A lens so awful the image looks like it came from a mid-level superzoom P&S
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: RichA on 14 Jun 2010 17:24 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#899406266_4L9BH-O-LB
From: Val Hallah on 15 Jun 2010 02:32 On Jun 15, 5:40 am, Robert Coe <b...(a)1776.COM> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:24:58 -0700 (PDT), 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 > : 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... > > Rich, you've convinced me: it's a crappy lens. You've made your point three or > four times. But I've never seen the lens and probably never will. And I've > never seen the camera it goes on and probably never will. So do I have to care > whether it's any good? And if so, why? > > Bob http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286547/The-mane-attraction-Briton-scoops-Frances-photography-award-amazing-horse-picture.html
From: Eric Stevens on 15 Jun 2010 20:21 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:46:40 +0200, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(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#899406266_4L9BH-O-LB > >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
From: RichA on 15 Jun 2010 21:43 On Jun 15, 6:46 am, 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. > > -- > Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com Why? Because it's compact?
From: RichA on 15 Jun 2010 21:44
On Jun 14, 11:40 pm, Robert Coe <b...(a)1776.COM> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:24:58 -0700 (PDT), 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 > : 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... > > Rich, you've convinced me: it's a crappy lens. You've made your point three or > four times. But I've never seen the lens and probably never will. And I've > never seen the camera it goes on and probably never will. So do I have to care > whether it's any good? And if so, why? > > Bob Why never? They sell Sony's everywhere. You'll see it. |