Reading mode: Light Dark

Samsung NX lenses are weird .. (reviews coming)

Go to last post
KingDon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where are we going with this anyway? The MSRP is $250, the street price is $150, so what's the point? I guess that Sony has the cheapest 16mm lens made? And also just a luke-warm performer at that? It is a good value lens I think, you get what you pay for it. I like that it is compact and wide. The Pentax you are comparing it too is a better lens (but maybe a bit over-priced). The Sony is such a small lens because it is about the same focal length as the flange distance.

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:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you are trying to imply here. Are you saying only Zeiss designed lenses are good? Were all the camcorder lenses for the past 20 years designed by Zeiss?
 
viking79 said:
The Pentax you are comparing it too is a better lens (but maybe a bit over-priced). The Sony is such a small lens because it is about the same focal length as the flange distance.
Click to expand...
Pentax is better overall, but it certainly is $350 better .. especially given it starts with F4.

Also, 16mm isn't as bad.. the center is sharp from F2.8 and borders catch up at F8

Pentax 15mm F4



Sony 16mm F2.8

 
KingDon said:
viking79 said:
The Pentax you are comparing it too is a better lens (but maybe a bit over-priced). The Sony is such a small lens because it is about the same focal length as the flange distance.
Click to expand...
Pentax is better overall, but it certainly is $350 better .. especially given it starts with F4.

Also, 16mm isn't as bad.. the center is sharp from F2.8 and borders catch up at F8
Click to expand...
I know it isn't a bad lens, I have reviewed it myself. It is a great deal if you get it for $150 (even for $250). It is cheap because it is a cheap focal length to make on the camera. However, even if it costs 3 or 4 times as much, Sony should make a 16mm that performs better to make people happy. Many are more concerned with overall performance than cost.

When you compare the NEX 16mm to lenses like the Pentax 15mm f/4, you have to realize that those lenses will cost significantly more since they have to be designed to work differently (there are a lot more materials that go into making a 15mm f/4 retrofocus lens than a 16mm f/2.8 lens for a flange distance of 17mm).

Which is one of the advantages to the NEX system; availability of small large aperture wide angles, but too bad they don't have a cheap (large aperture) 30 to go along with it. The 50mm is coming, but is hardly small. I am a defender of the 16mm f/2.8, where a lot of people don't like it. But, other 16mm retrofocus lenses I have tested against it have all performed noticeably better (but lack the small size or cost).

Also, why not a large aperture wide angle zoom? I wonder if they could keep it small? It would really help to have more lenses, especially those that emphasize the strengths of the small body and flange distance.

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)
 
KingDon said:
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.
Click to expand...
can you provide the link that Fujifilm stated that about the X100? as far as admitting what sensor is used in the N100, you might want to look at this > > > http://translate.google.com/...53A%2BFotoActualidad%2B%28Foto%2BActualidad%29

now that is coming from who actually works for Fujifilm.
KingDon said:
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.
Click to expand...
the common sense is that Fuji itself is capable of developing it's own sensors. just because they made a CCD sensor, made them completely dumb on how to manufacture CMOS. it's not like Sony invented CMOS, duh ! now, tell me, does that make Kodak itself use a SOny sensor in their sensor development?
 
KingDon said:
I am not sure what you are trying to imply here. Are you saying only Zeiss designed lenses are good?
Click to expand...
aren't you the one who testified how really good the 85mm and 135mm lens in the first place? tell me a non-collaborated SOny manufactured lens that is as good as that of a Zeiss? the fact is, Sony needed Zeiss to make lenses for them. and so far, Sony's own lenses aren't up to par to what a collaborated Zeiss lens is capable of.
 
KingDon said:
viking79 said:
The Pentax you are comparing it too is a better lens (but maybe a bit over-priced). The Sony is such a small lens because it is about the same focal length as the flange distance.
Click to expand...
Pentax is better overall, but it certainly is $350 better .. especially given it starts with F4.

Also, 16mm isn't as bad.. the center is sharp from F2.8 and borders catch up at F8

Pentax 15mm F4



Sony 16mm F2.8

Click to expand...
it should had been known by now that you pay extra for the lens' wide open performance. not on how good it is at f8. in general, most if not all lenses perform nicely at f8, including mediocre lenses. so what's your point? that the 16mm is a steal for it's value? lol.
 
I don't want to sound like anti-Sony. in fact I do like what they are doing with their cameras (NEX-7 specifically), but you are just giving way too much unwarranted credit to them while they still have to prove something in certain departments. the fact is, I haven't been blow off by Sony lenses that aren't collaborated or atleast helped by Zeiss to develop. that is the truth. and anyone who believes that Sony itself makes great lenses is delusional.

anyway, let's get back to the topic regarding what this thread is all about. not about misguided belief about Sony lenses and Fuji sensors.
 
for clarification purposes, why are you comparing graphs from both lenses which have different camera system and measurement used? are you aware that one is using an old 10MP sensor to a newer 14MP sensor camera? don't mistake the values as real measure of the performance of both lenses on equal terms.
 
Ariston said:
KingDon said:
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.
Click to expand...
can you provide the link that Fujifilm stated that about the X100? as far as admitting what sensor is used in the N100, you might want to look at this > > > http://translate.google.com/...53A%2BFotoActualidad%2B%28Foto%2BActualidad%29
Click to expand...
That's not a link to Fuji. It's a link that you already posted where someone else is claiming Fuji said that. Designing and fabing a new chip is expensive, costing millions of dollars. That's especially true for larger sensor, like APSC and FF. Fiju has no history of building an APSC CMOS sensor. Why would Fuji spend millions, possibly billions of dollars, in desining and fabing a new sensor from scratch, but never use it again?

I remember when x100 was launched, fuji were specifically asked if it is a Sony sensor. They did not deny it. They could have ended the rumor right there. Their answer, as far as I remember, was that it doesn't matter who built the sensor. The sensor is specially tweaked for x100. . The microlenses on the sensor are specially made to gather more light with the fixed lens.

However, it is 12 MP CMOS sensor from Sony.
 
Ariston said:
I haven't been blow off by Sony lenses that aren't collaborated or atleast helped by Zeiss to develop.
Click to expand...
Can you name all A-mount lenses not designed by Zeiss that are bad? How about 85mm 2.8, 35mm F1.8. 50mm F1.8, 70-300mm G, 70-400mm G?
Ariston said:
that is the truth. and anyone who believes that Sony itself makes great lenses is delusional.
Click to expand...
Sony has been making camcorders for 20 years, and these camcorders have stabilized lenses. Who built them?
 
Ariston said:
for clarification purposes, why are you comparing graphs from both lenses which have different camera system and measurement used?
Click to expand...
I am not comparing the exact numbers scored. I am comparing how the graph looks, the excellent, good, fair, poor part, and that is a valid comparison.
Ariston said:
I haven't been blow off by Sony lenses that aren't collaborated or atleast helped by Zeiss to develop.
Click to expand...
Does that include all the Minolta lenses? Sony bought Minolta, including all the patents and
engineers. Minolta has been building photographic materials since 1873.
 
Ariston said:
it should had been known by now that you pay extra for the lens' wide open performance. not on how good it is at f8. in general, most if not all lenses perform nicely at f8, including mediocre lenses. so what's your point? that the 16mm is a steal for it's value? lol.
Click to expand...
Let's wait for the review of how the Samsung 16mm does
Ariston said:
so what's your point? that the 16mm is a steal for it's value? lol.
Click to expand...
Of course it is.
 
KingDon said:
I remember when x100 was launched, fuji were specifically asked if it is a Sony sensor. They did not deny it. They could have ended the rumor right there. Their answer, as far as I remember, was that it doesn't matter who built the sensor. The sensor is specially tweaked for x100. . The microlenses on the sensor are specially made to gather more light with the fixed lens.
Click to expand...
it's funny you forgot to remember the link. unless you can substantiate your claim, it is nothing more than just a mere rumor.
 
KingDon said:
How about 85mm 2.8, 35mm F1.8. 50mm F1.8, 70-300mm G, 70-400mm G?
Click to expand...
this is me looking not really impressed. I have seen better. sorry but no dice. and just to be fair, I consider the 35mm to be very good, but I'm not totally blown off. got what I mean?
KingDon said:
Sony has been making camcorders for 20 years, and these camcorders have stabilized lenses. Who built them?
Click to expand...
we are talking about still cameras right? so what made this a discussion about camcorders? what are you suggesting?
 
KingDon said:
I am not comparing the exact numbers scored. I am comparing how the graph looks, the excellent, good, fair, poor part, and that is a valid comparison.
Click to expand...
the graph is only good with the explanation that comes with it. otherwise, it would give a misconception of what they really mean.
KingDon said:
Does that include all the Minolta lenses? Sony bought Minolta, including all the patents and
engineers. Minolta has been building photographic materials since 1873.
Click to expand...
So if I were a businessman and bought the DOS program, does that make me the inventor/maker of the program?
 
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
51K
lokatz
lokatz
Jonathan Brady
DSLR dominance doesn't necessarily mean MILC dominance
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
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
748
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