From: Ray Fischer on 16 Jun 2010 02:29 RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects. >16mm Sony on the NEX 5. I'm still waiting for some person with access Get a life. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Rich on 16 Jun 2010 12:56 On Jun 16, 2:29 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects. > >16mm Sony on the NEX 5. I'm still waiting for some person with access > > Get a life. > Get a new slogan. That one hails from about 1992.
From: Rich on 16 Jun 2010 12:57 On Jun 15, 8:21 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:46:40 +0200, Robert Spanjaard > > <spamt...(a)arumes.com> wrote: > >On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:24:58 -0700, RichA wrote: > > >> Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects. > >> 16mm Sony on the NEX 5. I'm still waiting for some person with access > >> to PUT a decent, normal lens on the camera with an adapter (a 50mm > >> legacy prime would do) and see if the fault lies entirely with the lens > >> and not with the camera as well. > > >>http://www.antidotepictures.com/Photography/Sony-NEX/12495675_Axbi3#8.... > > >Looks like a bad lens for pixel peepers. > >Looks like a good lens for photographers. > > Working on the theory that any 16mm lens is better than none? > > Eric Stevens I'd use it like a 12mm f1.4 CCTV lens on a micro 4/3rds. Only the centre part of the image. Thank goodness for high pixel counts and the ability to crop so the 16mm lens is really a 24mm lens once you crop away the garbage.
From: Ray Fischer on 17 Jun 2010 03:17
Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 16, 2:29�am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> RichA �<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects. >> >16mm Sony on the NEX 5. �I'm still waiting for some person with access >> >> Get a life. > >Get a new slogan. Don't need to. > That one hails from about 1992. And still, here you are, same old pointless whining. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |