There are a lot of people who hate the 16-50. But no one can deny that the 16-50 is one of a kind. Putting the APS-C camera a size smaller than many M43 kits. The lens I have does have the querk of being softest in the exteme corners wide open and at F8 as per the review but it is quite tolerable and f5.6 gives good performance.

I rated it a 10 on all counts because the "competition" is other kit lenses I've used from Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony...so keep that in context. It's not a Canon 24-70/2.8 to be sure, but it's the best kit lens I've ever used.This lens isn't specifically built for macro, with maximum magnification of 0.215x and a minimum close-focusing distance of around 9.8 inches. I went to primes instead, giving me the sharpness and better apperture, just to find me carrying 4 lenses around and getting more and more annoyed with changing lenses on the go. I would give the same advice. I like the handling of the 18-55mm better, but the extra 2mm at the wide end make a much bigger difference than the 5mm at the long end, plus the 16-50 is a LOT more compact. IQ wise they are very similar, and if you use them in their sweet spots the image quality is quite reasonable. For a collapsable kit lens that finally delivers on the Nex promise of compactness, I am extremely happy with this lens. It is stellar over the focal lengths that are most important to my shooting. YMMV.

I have an aftermarket lens hood and cap to replace the original cap that falls off easily: Fotasy Metal Screw-in Lens Hood + Lens Cap for Sony E-mount SELP1650 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Retractable Zoom Lens. Sixe is very good and on my NEX-6 it allows me to have the camera in a small belt pouch when out on my bike or walking which is great for an APSC camera with a zoom lens! As a kit lens, the Sony SELP1650 performance is still acceptable. It is compact, lightweight, and has a decent appearance. Although it suffered a lot from barrel distortion and light fall-off (vignetting/shading) at the wide-angle (at 16 mm), but if you only shoot in JPEG format, then the problems would not bother you at all. Its power zoom offers a smooth zooming experience for video recording. At the same time, the OSS is useful for shooting in low light condition and help a lot for stable video recording. The sharpness of photos may not please everyone here, but it won’t let you down (so much) neither.

Offers User-Friendly Operation

I'm also in the "neither" camp. I've used my 16-50 with my A6500 but I prefer my Sony 20/2.8 and haven't touched the zoom since I got the 20/2.8. Once you zoom to 35mm, distortion is reduced greatly, and the corners look very similar to the average. At 50mm, the average distortion across the entire frame is very close to zero, while there is a bit of pincushion distortion (less than 0.5%) at the edges of the frame.

Going slightly of subject here, but I think it's worth a mention, as you are looking for an 1650 replacement. I have the 1855, always had it, never used it, for several reasons. The lens can achieve a blur-free image easily at 1/10 second. Taking 1/6 second blur-free image is still possible if your hand is firm and steady enough. 1/5 and any slower shutter speed are challenging for me to take a blur-free image even though the OSS is on. More handheld night shots can be found in the bottom line section below. Bottom Line The camera received high praise for its excellent features, including WiFi and NFC, for the great image quality and fast operation (6/2014). Once again, the image results paired with the Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar 4/16-70 mm OSS are praised, while the 3.5-5.6/16-50 mm kit lens shows clear weaknesses. All in all, the Sony 's good price-performance ratio met with great satisfaction. It is a fantastic entry model for anyone looking for an SLR, even years after its release. Pair it with the Sony Vario Tessar T E 16 70mm lens for even better performance. Offers User-Friendly Operation I have tried both on my A6000. I like the handling and look of the 18-55, but I prefer the 16-50PZ since it's smaller and has the extra 2mm that I need since I enjoy taking photos of landscapes and buildings when I travel.Monochrome, Posterisation, Retro, Toy Camera Effect, Dynamic Tone, High-Key, Soft Focus, HDR Painting, Miniature Effect, Watercolour, Illustration, Sepia, Partial Colour So, if you are going for a new zoom lens anyway, why not get a really good one? It will cost you a bit more, yes, but it will feel like you've got a completely new camera. I've searched the internet and the best price I could find was here: http://www.eglobalcentral.eu/sony-af-e-16-70mm-f-4-za-oss-objektiv-sel-1670z.html The small, non-foldable viewfinder is bright and sharp, and the fast motorised zoom is adjustable. There is room for improvement when it comes to video recordings. The quality of the images with detailed and sharp photos is convincing. Also the easy handling can be named as the strength of the device. On the other hand, it was viewed more critically that the flash is a bit weak on the chest and red tones in videos are sometimes over-saturated. Cheap Sony A6000 Camera in the UK AF Assist Light, Built-in Flash, Microphone, Speaker, Hot shoe, Image Stabiliser, External Flash (optional) Well you seem to have the 50s covered . I find the SEL 50 1.8 OSS to be a good lens for low light and portraits. I use the Sigma 60/2.8 for a lot of things. For jobs that require a macro I use the Sony FE 90/2.8 G Macro OSS, but for my personal casual closeups I'll use an achromatic closeup lens on whatever lens I happen to be using. I also make frequent use of the Sony 20/2.8 for wide angle close-ups for it's short minimum focus distance and DOF that's deeper than my macro or the closeup lens.