Reading mode: Light Dark

5n / 16 mm looks good to me

Go to last post
I know what the real uses are and the use of lenses to photograph. Not to test. I'll let excellent lens review sites do the testing for me. Photozone is excellent with that.

If I want to shoot wide indoors wide open, I don't want to be disappointed in soft borders around the center of the image. It appears optically its not as good. Real world samples at f2.8 (high rise) would be welcome to view.
--
Dez

http://dezsantana.com

 
Genuine question - what are you likely to be photographing indoors in low light at 2.8, that the extreme corners would be crucial to?

Alan
 
Ok, guys, the 16mm is perfect lends!

For wide environmental portraits it doesn't matter if the lens is sift in edges as your subject is NEVER in the extreme edges where this lens becomes softer at 2.8 and already much better by 4.

For landscapes or like my shot below - you always take this kind of shot at f8 or higher, why would you even use 2.8 for this kind of shot, in this case you want more DOF and more contrasty photos adn sharper edges - hence you close the aperture!
DezM said:
novak977 said:
I have yet to see the BAD copy.

All the samples from me and 5 or so other owners and samples on internet were great.
Click to expand...
Looks nice but that's stopped down to f/8.

I'd like to see wide open shots at f/2.8 with that 16mm, similar to that shot or others. That's how most would judge the lens.
--
Dez

http://dezsantana.com

Click to expand...
--
http://www.supernovak.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogic

FED-S (my father's) > Canon AE1 (my brother's) > Minolta Maxxum 3xi (my first precious) > Minolta Dynax 400si (hello Canada) > Minolta Dimage 7i (darling) > Konica Minolta 5D (first DSLR) > Sony Alpha A100 (killer baby) > Sony Alpha A700 (serious tool) > Canon 5DMkII (weird computer with average lenses) > Back to A700 (reassured about the greatness) + A900 (depth of colours and pixels)
 
Tom Spaulding said:
The thing is, this lens will rarely ever be used at 2.8 so why fuss over it's performance at that aperture?
Click to expand...
What? I shoot it all the time wide open for sports. It's perfect for "Hail Mary" shots of basketball teams during timeouts which I normally take at 24mm with a Canon 5D Mark II.

I think it looks very good wide open although the arena lights do cause blue flares and there is a little distortion at the edges.
 
novak977 said:
Ok, guys, the 16mm is perfect lends!

For wide environmental portraits it doesn't matter if the lens is sift in edges as your subject is NEVER in the extreme edges where this lens becomes softer at 2.8 and already much better by 4.
Click to expand...
I took a ton of photos indoors at 2.8 and almost never had a problem with the corners. Most of the time you could not tell that the corners were soft... because they looked identical to the OOF background. Now, I know that the corners are poor at f2.8 because if I go outdoors and shoot the backyard, the grass and trees are poor in the corners. But somehow, indoors, with "normal" use, I don't see it. Weird.

A bigger problem is the wide angle distortion that is not flattering for indoor people photos. Better to use the 50/1.7. :-) But it was kind of cool to use the 16 to get a different look....
novak977 said:
For landscapes or like my shot below - you always take this kind of shot at f8 or higher, why would you even use 2.8 for this kind of shot, in this case you want more DOF and more contrasty photos adn sharper edges - hence you close the aperture!
Click to expand...
I took some photos in overcast/rainy weather, and f6.3 was pretty good too.

Taking outdoor, sunny-weather shots at f2.8 just to prove that the corners are bad seems really artificial to me. I like to try to take photos in realistic test cases.

A while ago I posted commenting that subjects rarely find themselves in the corners, and sure enough, only the most contrived examples could be found to contradict that. I'm not saying the subject needs to be dead-center, just that putting it in the corner isn't likely; with the wide angle distortion, it's probably not that great even when sharp, but chances are high that you'll be at f8 or greater when using out doors when sharpness corner-to-corner is needed.

--
Gary W.
 
Magnus W said:
D Cox said:
I think a major cause of bad results from this lens is camera shake. Maybe Sony were being optimistic when they decided optical stabilisation would not be needed with this lens.
Click to expand...
The lens design doesn't allow optical anti-shake. This is the case with many primes and a serious reason why in-camera stabilization is superior to in-lens (you have to have a stabilizing group, which will add one more compromise to your lens design).

Not having IBIS is one of the great drawbacks of NEX, methinks (currently I am enjoying Contax G 90/2.8 on the NEX-5 and I would love to be able to dial in the FL to an IBIS system)
Click to expand...
This is dubious. The problem with ibis in small bodies and with large sensors is heat generated noise. The Oly IBIS seems to have considerable problems with this, especially as iso gets higher. Quite some time ago a Sony engineer gave this as the reason ibis wasn't used on the Nex. I think Panasonic came to the same conclusion.And any way, anti shake is of little use for lenses this wide.
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia
 
BTW, I printed my f6.3 photo at 8x10, and it's detailed enough that I could print a lot larger. Corners look fine -- although I'm sure in the extreme corners it doesn't have as much resolution, they've been chopped-off in the transition to 8x10. They still would have, if printed at 11x14. I would have to go to 20x30 to see the corners again. :-)
--
Gary W.
 
dnjake said:
Most competitors to the 16mm don't have f2.8 at all. The tests that have been done with the lens all suggest that the image is somewhat soft in the corners at f2.8. Presumably that means that it is not the best choice for to capture an image of a Persian rug at f2.8 where you want detail to be sharp from corner to corner. Of course most uses at f2.8 will not have an in focus image over the whole frame. All of the tests have shown that the lens is very sharp in the center at f2.8.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I purchased a 16mm last fall that was very soft across the entire field at 2.8 (absolutely including the center), and still pretty bad at 4.0. I returned it for a second lens that was significantly better in the center (though still not great at 2.8), though there's still significant fall off at the corners (which I agree is acceptable at this price point).

Regarding the need for a 2.8 aperture, I take a lot of photos outdoors at night and at twilight. If I need to stop down to 4 (or 5.6) to get decent results, that's a significant issue.
 


The neat thing about the Exmor sensor is that you can run up the ISO a little and still get decent interiors with the lens stopped down if the light's not too murky. If it is too murky you have to figure out how to (1) live with soft corners or (2) get more light or you're not going to get the shot with this lens. Or open up your wallet and get a better lens if you can find one that meets your needs in other respects.

It would have been great if Sony had offered to throw in an f/2.8 16mm with sharp corners wide open for an extra $100. They didn't, so I got this one instead.

I could have shot this at at f/4 with my Nikon 20mm and it would have had sharp corners at ISO 100, but the room's too small. Or I could have used my 10.5mm DX Fisheye at f/4 and defished it in post, but I didn't think I'd like the geometry after defishing. So I used the 16mm, though I could have walked down the hall gotten the fisheye if I had wanted.

Ultimately the gadget bag is only so deep. You use what you have and figure out a way to get the shot or you don't get the shot.

I really like this little lens on the NEX-5N. It's a tiny, practical little package. It's not the end-all and be-all of low-light photography. At the price I don't much care.
 
I doubt there is any discretion for the assembler. Likely only goes together one way. Today's machines must make everything the same. The 16 is not terribly complex compared to other lenses.

Modern products all seem totally identical to me.

Just not sure what to believe when people say their copy is good or bad. Has anyone actually heard of a specific cause for what are called bad lenses?
 
Mike Fewster said:
Magnus W said:
D Cox said:
I think a major cause of bad results from this lens is camera shake. Maybe Sony were being optimistic when they decided optical stabilisation would not be needed with this lens.
Click to expand...
The lens design doesn't allow optical anti-shake. This is the case with many primes and a serious reason why in-camera stabilization is superior to in-lens (you have to have a stabilizing group, which will add one more compromise to your lens design).

Not having IBIS is one of the great drawbacks of NEX, methinks (currently I am enjoying Contax G 90/2.8 on the NEX-5 and I would love to be able to dial in the FL to an IBIS system)
Click to expand...
This is dubious.
Click to expand...
Which part?
Mike Fewster said:
The problem with ibis in small bodies and with large sensors is heat generated noise. The Oly IBIS seems to have considerable problems with this, especially as iso gets higher.
Click to expand...
Reference on this?
Mike Fewster said:
Quite some time ago a Sony engineer gave this as the reason ibis wasn't used on the Nex. I think Panasonic came to the same conclusion.
Click to expand...
Reference on this too please. My guess is that the thickness of the body was way more important, i.e. marketing reasons. Also, companies tend to use their patented technologies or technologies they have put marketing resources in. For Nikon/Canon (Panasonic to a lesser extent) to go in-body would be to admit they have been largely spreading FUD in their marketing all the time.
Mike Fewster said:
And any way, anti shake is of little use for lenses this wide.
Click to expand...
Anti shake is of great value in any lens. In fact, I'd say it's at least as useful in wide lenses.
 
DezM said:
Church interiors, people indoors during events etc., where a fast wide prime is desired.
--
Dez

http://dezsantana.com

Click to expand...
From my experience the lens isn't perfect but it performs as well as any consumer grade lens of this type and at the price you pay for it I think it is a great lens. I've posted numerous images on here and my Flickr site (www.flickr.com/photos/tom_vac/) if you want to see more. I find that at 2.8 it is sharp in the center but soft in the corners. By f/4 it is sharp throughout.

It certainly isn't a Leica or an l lens but at the price you get this lens for (i paid $100) it performs as well or better than any lens I've used at that price point. Plus it is small and allows you to attach the excellent fisheye and wide angle attachments which opens up a lot of uses.

Maybe I got a great copy and from what I've read a lot of people that purchased the lens in the recent past seem to have as compared with some of the first copies of the lens when it was first introduced but I am pleased with it for everyday use.
--
  • Tom
 
Magnus W said:
You must be kidding.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

All things made by men are manufactured to tolerances. When these add up, you get a very bad lens.

Manufacturing processes is what separates "good stuff" from "bad stuff".
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, he has to be kidding.

People often confuse "tolerances" with "standards". A lens can be manufactured to many tolerances, but may not have any form of a standard measure of quality. Thanks for that link, it explains what was going around in my head.
 
Tvaclavek wrote:
...
Tvaclavek said:
From my experience the lens isn't perfect but it performs as well as any consumer grade lens of this type and at the price you pay for it I think it is a great lens. I've posted numerous images on here and my Flickr site (www.flickr.com/photos/tom_vac/) if you want to see more. I find that at 2.8 it is sharp in the center but soft in the corners. By f/4 it is sharp throughout.
Click to expand...
Mine seems sharp in the center at f2.8 as well, with the corners a mess. Even f4 has messy corners, but the funny thing is, it's not always that striking or noticeable in normal use. I think pixel peeping, it looks pretty bad up until at least f5 or 5.6. My corners do not look great until I go to f8 (although, I think f6.3 will do well enough). Most people have recommended f8 as the magic number for this lens, if you must have "corner-to-corner" sharpness.

Cropping to an 8x10 print, I was surprised to see a lot of the corners get chopped off. This sweet-spot may cause me to re-think what the acceptable aperture would be. No point worrying about, say, f4 corners if the messy bits are cropped away...

And if you need f2.8, I say, just use f2.8. I found that the corners often didn't matter, that I had worse problems (subject movement, high iso noise, etc.).
Tvaclavek said:
...

Maybe I got a great copy and from what I've read a lot of people that purchased the lens in the recent past seem to have as compared with some of the first copies of the lens when it was first introduced but I am pleased with it for everyday use.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it sounds like maybe you have a better-than-average copy? I just bought mine...
Tvaclavek said:
--
  • Tom
Click to expand...
--
Gary W.
 
gfrensen said:
D Cox said:
I think a major cause of bad results from this lens is camera shake. Maybe Sony were being optimistic when they decided optical stabilisation would not be needed with this lens.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to give a pancake lens stabilisation without sacrificing the size...
And a 16mm lens does not need stabilisation up to 1/25 of a second...
Click to expand...
Not according to the traditional "speed=focal length" formula, but I think the level of sharpness that people are demanding now needs a couple of stops faster than that.

In fact, I noticed years ago that a standard 50mm lens gives really sharp images at 1/250 rather than 1/60. And I am quite good at holding cameras steady.
 
nick18k said:
The 16mm is a good looking lens, and the fisheye attachment really tops it off.

Wish I could have afforded the dual lens kit w/ camera, but I only had enough for the NEX 5n w/ 18-55mm.
Click to expand...
I did buy the combo 16+18-55 and find the 16mm good enough for f4-f11 outdoors.

Indoors at 2.8 and iso up to 1600 it will perform ok but I prefer faster lenses indoors atleast 1.8 to hold the iso down to minimum.
Waiting for the 50/1.8 OSS to be available here.

Outdoors daytime in winter hmm.. no snow yet (gps data available):



 
Where do you get the lens for $100?
 
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