Nex 6 just not sharp?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,419Gear list
Like?
It's a kit lens!
In reply to forpetessake, Mar 31, 2013

forpetessake wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

danny006 wrote:

With the Canon you used the flash which always give sharper pictures, also very close at 19mm.

And Canon kitlenses being better than Sony is not true.

-- hide signature --

www.alex-digitalpics.be by Sony

G, every testing shows it's true. The NEX kits are pretty much awful, the only worse kit lenses I've seen were Panasonic. It's not just my experience,  Thom Hogan said pretty much the same: "The low-end crop sensor DSLRs are the only ones that stick above that declining demand curve, and you’ll note that those kit lenses for them are pretty darned good. In short, the optics makers are putting their money where the demand is."

I disagree although can't speak for 16-50. The 18-55 on my NEX-3 is pretty darn good for a kit lens, among the best I've seen for an APS-C kit lens.

You don't need to guess, that lens was tested by various independent reviewers, all coming to the same conclusions.

Are independent reviewers really comparing against other kit lenses?   I think many negative comments about the lower-end E-mount lenses are from people used to much more expensive primes.

The Sony (rebadged) 18-70 was worse than the e-mount 18-55, and even so, it could produce a stunning photo at 35mm. At 18mm wide open, it could be pretty bad, with smeary corners.  I also have an older A-mount lens that needs stopping to f8 to look really good at its wider angle.  I don't know, it just seems like consumer, inexpensive zooms are going to have flaws.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/nex-7-lens-imatest-resolution-comparison

In the lensrentals test, the only other zoom they compare against is the 18-200, which performs similarly.  In the comments, he refers to more expensive Nikon and Canon zooms.  That is not saying it's better or worse than Canikon kit zooms.

Of course, what is and is not sharp is subjective, some people may only look at 0.5 MP pictures. For my purposes anything under 1500 lph is not sharp for large screen TV viewing, and anything under 2000 lph is not sharp for viewing on monitor. The 18-55mm lens is poor in both cases: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=86&fullscreen=true&av=3.667&fl=18&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F1

Sharpness isn't everything.  The lens has really good bokeh!  Color too.  It's a good all-rounder that you can throw on the camera and not worry a whole lot.  Not exceptional, perhaps, but you will get satisfying results, including video.

Sure, it would be sharper with a Canikon and an f2.8 zoom, perhaps even my Sony DSLR with an f2.8 zoom, but I'm much happier reducing the bulk.

I think if I really need more detail/sharpness, I'm going to have to go with medium format film.  

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +9 more
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