Is the Sony 16mm/F2.8 really that bad?

Started 9 months ago | Questions thread
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,449
Like?
congratulations ...
In reply to Mel Snyder, 9 months ago

... and no, it's not THE answer, it's not even AN answer. I'm surprised the people don't see that it's irrelevant to the subject.

Mel Snyder wrote:

prime instinct wrote:

Or how you want your photos to be enjoyed.

Some works of art are about the physical attributes of the pictures - the stunning color, sharpness, contrast, fine details, tonal range, etc. Don't use this 16mm pancake for that! It just can't deliver the optical quality demanded by this type of work.

Others are about telling a story, an experience. And yes, do use this lens for that! Its ultra wide attitude can capture both the subject and the environment in good details, reproducing the story or experience that can perfectly be enjoyable.

My new grandson Nico - as captured by the under-rated SEL16F28. Color from the heat element under which he got his first sponge bath.

Tell me any other lens that brings such joy! (shot by my daughter with her iPhone as I took the photo above). Born into a photographer's family - grandfather, deceased great-grandfather, father and mom all photographers - little Nico knows from the first day to look into the lens pointed at him. Even if it's an SEL16F28.

And while we're dealing with myth busting, how about this from the much-maligned 16-50mm PZ?

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