Prime lens dilemma: Sony 35mm F/1.8 SAM lens vs. 16mm F/2.8 Pancake?

[michaelleo]

I'm not terribly happy with the low-light performance of the kit lens (18-55) so I'm looking for some advice on a fast prime lens for the NEX-5, probably in or below the 35mm range (i.e. 50mm is just too long with the 1.5 cropping factor)

Here are the benefits I see with each -- would love your opinion on which one (or another option) make sense for someone looking for something Small and Fast. I'm looking to spend less than $500 if possible.

Sony 35mm F/1.8 SAM lens

• Pros: very fast. nice range given the 1.5 factor.
• Cons: size. The adapter + this lens make it as big as the 18-55.
• Questions:

1. what about image quality?
2. good range for indoor + some walk-around?

Sony 16mm F/2.8 pancake

• Pros: very small.
• Cons: Not nearly as fast as the other lens.
• Questions:

1. Is an F/2.8 going to be good enough to offer sharp and fast indoor / night captures?
2. Is the 16mm too wide to capture pics of people without making them look too distorted? Would you use it to capture pics of friends and family?

Other lens?

I'm open to a non-Sony lens but am not super excited about no AF support. I like shooting manual occasionally but I have to say, it was A LOT easier when I was shooting on my Canon DSLR and had a viewfinder.

 

[Kiril Karaatanasov]

35mm is very very slow focus on NEX. Think 5 or may be 7 seconds. You need vary patiented model and photographer.

So it is mostly manual focus story with the 35mm. Aperture is automatic which is nice.

NEX also has remarkably good IQ on iso 1600 so f2.8 is not that bad. Even 3.5 of the 18-55 is ok.

The 16mm is not quite useful at f2.8 though except the middle part. Corners are not very pleasing.

As for poeple's faces ....with 16mm you have to be careful. It is not necessarily a disaster but you should avoid close ups

 

[armanius]

Never used the 35/1.8. But one thing to keep in mind with the A lenses is that the AF on the NEX is painfully slow. I tried the 50/1.8 on the NEX5 at a local store, and I could MF just as fast if not faster than the AF via the adapter.

The 16/2.8 seems underrated to me. At first, I thought it was a little soft. But now, I actually like it. I took some photos of a flower with the 16/2.8 vs. a couple of M lenses that I use w/ the M9, and the M lenses weren't that much better in terms of sharpness.

The great thing about the NEX is that you can shoot at 3200 and sometimes 6400 and still get a good file. So the f2.8 on the 16 isn't a total downer for low light photography. As for distortion, I believe LR corrects that. Maybe frame people more towards the middle helps too.

Happy new year!

--
Armanius
Total Noob Photographer

 

[armanius]

LOL! I just wrote the same thing you did. Although you were much more eloquent about it!

35mm is very very slow focus on NEX. Think 5 or may be 7 seconds. You need vary patiented model and photographer.

So it is mostly manual focus story with the 35mm. Aperture is automatic which is nice.

NEX also has remarkably good IQ on iso 1600 so f2.8 is not that bad. Even 3.5 of the 18-55 is ok.

The 16mm is not quite useful at f2.8 though except the middle part. Corners are not very pleasing.

As for poeple's faces ....with 16mm you have to be careful. It is not necessarily a disaster but you should avoid close ups

--
Armanius
Total Noob Photographer

 

[michaelleo]

Thanks, Kiril. I had no idea the 35mm was such a slow focuser on the NEX. Are all SAM and SSM lenses that are used on the NEX via the adapter that slow?

 

[michaelleo]

Thanks, very helpful.

 

[JO-films]

16mm is not very useful for portraiture. Distortion is about distance (perspective). The downside of backing away for a flatter perspective with a wide angle is that you'll lose resolution, if you want a portrait crop.

 

[Franka T.L.]

My take

Sony 35mm F/1.8 SAM lens
what about image quality?
good range for indoor + some walk-around?

So far with all the review, articles, and samples been seen around, the Image quality leave little to be desired. Its certainly not going to be all sharp and all wide open. But for its price one cannot be too demanding , only you alone can answer if its good for your walk around and indoor. we all had different take on these matters.

Sony 16mm F/2.8 pancake

Is an F/2.8 going to be good enough to offer sharp and fast indoor / night captures?

Is the 16mm too wide to capture pics of people without making them look too distorted? Would you use it to capture pics of friends and family?

Its not the f/2.8, but the specific lens. As lens goes, Pancake lens simply demand compromise in optical quality. And as all lens goes, any lens benefit from stopping down to their optimal aperture for capture. ... and no I won't list the 16 as my choice for people photography unless pressed to and even that I would try to get the people well into the center portion of the frame.

--

• Franka -

 

[Joao Cardoso]

Ad far as I know yes. The adapter for a-mount does allows AF (with latest FW) but its really slow. And only Sony lens with internal focus motor have AF. If you use a Minolta version it wont focus at all.
--
Regards,
Joao Cardoso

 

[AlbertSiegel]

I use the 2.8/30 macro and 1.8/50 DT lenses on my NEX-5. As others said, the AF is a bit slow, but in my opinion not worthless. That five to seven seconds AF time is only in poor light. It's much faster in good light and very usable for casual photography. Unless you're shooting kids, sports, or any other fast action, the AF speed on the Alpha lenses is fine when mounted on the NEX.

On the other hand... if you plan to use it for movie mode, then the lens is really only useful in manual focus as the auto focus cannot react quickly enough for filming.

 

[michaelleo]

Thanks, good to know. Unfortunately, it's poor light that I'm looking to deal with Any other ideas? I was thinking about the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 but it's a little pricey and requires manual focus, which I'm not completely keen on. Hopefully Sony will release a faster e-mount lens soon.

 

[john inglis]

Albert,
What do you think of the macro on the 2.8/30 macro?
I am looking for a lens to use in museums.
It seems wide enough for large sculptures,
plus it has macro for small objects
John

 

[armanius]

I have the Voigtlander 35/1.4. Nice lens. But manually focusing on the Sony 35/1.8 is likely to be a bit easier than the Voigtlander, if the 35/1.8 is anything like the 50/1.8, which I have. The focus tab on the Voigtlander plus a stiff focus ring (at least in my copy) is harder to MF than the smooth focus ring on the 50/1.8. Frankly, I wouldn't buy the Voigtlander unless you also plan to use it in a M rangefinder.

Thanks, good to know. Unfortunately, it's poor light that I'm looking to deal with Any other ideas? I was thinking about the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 but it's a little pricey and requires manual focus, which I'm not completely keen on. Hopefully Sony will release a faster e-mount lens soon.

--
Armanius
Total Noob Photographer

 

[ItsaChris]

Is the 16mm too wide to capture pics of people without making them look too distorted? Would you use it to capture pics of friends and family?

Distortion or perspective is not a product of lens length but distance from subject.

Its not the f/2.8, but the specific lens. As lens goes, Pancake lens simply demand compromise in optical quality.

Pancake lens can be incredible sharp

nikon 45p - http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/215-nikkor-ai-p-45mm-f28-review--lab-test-report?start=1

voigtlander 40mm - http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/263-voigtlander-ultron-40mm-f2-ii-nikon-mount-review--test-report?start=1

not to mention the Contax Tessar T* 45mm f2.8, Angulor 28mm 4.5, Zeiss 85mm, pentax 40, 77

The Tessar design provides minimal glass/air surface. the only big con for the tessar design is the oof area, as the front glass elements are always smaller than comparable lens.
--
http://www.LightPaintPhotography.com

 

[camera2]

Wow I'm surprised that the MF on the Voigtlander is so bad considering it is a MF lens compared to a lens designed for AF. I've used the Sony 50/1.8 as well and found the MF performance was okay. It was certainly better than MF with Canon's kit lenses so perhaps even Sony's other consumer AF lenses are decent for MF. I think it has a rubberized ring around the focus ring to improve the focusing feel.

Anyway, I'll be sure to take this into account with the buying decision. Does Sony have any plans for more fast primes in it's lens roadmap? I do not recall any rumors about this.

I have the Voigtlander 35/1.4. Nice lens. But manually focusing on the Sony 35/1.8 is likely to be a bit easier than the Voigtlander, if the 35/1.8 is anything like the 50/1.8, which I have. The focus tab on the Voigtlander plus a stiff focus ring (at least in my copy) is harder to MF than the smooth focus ring on the 50/1.8. Frankly, I wouldn't buy the Voigtlander unless you also plan to use it in a M rangefinder.

Thanks, good to know. Unfortunately, it's poor light that I'm looking to deal with Any other ideas? I was thinking about the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 but it's a little pricey and requires manual focus, which I'm not completely keen on. Hopefully Sony will release a faster e-mount lens soon.

--
Armanius
Total Noob Photographer

 

[AlbertSiegel]

Albert,
What do you think of the macro on the 2.8/30 macro?
I am looking for a lens to use in museums.
It seems wide enough for large sculptures,
plus it has macro for small objects
John

Hi john,

The 2.8/30 macro is indeed an excellent lens. I'm quite happy with it though you must be very precise when you manual focus the lens as the focus throw is short.

I placed a video sample I made with this lens on youtube. Feel free to check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBphDvYhJUc

 

[armanius]

The Voigtlander is not that bad. It's just not the easiest lens to MF in conjunction with the NEX. I love it when used with my M9.

Wow I'm surprised that the MF on the Voigtlander is so bad considering it is a MF lens compared to a lens designed for AF. I've used the Sony 50/1.8 as well and found the MF performance was okay. It was certainly better than MF with Canon's kit lenses so perhaps even Sony's other consumer AF lenses are decent for MF. I think it has a rubberized ring around the focus ring to improve the focusing feel.

Anyway, I'll be sure to take this into account with the buying decision. Does Sony have any plans for more fast primes in it's lens roadmap? I do not recall any rumors about this.

I have the Voigtlander 35/1.4. Nice lens. But manually focusing on the Sony 35/1.8 is likely to be a bit easier than the Voigtlander, if the 35/1.8 is anything like the 50/1.8, which I have. The focus tab on the Voigtlander plus a stiff focus ring (at least in my copy) is harder to MF than the smooth focus ring on the 50/1.8. Frankly, I wouldn't buy the Voigtlander unless you also plan to use it in a M rangefinder.

Thanks, good to know. Unfortunately, it's poor light that I'm looking to deal with Any other ideas? I was thinking about the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 but it's a little pricey and requires manual focus, which I'm not completely keen on. Hopefully Sony will release a faster e-mount lens soon.

--
Armanius
Total Noob Photographer

--
Armanius
Total Noob Photographer

 

[headofdestiny]

The Voigtlander is not that bad. It's just not the easiest lens to MF in conjunction with the NEX. I love it when used with my M9.

Agreed. I'm not in love with using some lenses with focus tabs on NEX.

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

A 40mm F1.8 Hexanon AR lens is only 27mm long, light, and quite sharp at apertures smaller than F2.8. Some color fringing visible from the simple, 35-year-old design, that is to some extent minimizable in post-processing. Note that a plain old 50mm 1.8 Nikkor has even greater sharpness at medium apertures, and less color fringing, but the Nikkor is not as pancake-y flat.

 

[michaelleo]

armanius,

What is it about the Voigtlander and NEX combo that you don't like? What makes things better on the M9? Sorry for what might be an obvious question Just trying to understand more as I potentially branch out into the world of NEX + MF lenses.

Thanks!
michael

The Voigtlander is not that bad. It's just not the easiest lens to MF in conjunction with the NEX. I love it when used with my M9.

Wow I'm surprised that the MF on the Voigtlander is so bad considering it is a MF lens compared to a lens designed for AF. I've used the Sony 50/1.8 as well and found the MF performance was okay. It was certainly better than MF with Canon's kit lenses so perhaps even Sony's other consumer AF lenses are decent for MF. I think it has a rubberized ring around the focus ring to improve the focusing feel.

Anyway, I'll be sure to take this into account with the buying decision. Does Sony have any plans for more fast primes in it's lens roadmap? I do not recall any rumors about this.

I have the Voigtlander 35/1.4. Nice lens. But manually focusing on the Sony 35/1.8 is likely to be a bit easier than the Voigtlander, if the 35/1.8 is anything like the 50/1.8, which I have. The focus tab on the Voigtlander plus a stiff focus ring (at least in my copy) is harder to MF than the smooth focus ring on the 50/1.8. Frankly, I wouldn't buy the Voigtlander unless you also plan to use it in a M rangefinder.

Thanks, good to know. Unfortunately, it's poor light that I'm looking to deal with Any other ideas? I was thinking about the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 but it's a little pricey and requires manual focus, which I'm not completely keen on. Hopefully Sony will release a faster e-mount lens soon.

--
Armanius
Total Noob Photographer

--
Armanius
Total Noob Photographer