Putting e=mount lenses in perspective

Started Jan 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
Ron Parr Forum Pro • Posts: 13,785
Re: The 16mm review on photozone introduces "Field Quality"

Erik Magnuson 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.

Note that photozone gave the 16mm two scores: one as "optical quality" and then something unique called "Field quality". Why? Because they also realized that the "issues" measured in their test are infrequently relevant to real world photographs where you would typically use this FOV.

...and 2.5 stars, and 3 stars price/performance, still aren't something to brag about.

It should be fairly easy for you to simulate the "issues" of the 16mm using photoshop or similar programs. It would be instructive if you could show us a photo from another lens with the same FOV that would be significantly degraded if you had used the 16mm instead.

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. You want me to take a photo with a 24mm equivalent field of view and then fuzz up the corners and/or add CA and then claim that yes, in fact, the fuzzed up corners or added CA are annoying? I'm not sure what that will accomplish. The people who notice fuzzy corners don't need to be convinced and the apologists will just say that this confirms their belief that fuzzy corners don't matter.

The other interpretation of your comment is that I should find another solution to getting a 24mm equivalent field of view on the NEX system and then start with this. That's a gotcha question because there is no Sony alternative, but that's just part of the problem - Sony doesn't offer an alternative. If we believe the folks who claim that soft corners don't matter, then perhaps Sony never will.

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.

The 16mm is a sharp lens where it's most important. According to photozone "The lens is exceptionally sharp in the image center straight from f/2.8 onwards. That's the good news. The border performance is still good at max. aperture and it reaches very good quality at medium apertures."

Taken out of context, you can find a not entirely disastrous sentence in even the worst lens reviews. The conclusion, while not entirely negative, is not as kind. I'll just encourage people to read it themselves:


-- 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