I sure hope the rumored a7000 and new lenses are true!

James87 · Nov 16, 2014

snapa said:
I would like to upgrade to a larger sensor system camera from my very nice XZ-2. The only problem I’m having is the kit lenses that now come with the a6000/a5100. I've done much research on the 16-50 and 55-210 mm kit lenses. Both of them do not seem (to me) like they are able to resolve the IQ/sharpness that would make it worthwhile. I have seen hundreds or real life pictures and read many reviews that confirm my opinion. If the rumored new lenses and sensor in the a7000 are as good as they (hopefully) might be, I just may make the move to a system camera.

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/cameras/sony-a7000

http://www.dailycameranews.com/2014/10/sony-a7000-specs-price-leaked/

http://www.cameraegg.org/rumors-sony-a7000-has-24mp-4k-video-and-18000-shutter-speed/

Since my highest priority is sharpness in pictures, I hope Sony makes these new lenses much better. The sensor in the current a6000/a5100 is already more than I need, but without quality zoom lenses, what good are they? Buying a great camera with a great sensor with a poor to mediocre lens in front of it makes simply no sense to me. Am I wrong in my assumptions, or are those two kit lenses 'good enough' for you? If they are good enough for you, please post your best pictures, thanks!

With lea and notepabones adapters you can have any lens you want to attach with full AF AND IS.

probert500 · Nov 16, 2014

40daystogo said:
probert500 said:

Get a good prime.

Click to expand...

I know people say, "get primes", e.g. the 35mm f1.8, but if you treat the 16-50 as if it were a prime and only use it in its narrow range of sweet spot focal lengths, 20-40, and can also put up with using it two aperture stops down, then you're getting really good quality within those limitations.

The only thing you don't get from the 16-50 is superb quality, wide open at extreme focal lengths. I took some pictures outside the sweet spot, and it was not impressive.

Zooms are not at their best at the extremes (focal and aperture)- this is also true of primes regarding aperture. Nature of the beast - so it's not a flaw peculiar to this lens.

At that narrow range a 24 and a 35 could do the trick without image compromise. Below 24, the wide angle "signature " is pronounced- it becomes a more specialty than everyday use. Just my opinion. ( although I'm talking FF - sorry)

Stflbn · Nov 16, 2014

If "my highest priority is sharpness in pictures" you wouldn't be worrying about kit lenses at all, and strictly buy a body and whichever lenses best suit your style of shooting and subject matter.

And there's nothing in your gallery here that the kit lens on a6000 could not shoot better than what you currently have up there.

--

Sony A7
Sony 55 FE 1.8 | 70-200G FE F4 | 70-400G | 28-70 FE kit
Sigma 24-70 2.8 | 150 Macro
Rokinon 14mm 2.8
http://stufflebeanphotography.com

Greynerd · Nov 16, 2014

The XZ-2 will be sharper at wide angle as it only starts at 28mm equivalent so comparison over the whole focal range is not really relevant. Olympus have no ultra wide angle lens at 24mm equivalent on their top end cameras and even the recent Stylus 1 starts at 28mm.

Getting the quality with these ultra wide lens is a tricky thing to do. The 16-50 lens is OK. Do not forget the XZ-2 is sharp only when it manges to focus which is not always the case from my reading the forum. Trying to remove the necessity for choosing macro as per the XZ-1 and make it seamless has not been entirely successful according to a lot of posts.

Edit: Another interesting point is that if your 12mp XZ-2 pictures are sharper than the Sony 16-50 you are saying that the 16-50 cannot resolve detail even on a 16 mp sensor. I have read the lens is probably struggling at 24mp but your idea that it cannot outperform a 12mp compact is a new idea.

My NEX 6 seems to resolve down to pixel level with the 16-50 so I am a bit mystified by your thesis.

snapa said:
Right now, I have an Olympus XZ-2 that takes MUCH better/sharper images, from corner to corner, throughout the focal range than this lens does.

blue_skies · Nov 16, 2014

snapa said:
40daystogo said:

ISO 100 as far as possible. Maximum up to ISO 1,600 (ISO 3,200 useable).

On 16-50mm, keep within the ranges of 20-40mm, best probably around 24-35mm. There is a photozone.de test results that indicates the range of best focal lengths. As far as possible, at least 1.5-2 stopped down from widest. Turn down the auto-noise reduction to a lower setting.

Experiment with the A6000's manual focusing which has a image magnification feature that makes it so easy to focus. Try that.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the great advise and lens review site!

Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS PZ (SEL-1650) – Review (check out the charts for 16 and 18mm)

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=1 (charts)

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=2 (conclusion & Images)

After viewing the images taken with this lens and seeing how the resolution drops of so drastically from the center, I will NOT be wasting my time or money on this lens. I checked a few other reviews sites and they all confirm that this lens is a POS. Right now, I have an Olympus XZ-2 that takes MUCH better/sharper images, from corner to corner, throughout the focal range than this lens does.

I have decided to wait to see if Sony does come out with a revised 16-50mk2 and 16-70mk2 early next year. If that happens and the a7000 does materialize, I will be interested in this system to consider at that time.

I am not sure what you are after, but the E18200, the E1650, the E1855 and the E1670 score all very similar on the 24Mp A6000 sensor. These are all zoom lenses, and they are all pretty close. Check in any review e.g. the E24Z, E50 or Sigma 60 - this primes score much higher.

However, these feebled kit zoom lenses have been reviewed against the best kit zooms from the Canikon like, and, as zoom lenses, they outperformed the other brands.

Since then, there have been $1k "Pro" zoom lenses made available, but I would still not hold my breath in a zoom-versus-prime shootout.

Of the aforementioned lenses, the E1670Z is the best, optically, and includes the constant f/4. Best optically means that it requires the least amount of corrections. The E1650 otoh is the weakest optically (it includes the most distortion, not surprising its compact design) and relies strongly on software correction. (And reviewers cannot hasten enough to point to this phenomenon).

Many of today's modern cameras apply correction profiles, and when ONLY looking at the results post correction (OOC JPG or post-edit JPG), the differences between the 'best' E1670Z and 'worst' E1650 are very, very minute. But put them up against a E25Z or Sigma 60 and you'll find a lot of IQ differences between the prime and zoom lenses.

If you believe that an ultimate zoom lens will ever exist, good luck to you.

But if you want the convenience of a zoom lens, the (output corrected) E1650 arguable gets you within 95% of what the 'ultimate' zoom lens will deliver.

Morale here: if you want uppermost IQ, get a prime, go for a high resolution sensor, get the largest sensor that you can find, consider AA-less solutions.

Fuji, in their AA-less cameras, gets very impressive images out of a 16Mp sensor. Their trans-X layout makes it less compatible with third party software, so you loose some here.

Sony, in their A7r, lets you find unsurpassed IQ - that may be a place to look.

But the 24Mp APS-C cameras by Sony deliver very high output quality. Put up the E24Z and see for yourself.

Now use the E1650 in practice, especially when avoiding wide-open, and you'll be rather impressed with what this little lens delivers. See various threads attesting to this observation here already.

Forget about the a7000. Start thinking about using prime lenses, or, like the rest of us, be pleased with zoom lens output once and a while...

jpr2 · Nov 16, 2014

silps said:
But I do see them launching a premium A7000 next year at a much higher price similar to the NEX 7. This would sell alongside the A6000.

yes, I agree with this, the price level of $50 above the current a6k price could indicate only one thing = cutting on all corners to slice the price at the heavy cost to built quality (so nowhere near the original N7-classic );

the big S. indeed initiated very a cut-throat pricing about a year ago with the a300, then a7* series, followed later on with the a6k - in all cases giving in return rather sub-par build quality IMO

EDIT: of course should they indeed decide to price the a7000 at the $0.7-0.8k level (with all the goodies described, like: the all metal body, 1/8000 sec. minimal SS, 4k video, touch screen, much improved OSPDAF with 1/4 thousand focusing points, etc, etc.) coupled with the build quality of the original N7-classic... then we should be overjoyed, yet... their offerings from the past year indicated that such miracle will be pretty highly improbable

jpr2

--
~
Nex-7 classic:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157629823874033/
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!
~

Euell · Nov 16, 2014

blue_skies said:
snapa said:

40daystogo said:

ISO 100 as far as possible. Maximum up to ISO 1,600 (ISO 3,200 useable).

On 16-50mm, keep within the ranges of 20-40mm, best probably around 24-35mm. There is a photozone.de test results that indicates the range of best focal lengths. As far as possible, at least 1.5-2 stopped down from widest. Turn down the auto-noise reduction to a lower setting.

Experiment with the A6000's manual focusing which has a image magnification feature that makes it so easy to focus. Try that.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the great advise and lens review site!

Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS PZ (SEL-1650) – Review (check out the charts for 16 and 18mm)

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=1 (charts)

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=2 (conclusion & Images)

After viewing the images taken with this lens and seeing how the resolution drops of so drastically from the center, I will NOT be wasting my time or money on this lens. I checked a few other reviews sites and they all confirm that this lens is a POS. Right now, I have an Olympus XZ-2 that takes MUCH better/sharper images, from corner to corner, throughout the focal range than this lens does.

I have decided to wait to see if Sony does come out with a revised 16-50mk2 and 16-70mk2 early next year. If that happens and the a7000 does materialize, I will be interested in this system to consider at that time.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are after, but the E18200, the E1650, the E1855 and the E1670 score all very similar on the 24Mp A6000 sensor. These are all zoom lenses, and they are all pretty close. Check in any review e.g. the E24Z, E50 or Sigma 60 - this primes score much higher.

However, these feebled kit zoom lenses have been reviewed against the best kit zooms from the Canikon like, and, as zoom lenses, they outperformed the other brands.

Since then, there have been $1k "Pro" zoom lenses made available, but I would still not hold my breath in a zoom-versus-prime shootout.

Of the aforementioned lenses, the E1670Z is the best, optically, and includes the constant f/4. Best optically means that it requires the least amount of corrections. The E1650 otoh is the weakest optically (it includes the most distortion, not surprising its compact design) and relies strongly on software correction. (And reviewers cannot hasten enough to point to this phenomenon).

Many of today's modern cameras apply correction profiles, and when ONLY looking at the results post correction (OOC JPG or post-edit JPG), the differences between the 'best' E1670Z and 'worst' E1650 are very, very minute. But put them up against a E25Z or Sigma 60 and you'll find a lot of IQ differences between the prime and zoom lenses.

If you believe that an ultimate zoom lens will ever exist, good luck to you.

But if you want the convenience of a zoom lens, the (output corrected) E1650 arguable gets you within 95% of what the 'ultimate' zoom lens will deliver.

Morale here: if you want uppermost IQ, get a prime, go for a high resolution sensor, get the largest sensor that you can find, consider AA-less solutions.

Fuji, in their AA-less cameras, gets very impressive images out of a 16Mp sensor. Their trans-X layout makes it less compatible with third party software, so you loose some here.

Sony, in their A7r, lets you find unsurpassed IQ - that may be a place to look.

But the 24Mp APS-C cameras by Sony deliver very high output quality. Put up the E24Z and see for yourself.

Now use the E1650 in practice, especially when avoiding wide-open, and you'll be rather impressed with what this little lens delivers. See various threads attesting to this observation here already.

Forget about the a7000. Start thinking about using prime lenses, or, like the rest of us, be pleased with zoom lens output once and a while...

osv · Nov 16, 2014

Euell said:
At the sizes most people print, there is little to no noticeable difference between the zooms and primes. And, resolution isn't everything when comparing lenses; contrast and color rendition can be even more important, IMO.

distortion is noticeable at all print sizes, and most zooms have more distortion than primes do.

i'd guess that primes also usually win over zooms wrt to contrast and light transmission, at the minimum.

it's hard enough finding a prime that isn't decentered or weak on one side; the complexity of zooms makes it far more difficult to get a good one.

Euell · Nov 16, 2014

osv said:
Euell said:

At the sizes most people print, there is little to no noticeable difference between the zooms and primes. And, resolution isn't everything when comparing lenses; contrast and color rendition can be even more important, IMO.

Click to expand...

distortion is noticeable at all print sizes, and most zooms have more distortion than primes do.

i'd guess that primes also usually win over zooms wrt to contrast and light transmission, at the minimum.

it's hard enough finding a prime that isn't decentered or weak on one side; the complexity of zooms makes it far more difficult to get a good one.

osv · Nov 16, 2014

Euell said:
Much to do is made here over decentered lens samples, but in truth this is not a serious problem for most lenses.

i have dozens of pics on my website that say differently... probably at least 60% of the clean legacy primes that i've tested are softer on one side than the other.

i see lens problems in pics that get posted out here regularly... the posters usually think that everything is great.

people don't test their lenses, and they don't know what to look for, so they think that everything is great.

one reason that zooms are so problematic is because they will look o.k. at one focal length, but not another... in particular, part of the frame is smeared, while the rest of it is clear, but only at part of the focal range.

i'd be o.k. with the excessive distortion that zooms have, if i could just find one that was small, cheap and not defective... they certainly do have their advantages, as you say.

40daystogo · Nov 16, 2014

snapa said:
After viewing the images taken with this lens and seeing how the resolution drops of so drastically from the center, I will NOT be wasting my time or money on this lens.

Sure, from test charts one can be deterred by low edge resolution values.

However, see this actual real life shot. In this photo, click "view 100%, then, near the right bottom corner, find the concrete mixer and then move a bit to the left, and magnify it and find the word POLICE below the chequered sign.

I think, in a real world photo, that sort of resolution by the SEL1650 is enough for me.

Selection of gear is always based on each person's circumstances, which require each person to compromise different things. For me, I travel a lot so, hence, low weight and compactness are of greater value than marginal imagine quality improvements. Those are also reasons that deter my from making the jump to A7 series full frame. Right now, my A6000, 16-50, 10-18 are such an amazingly light weight travel kit.

captura · Nov 16, 2014

snapa said:
I would like to upgrade to a larger sensor system camera from my very nice XZ-2. The only problem I’m having is the kit lenses that now come with the a6000/a5100. I've done much research on the 16-50 and 55-210 mm kit lenses. Both of them do not seem (to me) like they are able to resolve the IQ/sharpness that would make it worthwhile. I have seen hundreds or real life pictures and read many reviews that confirm my opinion. If the rumored new lenses and sensor in the a7000 are as good as they (hopefully) might be, I just may make the move to a system camera.

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/cameras/sony-a7000

http://www.dailycameranews.com/2014/10/sony-a7000-specs-price-leaked/

http://www.cameraegg.org/rumors-sony-a7000-has-24mp-4k-video-and-18000-shutter-speed/

Since my highest priority is sharpness in pictures, I hope Sony makes these new lenses much better. The sensor in the current a6000/a5100 is already more than I need, but without quality zoom lenses, what good are they? Buying a great camera with a great sensor with a poor to mediocre lens in front of it makes simply no sense to me. Am I wrong in my assumptions, or are those two kit lenses 'good enough' for you? If they are good enough for you, please post your best pictures, thanks!

What rumor?

The figment of whose imagination?

Euell · Nov 16, 2014

osv said:
Euell said:

Much to do is made here over decentered lens samples, but in truth this is not a serious problem for most lenses.

Click to expand...

i have dozens of pics on my website that say differently... probably at least 60% of the clean legacy primes that i've tested are softer on one side than the other.

i see lens problems in pics that get posted out here regularly... the posters usually think that everything is great.

people don't test their lenses, and they don't know what to look for, so they think that everything is great.

one reason that zooms are so problematic is because they will look o.k. at one focal length, but not another... in particular, part of the frame is smeared, while the rest of it is clear, but only at part of the focal range.

i'd be o.k. with the excessive distortion that zooms have, if i could just find one that was small, cheap and not defective... they certainly do have their advantages, as you say.

captura · Nov 16, 2014

"You can also wait for the A7000 successor which is rumored to be even better than the A7000."

LOL, the A7000 is not even a rumor and you've made up a new rumor on top of that one!

Section10 · Nov 16, 2014

Uh oh....only $699?

The 'Nex-7 replacement is coming' crowd isn't going to like that...it has to be $1200 body only for them to believe the 2nd coming has arrived.

If they weather seal the A7000 along with that new Zeiss ....I'm 95% sure to be in....

jpr2 · Nov 16, 2014

Section10 said:
Uh oh....only $699?

The 'Nex-7 replacement is coming' crowd isn't going to like that...it has to be $1200 body only for them to believe the 2nd coming has arrived.

If they weather seal the A7000 along with that new Zeiss ....I'm 95% sure to be in....

...it really doesn't matter should it be the "world's fastest AF" if it will not be also the "world's most accurate AF", and by rugged I mean N7-classic rugged, not the a6k or a7* series "rugged"

!!

Also I'd esp. like to have 1/8000 sec SS...

...then yes, I'd be in too. However, all those goodies are going to cost us - do not count on having them all yet at the a6k's price level - such miracles sort of ended at biblical times

jpr2

--
~
Nex-7 classic:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157629823874033/
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!
~

captura · Nov 16, 2014

audiobomber said:
"It appears that the Sony A7000 camera body price will be $699 USD and with the Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 kit lens it will be available for $1,199 USD."

This pricing for the kit is highly unlikely. If they had said $699 for the camera and 1199 for the lens, I would believe it.

captura · Nov 16, 2014

blue_skies said:
snapa said:

40daystogo said:

ISO 100 as far as possible. Maximum up to ISO 1,600 (ISO 3,200 useable).

On 16-50mm, keep within the ranges of 20-40mm, best probably around 24-35mm. There is a photozone.de test results that indicates the range of best focal lengths. As far as possible, at least 1.5-2 stopped down from widest. Turn down the auto-noise reduction to a lower setting.

Experiment with the A6000's manual focusing which has a image magnification feature that makes it so easy to focus. Try that.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the great advise and lens review site!

Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS PZ (SEL-1650) – Review (check out the charts for 16 and 18mm)

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=1 (charts)

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/842-sony1650f3556oss?start=2 (conclusion & Images)

After viewing the images taken with this lens and seeing how the resolution drops of so drastically from the center, I will NOT be wasting my time or money on this lens. I checked a few other reviews sites and they all confirm that this lens is a POS. Right now, I have an Olympus XZ-2 that takes MUCH better/sharper images, from corner to corner, throughout the focal range than this lens does.

I have decided to wait to see if Sony does come out with a revised 16-50mk2 and 16-70mk2 early next year. If that happens and the a7000 does materialize, I will be interested in this system to consider at that time.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are after, but the E18200, the E1650, the E1855 and the E1670 score all very similar on the 24Mp A6000 sensor. These are all zoom lenses, and they are all pretty close. Check in any review e.g. the E24Z, E50 or Sigma 60 - this primes score much higher.

However, these feebled kit zoom lenses have been reviewed against the best kit zooms from the Canikon like, and, as zoom lenses, they outperformed the other brands.

Since then, there have been $1k "Pro" zoom lenses made available, but I would still not hold my breath in a zoom-versus-prime shootout.

Of the aforementioned lenses, the E1670Z is the best, optically, and includes the constant f/4. Best optically means that it requires the least amount of corrections. The E1650 otoh is the weakest optically (it includes the most distortion, not surprising its compact design) and relies strongly on software correction. (And reviewers cannot hasten enough to point to this phenomenon).

The FE 28-70 may outscore the E16-70; certainly it easily outsscores the aforementioned lenses.

blue_skies said:
Many of today's modern cameras apply correction profiles, and when ONLY looking at the results post correction (OOC JPG or post-edit JPG), the differences between the 'best' E1670Z and 'worst' E1650 are very, very minute. But put them up against a E25Z or Sigma 60 and you'll find a lot of IQ differences between the prime and zoom lenses.

If you believe that an ultimate zoom lens will ever exist, good luck to you.

But if you want the convenience of a zoom lens, the (output corrected) E1650 arguable gets you within 95% of what the 'ultimate' zoom lens will deliver.

Morale here: if you want uppermost IQ, get a prime, go for a high resolution sensor, get the largest sensor that you can find, consider AA-less solutions.

Fuji, in their AA-less cameras, gets very impressive images out of a 16Mp sensor. Their trans-X layout makes it less compatible with third party software, so you loose some here.

Sony, in their A7r, lets you find unsurpassed IQ - that may be a place to look.

But the 24Mp APS-C cameras by Sony deliver very high output quality. Put up the E24Z and see for yourself.

Now use the E1650 in practice, especially when avoiding wide-open, and you'll be rather impressed with what this little lens delivers. See various threads attesting to this observation here already.

Forget about the a7000. Start thinking about using prime lenses, or, like the rest of us, be pleased with zoom lens output once and a while...

There is no Sony source that has created any hope whatsoever for the a7000.

blue_skies said:
--
Cheers,
Henry

snapa · Nov 16, 2014

James87 said:
snapa said:

I would like to upgrade to a larger sensor system camera from my very nice XZ-2. The only problem I’m having is the kit lenses that now come with the a6000/a5100. I've done much research on the 16-50 and 55-210 mm kit lenses. Both of them do not seem (to me) like they are able to resolve the IQ/sharpness that would make it worthwhile. I have seen hundreds or real life pictures and read many reviews that confirm my opinion. If the rumored new lenses and sensor in the a7000 are as good as they (hopefully) might be, I just may make the move to a system camera.

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/cameras/sony-a7000

http://www.dailycameranews.com/2014/10/sony-a7000-specs-price-leaked/

http://www.cameraegg.org/rumors-sony-a7000-has-24mp-4k-video-and-18000-shutter-speed/

Since my highest priority is sharpness in pictures, I hope Sony makes these new lenses much better. The sensor in the current a6000/a5100 is already more than I need, but without quality zoom lenses, what good are they? Buying a great camera with a great sensor with a poor to mediocre lens in front of it makes simply no sense to me. Am I wrong in my assumptions, or are those two kit lenses 'good enough' for you? If they are good enough for you, please post your best pictures, thanks!

Click to expand...

With lea and notepabones adapters you can have any lens you want to attach with full AF AND IS.

And how expensive would all that be? Do you have any examples with prices to show what kind of lenses you are talking about?

captura · Nov 16, 2014

jpr2 said:
...the specs. listed are almost exactly what most us would like to see as the Nex-7 mk-II

the only thing of very little plausibility was the rumored price point = wrong rung on the ladder for sure

jpr2

I sure hope the rumored a7000 and new lenses are true!

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Greynerd

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts