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

Started Jul 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,898Gear list
Like?
Re: why has the 16mm f2.8 got such a bad rep?
In reply to tomtom50, Jul 30, 2013

Caris wrote:

Dohmnuill wrote:

tomtom50 wrote:

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

It's even less just outside the corners..

Who gives a tinker's cuss about the extreme corners. Practical results from the field count and when it's difficult to immediately differentiate the 16mm shot from something ten or twenty times the cost it's not doing too badly.

I use Leica and C Voigtlander lenses with the N-7, and the 16mm (plus various Nikkors and an Industar 50). If it was ordinary or worse, I'd ditch it straight away. But it's not.

Well, some of us do care about the corners, especially when they are unequally soft/blurred! This is from practical experience, not some test charts. Try to take a landscape photo of a grass/wheat field for instance on a tripod stopped down to f8-11 and see the results. This is where the extreme corners DO matter. In a busy city street photo it may not be that important or obvious.

Should optical designers skip making the corners sharp because for lots of pictures they don't matter?

It would be easier.

If they can make it smaller and cheaper, that may be a fair trade off.
--
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 +10 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