Putting e=mount lenses in perspective

Started Jan 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
Ron Parr
Forum ProPosts: 13,753
Like?
Oh really?
In reply to Mike Fewster, Jan 18, 2012

Mike Fewster wrote:

Ron Parr wrote:

The 16mm 2.8 has issues that are measurable and quantifiable, and these things have been measured and quantified by sites such as photozone.

As you well know and repeatedly refuse to consider, the issues quantified by Photozone related mainly to the edges. This is an issue relating to wa and flange distance. It was addressed in the later Nex models by adjusting the microlenses.In mft they use lots of in camera correction to addres the same issue with these wa lenses. If you must continue with this line, you are either writing from ignorance or with the intention of trolling. If you wish to discuss the current performance of the lens, why not have a look at the many images that have been posted here with that lens and the 5n and indicate the shortcomings you wish to point out.

Oh please... You think that the 16mm has sharp edges on the 5N and that anybody who thinks otherwise is a troll?

-- hide signature --
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