Reading mode: Light Dark

Samsung NX lenses are weird .. (reviews coming)

Go to last post
I believe Klaus is entitled to have his preferences as well. atleast he never said anything really bad about the NX200. it's just that he doesn't prefer it.

there could be some potential issue with the 60mm copy that he had, so it would be nice for someone nearby to lend him another copy for better and accurate results. the 50-200 clearly has some issues, so it's better to lend him another copy of this lens as well. I'm glad however that the 16, 20 and 30mm lens that he has are not dud, so that is more of a relief and we could expect some early reviews about the 3 pancakes next week.

with regards to decentering, it's a relatively funny phenomenon with tegards to these type of testing as most lenses that has been tested by Klaus suffer from such issue. we'll just have to wait til he gets some really good copy.
 
For me the NX system is pretty much all about the pancakes. Honestly, the 30mm f/2 is one of those lenses I could leave on my NX 10 all the time. I'm really looking forward to the 55mm f/1.8. And I'll probably eventually own the 16mm.

For me a mirrorless camera is all about size. I have larger, better performing cameras with a wider variety of (larger) optics that I can use when size isn't an issue. So as far as I'm concerned he could report that the zooms catch on fire and explode when you engage the image stabilization and it wouldn't really influence my opinion of the system at all. As long as the pancakes perform then all is right with the world. And my 30mm performs very well.

-Rob
 
Not to forget he gave 30mm F2.0 one of the best review. That review played a big part in popularity of that lens. He has been reviewing lenses for years, and his site has reviewed thousands of Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax lenses.

If after using a camera and lens, he gives his opinion, he is entitled to that. In fact, that is exactly his job.
aloosecanon said:
aloosecanon said:
I just tested the 3rd prime lens ... and it's a roller-coaster ride again. ;-)
Click to expand...
aloosecanon said:
The tested 16/20/30 have been fine so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have been following closely his site since 2003. There is a good reason for it.

Klaus is very careful in analyses and not afraid to stick out his own opinion. He also uses his own equipment or loans from readers for testing. Uses his gear well to make real-word pictures as well.
In time, I learned to weight his words quite a lot.

Hey, if we can't rely on a good 'old' German Engineer, where would this world head?
--
Aleksandar Momcilovic
 
For me the worst one is the 30mm macro. It could be optically wonderful (I have no idea), but the focusing distance is so short (2.4 cm) that I think you will never be able to use at 1:1 magnification. for me a this kind of lens is only useful to copy slides/film, since you do the illumination from the back side.
 
jgardia said:
For me the worst one is the 30mm macro. It could be optically wonderful (I have no idea), but the focusing distance is so short (2.4 cm) that I think you will never be able to use at 1:1 magnification. for me a this kind of lens is only useful to copy slides/film, since you do the illumination from the back side.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I reviewed that one too. It is okay, maybe kit lens quality at infinity (this isn't bad, but I wanted some advantage), and not really any better aperture. Such a strange lens. I have a picture of it at minimum focus too:
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1488

I think Samsung was much smarter to go 30mm f/2 and 60mm f/2.8 macro. However, the 30mm is cheap and is a good consumer macro for someone who doesn't mind getting really close.

Edit: A 30mm f/2 vs a kit at about f/4 or 4.6 is just over 2 f/stops larger aperture and same with a 60mm f/2.8 vs 18-55mm f/5.6, a good 2 f/stops larger aperture at similar focal length and a bit over 1 stop vs the 50-200mm.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
 
from what it appears, SOny is great with sensor development, although we can't say the same thing with their lenses. it is something like Fuji, great sensor, no lenses.
 
Ariston said:
from what it appears, SOny is great with sensor development, although we can't say the same thing with their lenses. it is something like Fuji, great sensor, no lenses.
Click to expand...
What great Fuji sensor? The sensor in X100 is Sony's 12 MP CMOS sensor. There are many great Sony lenses on A-mount, such as 85mm F1.4, 135mm F1.8, 70-300, 70-400, etc. Sony has a long history of building stabilized lenses for their pro-camcorders too.

The 16mm is a cheap kit ($150). It's the cheapest 24mm eqv lens ever made, I think. The Pentax eqv of that lens costs around $500. 18-55 and 18-200 are fine too for kit.
 
KingDon said:
Ariston said:
from what it appears, SOny is great with sensor development, although we can't say the same thing with their lenses. it is something like Fuji, great sensor, no lenses.
Click to expand...
What great Fuji sensor? The sensor in X100 is Sony's 12 MP CMOS sensor. There are many great Sony lenses on A-mount. Some of the best ever on any brand in their focal length, such as 85mm F1.4 and 135mm F1.8. Sony has a long history of building stabilized lenses for their pro-camcorder too.
Click to expand...
absolute BS. there is no proof that would suggest that the X100 used Sony's sensor. all these are unfounded rumours. from the so-called D90 sensor to Sony. btw, haven't you heard of Fuji's Super CCD sensor? besides, why do you think that Sony is worried about Fuji's upcoming cameras if they are the one who is providing their sensor?

and with regards to the lenses you mentioned, are you referring to the Zeiss-designed lenses (which are not really Sony made by any way) ? you are eating too much Sony grass there fella.
 
RRJackson said:
For me the NX system is pretty much all about the pancakes. Honestly, the 30mm f/2 is one of those lenses I could leave on my NX 10 all the time. I'm really looking forward to the 55mm f/1.8. And I'll probably eventually own the 16mm.

For me a mirrorless camera is all about size. I have larger, better performing cameras with a wider variety of (larger) optics that I can use when size isn't an issue. So as far as I'm concerned he could report that the zooms catch on fire and explode when you engage the image stabilization and it wouldn't really influence my opinion of the system at all. As long as the pancakes perform then all is right with the world. And my 30mm performs very well.

-Rob
Click to expand...
i'm coming around to that way of thinking. If you try to use them as a dslr substitute, you keep hitting limitations. but as an adjunct, they're great. what i do now on a shoot is hang my dslr low around my neck with the uwa or 70-200 and hang the nx100 on a shorter loop with the kit 20-50. best of all worlds. i can get very good quality out of the nx and a touch of the C button gives me raw for those "important" shots.
 
KingDon said:
The 16mm is a cheap kit ($150). It's the cheapest 24mm eqv lens ever made, I think. The Pentax eqv of that lens costs around $500. 18-55 and 18-200 are fine too for kit.
Click to expand...
and btw, is the 16mm a Zeiss designed lens? it's performance should give you an idea on what Sony's lens experiment really gives you. and please, don't even compare the Pentax version to the Sony 16mm. their performance difference pretty much dictate their price value difference in the market. and you consider the 18-55 and 18-200 kit as the barometer for Sony's dedication on the NEX system? you must have a taste for average lenses.
 
Ariston said:
KingDon said:
Ariston said:
from what it appears, SOny is great with sensor development, although we can't say the same thing with their lenses. it is something like Fuji, great sensor, no lenses.
Click to expand...
What great Fuji sensor? The sensor in X100 is Sony's 12 MP CMOS sensor. There are many great Sony lenses on A-mount. Some of the best ever on any brand in their focal length, such as 85mm F1.4 and 135mm F1.8. Sony has a long history of building stabilized lenses for their pro-camcorder too.
Click to expand...
absolute BS. there is no proof that would suggest that the X100 used Sony's sensor. all these are unfounded rumours. from the so-called D90 sensor to Sony. btw, haven't you heard of Fuji's Super CCD sensor? besides, why do you think that Sony is worried about Fuji's upcoming cameras if they are the one who is providing their sensor?
Click to expand...
Even if Sony made the X100's sensor, there's a lot more to sensors than the base silicon. Nikon's cameras outperform Sony's cameras where they both use the same sensor. Fuji's X100 sensor does very well for several reasons, and one of them is that Fuji customized the microlens array to get the most out of the X100's single focal length wide angle lens. Here's Thom's take on this from his D3x commentary :
Ariston said:
. . .

There's the inevitable "is it a Sony or Nikon sensor" question thing that arises from another new sensor announcement. But it especially rises this time as the primary difference between a D3 and a D3x is the sensor, and Sony has a similar-sized sensor in a camera that's US$5000 less expensive. I think there's a clear assumption by many that if it is a Sony sensor, then either the A900 is a bargain or the D3x is overpriced.

In actuality, the origin of the sensor is, like virtually all Nikon sensors, more complex. There's a story going around Japan, for instance, that one of Sony's newer fabs was partially leased to another company making CMOS sensors. There aren't many companies making CMOS sensors that need a state-of-the-art fab on lease, so the rumor has it that Nikon is the leasee. Given that the steppers in the plant probably came from Nikon Precision and things get messy real quick. There have also been rumors around for some time that Nikon was either specifying or applying their own "toppings" (that would be microlenses and Bayer filtration), even when they were using a Sony generated sensor. To say that there is a lot of entwinement between Sony Semiconductor and Nikon Imaging is understatement. Personally, I like the way Nikon puts it: "unique." The D3x sensor is unique to the D3x, though it may share some underpinnings with other sensors.

So it seems clear to me that the D3x sensor isn't the A900 sensor. There are some obvious differences that can be gleaned from the specs and without access to technical data sheets. At the same time, there are too many coincidences for the D3x sensor not to be based on the Sony sensel (the light sensing area of the photosite). It also seems clear that the low-pass filter is handled differently in the Nikon version. So all those thinking that the A900 and D3x should be the "same" for raw files are probably going to be proven wrong. And for JPEG files, the EXPEED and BIONZ image processing ASICs are certainly going to produce different results.
. . .
Click to expand...
http://bythom.com/nikond3xcomments.htm
 
KingDon said:
The 16mm is a cheap kit ($150). It's the cheapest 24mm eqv lens ever made, I think. The Pentax eqv of that lens costs around $500. 18-55 and 18-200 are fine too for kit.
Click to expand...
Remember, it is a $250 US MSRP lens, that can only sell for $150 street price. That isn't a good thing.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
 
Billx08 said:
Even if Sony made the X100's sensor, there's a lot more to sensors than the base silicon. Nikon's cameras outperform Sony's cameras where they both use the same sensor. Fuji's X100 sensor does very well for several reasons, and one of them is that Fuji customized the microlens array to get the most out of the X100's single focal length wide angle lens.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the link and in a certain way, it dismisses any undue credit given to a sensor manufacturer. if we were to apply a simple analogy, it is more like someone who invented a tool that could do one thing to a tool that could do 10 things. both may apply the same sensor principle but one made it work more efficiently.

on the other hand, this might clarify any assumptions made by some people > > > http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotoactualidad.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fsensor-de-la-finepix-x100-fabricado-por.html%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%253A%2BFotoActualidad%2B%28Foto%2BActualidad%29 . so let's just end, the X100 does not use a Sony sensor and don't feel bad if it doesn't.
 
viking79 said:
KingDon said:
The 16mm is a cheap kit ($150). It's the cheapest 24mm eqv lens ever made, I think. The Pentax eqv of that lens costs around $500. 18-55 and 18-200 are fine too for kit.
Click to expand...
Remember, it is a $250 US MSRP lens, that can only sell for $150 street price. That isn't a good thing.
Click to expand...
No, this is not a street price. The lens was always available for $150 as a kit since the launch date.
 
KingDon said:
viking79 said:
KingDon said:
The 16mm is a cheap kit ($150). It's the cheapest 24mm eqv lens ever made, I think. The Pentax eqv of that lens costs around $500. 18-55 and 18-200 are fine too for kit.
Click to expand...
Remember, it is a $250 US MSRP lens, that can only sell for $150 street price. That isn't a good thing.
Click to expand...
No, this is not a street price. The lens was always available for $150 as a kit since the launch date.
Click to expand...
MSRP for the lens is $250 US, but usually ebay going price is about $130 to $150. Buying it with a kit is a bit different since you have to buy it with a camera body too. Usually manufacturers give you a discounted price when buying an extra lens with a camera body.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
 
Ariston said:
absolute BS. there is no proof that would suggest that the X100 used Sony's sensor.
Click to expand...
This is not unfounded rumorr. Go back to X100 launch date. Fuji admitted that X100 has a Sony's CMOS sensor that is optimized for better light gathering with micro lenses designed specifically for built-in lens.
Ariston said:
btw, haven't you heard of Fuji's Super CCD sensor?
Click to expand...
Funny that sensor in X100 isn't a Super CCD sensor. It's a CMOS sensor, exactly like the 12 MP CMOS sensor in a dozen of other cameras (Kx, Kr, D300, D300s, Leica X1, D90, D5000, A500, A700) .... how did Fuji majically made a exactly 12 MP CMOS sensor when they had no history of APSC CMOS? Use common sense. It's exactly the same sensor already used in many cameras.
 
viking79 said:
KingDon said:
viking79 said:
KingDon said:
The 16mm is a cheap kit ($150). It's the cheapest 24mm eqv lens ever made, I think. The Pentax eqv of that lens costs around $500. 18-55 and 18-200 are fine too for kit.
Click to expand...
Remember, it is a $250 US MSRP lens, that can only sell for $150 street price. That isn't a good thing.
Click to expand...
No, this is not a street price. The lens was always available for $150 as a kit since the launch date.
Click to expand...
MSRP for the lens is $250 US, but usually ebay going price is about $130 to $150.
Click to expand...
Ebay prices reflect the fact that this kit lens comes for $150 with the camera. This is true for all kit lenses sold on ebay. The kit lenses are always cheaper on ebay than retail prices bought separately. Who buys a kit lens for retail price?

For all practical purposes, this is $150 lens and it has been from the day it was launched on May 12 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lokatz
G9II vs OM-1 compared for bird shooting - Part IV
2 3
Replies
42
Views
10K
lokatz
lokatz
Jonathan Brady
DSLR dominance doesn't necessarily mean MILC dominance
2
Replies
20
Views
21
Jonathan Brady
Jonathan Brady
J
BSI pixel + Copper process + Drime V engine = Picture Quality + DR + Noise management? thoughts?
Replies
7
Views
8
jennyrae
J
A
possible 1.04 firmware bug on the NX200?
2
Replies
32
Views
33
Ariston
A
P
  • For sale For sale
Samsung NX200, NX lenses 16mm, 30mm, 60mm, & 50-200mm; Crumpler 3 million dollar bag
Replies
3
Views
4
poziax
P

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