08-25-2010, 01:10 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1282678157' post='2118']
Well, nice try but not so great ...
[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/542-sony16f28nex"]http://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/542-sony16f28nex[/url]
[/quote]
Hi Klaus, highly anticipated review for some of us who have been waiting years and years for a compact large(-ish) sensor wide angle prime (eff.20~28mm) combo. (i.e. coming from a 35mm Pentax ME Super + M20/4). The absolute results are not that great, but what about the relative result?
Let's look at the competitors:
Compact and Wide:
For example:
Ricoh GX/GR series
Panasonic DMC-LX series
Canon G/S series
Pros: small and relatively economic
Cons: small sensor (IQ and DOF control)
Compact, Wide and 4/3 Sensor
Option 1 - large, slow and expensive zooms which negate the 4/3 / μ4/3 experience
Option 2 - small, very slow and manual Voigtlaender 12mm lens
Compact, Wide and APS-C Sensor
Option 1 - Pentax DA15/4 Ltd - good lens/sensor IQ, compact, good build but somewhat limited brightness.
Option 2 - Super wideangle zooms (8-16, 10-20, 12-24, etc) - Large/heavy/dim.
Option 3 - Compact kit zooms (18-55 lenses) - Economic, lightweight, moderately fast (f/3.5@18mm).
Option 4 - Faster standard zooms (16/17/18-50/2.8 or 17-70/4 lenses) - Large/heavy/can be pricey.
135 Sensor Wideangles (ignoring the size of the bodies):
For example:
Voigtlaender 20/3.5 - compact, but some IQ problems
Canon 24/2.8 or Nikon 24/2.8 - good DOF control, relatively compact, IQ TBD
(Any others?)
So, to me the 2 closest competitors to the NEX 16/2.8 are the Pentax 15/4 and VL 20/4 on full frame. Since the price of the NEX 16/2.8 is 1/3~1/2 the prices of those 2 competitors and trumps them size...it seems actually great!
Frankly, I would like to see the Canon and Nikon 24/2.8 lenses tested on full frame. This type of lens / image size is the traditional wideangle benchmark for price/performance on film. Without these benchmarks, it's hard to understand the results of the unique wideangle primes that have recently been tested, such as NEX 16/2.8, Pentax 15/4, VL 20/3.5 (FF) and Zeiss 25/2.8. There has been a pattern of "not so great" conclusions on these lenses. My guess is there is a good chance that the traditional 24/2.8 lenses (on FF) won't fare better, which will change the subjective results of the lenses mentioned in the previous sentence.
Regards, Dave
Well, nice try but not so great ...
[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/542-sony16f28nex"]http://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/542-sony16f28nex[/url]
[/quote]
Hi Klaus, highly anticipated review for some of us who have been waiting years and years for a compact large(-ish) sensor wide angle prime (eff.20~28mm) combo. (i.e. coming from a 35mm Pentax ME Super + M20/4). The absolute results are not that great, but what about the relative result?
Let's look at the competitors:
Compact and Wide:
For example:
Ricoh GX/GR series
Panasonic DMC-LX series
Canon G/S series
Pros: small and relatively economic
Cons: small sensor (IQ and DOF control)
Compact, Wide and 4/3 Sensor
Option 1 - large, slow and expensive zooms which negate the 4/3 / μ4/3 experience
Option 2 - small, very slow and manual Voigtlaender 12mm lens
Compact, Wide and APS-C Sensor
Option 1 - Pentax DA15/4 Ltd - good lens/sensor IQ, compact, good build but somewhat limited brightness.
Option 2 - Super wideangle zooms (8-16, 10-20, 12-24, etc) - Large/heavy/dim.
Option 3 - Compact kit zooms (18-55 lenses) - Economic, lightweight, moderately fast (f/3.5@18mm).
Option 4 - Faster standard zooms (16/17/18-50/2.8 or 17-70/4 lenses) - Large/heavy/can be pricey.
135 Sensor Wideangles (ignoring the size of the bodies):
For example:
Voigtlaender 20/3.5 - compact, but some IQ problems
Canon 24/2.8 or Nikon 24/2.8 - good DOF control, relatively compact, IQ TBD
(Any others?)
So, to me the 2 closest competitors to the NEX 16/2.8 are the Pentax 15/4 and VL 20/4 on full frame. Since the price of the NEX 16/2.8 is 1/3~1/2 the prices of those 2 competitors and trumps them size...it seems actually great!
Frankly, I would like to see the Canon and Nikon 24/2.8 lenses tested on full frame. This type of lens / image size is the traditional wideangle benchmark for price/performance on film. Without these benchmarks, it's hard to understand the results of the unique wideangle primes that have recently been tested, such as NEX 16/2.8, Pentax 15/4, VL 20/3.5 (FF) and Zeiss 25/2.8. There has been a pattern of "not so great" conclusions on these lenses. My guess is there is a good chance that the traditional 24/2.8 lenses (on FF) won't fare better, which will change the subjective results of the lenses mentioned in the previous sentence.
Regards, Dave