Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Juanito on August 14, 2012, 10:26:32 pm
-
I recently picked up the NEX 7 along with a 16mm. All I could find was a refurbished version since everyone (reputable) is out of stock with the new ones. Now I know that the Sony 16mm isn't the sharpest lens in the bag, but the results I'm seeing are not pretty. I'm wondering if maybe mine is a little out of whack and that maybe I should try another. Or are they all this bad?
These were shot at f2.8
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-vG6HVfx/0/L/i-vG6HVfx-L.jpg)
Here's a crop from the above:
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-vvQnnNW/0/L/i-vvQnnNW-L.jpg)
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-mnj4b4f/0/L/i-mnj4b4f-L.jpg)
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-5f2JgD4/0/XL/i-5f2JgD4-XL.jpg)
Does anyone have some samples that they can post so that I can compare?
Thanks,
John
-
Hi,
Check out http://kurtmunger.com/nex_16mm_f_2_8_reviewid201.html
Best regards
Erik
-
Thanks. I looked at that review before I bought the lens. I'd be happy with the results that he got, but my images just seem to be soft all the way through. The lens is basically unusable for anything approaching critical work.
John
-
I value the photozone reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/728-sony16f28nex7?start=1
Based on this review, I would never have bought this lens. Your copy looks bad, but I suspect that even if it were fixed you would still be unhappy with it.
-
Not to appear overly facetious, that's why I only use legacy lenses with my NEX. Much cheaper, also.
-
It almost looks like it's not focusing at all. Is it?
The first gallery at this link (http://www.bangkokimages.com/Galleries/Ayutthaya.aspx)is 100% from that lens. I find it more than acceptable.
-
It almost looks like it's not focusing at all. Is it?
The first gallery at this link (http://www.bangkokimages.com/Galleries/Ayutthaya.aspx)is 100% from that lens. I find it more than acceptable.
What fstop were the photos shot at? They do look good but it's also really hard to judge any image at web resolution.
John
-
Here's an image shot with the 16mm at f2.8. At web size, it looks okay.
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-HRCcLzV/0/L/i-HRCcLzV-L.jpg)
Here's a crop at f11 right from the center. Not horrible.
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-PVNQ59C/0/L/i-PVNQ59C-L.jpg)
At f8 the lens seems to hit its sweet spot.
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-CC7Sq3B/0/L/i-CC7Sq3B-L.jpg)
f5.6 still doing pretty good
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-SjcSpxf/0/L/i-SjcSpxf-L.jpg)
f4... uh oh
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-4CbTPLW/0/L/i-4CbTPLW-L.jpg)
f2.8... train wreck
(http://johnphoton.smugmug.com/photos/i-CRsXGCN/0/L/i-CRsXGCN-L.jpg)
John
-
What fstop were the photos shot at? They do look good but it's also really hard to judge any image at web resolution.
John
Most were at F5.6. I attached a few 1:1 crops of those gallery images titled so you could match the web image.
I'll agree it's hard to judge slight differences in well focused images at web resolution, but the examples you provided makes it very easy to see something is amiss.
Good luck.
-
Wow, I think my RX100 is better than even the "good" samples.
-
Wow, I think my RX100 is better than even the "good" samples.
Comments like this illustrate why I rarely give feedback in threads such as these. The variables being compared with the OP's images and the samples have more than enough differences to make a response potentially irrelevant, but this comment with zero commonalities (focal length, sensor, lenses, subject matter, etc, etc,) other than they're both cameras, leave you wondering if the posters exuberance with a new camera just got the best of him, or if he's somehow taking himself seriously.
-
Wow, I think my RX100 is better than even the "good" samples.
This lens makes even a Holga look sharp.
John
-
Comments like this illustrate why I rarely give feedback in threads such as these. The variables being compared with the OP's images and the samples have more than enough differences to make a response potentially irrelevant, but this comment with zero commonalities (focal length, sensor, lenses, subject matter, etc, etc,) other than they're both cameras, leave you wondering if the posters exuberance with a new camera just got the best of him, or if he's somehow taking himself seriously.
Steve, I have been photographing with "real" cameras for well over 45 years, a number of those professionally. I stand by my comment (which referred to the samples with the cars, not the OP's images).
-
I read the Nex 16 was junk for a prime. Sad really. The other lenses are supposed to be better.
-
I posted a quickie lens comparison between the Sigma 19mm, the Sony 16mm and various Nikon lenses here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69758.0). Once my local camera shop gets the Sony 16mm back in stock, I'm going to test it out to see if my unit was an especially bad one.
John