Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I've been motivated to write this review because I've used this lens on my NEX-6, and find many of the negative reviews here more a statement of photographer competence or expectations than valid criticism of the lens. Like so many people claiming competence to judge photographic equipment, they are big on technical gobble-de-gook, but are unwilling or unable to produce images that demonstrate the strengths or weaknesses of the equipment they review. My philosophy is, if you've captured a defect or an asset that impacts images, show it! I'm a simple guy who's sort of new to this game - I've been shooting professionally for only 53 years, since I got a driver's license - from 4x5 Speed Graphics through Leica M4P and Hasselblad, up through a pair of D7000s today. My video work has appeared on CBS Sunday Morning, local TV and many medical web sites; my stills have been on the business and feature pages of magazines and newspapers worldwide. I bought my NEX-6 to use my languishing Leica M mount lenses, and they are spectacular on the NEX-6. I bought the 16-50 with my NEX-6 because it was cheap when the combination was selling at $200 less than it is today. Now, for this lens. Let's be aware of what this lens is: A small, very light and very inexpensive lens spanning a wide range at a cost that has no parallels in size/weight/cost/quality. It's not a Zeiss or Leitz. It's a lens designed to produce good images in an essentially pocketable camera-lens combination, at a sub-$1000 price (NEX-6). And it does precisely that. It's a relatively slow (aperture-wise) compromise, and yes, it does require in-camera jpeg or post-processing (RAW images) to correct distortion at its widest setting. But it's really sharp. Can you hand-hold a 50mm lens at 1/15th, and get reliably sharp images? Well, thanks to the optical stabilization in this lens, you can. I uploaded a sample image of mountaineer-photographer Ed Webster at a book signing (you can buy it on Amazon), and as you will see, the image is SO SHARP you can read the manufacturer's branding on the inside right (your left!) earpiece of his reading glasses. I also submitted a shot of the Manhattan skyline from Hoboken - produced from a RAW image with no post-processing - and you can see every window detail on all the buildings, even across town to the Empire State building - across the frame. I can beat it with my Leica M lenses, which are faster by far. I can beat it with my 24mm f2 Canon FD. But not by much, and not that you would notice in a print 16x24 inches or smaller at normal viewing distance. If you buy a NEX camera of any type, I would strongly suggest you consider buying this lens with your selected body. When you are out to shoot a cover for National Geographic or Sports Illustrated, take it off and use a $1000-3000 prime lens. For everything else, like family and travel, it's more than competent for the task. I give it 4 stars only because, like all kit zooms, it's a compromise - but a VERY competent one that's likely to please you, and all who see its images.