Is the Sony 16mm/F2.8 really that bad?

Started Nov 7, 2013 | Questions thread
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Re: Yes, BUT can still be used with good results

viking79 wrote:

The lens is not good optically, even Sony MTF charts show the extreme corner dropping to near zero contrast at the corner. However, it is acceptable across a majority of the frame. On the NEX7 it basically acts like an AA filter, so it is a bit like using a Pentax Q where the entire image is uniformly soft so you don't really notice.

I imagine JPEG shooters won't have any issue as sharpening will hide most issues.

So, yes, the lens is that bad, but the photographer makes the difference in most of the complaint cases or if the viewing size is not too large.

Discounting is silly, as all the reviewers say about the same thing. They didn't all get bad samples, and many (like Photozone) know how to identify a bad sample when they get one.

Here is my review:

On my charts for the NEX 3, the level of decency for photographs is about mid yellow on MTF 50 chart and low/mid green for MTF 20. (say 1500 and 2400 lw/ph)

So my charts show that it exceeds the level of decency across most of the frame from f/5.6-f/11, and the center is very good. When I say level of decency, I am meaning at f/16 on most lenses, so this is not good by anymeans, but will give decent results as others are stating.

I am not as harsh on the lens as Photozone is, but he rightfully is harsh on it.


Now this is a valuable post. This whole long thread should have been stopped right here.

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