Previous news story    Next news story

Sony announces E-mount 20mm F2.8 pancake prime lens for NEX cameras

By dpreview staff on Jan 23, 2013 at 04:00 GMT
Buy on GearShop

Sony has announced the E 20mm F2.8 - a moderately wide-angle pancake prime lens for its NEX cameras. The moderately-fast E-mount pancake will offer a 30mm equivalent field of view and adds another compact lens option for NEX shooters. It will be available in April for around $350. Sony has also said it will offer its video-targeted 18-200mm OSS F3.5-6.3 power zoom lens as a standalone product. Previously only available bundled with the NEX-VG30 camcorder, it becomes the company's third E-mount 18-200mm superzoom and will cost around $1200.

Jump to:


Press Release:

Sony Expands Lens Lineup for α E-Mount Camera System with New Wide-Angle and Telephoto Models

New 20mm f/2.8 “pancake” lens and Video-friendly 18-200mm f/3.5 – f/6.3 “Power Zoom” lens extend creative possibilities

SAN DIEGO, Jan. 22, 2013 – Sony is expanding its popular E-mount camera system with the addition of two new lenses compatible with all α E-Mount cameras and semi-professional camcorders.

New 20mm F2.8 ‘pancake’ wide angle lens (model SEL20F28)

When mounted on any Sony α E-Mount camera, the sharp new SEL20F28 ”pancake” lens creates an exceptionally versatile, portable package ideal for a broad range of everyday shooting opportunities ranging from interiors to landscapes, street photography, casual snapshots and more.

The new lens features an ultra-slim design approximately 20mm from lens front to back, and with its wide angle of view (30mm on 35mm equivalent) and bright F2.8 aperture, it produces excellent contrast, resolution and clarity across the frame for both still image and full HD video shooting. 

New 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS Powered Telephoto Zoom Lens (model SELP18200)

Originally offered only as a kit lens for the new NEX-VG30 camcorder introduced this past fall, the new SELP18200 powered telephoto zoom lens will now be available for purchase as a stand-alone lens. 

Designed for serious videographers, the high-quality lens offers a generous 11x magnification range and whisper-quiet power zoom mechanics, focusing and aperture operation. This allows for smooth cinematic transitions when adjusting zoom level or manual settings during shooting.  It features a comfortably positioned zoom lever that works with a switch on the lens barrel, allowing zoom speed to be selected in three different steps – from slow, beautiful shifts in perspective to dramatic crash-zoom effects.  Zoom can also be controlled directly from compatible NEX-VG900, NEX-VG30 and NEX-FS700 (requires firmware update) video cameras.

The new lens also has built-in Optical SteadyShot™, which cuts the effects of camera shake and minimizes camera blur while shooting handheld at slower shutter speeds.  Additionally, Active Mode further enhances stabilization at the wide end of the 11x zoom range ensuring smooth, stable footage even if the shooter is in motion. 

While the new SELP18200 lens is optimized for video, it’s also a flexible choice for shooting still photography – from expansive landscapes to high impact close-ups of wildlife or athletes – with Sony’s α E-Mount range of interchangeable lens still cameras.

Sony α E-mount lens family expansion

These new models expand the Sony E-mount family to 13 native E-mount lenses plus two converters, covering virtually any shooting situation for photographers and videographers alike.

Spanning ultra-wide angle, powerful telezoom, macro and fast, bright primes, the range includes premium optics by Sony and Carl Zeiss, and offers refined performance and easy handling throughout the line. 

Pricing and Availability

The new E 20mm F2.8 (SEL20F28) wide-angle prime lens will be available this April for about $350. 

The new E PZ18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS (SELP18200) motorized telezoom lens will be available this March for about $1200.

The Sony α family of cameras, camcorders, lenses and accessories can be purchased at Sony retail stores, online at www.store.sony.comand at all other authorized retailers throughout the Sony dealer network.

20mm F2.8 specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format sizeAPS-C / DX
Focal length20 mm
Lens mountSony E (NEX)
Aperture
Maximum apertureF2.8
Minimum apertureF22.0
Number of diaphragm blades7
Aperture notesCircular Aperture
Optics
Elements6
Groups6
Focus
Minimum focus0.20 m (7.87)
AutofocusYes
Motor typeStepper motor
Full time manualUnknown
Distance scaleNo
DoF scaleNo
Physical
Weight69 g (0.15 lb)
Diameter63 mm (2.48)
Length20 mm (0.79)
ColourBlack
Filter thread49 mm
Tripod collarNo
59
I own it
8
I want it
7
I had it
Discuss in the forums
Our favorite products. Free 2 day shipping.
Support this site, buy from dpreview GearShop.
Sony E 20mm F2.8

Comments

Total comments: 326
12
Pasha001
By Pasha001 (Feb 3, 2013)

Does it have internal focusing like Panasonic 14mm?

0 upvotes
zygh
By zygh (Jan 26, 2013)

If this 20mm lens was at least f/2.0 it would have probably been worth it. As it is, it's about two times overpriced.
20/2.8 for 350 smackaroos?! No thanks, Sony!

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Everdog
By Everdog (Jan 26, 2013)

So far almost everyone agrees with you. You can get the Sigma for 1/3rd the price, and can be pretty sure the Sigma will be much sharper wide open. Every Sony pancake has real issues.
I can't wait for the reports of soft corners on this one. My bet is that is why they kept the aperture so small.
Get the Sigma and save lots of $.
Oh and anyone with a brain knows F/2.8 is the same on all formats for exposure. And that the m43 F/1.4 lens would need 2 stops less light! (now add IBIS and in some cases you would need 4-5 stops less light!)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 27, 2013)

Have you ever had a 20mm f/2? How much did you pay for it?

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 27, 2013)

an E-mount 20mm f/2 should worth no more than it's 35mm format equivalent or 31mm f/3.1. because it doesn't have the back-focus issue to overcome as on a 35mm SLR, the design is much easier and the cost much cheaper, like 1/3 of 35/2 or 50/1.8 ones or sub-100 US.

and E20/2.8 should be much cheaper than that. we may not get half-price though, since the cost of the "huge" lens barrel won't change much.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 27, 2013)

>an E-mount 20mm f/2 should worth no more than it's 35mm format equivalent or 31mm f/3.1
And I'm sure you have someone in mind who makes a 20mm f/2 for APS-C for less than $350. May I ask, who?

Perhaps you'd make the same argument for a 15mm f/1.5 MFT lens. What is the retail price on those?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 27, 2013)

if you are saying that both NEX and m4/3 prices are way too high compared with the performance they can deliver, you are correct.

there are, however, some not too expensive products (or baits) overthere like MZ45/1.8 (an 88/3.5 equivalent).

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 27, 2013)

I'm not, you're complaining about price. And topping it off with ideas that have no relevance to realities.

0 upvotes
zygh
By zygh (Jan 27, 2013)

The Samsung 2.8/20 lens for their NX system is 200 bucks less than the Sony, while the Canon M 2/22 is 100 less than the Sony. Both fit the 'pancake' category and cover APS-C.
The Sony 2.8/20, while covering APS-C, is overpriced even compared to the equivalent 2/35 lenses designed for 35mm format.
One thing is for sure, this Sony 2.8/20 better be awesome starting right at 2.8 or else massively rebated to make it worth while.

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 27, 2013)

>The Samsung 2.8/20 lens for their NX system is 200 bucks less than the Sony
On sale. Its suggested retail at launch was $350. If people don't buy something, prices come down. No?

2 upvotes
zygh
By zygh (Jan 27, 2013)

"On sale. Its suggested retail at launch was $350. If people don't buy something, prices come down. No?"

Perfectly right! That's precisely what I was saying: the Sony will undertake the same route; unless more paying-toms such like yourself shall be willing to shell out top-buck for it.
My feeling is, though, not many will, me included (even though I was waiting for a lens resembling this one, but faster).

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 27, 2013)

a reasonable price should be 20% MSRP, maybe up to 30% MSRP if it delivers stellar results to the extreme corners (looks opposite for now but we cannot be absolutely sure before we see it).

btw, the EF-M22/2 is 0.8+ stops faster than E20/2.8 and is 0.4+ stops slower than E24/1.8. using the USD 250 EF-M22/2 (which is very high compared to 35mm format SLR lenses) as the base, and ignore the slightly different angles of view and other factors (that we can add later), the prices for Sony lenses are:
E24/1.8 => USD 340, and
E20/2.8 => USD 140.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 27, 2013)

@zygh: "That's precisely what I was saying: the Sony will undertake the same route"
No, you were complaining about the retail price at launch, and assuming support for your idea that Sony should sell it at the price that Samsung is selling on sale. A far cry from my point.

Its not about what I'd like to pay. It is about making a logical argument.

@yabokkie,
Things don't work the way you assume they should.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
zygh
By zygh (Jan 27, 2013)

Your point being the price is totally adequate or that we should not complain about it?
I think yabokkie and I have both shown your argumentation to be flawed and baseless with logical and concrete examples and using your own words.
What is your point exactly?
That there is no one else that offered an APS-C 20mm f/2 lens for less money? Does the Canon 22m example I have pointed out count to you?
That the asking price for the 2.8/20 Sony is just right? Have you even read the arguments that yabokkie and I have pointed to? Does it even matter to you or are you just another fanboy that is brand-defensive? Are you just the antagonistic type here or do you really have no issue with pricing and feel no one else should either? I really don't get it, please make your point clear.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 28, 2013)

@zygh
You might value collective thinking. I care for logical. If you've got an issue with a lens costing $350, don't present another lens that had the same retail price, as an example on its "sale" price. Too much to expect?

If you need f/2, and Canon 22/2 is your style... go for it!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 28, 2013)

using the average price of 35/2's from Canon, Nikon and Pentax, all of them are very popular ones, as the standard and adjust the price acording to the aperture size, we get (well, my estimation):

average 35/2: USD 290,
EF-M22 f/2, a 35mm f/3.2 equiv. => USD 130-170,
E24/1.8, 37mm f/2.8 equiv. => USD 170-210,
E20/2.8, 31mm f/4.3 equiv., => USD 50-120,

notes:
* back-focus not considered because I don't know how. if included, the prices for mirrorless lenses in the 28-44mm range (equiv. focal length) will go down further.

* the wide price range of 50-120 for E20/2.8 is because I don't have reliable data on sub-100 ones. people forgot to make small aperture slow speed lenses for dozens of years. now the 4/3" and APS-C mirrorless makers bring us back to the times of the great wars.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 28, 2013)

@yabokkie,
Why not also price lenses as $/lb as well? The price of a lens is dictated by its intrinsic and extrinsic value. Beyond that, market price will be supported by its success, or failure. It is why Leica 18mm f/3.8 is a $3K lens. And it is an f/3.8 lens NOT because Leica couldn’t build a lens that is faster, or do you actually believe that? For the same reason, do you believe Olympus 12mm/2 is overpriced by 4x since it is similar to 16mm f/2.8 (APS-C) or 24mm f/4 (FF) in terms of FoV and DoF?
“This lens should be faster” can make for a good slogan but not necessarily a logical argument when you consider limitations. There is a reason we don’t see lenses that are sharp corner to corner throughout the aperture range. They tend to deliver close to optimum performance over only 2-3 stops. A faster lens simply shifts that range towards larger apertures, which will work for portrait lenses but not a great idea for landscape and macro lens where you’d want them to be optimal at greater DoF. It is why 35mm/1.8, 50mm/1.7 and 85mm/1.4 trio of primes make sense in my lineup, that typically reach maximum sharpness around f/4-5.6 than a lens I would prefer to use at f/8-11.
In fact, my Rokinon 8mm f/2.8 is a revised design of 8mm f/3.5 and if I could get a choice between reducing the minimum focusing distance and larger aperture, I would pick the former. It is a lens that is pretty much set permanently at f/5.6 and that it has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 does nothing special.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 31, 2013)

so you mind a long post to say that you have no idea. may be you have but pretend not?

0 upvotes
Everdog
By Everdog (Jan 25, 2013)

Again the WRONG lens to make this NEX-system very un-appealing. Soft pictures.

Slow F/2.8 Fixed focus which can be limiting and most likely very soft corners again until about F/8.

Shame on Sony

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Jan 25, 2013)

What is the shame? Funny

1 upvote
nevercat
By nevercat (Jan 25, 2013)

Wron again mr everdog!
This lens is an auto focus lens, not a fixed focus lens. It is a prime, so the focal length is fixed,the focus not!.
Caqn you show the link to the teviews that claims this? Can you show a link to the soft pictures?
Then you tell that this lens is slow, but it is as slow as the Olympus 17 mm 2.8 pancake. that lens is close in the FF eq. of this new lens
And is is just a little bit slower then the Panasonic 14mm 2.5 lens.
So stop your rant against the Nex system.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 26, 2013)

> but it is as slow as the Olympus 17 mm 2.8 pancake.

this is wrong.

MZ17/2.8 is equivalen to, or gives the same result as a 33mm f/5.5 lens on 35mm format while this lens is equivalent to 31mm f/4.3.

E20/2.8 is about half stop faster than MZ17/2.8.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 26, 2013)

> E20/2.8 is about half stop faster than MZ17/2.8.

optically they are separated by 0.7 stops.
at the same f-number and shutter speed, APS-C gets 0.7 stops more light (in absolute term of exposure lumen-second) than 4/3. it's less than 0.6 stops for Canon APS-C.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Pal2012
By Pal2012 (Jan 26, 2013)

Hey its more-on troll, hey, whats that? What? Oh it sounds like, must be, OMD wanna be NEX troll! We know you don't know squat but please go ahead and do tell us again the merits of the low light cabability of the OMD vs. Nex...hows that? And why is it not prefered over the NEX under the most demanding low light situations like astrophotagraphy? And others? Why does orly market the ISO its actual ability? say what? ruff ruff ruff

0 upvotes
disraeli demon
By disraeli demon (2 months ago)

yabokkie - in terms of exposure, f2.8 is f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of format. Your calculations don't take into account that the slightly greater amount of light transmitted by the APS-C lenses is distributed over a larger imaging circle to accommodate the larger sensor. Take that into account and the intensity of light per square millimetre is the same for all lenses, regardless of format, at any given f stop.

0 upvotes
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Jan 25, 2013)

Finally the right lens to make this NEX-system very appealing. Handy and top pictures

Fixed focus is first choice for spot-on details and minimal edge distortions. Congratulations Sony!

3 upvotes
ostenh
By ostenh (Jan 25, 2013)

Hello!

I'm sort of a newbie, so I wonder what you mean by "fixed focus"? This isn't a fixed focus lens, is it?

Thanks.

1 upvote
Soggoth
By Soggoth (Jan 25, 2013)

He meant that this one is a fixed focal length lens (as oppose to zoom lenses).

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 26, 2013)

ostenh,

"Fixed focus" appears to imply prime lens (fixed focal length).

0 upvotes
ostenh
By ostenh (Jan 26, 2013)

Ok, I see. Thank you.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

this is a huge lens.

huge compared with its tiny front element.

2 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Jan 25, 2013)

then Sigma 19 or 30 are giant lenses...

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

I'm not talking about a specific maker but makers who mind make big lens barrels only to hold glass elements as small as beans and peanuts.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

Because you believe that the front element completes the entire design and electronics within the lens.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

> Because you believe

better not use your imagination too much, but at least the front element is all that a lens can have to collect light, and you know at a glance that this lens doesn't have much capability to do that.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

I don't have to assume anything when you're illustrating your expertise on the subject.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

you don't need any expertise to tell that same f/2.8 f-number won't give you the same quality image, and if you don't mind the output image, you can use whatever fast shutter at will and call all the cameras/lenses "fast."

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

What exactly is this “quality of image” you speak of? I hate to shoot in the dark. Perhaps it might help if you explain your post because you’re not making any sense. Consider this for an example, taken a few years ago with Sony F828 at 51mm (200mm FF equivalent), f/2.8, ISO64, 1/800s:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/8414789196_7289bd5a87_z.jpg
Given the settings, the DOF is 2-3” (we can expect that at 200mm f/11). We certainly see the effect of crop sensor on DOF. But, we do not see crop factor affecting shutter speed (as in, exposure). You would get pretty much the same exposure from a full frame (or any frame for that matter). This is how exposure computes:
Brightness Value = Aperture Value + Time Value – ISO Value
For that matter, go shoot with an MFT or an APS-C or FF or something like F828 with a crop factor of 4X, and just tell me the aperture you select, the shutter value you select and if you’re shooting in bright day light (brightness value is typically about 9, cloudy 5-7…). I will tell you the ISO your camera will select without having to worry about the crop factor.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

Excuse the above response... Belongs to another thread below. For this one...
And that has nothing to do with your expertise on treating front element of a lens as an entity that, on its own, should dictate the size of the lens completely because nothing else matters. For your (lack of) understanding of f-stop, leave it to the thread already in progress.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

there is noway you can get the same light in to produce the same image quality (in SNR) at the same f-number. acturally there is nothing you can get the same at the same f-number because all of them are the same at the same equivalent f-number.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 26, 2013)

Irrelevant to your own argument.

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (Jan 25, 2013)

Who cares about pancake lenses... the NEX bodies are too big to throw in a pocket, and its a waste to have that big sensor be hampered by a crappy pancake lens. I would rather a 2.8 standard zoom or 1.8 wide angle prime (<24mm). Even if those would be bulky its fine; you dont buy a camera for pretty form factor, you buy it to take pictures!!!

2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

What exactly is it that you shoot that requires 1.8 or larger at these focal lengths? May be a Leica 18mm would be up your alley? Wait, that is an f/3.8... Damn you Leica, learn to make faster lenses especially when you are charging $3k for it.

Did I get that right?

1 upvote
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (Jan 25, 2013)

Night time close quarter parties and night time city landscapes. This type of lens is actually rare even on the high DSLR end, I'm guessing due to some optical limitation of the wide aperture + wide FOV

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 26, 2013)

I don't see why anybody would shoot cityscape at night or day, wide open. As for parties, chances are, you might be better off with 24 to 35mm focal lengths.
BTW, here's NEX-3 at work at night, with a 135mm lens, at f/4.5 (obviously, not stabilized either):
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8343/8268998744_4847551dbf_c.jpg

Why would f/2.8 be an issue, much less with just 20mm focal length to deal with?

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JonathanFV
By JonathanFV (Feb 2, 2013)

On the picture you just showed (it IS a nice picture), the building was illuminated, and that makes a good difference. I would also appreciate a fast wide angle too because it would be useful for night sky photography. Allows shorter exposures (or as long exposures with more light getting in) and less stars movements, per example. I bought a 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor lens for a very good price, and I really wish I could buy a wider angle lens with as big an aperture as that. It takes good photos.

And he said "close quarter parties", means he'd like a bigger angle of view, and the wide aperture is useful if people are moving (and they are).

Oh, and one of the reasons I love my f/1.8 is because it's a lot easier to see the stars when I want to frame the picture. Remember, the 5N doesn't have a viewfinder, and at high-ISO, stars and grain look pretty much the same, and it's not always possible to focus on something far to find the infinity focus (with Sony's lens) if it's dark out.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
sportyaccordy
By sportyaccordy (Feb 13, 2013)

@Einstein Ghost, that's a good picture, but a very specific shot. A wide prime is much more versatile. I analyzed the shots I did over a summer with my 18-105VR and found the bulk of my shots were at the wide end. Furthermore since I got the C3 I have been making extensive use of the panoramic feature. Panorama mode is not perfect though, as you can't control exposure levels, and of course the shutter clicks off like a paparazzi.

If this lens performs on par with or better than the Sigma 19mm then I will pay a premium for it. Still though I would really love something faster.

0 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 24, 2013)

I personally welcome this announcement. At last a proper pancake lens for the NEX. F2.8 is fast enough, how often do you need to use wider apertures. People that keep complaining about lens speeds are simply gadget and bokeh pervs. They don't care about taking pictures, but pixel peeping and comparing specs. HOW SAD IS THIS?

This lens will make the NEX cameras much more portable and allow to carry more often => take more pictures.

10 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

> take more pictures

yes, and take more noise with the f/4.3 equivalent f-number.
many people use f/2.8 zooms as standard on 35mm format and APS-C's need f/1.8 to get the same result (whatever result you can name that's controlled by f-number).

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

yabokkie, given your "contributions" thus far, it isn't surprising that you believe that crop factor also applies to exposure. Hint: it doesn't. Heck I shoot indoors, handheld, at f/8 on APSc but perhaps your choice for the tools leave a lot to be desired?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

> Hint: it doesn't

there is an exposure not affected by cropping but that's the wrong one to use. because the output images are different at the same exposue (lux-seconds).

you don't want to say "same fast lens, but less quality image" do you?

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

What exactly is this “quality of image” you speak of? I hate to shoot in the dark. Perhaps it might help if you explain your post because you’re not making any sense. Consider this for an example, taken a few years ago with Sony F828 at 51mm (200mm FF equivalent), f/2.8, ISO64, 1/800s:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8362/8414789196_7289bd5a87_z.jpg
Given the settings, the DOF is 2-3” (we can expect that at 200mm f/11). We certainly see the effect of crop sensor on DOF. But, we do not see crop factor affecting shutter speed (as in, exposure). You would get pretty much the same exposure from a full frame (or any frame for that matter). This is how exposure computes:
Brightness Value = Aperture Value + Time Value – ISO Value
For that matter, go shoot with an MFT or an APS-C or FF or something like F828 with a crop factor of 4X, and just tell me the aperture you select, the shutter value you select and if you’re shooting in bright day light (brightness value is typically about 9, cloudy 5-7…). I will tell you the ISO your camera will select without having to worry about the crop factor.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

is there anything in the output image you can get the same at the f-number? name one.

0 upvotes
Everlast66
By Everlast66 (Jan 25, 2013)

@ yabokkie
"many people use f/2.8 zooms as standard on 35mm format and APS-C's need f/1.8 to get the same result"
Yes, they do, but have you seen the SIZE of those things?!?
Why get a NEX camera if you are going to attach a bazooka at the front? Just get a full size DSLR.
The NEX and other mirror-less cameras are mainly about portability. I would sacrifice some speed for portabilty, I'd better have a F2.8 lens and camera with me, than have F1.8 AT HOME!
And how often do you need to use such a narrow DOF anyway.

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 26, 2013)

yabokkie: "is there anything in the output image you can get the same at the f-number? name one."
Exposure values. What do you think is "f-stop"? What do you think f/2.8 tells you? I will tell you what it tells you: size of the aperture... focal length (which does not change with sensor size) divided by a number. The denominator doesn't increase because the light the lens will be projecting onto a tiny MFT sensor or big FF sensor.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 26, 2013)

> Everlast66

I understand the size is important for many and if we choose small sizes, we won't have choise but use small apertures.

small aperture lenses are by far easier to make, like sub-f/2 zooms on point-n-shoots. an APS-C lens costs about a half at the same f-number as a 35mm format one.

taking back-focus into consideration a 20mm E-mount lens is comparable to 50mm lenses on 35mm SLRs, the cheapest ones we have.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 26, 2013)

> EinsteinsGhost

so there is nothing you can name that you get the same in the image at the same f-number. there is nothing that anyone can name because it's against physics.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 27, 2013)

I did: Exposure.

And just to make sure, you have a clue about what f-stop tells you, I asked... what do you think "f/2.8", for example, tells you? Hint: Don't assume focal length of a lens changing due to sensor size... as in crop factor.

0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Jan 24, 2013)

I posted a while back that I found the 20 mm pancake to be adequately priced in case it is very sharp indeed ( and I might add has a reasonable bokeh ). Prompt I was flagged: Get the Sigma, it shall be lower cost. So I looked. I used their lens finder and browsed all Sony Mount lenses. I could not find ( Pancake & NEX Mount ) lens in Sigma Line Up. Can those who think Sigma has a better 20 mm f/2.8 Pancake for NEX be so kind and post its link in here ? Thank you! ( I used the Sigma Lens Finder: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-finder and clicked on Sony Camera System. )

0 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Jan 24, 2013)

It is Sigma 19mm f2.8 for NEX E mount. Not really a pancake lens, but fairly compact and low cost. Cheers.

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 24, 2013)

Sigma 19mm 2.8 is comparable in size and weight to Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS. I wouldn't present its size and weight as an argument against this pancake which is half the size and weight and gives meaning to the smaller form factor of NEX bodies. There might be some value to IQ comparisons or on affordability.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

> affordability.

that's a good point. think E20/2.8 is over priced 3 to 5 times higher (depends on qualities other than aperture, and maybe small size).

0 upvotes
Kuturgan
By Kuturgan (Jan 24, 2013)

Samsung has done the same type of lens 3 years ago with iFn function in addition and x3 cheaper.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Jan 24, 2013)

Are we talking about the lans linked below which costs $350 (i.e. same price as the Sony lens)? In case you missed it, the article talks about two lenses, don't apply the zoom lens price to the pancake lens please. Their 18-200 lens is cheaper than the Sony though, but closer to half, not a third.

http://www.samsung.com/us/photography/digital-cameras-accessories/EX-W20NB

0 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (Jan 24, 2013)

You can buy Samsung 20/2.8 online right now for $180. That's almost 2 times cheaper.

2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

That Samsung is having to sell its $350 lens at half the price has something to do with NEX?

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 25, 2013)

the one who sells lower quality at higher price is doing a better business.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

I don’t feel the need to tread into Ms Cleo territory, but if you want to talk about taking an issue with one’s ability to do better business than another who sucks, think about why businesses exist.

1 upvote
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Jan 24, 2013)

Sorry Sony, I'm still not sold on your Nex/E-mount system. I will stick to m4/3 with Fujifilm as the next runner up for everyday/travel. I certainly dig their efforts more in terms of lens roadmap.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 24, 2013)

Fujinon lenses used to have good reputation and it's still true for broadcast videos. but all of the current XF lenses are very poor in optical quality.

4 upvotes
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Jan 24, 2013)

I wouldn't go that far, calling all XF lenses *very poor* in optical quality.

I wasn't bashing 'your' product. I was just saying that they need way more to attract me as a potential customer...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 24, 2013)

"I was just saying that they need way more to attract me as a potential customer" -------------------- And we all should care about your purchases exactly why?? Who cares what you buy? Sony is not out there to please you. You are not important to them or to anyone else for that matter.

5 upvotes
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Jan 24, 2013)

And who are you exactly talking to me like that? I was just expressing that those lenses aren't interesting regarding other systems. And thats what this section is for. If you don't like what I have to say, you can ignore my post.

Edit: this editing on the iPad is horrible...

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 24, 2013)

why should i ignore your post. You presented yourself for ridicule and i ridiculed you. You are still noone and sony won't go bankrupt if you did not buy their products. You think way too much of yourself. This is not what- andreaThode-likes forum.

2 upvotes
chadley_chad
By chadley_chad (Jan 25, 2013)

@ zxaar

Anyone who can't see the advantage of an APSC sensor in a smaller body than a 4/3rds isn't really worth arguing with (and I sy that as an owner of both formats ... The NEX CLEARLY being the better option as far as IQ, dynamic capabilities etc etc).

1 upvote
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Jan 25, 2013)

Hahaha, ZXAAR you really seem like a nice guy. Very sympathic and full of endless wisdom. Must be the reason why you don't use your real name. Good day to you and all the best!

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

Okay Andrea, if you aren't into NEX cameras, what brings you here?

0 upvotes
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Jan 25, 2013)

@chadley_chad: thats why I am interested to upgrade from m4/3, as I stated above.

@EinsteinsGhost: well, I see that it wasn't the most clever post I ever did, regarding camera systems. But it was also a big sigh about the lenses. The 20 being not really fast and so is the 18-200. Although not uncommon at this zoom range but a 6.3 lens isn't exactly a bargain at 1.200$. Whereas the 24/1.8 Zeiss is a real beauty which keeps me interested into NEX. But I just think that Sony needs to cover more of the fast lenses. Thats all. I salute you.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

Andrea, a smaller, lighter lens is more inline with rangefinder style camera than giving up those aspects for faster lenses and especially at short focal lengths. I can see a point to faster lenses at 24mm and above. Sony 24/1.8, 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 meet that criteria. May be an 85mm will as well but that remains to be seen. But then, why not 85/1.4? I have personally chosen to work with a two body set up. NEX with small, short FL (upto 60mm) prime lenses, and Alpha for zooms and longer FL. It is a huge benefit however that I can have NEX work as a great backup even at those longer FLs and for just about any application I would need a DSLR/DSLR body for.

As for the video super zoom lens, it isn't new, just another option now made available beyong just NEX video camera. It is more than just another 18-200 lens. It is a video lens. It doesn't interest me (and neither do any superzoom lenses exclusively for small body cameras). My choice is interchangeability of super zoom between my two camera bodies and I use a-mount 18-250 on the NEX, a lens I paid only $450 for.

1 upvote
andreaThode
By andreaThode (Jan 25, 2013)

Thanks for your reply. The 50/1.8 is actually pretty decent and reasonably priced too. Whats missing imo, is a more wideangle and fast lens, like 24 or 28mm Fullframe equiv. Or maybe they are already out, which I might have missed?

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

Andrea, who is selling faster 24-28mm equivalent lenses? Unless the sensor size is compromised. For example, it is easier to build a 28mm equivalent lens for a camera like RX100 with its 10mm f/1.8 than it is for someone to build 18mm f/1.8 for APSc.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Jan 27, 2013)

" Must be the reason why you don't use your real name. Good day to you and all the best!" ------------------ If you had intelligence you could get my name from my profile. Second if anyone is really interested he can ask me directly. My name does not matter anyway. I do not think i am important enough that anyone would want to know my name.

0 upvotes
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Jan 23, 2013)

I want to see a new version of SEL16F28... A proper update to the optics.

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 23, 2013)

Another underwhelming NEX lens.

Why Panasonic can make 20mm pancake f/1.7, and Sony is only up to f/2.8?

4 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Well, my nine year old Sony F828 has a 28-200mm f/2-2.8 lens so why can't anybody make the same reach at the same speed for aps-c or ff sensor at the same cost and weight? Think about it.

That being said, if you want to talk Panasonic's comparable lens, think Panasonic 14mm f/2.5.

9 upvotes
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (Jan 23, 2013)

Like everyone has said. There is already a small 19mm F/2.8 lens for 1/3rd the price. It is sharp too, while we don't know about the Sony.
So we have an almost duplicate here as well as the 4th 18-200.

Come on Sony, give us a good lens! Where is that 85mm everyone keeps asking for?

2 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Jan 23, 2013)

totally different format

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

F828 got a 7.1-51mm f/2.0-2.8 lens
which is 28-200mm f/7.7-10.8 equivalent.

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

So yabokkie, the issue of f-stop is exclusively with DOF. If that is your point and the op's, then comparison of a 40mm f/3.5 equivalent makes no sense compared to a 28mm f/5 equivalent that Panasonic has to offer. But you didnt get that. Why?

Additionally, why is DOF a critical issue at 30mm equivalent focal length?

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 23, 2013)

Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 is wider on the m43, both 20mm are close to the flange distance of the NEX and m43 mounts.

1 upvote
mosc
By mosc (Jan 23, 2013)

EinsteinsGhost, it's not depth of field. There is no depth of field with that F828 lens. The equivalent aperture is referenced to describe it's equivalent low light performance (about the equivalent of a fuji X10 with a longer reach).

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Mosc, I am trying to figure out if people are complaining about DoF or about t-stop. What do you think is the point in the op?

0 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Jan 23, 2013)

i think the equivalent f stop can be only used on dept of field. It cannot be used for exposure. A f/2.8 crop lens is as bright as a f/2.8 full frame lens (same shutter speed, same iso setting).

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jan 24, 2013)

vodanh1982 - What if ISO were defined so that it compensates for sensor size?

i.e. What if ISO was essentially: 'whatever it takes to make sure you get a defined image brightness for any given Shutter Speed and Aperture combination'?

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 24, 2013)

vodanh has a point. We've been tuned to believe that f-stop is about DoF AND transmissiveness. It is only vaguely defines the latter. Cine lenses are typically identified with t-stop. And on rare occasions, a lens like Sony 135mm STF (specified as f/2.8[T4.5].

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 24, 2013)

> EinsteinsGhost

using the equivalent f-number, you get *every* result that an f-number can affect same as from a 35mm full-frame camera, with no exception.

equivalent f-number provides a perfect ground to compare lenses across different formats. it does not have to pretend to do anything that f-number cannot control, including the T-number (but we assume they are near and nearly proportional).

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 24, 2013)

You have to assume. Just as the OP assumed to compare 40mm f/3.5 equivalent to 30mm f/4.2 equivalent and that Sony could not produce an f/3.5 equivalent lens.

So, why do you think Panasonic 14mm is f/5 equivalent instead of f/3.5, a lens that directly compares in FoV to this Sony?

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 24, 2013)

the dpreview guys base their test on f-number and shutter speed settings. I won't trust those numbers as they are but that's the current practice.

btw, I use the factor 1.96 for 4/3 and you can calculate the 35mm format equivalent focal length and f-number yourself.

0 upvotes
Babka08
By Babka08 (Jan 24, 2013)

To EinstensGhost, I think the depth of field and aperture discussion is moot. You're asking for a lens of the same physical properties for a sensor that is 8 times the size of the 828. Laws of physics dictate the lens needs to be much much larger, even at smaller aperture openings. An f/2 superzoom at apsc sensor size would be about 3 feet long and about a foot in diameter. Unless the optics were made of tissue paper, it would also be about 12 pounds. Physics.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 24, 2013)

yabokkie, what is the point of doing this math? Do you not see FOV differences between a 20mm lens on APSc compared to MFT? Do you agree that larger f-stop is easier to achieve with smaller sensors, a reason I threw F828 into the mix?

babka08, you're getting the point I wanted to bring home with F828 which has a crop factor of 4x. Although, I am unsure if you are actually arguing against it.

0 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Jan 24, 2013)

The Sigma 19mm is cheaper than the Sony, but also far lumpier: Some people are willing to pay extra for the smaller form factor of a pancake lens. Though my 5D looks weird with the Canon 40mm pancake attacked. :)

1 upvote
SRHEdD
By SRHEdD (Jan 23, 2013)

I don't care what lenses Sony introduces, the AF is terrible. I'd gone mirrorless a couple of years ago, PENs first, then the OM-D and was lulled into decent acceptable autofocus. Then I tried the NEX-6 AND NEX-7 for a few months. I can say that the day I opened the box with my new D600, put in a battery and turned it on, I remember why DSLRs are still superior. This is recent, side-by-side, first hand experience, the AF in the NEX has a LONG way to go. Only the OM-D (haven't tried the two newer PENs) is close enough in AF performance to be an effectively inconsequential difference.

4 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

You also don't get that one could put a 200mm f/2.8 on a NEX, with a total weight of about 2 lb to shoot action where your camera's 2 lb body will need a 300mm lens for same optical reach. Then you could put this 20mm pancake on the NEX and slip it into a pocket of a pair of cargo pants and go strolling. Try that with your D600:)

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

are you saying that NEX doesn't compete with D600 but iPhone?

0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (Jan 23, 2013)

forwhat is worth the pens have the same autofocus as the omd

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

If you can't see beyond that, yabokkie then yes NEX can compete with iphone and D600. :)

0 upvotes
SRHEdD
By SRHEdD (Jan 23, 2013)

I guess that's where we differ. I could care less if it fits in a pants pocket, I want it to work FIRST. And I bought a P7700 for when I don't need the resolution or size/weight. Those pics would be for Facebook or ebay, etc. and the P7700 shines for that use. Also be careful on using a camera that is TOO light for sports, the weight can be your friend. I'll take this added weight and the performance that comes with it, all day long.

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Jan 23, 2013)

AF, lenses and slow click speed are horrible. No pvf.

D600 is a tool and not a toy and very very good.

The p&s crowd has no clue, bunch of sheeple.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
chadley_chad
By chadley_chad (Jan 25, 2013)

@ SRHeadD

You obviously love your DSLR and don't have much time for the NEX, so why on earth are you wasting both your time and everyone else's by posting worthless comments applicable only to your good self!

0 upvotes
xc1427
By xc1427 (Jan 23, 2013)

I heard that when sigma lens mounted on NEX, it needs 3-4s to power on for the camera. Is that true ???

If so, I wll definitely go sony.

0 upvotes
Sigfod
By Sigfod (Jan 23, 2013)

My 30mm Sigma powers on just as quickly as my 16mm Sony, and my 50mm Sony.

1 upvote
Hannu108
By Hannu108 (Jan 23, 2013)

I timed the power up on my Sony F3 with Sigma 30mm f/2.8 and found it to take 2 secs.

According to the review by imaging-resource.com it takes ~1.5 sec to turn on and capture a shot:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-nex-f3/sony-nex-f3A6.HTM

They didn't tell which lens was used in the test but presumably a Sony E lens. So not so bad for a Sigma lens. you have to remember that this 30mm lens is incredibly sharp—beating even much more expensive Leica 50mm f/1.4 and Sony-Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 lenses @f/2.8:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/nex-7-lens-imatest-resolution-comparison

1 upvote
Shamael
By Shamael (Jan 23, 2013)

You can buy the 2 sigma lenses now at B&H or Adorama for just the price of one, 199$ for the pair, 19 and 30 mm

0 upvotes
xc1427
By xc1427 (Jan 24, 2013)

thanks guys, I researched the information. That is on the M43 systems where we find a noticeable start up delay.
http://m43photo.blogspot.fr/2012/07/sigma-30mm-f28.html

0 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Jan 23, 2013)

I like pancakes lenses! :)

2 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 23, 2013)

I would like it if it were 28mm and f2.0 and not 20mm and f2.8.

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

There is a 35mm f/1.8 for that. IMO, 28mm is neither here, nor there category on APS-c. For that reason you don't see 40mm ff lenses gaining popularity any time soon.

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 23, 2013)

The Panasonic Micro 4/3 20mm f/1.7 is very popular. 40mm is a nice comfortable standard lens for many.

I'm happy to see this Sony 20mm as it helps fill a gap. It would be better as an affordable 24mm, as many can't afford the Sony/Zeiss's $1000 price, but 20mm is handy, too. But I do wish it were faster.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Because Panasonic hasn't provided a choice for 35mm equivalent prime. In fact 40mm is extremely rare from film days. 40mm is that in between focal length. Personally, I would be just fine with 10-18, 20mm, 35mm and 50mm.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Jan 23, 2013)

Meh.

3 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (Jan 23, 2013)

Is this lens made by Samsung now instead of Tamron? Looks like it, because the specs are identical to Samsung. Or Sony finally started copying Samsung.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

it is easier to make 20/2.8 for NEX than NX. NX has a relatively longer flange-back of 25.5 mm compared to 18 mm of NEX.

this means at the same cost, the NEX version should have better quality, or Samsung have to do really good to compete with the rivals. same to micro-4/3 guys.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (Jan 23, 2013)

So far, Samsung produced better lenses with better quality than Sony. They are also more compact and cost less.

9 upvotes
hermanofarias
By hermanofarias (Jan 23, 2013)

Actually, the flange distance is not a problem, since the lens' rear element can intrude the camera body as close as needed, just like Leica and voigtlander do. This can't be done in slr lenses, due to the mirror box. Samsung has no disadvantages in this regard. They can't adapt so many lenses, though, like sony NEX.

0 upvotes
poorfatjames
By poorfatjames (Jan 23, 2013)

I'm a layperson, but I don't get it. Why go through the trouble of making another pancake f2.8 when they already have the 16mm? Unless it has much better image quality.

1 upvote
darkref
By darkref (Jan 23, 2013)

it does apparently, although I would still bet the 19mm from sigma is much better

5 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Lower distortion, better sharpness and better all around focal length can make up for a higher price tag and in a form that bodes well with NEX.

4 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 23, 2013)

EinsteinsGhost, how is 30 mm equiv is better than 24 mm equiv? 24 mm is usable for wide landscapes, night-cityscapes and indoors in typical-sized rooms or in a restaurant shooting you company around the table. 30 mm is a bit too long for any of the uses.

0 upvotes
Keto
By Keto (Jan 23, 2013)

There's a big difference between 16 & 20mm.

& the 16mm is not a well regarded lens.

1 upvote
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Peevee, to me 30 to 35mm equivalent is more all around. This is evident in most of my shooting with zoom lenses in thatt range. And while 24mm equivalent will provide wider coverage, it will also be more prone to distortion. In fact that is a reason why I tend to use 35mm equivalent more with zoom lens when people are involved. My hope is that being a prime, this 20mm lens can meet that criteria while providing a wider view. And especially without requiring in camera corrections or via pp.

0 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Jan 23, 2013)

$1200 sorry what?

7 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Jan 24, 2013)

A stabilized zoom lens suited for video work will be more expensive than a zoom lens not suited for video. If you don't shoot video you pick a cheaper option. :)

0 upvotes
Griffo 155
By Griffo 155 (Jan 23, 2013)

A 20mm f2.8 lens about a 34mm f4 ish, then at full frame, at $350 (about £250) thats a lot of money for that type of lens - Can Sony warrant that price?
I dont think so...
When you compare the Nikon 1 lenses (in this case 10mm f2.8 @ £179) which are sharper and probably better made, the Nikon 1 range is beginning to look like a viable product... In addition to that the resulting images from the Nikon 1 are better than that of the Sony Nex range despite having a smaller sensor sizes....
All in all Nikon have got the market right no interference on their Dx range...

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (Jan 23, 2013)

So the 10MP Nikon, with not very much DR, images are better than a NEX 7 (24MP), and a lot more DR? Hmmmm.

Nikon doesn't get it. Mirrorless is going to replace much of the DSLR market because of size and the benefits of CDAF (more accurate, no fine tuning).

Sony needs to step up and make some better lenses.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

mirrorless cameras are replacing APS-C DSLR's. we will need time before they can challenge 35mm full frames, hopefully within ten years.

0 upvotes
darkref
By darkref (Jan 23, 2013)

Yeh look at that awesome image quality http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6996435336/photos/2402648/comparison.

Also, mirrorless will NEVER catch up with full frame.

1 upvote
nosnoop
By nosnoop (Jan 23, 2013)

In your dreams, maybe?
Nikon 1 will the the orphaned system when Nikon releases their APS-C mirrorless.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Jan 23, 2013)

4/3 catch up with DX and full frame? I think not, any technology applied to the small sensors will work just as well on the large ones. Guess again.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

So why is f/8-ish max aperture on Nikon 1 a non issue?

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 23, 2013)

"4/3 catch up with DX and full frame? I think not, any technology applied to the small sensors will work just as well on the large ones. Guess again."

It would, but the fact of the life the level of technology simply is not applied to the large sensors for economic reasons. The sensors are so big and yield of them on new tech from wafers is so small, they are simply being produced on older, cheaper technological nodes (like 20-y/o 500 nm node in case of Canon FF and APS-C sensors).
See
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371519

0 upvotes
Keto
By Keto (Jan 23, 2013)

It's eqv. to a 30mm lens, not 35mm.

& 2.8 is 2.8, it's only in terms of DOF that it's more like f4 on full frame. It's a fairly wide lens, not something people buy for shallow DOF anyway.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jan 23, 2013)

The Nikon 1 lenses are an unsung strength of that system, very well made, compact, cheap, and generally solid optically. Nikon continues to release a steady stream of CX lenses, so I'm not convinced Nikon won't stick with the format. Their major weakness is the Aptina sensors. If they become competitive, these could be fine cameras for most people. Depth of field is of interest to enthusiasts, not to casual photographers who buy the vast majority of this gear. People to whom size and weight matter far more. Pick up the lovely 30-110mm (81-297 ff equivalent) and CX makes sense. Compared to other tele zooms it's tiny, optically excellent, all metal, and can be had for $250.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 24, 2013)

" Nikon continues to release a steady stream of CX lenses"
None that is wider than 28mm equivalent, and only 2 primes.

0 upvotes
Griffo 155
By Griffo 155 (Jan 24, 2013)

That old Chesnut bring out the comparison jpg slide ridiculous comparison whats the raw files like Sony? They produce turquoise/aqua skys - all this comparison shows me is an over sharpened NEX7 image..
Perhaps Nikon will produce APS-C Mirrorless (nosnoop and Hugo808), but there has and is too much development with the Nikon1 to be just thrown in the Trash Can...
There are too many quality lenses coming onto the market place in this group... What I can see is the compact market getting smaller and smaller! Now dont start me on that subject!

Do you know I bet these were all the same arguments when Leica bought out their 35mm cameras... It will never replace.... its not as good as a 5x4 10x8 camera... etc

Suffice to say for me the NIKON 1 V1 is the best camera I've ever bought and I get superb A3 images! and all this is said from a person that owned an Nex 3 with several lenses and slammed the Nikon1 when it first came out!

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 24, 2013)

At least avoid being desperate Griffo. And a lot of arguments can be made using "perhaps". Deal with the facts. If Nikon 1 made sense over NEX, I would invest in it. But, it is, as you (I think) suggested above, is better for crowd who buys into it because of Ashton Kutcher. :D

Seriously though, I would compare Nikon 1 to Sony RX100, simply because they're supposedly designed for ultimate compactness, one with fixed lens, the other with the idea of ILC, and both with 1" sensors.

I see NEX as a DSLR substitute and use it accordingly.

0 upvotes
darkref
By darkref (Jan 24, 2013)

Here is a better comparison for you then. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6996435336/photos/2403752/comparison2 . Raw filed, 0 sharpening exported to the same dimensions (in favour of the Nikon). It is completely undeniable that the quality does not compare. Aqua skies is a subjective thing.

0 upvotes
crisotunity
By crisotunity (Jan 23, 2013)

Neo, people are looking for innovation and value.
These products are not innovative (you can already buy a Sigma 19mm at f2.8 and another two versions of the same zoom).
And they are a lousy value proposition (the Sony 20mm is 3.5 times more expensive than the Sigma).

You can have as many lens designers as you like, but if you commission them to redesign the same old stuff, you will end up with the same old stuff. But in black :-)

3 upvotes
neo_nights
By neo_nights (Jan 23, 2013)

But the Sigma isn't a pancake, is it?

What I DO agree it is that the Sony lens is a bit on the expensive side. Unless it's amazingly sharp.

3 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Get Sigma 19mm if you want that and dont mind twive the size and weight. More choice is not a bad thing. This pancake has my attention, if it delivers. That matters more than spec sheets.

1 upvote
neo_nights
By neo_nights (Jan 23, 2013)

As always people desire pocketable, fast, stabilized and yet cheap lens.

I wonder how come none of those people have become lens designers themselves? That should solve a lot of problems :)

3 upvotes
xMichaelx
By xMichaelx (Jan 23, 2013)

Designing lenses requires both knowledge and forethought -- something in short supply in any internet forum.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

Sony E20/2.8 is equivalent to about 31mm f/4.3 on 35mm format.
Sony E24/1.8 is about 37mm f/2.8,
Canon M22/2 is about 35mm f/3.2, and
Pana G20/1.7 is about 39mm f/3.3.

compared to the last three, E20/2.8 is wider and darker.
all these lenses are very easy and very cheap to make, and
I think they are all quite handy to use, even for indoor if you don't mind IQ.

1 upvote
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (Jan 23, 2013)

Sorry, but for exposure (what matters at these focal lengths)
Sony E20/2.8 is equivalent F/2.8
Zeiss E24/1.8 is F/1.8
Canon M22/2 is F/2
Pana G20/1.7 is F/1.7

5 upvotes
ventur
By ventur (Jan 23, 2013)

why is it equivalent to an f4.3? it says 2.8 on the lens

if its because of DOF... well, who cares, it's a 20mm APS-C lens, shallow deptf of field its never gonna be relevant...

what matter is the light that hit the sensor, but i dont see anybody talking about T-stops, only about silly equivalences!

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

what exposure is the problem.

same exposure on the unit area (lux-second) cannot be used to compare sensors of different areas because it won't give you the same output in image quality.

what would it mean by saying "same exposure, but not as good result"?

you will have to use lumen-second to compare them on level ground and the 35mm equivalent f-numbers will just do that in a simple and easy to understand way.

about T-stops,
just add it to the equivalent f-number and you are done. the equivalent f-number explains everything that an f-number can do.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ventur
By ventur (Jan 23, 2013)

what the hell are you talking about?

exposure!

i have this lens 20mm f2.8 @ 2.8 on my Nex-5 at ISO 100

I have a Minolta 20mm f2.8 @ 2.8 on my A900 at ISO 100

isnt the exposure time the same?

what mambo jambo are you talking about?

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

I understand what you are saying,
that you care more on some settings than the image itself.

0 upvotes
ventur
By ventur (Jan 23, 2013)

what image? have you seen any?

i judje the IQ by looking at photos, not some numbers on the lens barrel and made up equivalencies.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

exactly, then at the same shutter speed and IQ, you will find the setting on the lens barrel "happens" to be the equivalent f-number.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

The Canon 22 is the closest competitior and not significantly cheaper. The more important consideration would be how the two stack up in terms if IQ and focus speed and ease of MF if that is desired. If you want to throw in a Panasonic into the mix, consider 14mm f/2.5 which retails for $300. Sony has delivered about the same fov and size and weight for APSc with this one.

1 upvote
Revenant
By Revenant (Jan 23, 2013)

Regarding equivalency, there are several things to consider: exposure, DoF, diffraction and IQ.
F/1.8 on APS-C is equivalent to F/1.8 on FF only if we're talking about exposure, but not if we're talking about DoF, diffraction or IQ. On a smaller format, you need a faster lens to achieve the same DoF, to avoid diffraction blur, and to get the same final image.
But not all people are trying to achieve the same image as they would have got with a FF camera. Indeed, to those who have no experience with 35mm, these equivalencies may mean nothing at all. They accept the limitations of their chosen format with respect to IQ and control of DoF, and just think about composition, focus and exposure. Nothing wrong with that.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

nothing wrong if people know the difference and accept it. very wrong if someone thinks he can get the same quality at the same f-number. you only get the same result at the equivalent f-number, of everything that aperture can control, be it noise-level, depth of field, diffraction blur, ... you name it and see the same result, with no exception.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
EarthQuake
By EarthQuake (Jan 23, 2013)

Any exposure benefit you get from using a 1.7 lens on M43 vs a 2.8 lens on APS-C is pretty much moot, because sony's APS-C sensors give you on average about 1 stop better ISO performance than the best M43 sensors.

So a M43rds 20mm lens at 2.0 and iso 800 and an APS-C 20mm lens at 2.8 and ISO 1600 are generally going to take the same photo in terms of quality, noise, dof, etc. All things being equal of course(lens quality, you'll have to step back a little with the M43 to get the same framing).

So the 20/1.7 gives you a half stop benefit. Hooray!

My mirrorless camera is an OMD with 20/1.7 + 45/1.8 btw, just so you guys don't think I'm hating on M43. I do understand the differences though, and I think its important, if a bit esoteric.

With static scenes the IBIS on Oly cameras makes a much much bigger difference than a 1.7 M43 and 2.8 APS lens. On Pana bodies, its moot(unless you have an OS lens). With moving subjects, its moot.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 23, 2013)

yabokkie, those "equivalences" assume that the bigger sensors utilize light as well as the smaller sensors, and f-number means the same transmittance on all lenses. Both assumptions are not true. See
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371519
for sensor efficiency comparison. And see vignetting and resolution graphs for lenses for various systems, bright wides for large sensors vignette like crazy and are very unsharp except in the very center wide open or even stopped 1 stop.

0 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Jan 23, 2013)

The price of 350 USD is very adequate for this lens in case it is really sharp! Can't wait to see a lens review :-) It is cute looking too and would make a NEX5 pocket-able. Very high sharpness would be mandatory for it to make sense to me. Then I also can use it as zoom in the sense of cropping the picture and run around with this lens only.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (Jan 23, 2013)

Get the Sigma, and same some money. :)

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jan 23, 2013)

don't think E20/2.8 worths 100 US.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
JacquesBalthazar
By JacquesBalthazar (Jan 23, 2013)

Even the Nex7 becomes easily pocketable with this. The focal length is easier to manage than the 16mm. Hopefully better performance as well, as less challenging to design. Really looking forward to this one in fact. The Sigma 19mm is too big for pockets.

1 upvote
Paul Storm
By Paul Storm (Jan 23, 2013)

yawn...

1 upvote
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (Jan 23, 2013)

Why 20mm? And why F2.8?

It's neither equivalent to a 28mm or 35mm on full frame. A 24mm (well 23.5 really :lol: ) F2 or even better F1.4 would be far more useful. And of course there is the CZ already for that.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
straylightrun
By straylightrun (Jan 23, 2013)

It's 30mm equiv. That's 2mm difference from 28mm. And yes, you mentioned there is already a CZ for the 24/2. Why would they make another 24/2? What a silly post.

4 upvotes
HubertChen
By HubertChen (Jan 23, 2013)

Please note that many lenses are slightly off in terms of delivered focal lens. Many quoted 28 mm have actually been measured to be 29 or 30 mm. In any event a approximately 28 mm / 2.8 is a quite useful lens :-)

3 upvotes
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (Jan 23, 2013)

Hmmm, F/2.8 and no IS?
3x the price of the very good Sigma?

What happened to the Panny 20mm F/1.7 competitor?

4 upvotes
Hannu108
By Hannu108 (Jan 23, 2013)

The need of IS is not due to aperture—it's determined by the focal length. 20mm with a 1.5 X crop factor equals to 30mm on 35mm film. If you have stable hands you can shoot 1/30 sec shutter speeds (and faster) with this lens and still get sharp results.

Yes, quite outrageous price. My Sigma 30mm f/2.8 sells $150 and you can even get it bundled with the 19mm f/2.8 for $200 as somebody posted earlier.

It is harder to make a f/1.7 pancake for an APS-C sensor than for a smaller µ43s.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Just Having Fun
By Just Having Fun (Jan 23, 2013)

You will get more keepers with IS even at 1/30th according to ever test I have seen.
Also, in museums and churches I often shoot at 1/10th and less in order to get the best DR and IQ. There is a reason Sony puts IBIS on every Alpha camera, and they brag about how important it is.
btw, just saw Sony is going to make a 4th 18-200 (including Tamron) available. Seriously???

2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Nikon 14-24mm is a f/2.8 lens and costs $2k. No IS either. :D

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 23, 2013)

guys, when people say "this is worse than the 20mm f1.7 panny" they are saying that because 2 x 1.7 < 1.5 x 2.8. Don't you see? The panny lens is cheaper and delivers more light in a more compact package. It is simply a better lens. Compensating for sensor size isn't rocket science, sony just seems to think we can't do math very well.

I'd say the 30mm equiv is wider than the 40mm equiv of the panasonic lens, but sony already has a 24mm equiv pancake so this is clearly their "standard" focal length prime (usually the common 35mm FF prime) for which it fails pretty miserably.

The canon 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake ALSO takes in more light remember. As does the NX 16 and 30 pancakes. This new Sony lens is beaten by competition on smaller, larger, and same size sensors at both wider and less wide ranges.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

So mosc, you are "concerned" about lack of DOF in a 30mm equivalent focal length. And comparing it to 40mm and 60mm equivalent lenses. Why?

0 upvotes
mosc
By mosc (Jan 24, 2013)

I am not concerned about the lack of DOF, the lens simply doesn't take in much light for a $400 prime. That's mostly about low light to me. It means the ISO I'd have to use on a NEX with that lens is too high. And the canon lens I mentioned is 40mm equiv not 60, it's FF. And cheaper. And I mentioned the NX primes which are wider OR longer (both of which are faster and cheaper on the same size sensor). Besides it's somewhat uncommon 30mm equivalent focal length, it's only other descriptor would be "puzzlingly slow" for a prime.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 25, 2013)

@mosc:
>I am not concerned about the lack of DOF, the lens simply doesn't take in much light for a $400 prime.
Much light to do what? I guess nobodyy should ever buy a $3K Leica 18mm f/3.8 which may not permit any light at all! Or, may be I'm missing your point and you can show me why you'd need a lens faster than f/2.8 at these short focal lengths.

>And the canon lens I mentioned is 40mm equiv not 60, it's FF.. And cheaper.
I stand corrected on assuming it were an APS-C lens. However, if the 40mm f/2.8 is cheap, why is 20mm f/2.8 a $500 lens?

>Besides it's somewhat uncommon 30mm equivalent focal length, it's only other descriptor would be "puzzlingly slow" for a prime.
Puzzling, if one doesn't know better. 20mm f/2.8 is a rather common spec. Of course, if f/2.8 is too slow, Voigtlander 21mm f/4 pancake would be worth only collecting dust at a premium price.

0 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Jan 23, 2013)

NEX system most needed lens is a premium standard zoom below $1000 to replace the kit lens
why there is none in 3 years is not acceptable to serious photographer
now NEX is only for the public

1 upvote
lesnapanda
By lesnapanda (Jan 23, 2013)

how strange this new lens... does not seem to be any improvement vs the sigma 19mm at around 3 times the price. It is smaller - yes. But the sigma is not big either, so why bother?

3 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (Jan 23, 2013)

You haven't seen any picture taken with this lens. How can You tell about improvements? Sony lens is much more compact and doesn't look like plastic toy as opposed to Sigma.

3 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 23, 2013)

hippo84, why do you think it does not look like a plastic toy? It is plastic, isn't it? Have a look at Oly 12/2, 17/1.8 and 75/1.8...

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Peeve, what is the suggested retail price on the 12/2 again?

0 upvotes
jeep
By jeep (Jan 23, 2013)

Good - black seems to rule now, wonder if we will see an updated 16mm pancake. The 20mm will have to perform well to be a better buy than the Sigma 19mm. Now sony how about a couple more primes, a 70 to 90mm with macro focusing would be nice and an ultra wide prime without a Zeiss price tag.

2 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (Jan 23, 2013)

Dang, I wish Sigma would come out with two similarly bright excellent lenses for about half the price.

11 upvotes
Jan Kritzinger
By Jan Kritzinger (Jan 24, 2013)

I wish Sigma would make pancakes.

1 upvote
Ulfric M Douglas
By Ulfric M Douglas (Jan 23, 2013)

Looks good, I hope it's sharp.
If only Sigma had've made their 19mm flatter ...

(Monkeyking it has 49mm filter thread)

1 upvote
monkeyking
By monkeyking (Jan 23, 2013)

This lens does not seem to have filter threads?

0 upvotes
Chaitanya S
By Chaitanya S (Jan 23, 2013)

it does, see closely at the 1st photo. threads are for filter size of 49mm.

1 upvote
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Jan 23, 2013)

biggest problem is no OSS
no use at high ISO at night

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jan 23, 2013)

That's what they make tripods for so you can shoot low ISO at night with as much DOF as you need.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 43 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
WT21
By WT21 (Jan 23, 2013)

marike6: that's also why they make m43. More DOF, IBIS and no tripod needed.

5 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

OS is overrated at these focal lengths and I would rather not compromise the primary benefit of this lens: size and weight. OS is useless for action and unnecessary for landscape especially when using tripod you'd be better off turning it off.

1 upvote
EarthQuake
By EarthQuake (Jan 23, 2013)

So you carry around a tripod, with your pocket sized camera and lenses? What is the point then? Just bring a DSLR if you're going to be lugging around a tripod.

2 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

Using tripod is good practice but not necessary. And then there is the issue of, why not carry something heavier and bigger if you are going to lug around a tripod anyway? The same argument is repeatedly made for heavier lenses too.

The main point of argument being... Tripod and OS may not mix. And it doesn't need to be a tripod, just a platform could be it.

1 upvote
Keto
By Keto (Jan 23, 2013)

It's a wide lens, won't be difficult to hold in low light.

2 upvotes
joshxiv
By joshxiv (Jan 23, 2013)

Looks good to me.

f/2.8 at that size is pretty good, IMO. If you want faster, then get the CZ 24mm.

$350 may be pricier than the Canon 22mm, but one still has to bear in mind that despite the glacial pace Sony has released lenses for the NEX system, it's still significantly more mature than Canon's mirrorless system - and $350 is still much cheaper than other relatively compact APS-C lenses in roughly the same FL:

Fuji XF 18mm f/2 R - ~$600 USD. Faster, but much larger, and with a non-reversible hood.

Pentax 21mm f/3.2 Limited pancake - ~$600 USD. Superb build quality, has a DOF scale, and a great hood, a pain to use with filters though.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (Jan 23, 2013)

last year we all screaming:

"NEX is a good system, but their pancake sux !! "

This year we gonna scream as:

"ok...thats some how alright pancake, but why its 2,8 ? We need 1,4 at least 1,8 !!!! "

Feels good to complain, is not it ?

15 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Jan 23, 2013)

At that price, I expect something faster. At that speed, I expect lower price. Let's hope it's optically excellent. At least it's bloody tiny.

2 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Jan 23, 2013)

with no OSS this lens is good only for daylight and for someone want a small camera
price is definitely too high
worth at most $200 to me

1 upvote
hippo84
By hippo84 (Jan 23, 2013)

With no IBIS all Canon and Nikon DSLR-s with lenses without stabilisation are good only for daylight )))))))

4 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 23, 2013)

Why is it even worth $200 for you, when BOTH Sigma 19/2.8 (the same as this thing, only, I bet, optically better) and 30/2.8 can be had for $200 TOGETHER?

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

I think Sigma would prefer NOT to have to sell 2 for 1. It is a great deal but a lousy argument.

As for OS, it wont have it if it were a Leica or a Zeiss either. They have their own reasons for that but nobody does night time photography without OS, right?

I use Sony 35/1.8 A-mount on NEX and have no reason to complain about lack of OS. I simply ensure 1/60s or faster shutter speed which is ideal anyway. With 20mm, that can be down to 1/30. No excuses necessary.

1 upvote
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Jan 23, 2013)

with no OSS you automatically lose at least 2 stop at low light high ISO situation
this is like a F5.6 lens at high ISO compare to a lens with OSS

0 upvotes
neo_nights
By neo_nights (Jan 23, 2013)

You shouldn't use Nikon's and Canon's un-stabilized primes, then.

6 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Jan 23, 2013)

No, I usually need to maintain 1/50 or 1/100 shutter speed for other reasons, so no issue not having OSS. OSS on a such a wide prime would be next to useless and it couldn't be a small pancake. That being said, it is priced too high in my opinion, but I am sure it will sell well.

Sony has done a good job of making their early lenses so worthless that people are willing to pay anything for a decent lens. Maybe that was their plan all along.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
1 upvote
sjredo
By sjredo (Jan 23, 2013)

Um, how come Canon can pull off a 22mm f/2 lens for $250? :|

0 upvotes
Petr Klapper
By Petr Klapper (Jan 23, 2013)

Sony is a slow company and Canon has listened to the demand apparently. I'd also prefer anything "small" 20-25/2, but since Sony invested to expensive large Zeiss 24/1.8, they will not come with direct competitor I guess. Lets hope the 0.75x VCL-ECU1 convertor will work with this 20/2.8 too.

1 upvote
naftade
By naftade (Jan 23, 2013)

People might have hoped for a faster lens. At least Sony realized that people like BLACK LENSES.... yeayyyy!

Are you watching, Olympus?

1 upvote
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (Jan 23, 2013)

The real question is; does this 20mm lens comes with a free lens hood?

I do like the metal color of Olympus lenses more than black.

2 upvotes
naftade
By naftade (Jan 24, 2013)

Well, I like it less. As do many other people.
However, I don't mind them selling both black and silver lenses. They sell black and silver bodies, so they should offer matching lenses.

0 upvotes
RXVGS
By RXVGS (Jan 23, 2013)

This lens will sell like hot cakes!

5 upvotes
zerlings
By zerlings (Jan 23, 2013)

They will sell like hot pancakes!

3 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Jan 23, 2013)

Why not 24mm f2.0? I mean Sony made pancake, not that expensive Zeiss monster..

1 upvote
ashwins
By ashwins (Jan 23, 2013)

Exactly! Where's the affordable E-mount 24mm prime? Even f/2.8 would do it for me.

By the way, I have tried several quality MF 24mm f/2.8 primes with my F3 and found out that the best bang for the buck is Canon FD 24mm f/2.8, especially the S.S.C. version:

http://fdreview.com/lens-review.php?itemid=10

2 upvotes
so
By so (Jan 23, 2013)

Is it just me who would love to have on such lens an automatic cap, like most compacts have? For me that would improve camera usability (by allowing one-handed operation) way more than if it was F1.4 or whatever.
Wishful thinking.
Snapping NEX pictures while on a bike. Or horse. Or while driving.
For most shots you don't really need your left hand for anything else than taking the cap off, right?

5 upvotes
miked3
By miked3 (Jan 23, 2013)

buy a uv filter and ditch the cap entirely

1 upvote
misspiggy01
By misspiggy01 (Jan 23, 2013)

why don´t you get a uv filter and leave the lens cap at home?

0 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Jan 23, 2013)

A real protection is nicer than a UV filter which at least in theory degrades image quality.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jan 23, 2013)

Good idea.

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (Jan 23, 2013)

With a UV filer, take the Camera out of you pocket, and you still have to deal with a dirty lens. an integrated cap, mostly that won't be the case

0 upvotes
mrmart
By mrmart (Jan 23, 2013)

Why does everyone want a fast lens? They are bigger, more expensive and optically compromised. Often they are unusable at their maximum aperture anyway.

There are two reasons for wanting a fast lens. 1 for low light situations. But with stabisation and high ISO of modern cameras this is less of an issue. 2 for small depth of field. Personally I prefer a large depth of field. It seems strange that the likes of Adams and Weston struggled for maximum DOF using f64 on a 10"x8" neg while photographers now seem obsessed with bokeh on a tiny APSc sensor. Personally I love the ease with which I can get back to front sharpness on these cameras.

2 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Jan 23, 2013)

Fast lenses are hardly optically compromised. A pancake lens features typically less elements and less corrections. That's why they're so small. Fast lenses are not useless wide open. Rather DOF is so small that focusing must be right on spot.

5 upvotes
brumd
By brumd (Jan 23, 2013)

Why do I want a fast lens?
Stabilized or not, if you take pictures of people in indoor situations you can't use low shutter speeds, it has to be at least 1/50 (but I prefer 1/100).
My OM-D is perfectly capable of shooting at ISO3200, but if I have a choice I like my results a lot better at f2/ISO800 than at f4/ISO3200.
So, that's why I love my 20mm/f1.7 pancake.

1 upvote
peevee1
By peevee1 (Jan 23, 2013)

Have you seen m43 fast primes? 12/2, 17/1.8, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8? They are ALL not only usable, but very very good from wide open.
Enjoy, that is how lenses should be designed:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus12f2m/tloader.htm
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus75f18m/tloader.htm

0 upvotes
Nush
By Nush (Jan 23, 2013)

I'm new to the NEX world and using interchangeable lenses. Would the fish eye and wide angle converters for the 1628 work on the 20mm?

0 upvotes
guermantes
By guermantes (Jan 23, 2013)

What does this lens add to the line-up, actually? There is the 16mm/f2.8 and the 30mm. What situations would call for this lens? (not wanting to start a flame war, just trying to navigate between all the lenses to understand)

1 upvote
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Jan 23, 2013)

A small package like the 16mm while offering better sharpness according to Sony, with a little longer FL.

0 upvotes
JesperMP
By JesperMP (Jan 23, 2013)

Sony uses the words "sharp", and "excellent contrast, resolution and clarity" about the new 20 mm lens.
So it should be a much better lens than the 16 mm.
The 16 mm is dirt-cheap.
The 20 mm will be more expensive, but how much ?
edit: Oh I see, 350 USD. It is in line with the other new E lenses.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Jan 23, 2013)

This gonna be a kit lens for the next NEX5. Dont worry about its price... kit status will erode it.

0 upvotes
EinsteinsGhost
By EinsteinsGhost (Jan 23, 2013)

16mm is 24mm equivalent
20mm is 30mm equivalent
24mm is 35mm equivalent
35mm is 50mm equivalent

All of those focal lengths on the right are popular focal lengths.
IMO, 20mm is actually more useful than 16mm and enough separation from 35mm that I could go with 20mm, 35mm and 50mm trio and cover the classic rangefinder focal lengths.

1 upvote
guermantes
By guermantes (Jan 23, 2013)

Why do some people complain that this lens is slow? No-one has tried it yet.

2 upvotes
Xellz
By Xellz (Jan 23, 2013)

Do you have to try a lens to know, that f2.8 is not so fast? :)

11 upvotes
io_bg
By io_bg (Jan 23, 2013)

LOL

2 upvotes
misspiggy01
By misspiggy01 (Jan 23, 2013)

the speed of a lens depends entirely on your mode of transport, doesn´t it?

2 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Jan 23, 2013)

guermantes,

When people refer to a lens as slow, they are referring to the amount of light it lets in through its aperture. A wide aperture lets in more light, which means the shutter can can open and close faster and still let in enough light.

This faster shutter speed is good for eliminating blur caused either by the photographers hands shaking, or a subject that is moving in the scene. Hence, lenses that let in a lot of light are referred to as fast lenses.

This lens is designated as F/2.8 which is actually moderately fast. But it only lets in halve the light of an F/2 lens, which in turn only lets in half the light of an F/1.4 lens.

There is a fashion at the moment for F/2 lenses, which is why some people are calling this one slow. Fast lenses with good optical quality are usually larger and more expensive than slower lenses.

See this wiki article for more details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

1 upvote
Simon Law
By Simon Law (Jan 23, 2013)

It looks cool. I think the size and the parameters of this lens matched quite well, (you cannot make it small while having OSS and a fast lens!) the only complaint I have is the hefty price tag.
Anyway, need to see the sample photos for a meaningful comment.

1 upvote
io_bg
By io_bg (Jan 23, 2013)

For this price it should've been f/2... And I hope it won't be as soft as the 16mm f/2.8.

4 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (Jan 23, 2013)

If you want a 20mm F2 lens, it will never be a pancake..
The f2.8 aperture is a compromise to keep a small lens.

2 upvotes
Rachotilko
By Rachotilko (Jan 23, 2013)

@Couscousdelight:

Panasonic does 20mm f/1.7. Pancaked !

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Jan 23, 2013)

Or have a look at Samsung pancakes: 30mm with f2 or 16mm with f2,4. A prime lens with f2,8 is pointless.

17 upvotes
pureaxis
By pureaxis (Jan 23, 2013)

@iudex, keep in mind Samsung's own 20mm is 2.8, so I guess it is pointless they released it

While Panasonic cameras also cover a much smaller sensor

1 upvote
io_bg
By io_bg (Jan 23, 2013)

Couscousdelight, I bet most people wouldn't mind if the lens was twice the size. It would still be small, especially compared to those 18-200mm slow superzooms.
Oh btw, Canon's EF-M 22mm f/2 is a whole stop faster and doesn't look much larger to me.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
TrojMacReady
By TrojMacReady (Jan 23, 2013)

@Rachotilko:
The Panasonic 20mm is larger and 45% heavier, while the Sony covers a 60% larger sensor and thus a much larger image circle.
Equivalent aperture of the Panasonic is f3.4 vs f4.2 from the Sony.

3 upvotes
neo_nights
By neo_nights (Jan 23, 2013)

Samsung this, Samsung that. Why doesn't anyone say that Samsung has a 20mm F2.8 as well? Why doesn't anyone say that the F2.8 aperture is pretty much standard for pancake lenses? Look at Canon's, Pentax's and even Samsung's lenses.

The problem here is the price.

2 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Jan 23, 2013)

@pureaxis: With the same focal length, the Panasonic 20/1.7 is brighter than the Sony because the Pany has a larger aperture diameter and glass elements, not smaller image circle. I'm sure you know that f-stop is a ratio between focal length and aperture diameter.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Jan 23, 2013)

This is why M43 is better. Small but fast lens is possible.

2 upvotes
viking79
By viking79 (Jan 23, 2013)

What do you mean? Canon has a tiny 22mm f/2 pancake lens for APS-C as their lens for the EOS-M.

2 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Jan 23, 2013)

@pureaxis, neo_nights: yes, I consider the Samsung 20mm/2,8 pointless just as I do with Sony 20mm/2,8 and I would not buy such a lens. What advantade does it bring compared to kit zoom? 0,66 EV is not enough to justify the price. 30mm with f2 is much better, it´s 1,66 EV better, not mentioning the fact that with 16mm prime you gain focal length that is not covered by 18-55mm kit lens.

1 upvote
Total comments: 326
12