16-50 vs. 18-55 with NEX 5N

jpr2 said:

jpr2 wrote:

jpr2 said:

YES PLEASE, but... W_H_E_R_E are they = these notch optical quality primes in E-mount??

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I dont know if the focal length fits what you want, but the little Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is actually better than the $1500 Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 I had before I switched to NEX and according to reviews it is right up there with the best primes made - easily better than either the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 at equal apertures



NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

• how is the build quality? in the past I had some rather mixed experiences with Sigmas: pretty inconsistent QC, with some exemplars excellent, but way too many very sub-par;
  
• in the end I've kept only one - 17-35mm f/2.8 EX Asph HSM in EF mount;
• how good is the 30/2.8 wide open: contrast? flaring & ghosting? CA & PF?

jpr2

edwardaneal said:

edwardaneal wrote:

edwardaneal said:

jpr2 wrote:

edwardaneal said:

YES PLEASE, but... W_H_E_R_E are they = these notch optical quality primes in E-mount??

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I dont know if the focal length fits what you want, but the little Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is actually better than the $1500 Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 I had before I switched to NEX and according to reviews it is right up there with the best primes made - easily better than either the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 at equal apertures

Click to expand...

--
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

jpr2 said:

jpr2 wrote:

• how is the build quality? in the past I had some rather mixed experiences with Sigmas: pretty inconsistent QC, with some exemplars excellent, but way too many very sub-par;
  
• in the end I've kept only one - 17-35mm f/2.8 EX Asph HSM in EF mount;

Click to expand...

When I was a Nikon user I was a total lens snob - wouldnt even touch a Sigma lens, but I have mellowed. The build quality is not the best, but it also isnt bad, heck it is a $200 lens. As to quality control - - From what I hear if you get a bad copy Sigma will make it right - - Fact is over the years from what I have heard Sigma is more willing to correct these things than just about anyone

in the day I had the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, a $1,500 lens - - - The sigma is optically better in every way

--
NEX-7 & Sigma 30mm f/2.8
NEX-5 & 18-55 OSS
And a spare black 18-55

edwardaneal said:

edwardaneal wrote:

edwardaneal said:

jpr2 wrote:

• how is the build quality? in the past I had some rather mixed experiences with Sigmas: pretty inconsistent QC, with some exemplars excellent, but way too many very sub-par;
  
• in the end I've kept only one - 17-35mm f/2.8 EX Asph HSM in EF mount;

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

When I was a Nikon user I was a total lens snob - wouldnt even touch a Sigma lens, but I have mellowed. The build quality is not the best, but it also isnt bad, heck it is a $200 lens. As to quality control - - From what I hear if you get a bad copy Sigma will make it right - - Fact is over the years from what I have heard Sigma is more willing to correct these things than just about anyone.

I did some googling & reading - they say it is a bit wobbly and makes some funny/grinding noises - is that bad?

also, many sources prize the lens for being sharp corner to corner, and yet MTFs for both 50 and 20 seem to contradict such claims quite severely:

Sigma 30/2.8


Sigma 30/2.8

jpr2
--
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

jpr2 said:

jpr2 wrote:

jpr2 said:

edwardaneal wrote:

jpr2 said:

jpr2 wrote:

• how is the build quality? in the past I had some rather mixed experiences with Sigmas: pretty inconsistent QC, with some exemplars excellent, but way too many very sub-par;
  
• in the end I've kept only one - 17-35mm f/2.8 EX Asph HSM in EF mount;

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

When I was a Nikon user I was a total lens snob - wouldnt even touch a Sigma lens, but I have mellowed. The build quality is not the best, but it also isnt bad, heck it is a $200 lens. As to quality control - - From what I hear if you get a bad copy Sigma will make it right - - Fact is over the years from what I have heard Sigma is more willing to correct these things than just about anyone.

Click to expand...

I did some googling & reading - they say it is a bit wobbly and makes some funny/grinding noises - is that bad?

also, many sources prize the lens for being sharp corner to corner, and yet MTFs for both 50 and 20 seem to contradict such claims quite severely:

Sigma 30/2.8


Sigma 30/2.8

jpr2
--
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~
According to Lensrental's tests, the Sigma 30mm got the best results of all available Nex lenses in MFT 50. These tests are consistent with my observations so far with this lens, although I have not tried the Zeiss 24mm yet.

yes, I know of Cicala's results, however... in a way they are flawed as only the center sharpness was assessed and compared, this is why I wrote abt. MTF50, and MTF20 comparisons;


anyway, both Sigmas are a very good start as clearly NEX sensors deserve much better lens performance even from lower segment lenses than what is available from Sony's kits and lesser lens offering - so far only 24/1.8 and 50/1.8 can withstand a close scrutiny


jpr2

rogatsby said:

rogatsby wrote:

rogatsby said:

jpr2 wrote:

rogatsby said:

edwardaneal wrote:

rogatsby said:

jpr2 wrote:

• how is the build quality? in the past I had some rather mixed experiences with Sigmas: pretty inconsistent QC, with some exemplars excellent, but way too many very sub-par;
• in the end I've kept only one - 17-35mm f/2.8 EX Asph HSM in EF mount;

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

When I was a Nikon user I was a total lens snob - wouldnt even touch a Sigma lens, but I have mellowed. The build quality is not the best, but it also isnt bad, heck it is a $200 lens. As to quality control - - From what I hear if you get a bad copy Sigma will make it right - - Fact is over the years from what I have heard Sigma is more willing to correct these things than just about anyone.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I did some googling & reading - they say it is a bit wobbly and makes some funny/grinding noises - is that bad?

also, many sources prize the lens for being sharp corner to corner, and yet MTFs for both 50 and 20 seem to contradict such claims quite severely:

Sigma 30/2.8


Sigma 30/2.8

jpr2
According to Lensrental's tests, the Sigma 30mm got the best results of all available Nex lenses in MFT 50. These tests are consistent with my observations so far with this lens, although I have not tried the Zeiss 24mm yet.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/nex-7-lens-imatest-resolution-comparison
--


street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

DimitriDV said:

DimitriDV wrote:

I believe there's something wrong with that specific lens.

Here one of the raw photos I took with my Nex-6 and 16-50mm lens at 16mm: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2080852/DSC00266.ARW


All other photos look the same, vignetting is barely noticeable (if at all, I had to check at 100%) in the corners in the raw files.

Click to expand...

...in more detail:

• how did you develop your ARWs? when I look at your attached file using Fast Stone, the image is indeed corrected;
• but then what we're seeing is just an embedded JPG file of just 1616x1080 pixels:
  
  EXIF data
  
  the embedded JPG preview file:

embedded JPG extracted by Fast Stone

and the actual image as seen by Fast Stone:


Fast Stone screen shot

• the actual RAW developed in ACR7.2, using all sliders on AUTO, and all corrections to NULL (zero slider positions), with linear curves shows a different picture entirely:

ARW developed in ACR7.2 without corrections, sharpening etc.

• vignetting, heavy barrel distortion, and some purple cast are all clearly visible

jpr2

--
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

DimitriDV said:

DimitriDV wrote:

I believe there's something wrong with that specific lens.

Here one of the raw photos I took with my Nex-6 and 16-50mm lens at 16mm: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2080852/DSC00266.ARW

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this file.

I used it to create 4 JPEG's for comparison:

1. Extracted the embedded preview.

2. Converted from RAW to JPEG with ACR 7.2 and default settings (no lens corrections)

3. Converted from RAW to JPEG with Sony IDC 4.2

4. Converted from RAW to JPEG with ACR 7.2 and manual lens corrections

What I observed was:

1. The embedded preview is what it is -- and quite decent.

2. The RAW data reflects some moderately horrible distortion.

3. IDC does apply some lens correction, unconditionally. You can't turn it off or adjust it. The IDC correction is not the same as the in camera correction. It looks like an undercorrection compared to the camera. The results are not horrible but they are not great either.

4. Using ACR I was able to manually apply some lens corrections without much difficulty. It only took a few seconds to get it as close as the camera generated preview (1). Furthermore, after I cropped away the distorted edges to create a clean rectangle, I was able to preserve significantly more of the image and achieve a wider field of view. Yea!


Bottom line: this simple experiment suggests that these images (NEX-6 and 16-50) can be processed very effectively with ACR 7.2. Obviously, having a good ACR lens profile to automate the process would be preferable but the fact we don't yet have access to same is not a showstopper.

I have the NEX-6 with 16-50 on order and based on my experiments with your RAW file I am feeling very good about it indeed. It's only one image but it suggests this kit can work very well for me. Once again, thanks for posting the RAW image; you've lowered my anxiety levels and made me a happy camper.

I just repeated your experiment with Dimitri's RAW image, and, like you, am impressed with how easy it is to remove the distortion in ACR 7.2, and blown away by the fact that the image actually shows a wider field of view after cropping than before. (How is that possible?) Furthermore, I am very impressed by the sharpness of the image and the total absence of any noise in the sky. Even at ISO 100 there is usually some noise in the blue sky pics from my 7D. Thanks for your post which is indeed very reassuring about the NEX6/16-50 combo. I'm looking for a smallish travel camera to supplement my 7D and collection of Canon lenses, but am reluctant to go smaller than an APS-C sensor or to give up some type of viewfinder. Moreover, I have no desire to start a new lens collection or to accept an 18-55 zoom which makes the camera almost as big from back of camera to front of lens as it is wide. Bottom line is if further testing of the lens continues to look as good, the 6 with the 16-50 will be my next camera.

Clem Nichols said:

Clem Nichols wrote:

I just repeated your experiment with Dimitri's RAW image, and, like you, am impressed with how easy it is to remove the distortion in ACR 7.2, and blown away by the fact that the image actually shows a wider field of view after cropping than before. (How is that possible?) Furthermore, I am very impressed by the sharpness of the image and the total absence of any noise in the sky. Even at ISO 100 there is usually some noise in the blue sky pics from my 7D. Thanks for your post which is indeed very reassuring about the NEX6/16-50 combo. I'm looking for a smallish travel camera to supplement my 7D and collection of Canon lenses, but am reluctant to go smaller than an APS-C sensor or to give up some type of viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It's always good to have ones experiments validated by a another party!

I was a Nikon D200 shooter but age and a back injury have made it impossible for me to carry a DSLR and pro zooms. I had looked at the NEX-5N a little while ago and, like you, decided I needed a viewfinder. The NEX-6 looked perfect with a proven sensor, an EVF, and several other 5N niggles addressed (standard hotshoe, better bracketing etc). The small size of the 16-50 was also attractive.

Then I started to get worried based on some of the first reports concerning that lens. Dimitri's RAW image had made me a lot happier. I think it looks great (for the size and cost).

Having said that, I do plan on trying 2 or 3 of my Nikon primes with the NEX-6, especially my beloved 85mm f/1.8. However, I will likely buy the new SEL35F18 if it has good optical performance. Having AF and OSS on a fast, sharp 35mm prime will make me very happy!

Enir4 said:

I had no idea that Sony shows the 16-50 as not compatible with the 5N.

Where do they say this? I would return it immediately.

Enrique

Click to expand...

I don't know whether or not the 5N does corrections but on the Sony USA site, under compatibility, the 16-50 is compatible with all Nex cameras including all the 5's (and 3's, 6's, and the 7).

jpr2 said:

jpr2 wrote:

jpr2 said:

DimitriDV wrote:

I believe there's something wrong with that specific lens.

Here one of the raw photos I took with my Nex-6 and 16-50mm lens at 16mm: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/2080852/DSC00266.ARW


All other photos look the same, vignetting is barely noticeable (if at all, I had to check at 100%) in the corners in the raw files.

Click to expand...

...in more detail:

• how did you develop your ARWs? when I look at your attached file using Fast Stone, the image is indeed corrected;
• but then what we're seeing is just an embedded JPG file of just 1616x1080 pixels:
  
  EXIF data
  
  the embedded JPG preview file:

embedded JPG extracted by Fast Stone

and the actual image as seen by Fast Stone:


Fast Stone screen shot

• the actual RAW developed in ACR7.2, using all sliders on AUTO, and all corrections to NULL (zero slider positions), with linear curves shows a different picture entirely:

ARW developed in ACR7.2 without corrections, sharpening etc.

• vignetting, heavy barrel distortion, and some purple cast are all clearly visible

Click to expand...

...achieved in the corners - residual CA still remain, as well as geometry is sort of weird along all the right edge/top corner:


corrected in ACR & PS

all in all it is not a good lens for RAW only shooters IMO ,

ALSO... pls. notice how much the embedded JPG is razed from both sides by the IN CAMERA corrections ,


jpr2

--

street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

jpr2 said:

jpr2 wrote:

• the actual RAW developed in ACR7.2, using all sliders on AUTO, and all corrections to NULL (zero slider positions), with linear curves shows a different picture entirely:

ARW developed in ACR7.2 without corrections, sharpening etc.

• vignetting, heavy barrel distortion, and some purple cast are all clearly visible

jpr2

Click to expand...

I could read your reply only now. Thanks for your analysis!

First, I was getting confused as I was also opening the raw file with FastStone, but as I'm a novice I didn't know I was looking at the embedded jpg! Fixed it in the options, now I see the raw files as they truly are.

Second, even after this, I see that the vignetting is much lighter than what shown in the first posts where the lens is used on a Nex-5N: link to post

So, assuming raw files are generated the same way regardless of the camera, that lens is a tad worse in that regard?




Also, glad the image helped some people around here!

jpr2 said:

jpr2 wrote:
the actual RAW developed in ACR7.2, using all sliders on AUTO, and all corrections to NULL (zero slider positions), with linear curves shows a different picture entirely:

ARW developed in ACR7.2 without corrections, sharpening etc.

• vignetting, heavy barrel distortion, and some purple cast are all clearly visible

Click to expand...

The tonality and colouration of this image is nothing like I see here with Lightroom 4.2's default processing of DimitriDV's ARW file. In particular the vile purple sky is not shown on my computer. I suggest everyone ignores the tonality and colouration as a fault of jpr2's image processing or a fault of ACR 7.2


The vignetting and barrel distortion are faithful representations of the file.

this is interesting, could you pls. post image resulting from LR4.2 DEFAULT settings for comparison?

the stress of my original post was on UNPROCESSED = to see how the "untouched" RAW looks like (which of course is not possible in a 100% objective way, as EVERY developing SW has its own internal settings and algorithms) - so the defaults were used, no corrections applied, zero sharpening, etc. in short ZERO of PP, just defaults as shown:


default settings, plus linear curves

as the next step anyone can of course do their own cooking according to their tastes and priorities - OOC "corrected" JPGs are just one of possibilities, some might like it, some don't

EDIT: btw. I think that the late afternoon (4 pm) November sky in the Netherlands, with low sunshine on horizon, and hence lots of polarization already, wasn't yielding a scene as shown in the OOC embedded JPG - with its bluish skies and everything drenched in a sort of summer type of light, but then I might be completely wrong :LOL ,

jpr2

Jawed49152 said:

Jawed wrote:

Jawed49152 said:

jpr2 wrote:
the actual RAW developed in ACR7.2, using all sliders on AUTO, and all corrections to NULL (zero slider positions), with linear curves shows a different picture entirely:

ARW developed in ACR7.2 without corrections, sharpening etc.

• vignetting, heavy barrel distortion, and some purple cast are all clearly visible

Click to expand...

The tonality and colouration of this image is nothing like I see here with Lightroom 4.2's default processing of DimitriDV's ARW file. In particular the vile purple sky is not shown on my computer. I suggest everyone ignores the tonality and colouration as a fault of jpr2's image processing or a fault of ACR 7.2

The vignetting and barrel distortion are faithful representations of the file.

Click to expand...

--
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
B&W:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623306407882/
wildlife & macro:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
interactive street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157623181919323/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~

I can't tell what white balance setting was used on the camera.

But that purple-ish sky colour is entirely wrong.

I will shortly be posting a new thread and you will be able to see what LR 4.2 does.

Jawed49152 said:

Jawed wrote:

The tonality and colouration of this image is nothing like I see here with Lightroom 4.2's default processing of DimitriDV's ARW file. In particular the vile purple sky is not shown on my computer. I suggest everyone ignores the tonality and colouration as a fault of jpr2's image processing or a fault of ACR 7.2

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think this probably had to do with the choice of camera profile in ACR.

From what I've seen, some of the default ACR profiles for the NEX-6 are pretty horrible.

One of the first things I'll do when my NEX-6 arrives is to shoot a Gretag McBeth chart and create my own ACR camera profile.

Would you mind sharing it then?

Jawed49152 said:

Jawed wrote:

I can't tell what white balance setting was used on the camera.

Click to expand...

indeed only Dimitri knows (perhaps), otherwise our only clues left are the color temperature and the tint, but these aren't telling much;

switching to AWB or Daylight profiles resulted in very pronounced greenish-yellow cast on the whole image; so the "As Shot" was much more preferable, esp. as purplish skies are not exactly rare at this time of a year close to the North Sea shores - OTOH we did read a lot here and in neighboring threads on PP for 16-50 that the dreaded magenta cast rears its ugly head, so... as my goal was to see it "unprocessed", perhaps you can understand why it was left the way it is


jpr2

Also this problem often occurs when an image is created in ProPhoto RGB Profile and posted to the web as though it is an sRGB image, though I suspect that isn't the case here.