It's official! Sony couldn't fix the NEX lens problem.
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: RichA on 3 Jun 2010 17:44 Could probably get away with the 16mm at f2.8 in a pinch, but it isn't in the same league as better micro 4/3rds lenses. There is a limit of what you can do with a set amount of funds, and Sony needs to spend more and make the 16mm more expensive so it can do a proper job. There is a reason a Zeiss 21mm for a FF camera costs what it does. The Sony lens at f8.0 is passable, but the CA is severe and not correctable in software, IMO. The blurring at f2.8 at the edges is also bad, enough so you'd clearly see it on any decent sized print. IMO, this lens will be used like the crappy Sigma 30mm f1.4-centrally, and not for work requiring good edge definition. But again, bear in mind the camera and lens are very inexpensive. http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/332210.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1275601948&Signature=BnmoQBPHJlsm639GzN1O0UoGoG8%3d
From: Paul Furman on 3 Jun 2010 21:21 RichA wrote: > > http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/332210.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1275601948&Signature=BnmoQBPHJlsm639GzN1O0UoGoG8%3d Bad link.
From: Bowser on 4 Jun 2010 12:09 "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6933c9b8-147e-49fb-949a-fb3c63c82055(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > Could probably get away with the 16mm at f2.8 in a pinch, but it isn't > in the same league as better micro 4/3rds lenses. There is a limit of > what you can do with a set amount of funds, and Sony needs to spend > more and make the 16mm more expensive so it can do a proper job. > There is a reason a Zeiss 21mm for a FF camera costs what it does. > The Sony lens at f8.0 is passable, but the CA is severe and not > correctable in software, IMO. The blurring at f2.8 at the edges is > also bad, enough so you'd clearly see it on any decent sized print. > IMO, this lens will be used like the crappy Sigma 30mm f1.4-centrally, > and not for work requiring good edge definition. But again, bear in > mind the camera and lens are very inexpensive. > > http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/332210.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1275601948&Signature=BnmoQBPHJlsm639GzN1O0UoGoG8%3d > Man, that is amazingly bad for a fixed focal length lens. Maybe Sony shoulda stayed in bed with Zeiss.
From: David Ruether on 4 Jun 2010 12:47 "Bowser" <badda(a)bing.com> wrote in message news:gz9On.282$5N3.161(a)bos-service2b.ext.ray.com... > "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6933c9b8-147e-49fb-949a-fb3c63c82055(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> Could probably get away with the 16mm at f2.8 in a pinch, but it isn't >> in the same league as better micro 4/3rds lenses. There is a limit of >> what you can do with a set amount of funds, and Sony needs to spend >> more and make the 16mm more expensive so it can do a proper job. >> There is a reason a Zeiss 21mm for a FF camera costs what it does. >> The Sony lens at f8.0 is passable, but the CA is severe and not >> correctable in software, IMO. The blurring at f2.8 at the edges is >> also bad, enough so you'd clearly see it on any decent sized print. >> IMO, this lens will be used like the crappy Sigma 30mm f1.4-centrally, >> and not for work requiring good edge definition. But again, bear in >> mind the camera and lens are very inexpensive. >> >> [URL deleted - it didn't work...] > Man, that is amazingly bad for a fixed focal length lens. Maybe Sony shoulda stayed in bed with Zeiss. Even a good maker can have a "bad day"...;-( Nikon replaced their unequivocally wonderful 16mm f3.5 FF MF fisheye (it's "snappy" and sharp to the corners wide open with no illumination roll-off at infinity focus - and it is even first-rate on the TC14A stopped down only one stop), with the relatively very poor 16mm f2.8 FF MF/AF fisheye (it's soft at the edges/corners until nearly f11, although it is tad wider...;-). The MF 16mm f3.5 and the 28mm f4 PC Nikkors would be the last of my many lenses if I ever sold most of them off (although I do also like very much some other Nikkors I have...;-). There is more on this here -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. --David Ruether www.donferrario.com/ruether d_ruether(a)hotmail.com
From: Bowser on 4 Jun 2010 15:09
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:47:22 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote: > >"Bowser" <badda(a)bing.com> wrote in message news:gz9On.282$5N3.161(a)bos-service2b.ext.ray.com... >> "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6933c9b8-147e-49fb-949a-fb3c63c82055(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > >>> Could probably get away with the 16mm at f2.8 in a pinch, but it isn't >>> in the same league as better micro 4/3rds lenses. There is a limit of >>> what you can do with a set amount of funds, and Sony needs to spend >>> more and make the 16mm more expensive so it can do a proper job. >>> There is a reason a Zeiss 21mm for a FF camera costs what it does. >>> The Sony lens at f8.0 is passable, but the CA is severe and not >>> correctable in software, IMO. The blurring at f2.8 at the edges is >>> also bad, enough so you'd clearly see it on any decent sized print. >>> IMO, this lens will be used like the crappy Sigma 30mm f1.4-centrally, >>> and not for work requiring good edge definition. But again, bear in >>> mind the camera and lens are very inexpensive. >>> >>> [URL deleted - it didn't work...] > >> Man, that is amazingly bad for a fixed focal length lens. Maybe Sony shoulda stayed in bed with Zeiss. > >Even a good maker can have a "bad day"...snip... Agreed, but this one has "turkey" written all over it. The released it to the testers, got hammered, claimed they were all pre-productions samples, and then they release this? And the zoom looks bad, as well. I'm afraid these two lenses, combined with the utterly horrible control system on the NEX cams might do nothing but sell a ton of m4/3 cams. I had hoped for something good, but they worked so hard to make it small they made it unusable. |