Putting e=mount lenses in perspective

Started Jan 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
Ron Parr
Forum ProPosts: 13,753
Like?
Re: Why I didn't upgrade my 17-35L
In reply to blue_skies, Jan 18, 2012

blue_skies wrote:

You probably should have upgraded to the 16-35mm L

Seriously - did you think I would have failed to read reviews, etc. in making such a decision?

5. Were you shooting FF? Canon has a 1.6x crop versus Sony a 1.5x crop.

  • You should take this into account if you compare your Canon shots with Sony shots. Or, compare the Canon with a 14mm lens versus Sony at 16mm. There is a big difference .

  • Or, compare the Canon 16 with the Sony 18 (both zoom lenses).

I was shooting Canon APS-C and even then the effects of spotty QC could be seen with the 16-35L.

6. My point being, don't believe everything you hear or read on the internet.

I'm sorry if I was unclear about this in my previous post: My decision was not driven primarily by reading reviews, but by looking images.

  • Everything can get slanted one way or another. Your superior/ 17-35mm L sounds pretty bad according to some reviews.

Who said the 17-35L was superior to anything?

7. Why is it so important to prove Sony wrong?

  • Many reported problems were related to DOF, angled planes (subject, camera view), field curvature, unrealistic compositions (foreground + background) and similar issues.

After that, the e-mount 16mm lens seems at least 'comparable' and likely even 'priceleader' in its class. It doesn't make it a perfect lens or a stellar performer, but, for what you pay it is a remarkable solution.

I'm not sure what hypothesis or claim you think Sony has made or who is trying to prove Sony wrong. I'm baffled by this statement.

Perhaps you're referring to Sony's own admission (in the the imaging resource interview) that they misjudged the market? I didn't think there was anything to prove there because it was their own admission and it wasn't really specific this particular lens; it was just a general statement about the market.

I would like a high quality ultra-wide option from Sony and I don't think the 16mm 2.8 is it. It's not about proving anybody wrong. OK - some comments in this thread are about reacting to the suggestion that the 16mm 2.8 is a good performer because the issues with the lens somehow don't matter or aren't real. Clearly, they don't matter to some people (that will be true of anything) but they are real and they do matter to some people.

I disagree that a soso $1,600 lens is stellar compared to a $250 ($150 on ebay, $100 in kit). You are comparing apples and oranges. In this comparison, the 17-35mm L is, well, simply hugely overpriced for an underperforming lens. Get my point?

What point? You're criticizing a comparison that nobody made.

  • At 10x the price, well, you are comparing Ferrari and Ford, or Nex and Leica

Who's making this comparison? It seems to be you.

All I said was that the QC issues with the 16-35L were outrageous because the price was even higher.

-- 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