Darned 16mm! Why do you have to be so great?

Maybe it's just that I'm worried if I break down and buy one, I'll lose control and have to buy more, and MORE :D
When I was a Pentax user an Aussie regular (Lance Blackburn) on the Pentax SLR forum invented the fictional "LBA" - Lens Buyers Anonymous - organisation to help us in our addiction; Pentax dSLRs were the only brand available that could use legacy K and M42 lenses without loss of function, so it was a relatively new obsession scouring ebay for ancient bargains.

Even Pentax adopted the term "LBA" in its advertising at one time, so pervasive it had become on the internet. The only thing that's changed is that the NEX can reuse almost any lens ever made to fit anything, rather than just the (vast) range of legacy Pentax-fit lenses.

Man, that addiction could get national-debt-sized expensive ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT]
 
It is a great shot, what's wrong with that?

"For the money", it is a great lens.
Well, "For the money", the NEX is a great system.

Why degrade the lens and camera system in advance? Because there is better to be had? (For more money?).

Most of us are not trying to win awards or make money with our shots. For those of us, this is a fine lens - we just have to stop it down when we can. Being artistic with this wide angle lens - by doing clos-ups as Les shows - can work quite well.

In MFT, this would be an 11mm lens. In FF, a 24mm lens. None of those are perfect either. And the ones that (almost) are, are very expensive (and bulky, if fast).

I am not here defending the lens, but I do recommend people to get one (with one or both adapters). I am merely holding up a mirror to those always stating "It is NOT a PERFECT lens." Well, it is not, and if this matters, then don't use it. But let the rest of us have our fun with it.

Keep it up Les, it is a great picture, with an IMPERFECT lens, lol. :)
I'd never call it great. Mostly, I suspect, people are surprised (after all the negative press it received at "its birth") at how well it can do. Or, as you said, good for the money--I paid $150 off eBay for a new one.

As others have noted from time-to-time, it also allows the WA adapter (for another $100). But one could, I imagine, buy a (used) super WA dedicated lens and adapter ring for about that price ;).

It is odd, now that I think about it. Most of the time, I'm set at DMF. If I'm after a serious shot, I might be on a tripod. And I have peeking on (to give me my focusing "sparkles"). If necessary, I adjust manually. And a lot of what I do while "pursuing art" is with static subjects. So when I think about it, I wonder why I don't consider some used legacy lenses. It's not like I'd have a lot more to learn or do.

Maybe it's just that I'm worried if I break down and buy one, I'll lose control and have to buy more, and MORE :D After all, I sold all my heavy Canon DSLR equipment--no need to bet all burdened up again! LOL.
Ahhh, the "razor wire". Great POV !
You looked :-)
I've never warmed up to the idea of adapters and other lens. You make them sing--I still remember that autumn shot along that path in the woods/glen you showed several months back.
With the little 38/1.8 Zuiko I'd just bought... Lovely lens.

But as you say, manual lenses are not for everyone. If AF is high on your list of priorities then clearly the E16 wins hands down since it's all there is.

In any case it's not a bad lens, just not a great lens like the OP claims. It's "ok", perhaps even "good", for the money , but I would suggest that there are better options optically at this FoV if AF is not a requirement.

I should point out that although I don't need/want AF I do value size and weight, so the E16 was initially very attractive. Unfortunately it proved to be too compromised for my tastes, sacrificing too much optical performance in exchange for small size. Horses for courses; I know there are lots of perfectly happy users who have needs and aesthetics different from mine.

Personally I've never "bashed" the E16 just because I don't much like it, so I'm not at all clear about the perceived need by some to gush about its "greatness" in every other thread they post just because they like it. It gets a bit irritating after a while and makes me want write something to rebalance the scales ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT]
--

A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life".

(...from the generation that still uses capital letters and punctuation...)
--
Cheers,
Henry
 
LMAO. So, I am making a health-conscious decision! ;)
Maybe it's just that I'm worried if I break down and buy one, I'll lose control and have to buy more, and MORE :D
When I was a Pentax user an Aussie regular (Lance Blackburn) on the Pentax SLR forum invented the fictional "LBA" - Lens Buyers Anonymous - organisation to help us in our addiction; Pentax dSLRs were the only brand available that could use legacy K and M42 lenses without loss of function, so it was a relatively new obsession scouring ebay for ancient bargains.

Even Pentax adopted the term "LBA" in its advertising at one time, so pervasive it had become on the internet. The only thing that's changed is that the NEX can reuse almost any lens ever made to fit anything, rather than just the (vast) range of legacy Pentax-fit lenses.

Man, that addiction could get national-debt-sized expensive ;-)

--
John Bean [GMT]
--

A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life".

(...from the generation that still uses capital letters and punctuation...)
 
"For the money", it is a great lens.
We'll have to agree to differ on this. To call the E16 "a great lens" is to demean lenses that really are great, price doesn't come into it. The E16 is a good buy only because it's cheap; it could never be seriously called great.
Well, "For the money", the NEX is a great system.
Unlike the E16 the NEX camera makes no compromises that sacrifice quality for size - quite the reverse in fact, since NEX sensors are amongst the very best in their class. It's a great camera, price doesn't come into it.

I can't make much sense of the rest of your reply, sorry.

--
John Bean [GMT]
 
I agree. Even let us use for the price range, nex has the best sensor, arguably the best system to me. But for the price other systems have better lenses. It is a compromise and I went for the sensor and peaking.
 
"For the money", it is a great lens.
We'll have to agree to differ on this. To call the E16 "a great lens" is to demean lenses that really are great, price doesn't come into it. The E16 is a good buy only because it's cheap; it could never be seriously called great.
Well, "For the money", the NEX is a great system.
Unlike the E16 the NEX camera makes no compromises that sacrifice quality for size - quite the reverse in fact, since NEX sensors are amongst the very best in their class. It's a great camera, price doesn't come into it.

I can't make much sense of the rest of your reply, sorry.

--
John Bean [GMT]
"Great " is kind of vague at the best of times, but I certainly think "good" is justified. If I understood a previous post of yours correctly John, am I right in thinking that the experience you referred to with the E16 was on the earlier Nex cameras? If so, I can understand your luke warm response to the lens. Again, if so, you might want to revisit it on one of the newer Nex models.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia
 
"For the cost"... If you have to qualify something with "for the cost" then you know that there are issues... Just that weighted with money in mind, the less spent outweighed the less quality.
If cost didn't matter, I'd have an Aston Martin in my drive way... no, a Porsche... no, wait, both!!!

Ok, it may not be the best lens EVER, but a couple of people have compared it to their selection of wide angle lenses and claimed that the Sony compared well, almost regardless of price. It has to be notable, because not that many choices were $250, so it should be worse than all of the other lenses.
Time and again we see these threads about how this lens is 'not as bad as everyone thinks', but I don't think anyone says you can't get good shots (especially stopped down and in the middle), they just don't think it compares favorably to many other 16mm out there. It won't be glaringly obvious. You won't see a large black spot in the middle of the frame or anything, but when you peep, you can certainly see the differences. And when you crop with it you are limited a bit by what you can crop.
Can you show the differences? Unfortunately, the only comparison I can make is with the kit lens, and I convinced myself that I prefer the 16mm overall, just suffering with the corners sometimes.
It's great to have an affordable option out there, absolutely! And there are definitely some great shots from it. But there are better lenses at that focal length out there and it's not unreasonable to hope Sony or a 3rd party can put some more out.
But what are they and at what price? I'm not spending $1000 on the Nex 24mm Zeiss, so I'm sure not going to spend that on a large 16mm. I like the compact size, and it's actually pretty sharp in the center even at f2.8. It's sharp enough for me...
nice shot :)
--
Gary W.
 
"For the money", it is a great lens.
We'll have to agree to differ on this. To call the E16 "a great lens" is to demean lenses that really are great, price doesn't come into it. The E16 is a good buy only because it's cheap; it could never be seriously called great.
Well, "For the money", the NEX is a great system.
Unlike the E16 the NEX camera makes no compromises that sacrifice quality for size - quite the reverse in fact, since NEX sensors are amongst the very best in their class. It's a great camera, price doesn't come into it.

I can't make much sense of the rest of your reply, sorry.

--
John Bean [GMT]
"Great " is kind of vague at the best of times, but I certainly think "good" is justified. If I understood a previous post of yours correctly John, am I right in thinking that the experience you referred to with the E16 was on the earlier Nex cameras? If so, I can understand your luke warm response to the lens. Again, if so, you might want to revisit it on one of the newer Nex models.
What you say is true, but "great" in this context implies that the subject is exceptional rather than just "good enough". If "great" applied to anything that just "works well enough" then almost everything must be great and the descriptor becomes worthless. Even I stretched to "good" (just!) when describing the E16 in an earlier post, but "great" it is most certainly not.

You're also correct in assuming I used it with a "Mk 1" NEX and while I'm sure it works better on a "Mk II" like my C3, the CV 15 I now own is much more to my taste both optically and mechanically.

I'm not motivated to try the E16 again at this time, but I never say "never" :-)

--
John Bean [GMT]
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top