Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 (Sony E)
Interesting link You2!


   It goes some of the way to me understanding what the hell and all is going on, but I still don't understand "why" when we have great new sensors and lenses that are sharp to the corners, all sorted out, that we seem to have invented new reasons to spoil it all! 

Dave's clichés
Quote:If I look at the NEX tests here at PZ with native Sony AF lenses, here are the results I get:
  • Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS: descent from 18 to 50 then pretty crappy after that.
  • Sony E 16mm f/2.8: probably the worse lens tested on this site.
  • Sony E 30mm f/3.5 macro: the worst result I've seen from a macro lens; center is good, but borders are abysmal.
  • Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS: good lens.
  • Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS: good from f/2.8 on; before that, borders are abysmal.
  • Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS: ok lens.
  • Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS PZ: one of the worst modern kit lens.
  • Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS: I take the previous line back: this one is a champion.
  • Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS: ok until 135mm if you close it down by 1 stop; after that it's abysmal.
As one can see, besides the 35mm f/1.8 and perhaps the 10-18, results are pretty poor.

There are also many holes in the lineup compared to what MFT and Fuji offer.

Furthermore, Sony seems to have one of the worse QC of any manufacturers.

Over the years, Sony have been releasing tons of new bodies, yet they didn't address the major issue: quality lenses (whether fast or slow) as well as a line-up covering most people's needs.

Even Samsung has a much better selection of quality glass.
You forgot the 24/1.8, the 20/2.8, the 16-70, the 18-105 (all of them not tested here) and the entire FE bunch. If I had been making inroads into the E-mount lineup, I would've picked the 16-35, the 50/55 (depends on whether I'd have an APS-C or FF body), and the 70-200.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)