The 16mm experience...

Hi everyone, a few photos to share from this afternoon taken on the Nex 5 and 16mm combo.

Started of taking my normal type of photos, trying out the HDR in-camera settings with this one.





After reading a few threads complaining about the 16mm's large depth of field, and the "everything" in focus look. I thought I would try to get some shallow depth of field going by shooting at wide apertures. And moving in close. The first few did not really work out, this one was the one to start me on the right track.





The next few taken on the lake shore as the sun set. The light illuminating the seaweed caught my eye.





I like the way shooting at f2.8 has made the circular highlights glow.

A slightly closed down view.





The branches of the She Oaks made up for the lack of interest in the sky. Shooting wide open again gave some softness to the background.





And is often the case, I get my favourite photo of the day at the end. The light was just about gone, and I was walking over to talk to a guy shooting with a Canon DSLR, but the sight of a NEX sent him packing

I however found this last photo.





Worth the wait I believe.

A fun few hours shooting wide open with the 16mm has opened my eyes to a new style of photography for me. One I will enjoy.

How about you, any ideas or feedback.

Regards.

Stephen.

Regards

Hi Stephen!

You have some amazing shots here!
I liked all of them one by one. Very well done!!!

However, considering the nature of your shots (apart from the 1st one) it is hard to assess the full frame sharpness of your lens copy. What are your thoughts so far concerning this issue? I have seen in this forum some truly awesome shots from the 16mm (including yours ), but sometimes corners appear soft even in f8. Since I really consider buying this lens, do you think a good copy of the 16mm is as good as the 18-55mm?

Moreover, I really love shooting in the dark and so far has immensely enjoyed the incredibly effective OSS of the 18-55mm. Do you think the larger aperture of the 16mm lens compensates for its lack of the stabilization?

Again, thanks for sharing! Very beautiful shots!

Thanks for sharing your images! You have some wonderful photographs. It's nice to see that pleasing images can be made with the much maligned 16mm.

photonion said:

Hi Stephen!

You have some amazing shots here!
I liked all of them one by one. Very well done!!!

Click to expand...

Thanks mate.

photonion said:

However, considering the nature of your shots (apart from the 1st one) it is hard to assess the full frame sharpness of your lens copy. What are your thoughts so far concerning this issue? I have seen in this forum some truly awesome shots from the 16mm (including yours ), but sometimes corners appear soft even in f8. Since I really consider buying this lens, do you think a good copy of the 16mm is as good as the 18-55mm?

Click to expand...

Whilst the lens can be soft in the corners, I find that it is of no concern to me. I don't pixel pep like some. I believe the 16mm is worth having for the wider angle alone. Its well corrected for distortion, and sharp enough for my needs. Also the size is great, I had it around my neck for a few hours this afternoon and never felt it. Here is a more typical photo, not much in the corners but still good in my eyes.

photonion said:

Moreover, I really love shooting in the dark and so far has immensely enjoyed the incredibly effective OSS of the 18-55mm. Do you think the larger aperture of the 16mm lens compensates for its lack of the stabilization?

Click to expand...

No the OSS is very good in 18/55, it would be nice in the 16 but this thread shows the high iso capability of the NEX which might negate the need for OSS in some situations.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1042&thread=38395304

I can hand hold at some slow shutter speeds, if not I will use a tripod.

photonion said:

Again, thanks for sharing! Very beautiful shots!

Click to expand...

No problems enjoy your weekend.

Regards.

Stephen.

Nice photos.

I tend to crop and print at either 4:5 or 1:1 ratio, and the nice byproduct of that is that it chops of the very extreme corners where the 16mm softness occurs.

Hello stephent - thanks for the lovely photos that show some of the abilities of this lens.

I am following threads like this, because I am considering purchasing the NEX-5 with both lenses. I would appreciate any additional input of yours, and of others, about the use of these lenses - when do you prefer one or the other, do you always take both with you, would you settle for just one, in what situations are you happy that you have both, etc. I have read another thread here by someone who has only the 16 and 18-200 lenses, and says that this combination covers all he needs. I am trying to hear as much feedback as possible, as I don't know anyone personally who owns this camera.

I'm starting to love this little pancake...





--
Philippe
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miwok/

That 3rd shot is really nice. I like it a lot.

very nice work for your first shots. Seems like you might have a bit of experience under your belt.
--
Novice photobug, proud NEX-3 owner
http://davesnex-3photos.blogspot.com/

Nice photos, I use a lot of 16mm. It's just fun.

I always have mine with me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sverkerahrent/5719651169/sizes/l/in/photostream/
But sometimes I wish for a smaller zoom. I felt a bit uncomfortable here.
--
Sverker
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sverkerahrent/

jovation said:

Hello stephent - thanks for the lovely photos that show some of the abilities of this lens.

I am following threads like this, because I am considering purchasing the NEX-5 with both lenses. I would appreciate any additional input of yours, and of others, about the use of these lenses - when do you prefer one or the other, do you always take both with you, would you settle for just one, in what situations are you happy that you have both, etc. I have read another thread here by someone who has only the 16 and 18-200 lenses, and says that this combination covers all he needs. I am trying to hear as much feedback as possible, as I don't know anyone personally who owns this camera.

Click to expand...

Hi mate, I have the 16mm and 18/55, so I cannot speak of the 18/200. My choice has been for the 18/55 most of the time. On our New Zealand trip I never took it of the camera. I did mention when I posted some photos of that trip, that at times I wished to have a longer zoom.

The idea of an afternoon with only the 16mm was to force my self to see images in a different way, to challenge myself. I find that when I use a zoom I shoot at one end or the other.

Zooms can leed to a sameness in your photos, using fixed lens makes you work harder for your shots. The photos of the masks posted above is a nice example of what wide angle lens are capable of.

So what I am trying to say that if its a family occasion I would go with the 18/55, but for a fun challenge always the 16mm.

If you get a NEX you will not be disappointed, as I am not. Its just a fun camera that as others have shown can give outstanding results.

Thanks to all for the kind comments.

Regards.

Stephen.

The 16mm is excellent - I've never given two hoots about 100% crops, and I'd wager that if it weren't for the internet's influence, neither would a great many others. Frankly, it's all about the image as art, not science, to me. Ever tried pixel peeping a Monet? Impressionism? Hmm, looks hellish grainy at 100% if you ask me.....

Ignoring the pixel peepers, then a 24mm is a lovely way of viewing the world. It just takes a little getting used to, as your shots show. You have an eye and an art. Very nice!

daniel broad said:

The 16mm is excellent - I've never given two hoots about 100% crops, and I'd wager that if it weren't for the internet's influence, neither would a great many others. Frankly, it's all about the image as art, not science, to me. Ever tried pixel peeping a Monet? Impressionism? Hmm, looks hellish grainy at 100% if you ask me.....

Click to expand...

Hi mate, I agree, too much time is spent looking at 100% crops of edges of frames. So many of histories great photographs would not pass muster with some these day "too grainy/not sharp"

If thats what you enjoy fine, but don't dismiss brand "A" because of your visions.

Regards.

Stephen.