Putting e=mount lenses in perspective

Started Jan 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
Ron Parr Forum Pro • Posts: 13,783
Re: Putting e=mount lenses in perspective

dnjake wrote:

Ron Parr wrote:

The 16mm 2.8 has issues that are measurable and quantifiable, and these things have been measured and quantified by sites such as photozone.

In fact, the different reviews have all come up with different measurements. Each one measures so called lens sharpness differently. SLR gear and dpreview have very different results on CA. In fact, on most of these measurements the lens compares reasonably well with most wide angle lenses if you actually bother to look at the measurements that have been done for those lenses. Of course, that process is difficult because most of the sources have only reviewed a subset of the lenses. In particular, photozone states that their measurements are not comparable across systms

Again - photozone does not have a lens with a lower rating.

I always laugh when I read comments about how inexperienced photographers shouldn't complain about equipment because they wouldn't know how to get the most out of good equipment. The reasoning behind such statements is entirely backwards. Experienced photographers will have the knowledge and (often) the willingness to invest the time to get good results from poor equipment. Less experienced photographers, or people with less time, are in GREATER need of good equipment because they are less able to work around problems.

Inexperience photographers don't recognize CA when they see it.

Not even remotely relevant. People don't need to know technical jargon to see flaws in images.

It turns out that anybody can legitimately want a sharp lens. It's hard to imagine that I would need to justify that, but the group-think and rationalization around here has created an environment where people need to be reminded of this.

Anyone can legitmately collect lenses for whatever reason suits them. But those who think the qualtiy of the e 16 resolution in its corners at f2.8 has much implication for the value of this lens simply don't understand what it is good for.

This is basically a "No True Scottsman" argument. There is no way you can be wrong because you've defined the lens to be good for whatever it's good for.

Most people think lenses (with a few exceptions, such as Holgas) should be good for taking sharp images. That's a totally reasonable expectation. You can rationalize it away, but that's the job of a lens and no amount of rationalization will change that.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow