E 24mm f1.8 is worse than : 35 & 50mm f2 ZM

Started Jul 20, 2012 | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,549
Re: E 24mm f1.8 is worse than : 35 & 50mm f2 ZM

creeker wrote:

gfrensen wrote:

I always wonder why people are interested in these kind of tests. Yes the numbers are right and yes you can compare all kind of lenses. But in the end the result is what counts. I've taken some nice pictures with the kit zoom lens of the Nex. When you look at the numbers it is not a very good lens, but you know what? The picutes in the and can be great:

This pictures is now hanging in a large print in my room Nobody tells me that it is a bad picture for bad corners or so (and I have some brothers who tells this kind of things!)

The question is: is the 24 1.8 les delivering pictures good enough for you? And are you willing to pay the price for that lens?

I find that that lens is to expensive for me, so I won't buy it, not even when it was the worlds best lens.

Yeah, it's pretty much out of my budget too. I'd expect it probably gives better photos that the kit lens, but it would be hard for me to justify.

I agree gfrensen. Photosone only gives the Sony kit lens a 1 1/2 star rating. Their tests may justify this rating, but real world use may prove different. I have obtained some very good results with the kit lens.

I get great results. In the 28-or-so range, I have to work very hard to see a difference between that and my Minolta 28-mm prime as far as sharpness is concerned. There's not much difference between them. The bokeh looks much better on the kit lens, tho. Really, I have little incentive to use the 28/f2.8. It does have a nice character and contrast, so perhaps it's worth using, but having the zoom and AF and bokeh and sharpness and the kit lens just seems like the way to go. I keep thinking I need to try the 28/2.8 more, as it does produce pleasant pics, but I find it hard to justify...

Granted some areas of it's range will produce soft corners, but in most cases it is not noticeable enough to be of concern.

The soft corners seem to be better than the 16/2.8, but at the widest angle, the 16/2.8 looks a lot better to me. (Contrast?) I think 18mm is the kit lens' weak spot.

Yes there are much better lens, if someone is willing to spend a lot on adapters and lose auto focus.

If you replace with a prime, you lose the zoom convenience as well.

I have learned to frame some of my images and make use of the Nex-7's high mp's to crop out soft corners. I would be very happy if Sony came out with a quality zoom in the same range as the kit, but in the meantime I'll learn to get the most out of the kit lens. Reviews are good, and they help us to make choices, but they are not the "proof of the pudding".

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow