why has the 16mm f2.8 got such a bad rep?

Started Jul 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
KingCharles Regular Member • Posts: 150
Re: why has the 16mm f2.8 got such a bad rep?

I had this lens (accidently dropped it, and it is no longer usable). Most of the complaints come from the fact that it loses the fine details. Especially in the corners. Which makes it tough for landscape users.

For example in your shot of the glass building with trees the leaves lack sharpness, and the plants in the planter along the bottom do as well.

As for portraits, most people won't want to shoot a close portrait with a 16mm lens due to distortion. So it isn't great for portraits, and it isn't great for landscapes/architecture.

I agree with you that most people probably shouldn't expect much from it for the price and size of the lens.

You can still get good shots with it, you just need to know it's limitations. As most of the more experienced photographers here like to point out a good photo is less about the gear (i.e. the lens), and more about the skill of the person behind the camera.

Despite this, there are some lenses that help make poor shots look decent (the SEL50f18 comes to mind), and then there are lenses, like this one, that don't help at all ;).

Just my thoughts anyway.

-- 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