16mm performance ?

I`ve searched but can`t find anything conclusive about how good the 16mm is , any thoughts on its performance both wideopen and stopped down a bit ? .. any full size samples wideopen (preferably at 20Mp) to show edge performance etc ? . Thinking of it to compact the NX200 , there`s plenty of cropping space.

Thanks

--
** A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge **

It didn't get a good review on Photozone.

I've been using the 16mm (24mm FOV) for night time indoor events and for that application it is simply great! Nice and sharp in the center, don't really care about the corners, I Photograph people so position them in the center and take half body or 1/4 body shots, If I need to crop the 20mp sensor is fairly generous a 20mm (30mm FOV) crop still yileds a 14.5mp image and the main reason why I've opted not to get the 20mm prime.

For Architectural or landscape photography the field curvature and corner softness maybe an issue.

Thanks foilks, sounds like the average samples of the NEX one to me - I guess the design is similar (samsung may have even copied the sony`s optics to speed the development up)  ..

I`ll bypass that then and stick with the wide end of the 20-50 (which is superb) and just get the 30mm

--
** A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge **

This is one of the few nx lenses that I decided to skip.

I own the 20mm, instead.

The Photozone examples look like from naff samples of the NEX lens to me - my oddball decent NEX16 is far better than this, though it`s probably ONE in 500 samples that is (that lens gets ragged to hell ) ......

so there is a dud prime in the samsung glass range (there had to be ONE)

--
** A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge **

For what it's worth to you, here's some 16mm shots; mostly with the NX200 plus some NX20 and NX10 also. I'm not much of a photographer, but I sure have a lot of fun and the 16mm is a big part of it.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2557309999/albums/nx16mm

You might check Eric's site also: http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=3060

Just added some architectural shots to the end of the above album. This is one reason I got the 16mm; to make these photos possible.

I have all three pancakes; the 30 & 16mm's are used much more often than the 20mm.

It's certainly not a dud. From lenstip.com:

"The Samsung NX 16 mm f/2.4 is a very interesting lens, worth our attention, not only as a part of the NX system but also from the perspective of other mirrorless systems. Compared to the Sony E 16 mm f/2.8 it is better in practically all categories: it is faster, its optics and its build quality are superior as well. It would be difficult to find a serious rival for this one even in the Micro 4/3 system, which features the biggest number of such lenses. The Panasonic G 14 mm f/2.5 ASPH ‘pancake’ is a bit slower, with a narrower angle of view, similar optical properties; mind you, is noticeably more expensive. The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 12 mm f/2.0 ED offers a bit more but it is not as handy as a classic ‘pancake’ and its price is much higher than that of the Samsung."

Regards, Robert

www.sondek.smugmug.com

The 16mm is better than the 20mm. A great lens in the real world. Here is your crop:





this one was from the 30mm. 16mm is similar.

there is an interesting comparison between Sony NEX 16mm and Samsung NX 16m:

http://verybiglobo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/sony-sel-16mm-f28-vs-samsung-nx-16mm.html#!/2012/01/sony-sel-16mm-f28-vs-samsung-nx-16mm.html

I think the only mirrorless lens (24mm FOV)  which is better than the samsung is the Oly 12mm F/2.0 but that lens sells for $799 , personally I think the Samsung 16mm is best value / performer out there, I will try to post some pics when I get home tonight

i have found the 16mm to be a great little lens edge performance can be poor but i found to get the best results change your focus point to one of the corners and the edges hold up much much better. i am very picky and do look at 100% i have not had issues any more with corner performance.

i dont know about max aperture i normally use it around f11, but corner performance at max aperture should, in most situations not be so important

this lens is great !.

the issues .

focus field is distorted but that is not really a worry unless you want to shoot architecture at f5.6 or less and even then it isnt that bad. it can actually be really nice to use with framing a shot as when the edges matter the edges are  usually closer at 16mm, thats my experience.

graininess . it was fine on the nx100 but the nx200 can pick up a grainy feel, i presume it can only just resolve the image at 20mpx.

the pros

the size, its a pancake (guessing the con of this it the focus field issue)

the price, dont compare it to the sony 16mm this is a real lens not a bottle bottom. i paid £300 for mine quite a while back and felt it was cheap then.

sharpness & contrast ultra sharp centers right for f2.4

af works well, ect still the annoying focus by wire though.

Examples . uploaded 2 for you.

1st it the sort of shot i use it for , taken a couple of days ago and edited in LR.

2nd is straight from raw zero adjustment (even default LR adjustments removed). At f2.4 as you requested. although i dont really use this lens at f2.4 due the subjects i use it for.



f2.4 iso100 1/4000

f5 iso400 1/4000 (bad settings for subject but lighting was changing fast at the time)

Thanks again folks .. I was looking at the photozone samples where it was awful away from the centre at F2.8 and not up tp much at F5.6 - having seen far better performance from the ever slammed NEX16 at all apertures I came to the conclusion the NX one was a dud

Maybe like, the NEX lens there is severe sample variation .. thanks for the images and opinions, it`s crossed off the Ignore list

--
** A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge **

Thanks for the link, you can see comparisons of the 16mm vs 12-24mm on my site as well on the 12-24mm review:

http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=3124

@Adam, the lens is better than the Sony NEX 16mm, but like the NEX it might be a bit better on the older bodies at least at infinity focus.  Also, it has some field curvature so make sure you focus near the edge of the frame for corner performance.

Eric

--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)
See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

I was initially unimpressed with the 16mm NX by the softness in the corners due to field curvature which does on ultrawide lenses especially compact ones. although I have grown to appreciate it more by compensating or adjusting the focus area to the edge or infinity to get the best focus at all areas across the field in general. now it's my most used lens than my 30mm lens.

f5.6 is just the right aperture for ultrawide lenses for achieving optimal performance. at f4, the 16nmm does a decent job but that is due to the lens characteristic of the 16mm to display a shallow dof on aps-c. also to consider the limitation of the lens' resolution at 20MP.

the funny part is that the NX16mm is an awesome performer on the 14MP NX100 without the necessity to adjust the focus point. another thing to note is the AA-filter that is used in the camera since it was reported that the NX100 has a weak filter while the NX200 had a different filter setup as was reported by Klaus. if Samsung will remove the type of AA filter that they used on it's current NX cameras, there is no doubt that the lens will perform better.

what I like about the 16mm is that it is unique for being able to isolate subjects and capable of doing landscape as well at the right aperture setting. it's resolution overall is definitely better compared to the 20mm. the center sharpness rivals the 30mm.

anyway, it's too bad that you are no longer giving it a shot and see what it can really do.

There is one thing I hate is most reviews pixel peep a lens, then compare the lens with a DSLR standard. On top of it most reviews dont know the tricks of some lens (like trying to focus not at the center area etc)

If you compare it with every other lens in the same category then ok, but not in a different category.

The NX 16mm is likely the best in the mirrorless category right now (prob most of the Samsung lens are in the higher end category)

I tend AF all wides as far to infininity as the scene will allow and the lens will pull the edges sharp, the NEX16 included . so the awful photozone shots were down to the reviewer not knowing this then .

The NX200 has a weak AA filter, I shoot RAW and it can Moire almost as much as a Pentax K10 on some scenes (the K10 was as sharp as usable AA filters got, the Nikon D70 almost didn`t have one at all) , remember that 14Mp hides some of the softness due to lower resolution, it hides AF blunders too (again., the AF in the Pentax K100D was no less abysmal than the K10 but 6Mp hid most of the issues) ......

I found the NEX5N to be the hardest to shoot the 16mm with, you had to really shoot deep into the scene to get the edges sharp wheras the old NEX5 and the 24Mp NEX7 were a lot more forgiving - it`s not down to AA filter Ariston, it`s down to the way the AF is setup, it would seem the NEX5N was setup easier for the Auto brigade (hoping DOF would take up the slack) or that mine was a front focusser

I found the NEX5N was prone to front focussing if not careful, maybe the NX200/20 are moreso than the NX100 (or at least your sample hence your report) but I`ve found the AF to be easier to aim than any of the NEX range though that`s largely down to the superb resizable AF square which iisn`t prone to hitting things in the foreground as the larger NEX one.

--
** A Problem is only the pessimistic way of looking at a challenge **