5n / 16 mm looks good to me

So, especially to Dez, what would you see as an alternative on APS-C?

Canon had an FD 17mm F4 that was supposed to be fantastic. It's about eight times the size of the SEL16F28 and a stop slower, but it's probably sharper, at least in the corners at F4, and F5.6, and probably still at F6.3. It's also about $500 used in good condition.

I have an FD mount Sigma 14mm F3.5 that's pretty good. It's still huge, and manual focus, and half a stop slower, but a bit wider and with, IMO, good capabilities. That I got used for $150.

Even discarding autofocus, I don't know off-hand of much in the way of 16mm F2.8 lenses. 16mm F2.8 lenses that are small are pretty much unheard of. And small 16mm F2.8 lenses that are also inexpensive are even rarer. So, for those saying the SEL16F28 is not good enough wide open: compared to what? and at what size and what price?

(Note: I am not saying the SEL16F28 is good wide open. It's not. I'm just not finding anything that's anywhere near comparable, in price or size, and better at this aperture.)

--

Nex-7 with kit lenses, Contax G 35, and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

D Cox said:

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.

Click to expand...

I have to agree that I have trouble with camera shake at times, like at 1/40 with the 16mm. (Sometimes it's perfect, sometimes slightly shaky, depending on how much I was paying attention.) But then sometimes I get a slight shake with 1/2.5 second shutter, but it's good enough to still be a "keeper". So it's all relative. If light is that low, you just have to try harder to keep steady. You CAN get good results at 1/40, but you can't be as casual about it like you could with, say, the 18-55 with OSS (or with whatever IS).
--
Gary W.

SQLGuy said:

So, especially to Dez, what would you see as an alternative on APS-C?

Canon had an FD 17mm F4 that was supposed to be fantastic. It's about eight times the size of the SEL16F28 and a stop slower, but it's probably sharper, at least in the corners at F4, and F5.6, and probably still at F6.3. It's also about $500 used in good condition.

I have an FD mount Sigma 14mm F3.5 that's pretty good. It's still huge, and manual focus, and half a stop slower, but a bit wider and with, IMO, good capabilities. That I got used for $150.

Even discarding autofocus, I don't know off-hand of much in the way of 16mm F2.8 lenses. 16mm F2.8 lenses that are small are pretty much unheard of. And small 16mm F2.8 lenses that are also inexpensive are even rarer. So, for those saying the SEL16F28 is not good enough wide open: compared to what? and at what size and what price?

(Note: I am not saying the SEL16F28 is good wide open. It's not. I'm just not finding anything that's anywhere near comparable, in price or size, and better at this aperture.)

Click to expand...

And unless I view at 100% and pixel-peep, it just isn't all that bad at f2.8, until you get towards the edges/corners. It's decent in the center, in the majority of the photo.

I think DK had a similar conclusion to what you had. Sure, the lens isn't perfect, but then, compared to what? He thought the lens compared favorably to other lenses of a similar focal length. I don't think those were the results he expected.

SQLGuy said:

--

Nex-7 with kit lenses, Contax G 35, and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

Click to expand...

--
Gary W.

ebay

Bill1000Evening said:

Where do you get the lens for $100?

Click to expand...

Used, from someone who's convinced it's a crap lens. ;-)
--
Gary W.