09-25-2010, 07:29 AM
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1283036016' post='2287']
I wonder whether that 3.5 star optics rating is justified. Looks like fairly low border resolution throughout to me... and on a further note, this seems to be a trend for that system.
[/quote]
Have found the Photozone review, rating and subjective comments about the Nex 18-55 lens to be accurate and helpful. The Nex kit zoom is indeed capable of superb results, as Klaus hinted, even if the numeric performance charts don't look exciting compared to other theoretically more perfect lenses. See this 100% size crop.
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
True, your own results may vary if you are not as careful as I was to use the (in some ways optimum) F8 aperture, a high ISO 800 setting to give me a fast 160th/second shutter speed, snap the picture when the model was not moving, a convenient carbon fiber tripod with ball head that cost more than the camera, and a $6 dollar eBay infrared remote release (However am not having much trouble meeting those conditions for most of my paid work). And maybe the lens would not be so great for that probably small percentage of your photos where the final print size is way bigger than 11x14 inches/30x40cm, or your clients have monitors with more than 3.5 million pixels, or the really important parts of the picture involve small details way out at the corners...
The Nex-5 with kit zoom has produced a higher percentage of icy-sharp photos for some non-obvious reasons. Can use the tripod way more often with the Nex in the field because the system is so light. The lightness doesn't simply allow me to carry the tripod more often in the field without problems or getting tired. It also lets me set my tripod ball-head to a light, easily movable friction setting without the camera "drooping" or moving when I take my hands away (thus no need to lock the tripod head before each photo). And the Sony sensor noise is low enough that ISO 800 has become my standard setting for the last month, even for wedding work. Sony should advertise its fairly sweet ISO 800 capability more.
Overall the high-ISO, light-and-tripod-ball-head-friendly Nex kit lets me use tripods and higher shutter speeds/smaller apertures more often, to give me great depth of field and make up for some of the lens wide-open weakness. The Nex lens exerts maybe 8 ounce-inches of torque on the ball head under the level, tripod-mounted camera. Am ending up with a higher percentage of sharp photos in the field than would be easily achievable with a huge, optically ferocious 85mm F1.4 lens (maybe 30 ounce-inches of tripod head torque) and/or my old medium format gear.
Thanks Klaus for giving us great hints about what's out there in camera land. And thanks also to Sony for putting clear and honest MTF/resolution information about their lenses on the web:
http://www.sony.jp/ichigan-e/products/SE...html#L1_30
It's a little harder than reading a Photozone review, but the usually-adequate optical resolution of the Nex 18-55mm lens and its relative corner performance is deducible from the Sony charts (but you don't get the nice Photozone info about bokeh, various chromatic aberrations, curvature of field, flare/fringing tendencies, focus speed, etc etc). Shame on all the other lens vendors that don't post MTF(sharpness) charts the way Sony and Sigma does now.
This is not meant as a harsh criticism of your comment, but rather am pointing out the non-obvious ways that a lens and camera system might contribute to a higher final percentage of good pictures than the narrowly-focused optical charts can suggest.
I wonder whether that 3.5 star optics rating is justified. Looks like fairly low border resolution throughout to me... and on a further note, this seems to be a trend for that system.
[/quote]
Have found the Photozone review, rating and subjective comments about the Nex 18-55 lens to be accurate and helpful. The Nex kit zoom is indeed capable of superb results, as Klaus hinted, even if the numeric performance charts don't look exciting compared to other theoretically more perfect lenses. See this 100% size crop.
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
True, your own results may vary if you are not as careful as I was to use the (in some ways optimum) F8 aperture, a high ISO 800 setting to give me a fast 160th/second shutter speed, snap the picture when the model was not moving, a convenient carbon fiber tripod with ball head that cost more than the camera, and a $6 dollar eBay infrared remote release (However am not having much trouble meeting those conditions for most of my paid work). And maybe the lens would not be so great for that probably small percentage of your photos where the final print size is way bigger than 11x14 inches/30x40cm, or your clients have monitors with more than 3.5 million pixels, or the really important parts of the picture involve small details way out at the corners...
The Nex-5 with kit zoom has produced a higher percentage of icy-sharp photos for some non-obvious reasons. Can use the tripod way more often with the Nex in the field because the system is so light. The lightness doesn't simply allow me to carry the tripod more often in the field without problems or getting tired. It also lets me set my tripod ball-head to a light, easily movable friction setting without the camera "drooping" or moving when I take my hands away (thus no need to lock the tripod head before each photo). And the Sony sensor noise is low enough that ISO 800 has become my standard setting for the last month, even for wedding work. Sony should advertise its fairly sweet ISO 800 capability more.
Overall the high-ISO, light-and-tripod-ball-head-friendly Nex kit lets me use tripods and higher shutter speeds/smaller apertures more often, to give me great depth of field and make up for some of the lens wide-open weakness. The Nex lens exerts maybe 8 ounce-inches of torque on the ball head under the level, tripod-mounted camera. Am ending up with a higher percentage of sharp photos in the field than would be easily achievable with a huge, optically ferocious 85mm F1.4 lens (maybe 30 ounce-inches of tripod head torque) and/or my old medium format gear.
Thanks Klaus for giving us great hints about what's out there in camera land. And thanks also to Sony for putting clear and honest MTF/resolution information about their lenses on the web:
http://www.sony.jp/ichigan-e/products/SE...html#L1_30
It's a little harder than reading a Photozone review, but the usually-adequate optical resolution of the Nex 18-55mm lens and its relative corner performance is deducible from the Sony charts (but you don't get the nice Photozone info about bokeh, various chromatic aberrations, curvature of field, flare/fringing tendencies, focus speed, etc etc). Shame on all the other lens vendors that don't post MTF(sharpness) charts the way Sony and Sigma does now.
This is not meant as a harsh criticism of your comment, but rather am pointing out the non-obvious ways that a lens and camera system might contribute to a higher final percentage of good pictures than the narrowly-focused optical charts can suggest.