Reading mode: Light Dark

Just looked at the new DPR NEX 16mm shots

Go to last post
T

tompower53

Senior Member
Messages
4,261
Reaction score
15
Location
Steamboart Springs USA, CO, US
For all you people that can't figure out how Sony could be so stupid and put out a 16mm lens here are some ideas for it's use for you.

Seems like for $600 this is a fine value and puts out decent enough images - as long as you don't compare them to your 5 LB $10,000 DSLR set up which by the way does not offer video, sweep panorama, incamera HDR etc. etc. etc.
--
tom power
 
Did people actually say Sony were "stupid" for releasing this focal length?

I think there could have been a better choice for certain, however 16mm isn't "stupid".

It makes sense from a total lens lineup point of view, but isn't the best choice in my opinion for an all around focal as a stand alone prime for this competitive category of camera type.

It's not a focal I would, nor many would, choose for portraits or street photography for example.

C
--
http://www.CarlGarrardPhotography.com
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com
 
tompower53 said:
For all you people that can't figure out how Sony could be so stupid and put out a 16mm lens here are some ideas for it's use for you.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between "so stupid" and "could have been smarter".
tompower53 said:
Seems like for $600 this is a fine value and puts out decent enough images
Click to expand...
Yup.

But I don't need uses for a lens. I need a lens for my use.

I'm sure if I had a dump truck in my driveway, I could find things to do with it. Doesn't mean I'm going to buy one to drive to work.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
If Sony came out with JUST the 18-55 "walk around" and asked "What is the first prime you want us to make to compliment the zoom?" I would SCREAM give me a 16mm! Then I'll have just about the perfect super light hi-qual vacation/travel combo.

I think it's a pretty common pattern for photogs now-a-days when buying a new system to start with a short walk-around zoom, then compliment it with a wide prime.

That covers most of your basic shooting requirements. Then depending on your interests, you add a portrait, or something fast, or a'birder... etc. THis is the pattern you see repeated over and over again on every forum on Dpreview.

BTW the soft corners on the 16 look pretty typical to me BUT I am amazed at the LACK of barrel distortion - look at the brick shot!

--
more bONGO at
http://www.bongolia.com
 
A 16 mm prime is a mini. It will catch everything. It's small. Easy to park. Astonishing power to weight ratio. Small carbon footprint.

As a camera, you can use your feet to zoom, and because it has a decent sized sensor you have room to crop. This is the most usable lens that could have been paired with the camera.
--
John Dunn
Portraits: http://www.fototime.com/users/[email protected]/Portraits
 
I agree 16mm is a handy FL to have for many purposes which suit me. I didn't realise that there were so many people who shoot portraits in low ambient light & who only want the subjects eyes in focus.
--
Keith-C
 
jrdu said:
As a camera, you can use your feet to zoom,
Click to expand...
If you want a distorted view, sure. I prefer to shoot from a spot that gives me the perspective I want, though, rather than settle for a perspective I don't want.
jrdu said:
and because it has a decent sized sensor you have room to crop.
Click to expand...
Maybe if the lens were sharper. Cropping from 16mm to anything substantially closer to normal trashes any & all benefits of a larger sensor over m43 and cropping to normal approximates the small sensors in the better compacts.
jrdu said:
This is the most usable lens that could have been paired with the camera.
Click to expand...
For people who like WA.

But an awful lot of people agree that it's a lousy choice in a kit lens, while over in m43 and Samsung camps, perople are pretty universally content with the idea of wide-normal pancakes.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
KEITH-C said:
I agree 16mm is a handy FL to have for many purposes which suit me.
Click to expand...
Handy to have is one thing. I would have chosen a more more moderate FL assuming people will want to carry the camera/pancake everywhere and not everything is suited to a WA.
KEITH-C said:
I didn't realise that there were so many people who shoot portraits in low ambient light & who only want the subjects eyes in focus.
Click to expand...
A portrait lens would be nice, but would have been just as specialized as a 16, and just as questionable a choice for release with the cameras. Something between 24 & 30mm would have been more in line with what the competition has done and more sensible to my mind (and while I appreciate the speed of the Panasonc & Samsung kit lenses, even Oly's 17/2.8 - 35mm equiv - would be more welcome than an ultrawide) but Sony could have had any number of reasons for choosing 16mm.

For me (and some others) it boils down to this:

These cameras are only as compact as we'd like for carry-everywhere use (jacket or cargo pants pocketable, small enough to slip into a briefcase or most anywhere) with the pancake lenses, so we'd like a pancake lens with a FL that's useful in all situations. I find something between 35 & 50 lets me shoot in a wider range of situations than anything wider or longer. Sure, I'd like a portrait lens - if I know I'll be shooting people, I'll put it in a separate pocket - but most of the time, I'd carry the camera & prime only everywhere I go.

I often take my A700 & 28mm and no other lens with me. Years ago, my carry-everywhere camera was a HiMatic 7sII with 40mm lens. The new Leica X1 has a 35mm equiv. The Sigma DP2 is 40mm I believe (DP1 is WA and a lot of people complained that it would be a nice camera if it had a longer lens). The Panasonic 20/1.7 is hugely popular.

That's all there is to this. 16mm w/fisheye attachments is a really nice option for the NEX system. But for some of us, the system isn't interesting until there's a normal pancake.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
ROFL! Couldn't have said it better. I read all the negative comments about this lens and wonder, who are all these people who, for $200 or whatever this lens costs, want Zeiss optics, max aperture of 1.2, and spend their time looking at corners at 100%?

If that's what I need, I certainly wouldn't expect it from a $600 entry level camera that I just pulled out of my pocket.

--
Just for fun!

Jim
 
Dennis said:
jrdu said:
As a camera, you can use your feet to zoom,
Click to expand...
If you want a distorted view, sure. I prefer to shoot from a spot that gives me the perspective I want, though, rather than settle for a perspective I don't want.
Dennis said:
and because it has a decent sized sensor you have room to crop.
Click to expand...
Maybe if the lens were sharper. Cropping from 16mm to anything substantially closer to normal trashes any & all benefits of a larger sensor over m43 and cropping to normal approximates the small sensors in the better compacts.
Dennis said:
This is the most usable lens that could have been paired with the camera.
Click to expand...
For people who like WA.

But an awful lot of people agree that it's a lousy choice in a kit lens, while over in m43 and Samsung camps, perople are pretty universally content with the idea of wide-normal pancakes.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
I expect that in the development meeting the question was asked, "What is the smallest, cheapest lens we can put on this camera that will offer reasonable quality to upgraders from point and shoot?"
 
I wish the E to A mount adapter had a built in focus motor or allowed SAM lenses to autofocus.
I would then get the NEX 5 with 16mm

Add the 30mm macro, 50mm f1.8 SAM along with my 100mm macro and I would have a really neat kit that is smaller and lighter than my A-700 even though I would be carrying more lenses.

They also need an adapter to allow the Alpha flashes to be used or have the NEX flash act as a wireless controller for the F42
--



In god we trust, all others are suspects
 
jimb100 said:
I expect that in the development meeting the question was asked, "What is the smallest, cheapest lens we can put on this camera that will offer reasonable quality to upgraders from point and shoot?"
Click to expand...
I wouldn't expect that a 16mm can be made smaller than, say, a 24mm ... and if that's the level of intelligence driving strategy then we're doomed !

I think/hope there's more to it (the existence of the fisheye adapter suggests there's more to it) ... and maybe it will turn out to be a brilliant decision for the target market or for sales in Japan or some other way.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
I don't get the complain against 16mm prime either. As a canon dslr shooter, 16mm (24mm FF) is something that is seriously lacking. Canon has 1.6x crop sensor, so we need a lens that can dip as wide as 15mm to get the same 16mm (24mm) perspective. So far, only way to accomplished this is either a canon 15-58mm IS lens for $700 or an ulltrawide lens for $700-$800.

Sony 16mm f/2.8 prime + NEX-3 combo is just $599. Wow, I can live with that.

Even better is the available (10mm)/ 15mm Fisheyes Converter lens for just + $149 . That makes it the cheapest Fisheyes on the market.

tompower53 said:
For all you people that can't figure out how Sony could be so stupid and put out a 16mm lens here are some ideas for it's use for you.

Seems like for $600 this is a fine value and puts out decent enough images - as long as you don't compare them to your 5 LB $10,000 DSLR set up which by the way does not offer video, sweep panorama, incamera HDR etc. etc. etc.
--
tom power
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I was thinking a 24-30mm pancake style lens might be better also.

Hope they get the AF working for SSM lenses on the E-A adapter.
--
Regards
Nik
 
Dennis said:
jimb100 said:
I expect that in the development meeting the question was asked, "What is the smallest, cheapest lens we can put on this camera that will offer reasonable quality to upgraders from point and shoot?"
Click to expand...
I wouldn't expect that a 16mm can be made smaller than, say, a 24mm ... and if that's the level of intelligence driving strategy then we're doomed !

I think/hope there's more to it (the existence of the fisheye adapter suggests there's more to it) ... and maybe it will turn out to be a brilliant decision for the target market or for sales in Japan or some other way.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Sony is releasing two lenses to get this product off the ground.

Why do you think one of them is a 16mm?
 
dr jim said:
ROFL! Couldn't have said it better. I read all the negative comments about this lens and wonder, who are all these people who, for $200 or whatever this lens costs, want Zeiss optics, max aperture of 1.2, and spend their time looking at corners at 100%?
Click to expand...
Ummm ... what negative comments are you referring to ? Because all we're talking about here is whether 16mm is a good choice in a kit lens (versus a wide-normal like Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung all managed to do in their inexpensive kits).

That pretty much goes for most everything else I've read. Sure a few complain about softness, but most people aren't expecting a lot in a cheap lens and realize it's only soft in the corners wide open. Maybe you're seeing something else, but in any event, it's not the topic of this thread.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
jimb100 said:
Sony is releasing two lenses to get this product off the ground.

Why do you think one of them is a 16mm?
Click to expand...
Stupidity ? Or some other reason I'm not privy to.

Possibilities:
  • They've contracted with CZ for a 30/1.8 and it won't be ready 'til later or might be too expensive for the NEX-3/5.
  • They have some marketing research that tells them some market (Japan maybe) is crazy about WA lenses.
  • They wanted to be "different" from Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung despite the general contentment with their normal pancakes and rave reviews of Panasonics in particular.
  • Greed. Since 16mm doesn't overlap 18-55, they think they might get consumers to buy both, where a 30mm overlaps and consumers wouldn't want both. (I believe they're going to be offering 2-lens kits in some markets).
  • They felt that by offering the 16 with the fisheye, they were really offering 3 cool options.
  • Or just stupidity.
I give all of those, and others I haven't thought of, a chance of being right. I'd give most of them a better chance of being right than 16mm being the smallest lens they could make. If I had to bet, I'd say they want to sell 2-lens kits and didn't want the overlap ... but I know if I did bet on that it would turn out to be stupity ;)
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
007peter said:
I don't get the complain against 16mm prime either.
Click to expand...
It's simple. 16mm is a great lens to offer.

But until there's a compact normal prime, the system isn't interesting to me (and from discussions I read, to many others). So Sony can sell them by the millions to all the ultra-wide loving soccer moms who want to capture all the action (every player on the field and both goals, all at once). If they want closeups of their kids, they can always crop ;)
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top