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

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
tomtom50
Senior MemberPosts: 1,955Gear list
Like?
Re: why has the 16mm f2.8 got such a bad rep?
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 9 months ago

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

tomtom50 wrote:

Here is why:

Soft corners in a 4x6? In a $250 lens?

Bad quality control? Maybe. How does that make it a good lens? How does that help those who got bad lenses?

Does any other modern lens from a major manufacturer have corners this bad?

Look at the MTF chart at

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666192755

Contrast dives to zero in the corners. It isn't just sample variation.

Go ahead and start with your list of smallish, cheap 16mm primes for APSc... and we will have something to compare. Or, perhaps

The 16-50mm zoom is smallish and pretty cheap now that it comes as the kit lens on the 3n. Even though it is not a prime it is better at 16mm than the 16mm f2.8.

Sony 16-50 PZ zoom better at 16mm

 tomtom50's gear list:tomtom50's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS M Sony Alpha NEX-3N
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