5n / 16 mm looks good to me

Started Jan 5, 2012 | Discussions thread
Magnus W
Contributing MemberPosts: 854
Re: 5n / 16 mm looks good to me
In reply to Mike Fewster, Jan 6, 2012

Mike Fewster wrote:

Magnus W wrote:

D Cox wrote:

I think a major cause of bad results from this lens is camera shake. Maybe Sony were being optimistic when they decided optical stabilisation would not be needed with this lens.

The lens design doesn't allow optical anti-shake. This is the case with many primes and a serious reason why in-camera stabilization is superior to in-lens (you have to have a stabilizing group, which will add one more compromise to your lens design).

Not having IBIS is one of the great drawbacks of NEX, methinks (currently I am enjoying Contax G 90/2.8 on the NEX-5 and I would love to be able to dial in the FL to an IBIS system)

This is dubious.

Which part?

The problem with ibis in small bodies and with large sensors is heat generated noise. The Oly IBIS seems to have considerable problems with this, especially as iso gets higher.

Reference on this?

Quite some time ago a Sony engineer gave this as the reason ibis wasn't used on the Nex. I think Panasonic came to the same conclusion.

Reference on this too please. My guess is that the thickness of the body was way more important, i.e. marketing reasons. Also, companies tend to use their patented technologies or technologies they have put marketing resources in. For Nikon/Canon (Panasonic to a lesser extent) to go in-body would be to admit they have been largely spreading FUD in their marketing all the time.

And any way, anti shake is of little use for lenses this wide.

Anti shake is of great value in any lens. In fact, I'd say it's at least as useful in wide lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow