, making them even more unwanted. They work on the FF cameras but I'd never cripple an a7.
-
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma. The big three finally took note of those of us with EF, Minolta A-mount/Sony A-Mount, and nice E-mount lenses who don't need a disposable lens in the mirrorless era and are selling body-only with the option to adapt solid lenses like the Minolta beercan to bodies like the a7 and taking advantage of that lens in a way the film era never let original owners do unless you were shooting professional film like Portra or Fuji Acros.
+
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s (EF), and APS-C (EF-S) era like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you can usually replace the lens for the same price as the repair and upgrade to a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma or Tamron. The big three finally took note of this for those of us with EF, Minolta A-mount/Sony A-Mount, and nice E-mount lenses who don't need the 16-50 lens and will sell the cameras body only even on the lower end. Sony either lets you use E mount you own, or the option to adapt solid lenses like the Minolta beercan to bodies like the a7 and taking advantage of some of these lenses in a way the film era never let original owners do unless you were shooting professional film like Portra or Fuji Acros.
-
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has to emulate a P&S lens. It's more of a dumb gimmick then anything else since mirrorless cameras are not pocket-sized due to the fragility of the lens mount, even the metal mounts like the 6100 and up. Plastic ones are even more fragile, which is used on the 5x00 and 6000 cameras unless they are owner modified with the metal mount upgrade as I have done to my grey market 6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
+
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has to emulate a P&S lens. It's more of a dumb gimmick then anything else since mirrorless cameras are not pocket-sized due to the fragility of the lens mount, even the metal mounts like the 6100 and up. Plastic ones are even more fragile, which is used on the 5x00 and 6000 cameras unless they are owner modified with the metal mount upgrade as I have done to my grey market 6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier to find. You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even put vintage Minolta lenses alongside modern Sony lenses. These lenses also notoriously cripple the focal range of the Sony FF cameras, making them even more unwanted.
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma. The big three finally took note of those of us with EF, Minolta A-mount/Sony A-Mount, and nice E-mount lenses who don't need a disposable lens in the mirrorless era and are selling body-only with the option to adapt solid lenses like the Minolta beercan to bodies like the a7 and taking advantage of that lens in a way the film era never let original owners do unless you were shooting professional film like Portra or Fuji Acros.
-
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
+
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has to emulate a P&S lens. It's more of a dumb gimmick then anything else since mirrorless cameras are not pocket-sized due to the fragility of the lens mount, even the metal mounts like the 6100 and up. Plastic ones are even more fragile, which is used on the 5x00 and 6000 cameras unless they are owner modified with the metal mount upgrade as I have done to my grey market 6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta. These lenses also notoriously cripple the focal range of the Sony FF cameras, making them even more unwanted.
+
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even put vintage Minolta lenses alongside modern Sony lenses. These lenses also notoriously cripple the focal range of the Sony FF cameras, making them even more unwanted.
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma. The big three finally took note of those of us with EF, Minolta A-mount/Sony A-Mount, and nice E-mount lenses who don't need a disposable lens in the mirrorless era and are selling body-only with the option to adapt solid lenses like the Minolta beercan to bodies like the a7 and taking advantage of that lens in a way the film era never let original owners do unless you were shooting professional film like Portra or Fuji Acros.
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta.
+
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta. These lenses also notoriously cripple the focal range of the Sony FF cameras, making them even more unwanted.
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma. The big three finally took note of those of us with EF, Minolta A-mount/Sony A-Mount, and nice E-mount lenses who don't need a disposable lens in the mirrorless era and are selling body-only with the option to adapt solid lenses like the Minolta beercan to bodies like the a7 and taking advantage of that lens in a way the film era never let original owners do unless you were shooting professional film like Portra or Fuji Acros.
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta.
-
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma. The big three finally took note of those of us with EF, Minolta A-mount/Sony A-Mount, and nice E-mount lenses who don't need a disposable lens in the mirrorless era and are selling body-only with the option to adapt solid lenses like the Minolta beercan to bodies like the a7 and taking advantage of that lens in a way the film era never let original owners do.
+
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma. The big three finally took note of those of us with EF, Minolta A-mount/Sony A-Mount, and nice E-mount lenses who don't need a disposable lens in the mirrorless era and are selling body-only with the option to adapt solid lenses like the Minolta beercan to bodies like the a7 and taking advantage of that lens in a way the film era never let original owners do unless you were shooting professional film like Portra or Fuji Acros.
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta.
-
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma.
+
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma. The big three finally took note of those of us with EF, Minolta A-mount/Sony A-Mount, and nice E-mount lenses who don't need a disposable lens in the mirrorless era and are selling body-only with the option to adapt solid lenses like the Minolta beercan to bodies like the a7 and taking advantage of that lens in a way the film era never let original owners do.
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta.
+
+
These share the same traits as common Canon entry-level lenses from the '80s, the '90s, and APS-C eras like the 18-55; there are so many copies to go around that you toss the lens or buy an actual lens like a proper 1st party or high-end Sigma.
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta.
-
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade/
+
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta.
-
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.
+
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.n You gain more then you lose in the slight premium with the E-mount 18-55 upgrade/
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which ends up meaning there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition, or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera, or even vintage Minolta.
+
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which means there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera or even vintage Minolta.
-
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has which emulates a P&S lens which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocketsized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000.
+
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has, which emulates a P&S lens, which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket-sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000. You end up gaining more by ditching this lens, notably being able to use much larger lens filters, which makes things like UV filters a million times easier.
Honestly, the 16-50 is so common that it's almost as much to replace it as it costs to repair it due to how cheap and plentiful they are. Most camera shops will also tell you this. This is an APS-C kit lens, which ends up meaning there are millions of copies to go around that work and end up being in near-mint condition, or only shot a few times before someone stuck good glass on the camera, or even vintage Minolta.
I would look in a camera shop and see how low you can go; don't pay more than $90 for this lens. You can get better lenses like the E mount 18-55 for not much more, but you lose the mechanical pull-in feature the 16-50 has which emulates a P&S lens which is honestly a dumb feature given these are not pocket sized cameras and have the lens mount fragility to boot until you get to the a6100 or modified 5x00 and 6000 cameras like I have done on my grey market a6000.