why has the 16mm f2.8 got such a bad rep?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
dholl
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,115
Like?
why has the 16mm f2.8 got such a bad rep?
9 months ago

it's a cheap, maybe the cheapest AF lens for NEX, simple pancake prime offering a luxury wide-angle (24mm as opposed to a standard wide like 28mm or 35mm), fast aperture (as opposed to kit zooms), tho' of course its wide-open sharpness seems soft when compared to high-end lenses...but surely no one was expecting otherwise, and the softness compliments most skin-types so is good for portrait-photography, not too far off the gentle-blurring seen in Canikon's Soft-Focus specialist primes.

Generally, the IQ when stopped down is relatively decent, good clarity & colours...easily as good as kit zooms. It's AF is accurate, and speed is fine when the light/contrast is good.

So often reading user remarks seeming to either villify it, dismiss it or call it "infamous" or "controversial" doesn't render with me. What have I missed in this story?

Here's some out-of-cam JPG's with it from today:

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