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

Started Jul 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,806
Re: The lens would be considered excellent if we still had 6 MP APS-C...

viking79 wrote:

If the NEX were 6 MP we would think the lens was excellent. Alas, we have 16 and 24 MP NEX cameras and the lens is really mediocre. It does the job it does just fine, but it could be much better.

For web viewing and HD video it is excellent (HD is really low resolution relative to stills). Most people should be perfectly happy with the lens as is, but anyone pixel peeping will be disappointed (not saying people should or should not pixel peep).

I've got an 8x10 sitting here that disagrees with you.  Over most of the photo, it's plenty sharp.  It gets weak in the corners, but it's not that bad stopped down.  It's bad in the corners at f2.8, but then, if I'm at f2.8, I have other problems, like low-light.  I really don't know what people want; at least one user (in another thread) finally pointed out that he does print poster size and show his work in art galleries.  OK then, if that's the case, maybe you can justify the $1000 lenses to with that!  The rest of us ordinary folk can get by with our "mediocre" lenses... that are perfectly sharp and a bit weak in the corners.


-- 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
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow