paul wassermann
Senior Member
and the purpose of the last line of your post was ????
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
E-mount lenses, are they THAT terrible?
- Thread starter Hobot
- Start date
Absolutely not. I'm not changing my policy, especially not for nonsensical attacks like your's.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Your attack doesn't change the fact that the images above demonstrate some of the weaknesses of those lenses.
Last edited:
Let's see the post again:Attacking a poster when you don't like the message isn't really all that persuasive.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Where was he wrong in what he posted, instead?
"No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them."
How would one respond with "where he was wrong"?
Perhaps, "The images may not be great but in the absence of other evidence, they look perfectly acceptable when you download the jpegs." I did, and checked the eyelashes (and bird eyes) and at 100%, they look quite good for lenses that sell for under $200 each when purchased in a kit.
One of the reasons I've cut way back in posting here is because I am annoyed at the way some forum members dump on entry level equipment and those who seem to boost it. Glad to see Sam Kanter here - I'm not really needed. So I'm gone.
Luddhi
Forum Enthusiast
Pointing out that you never provide any evidence for your pontifical opinions hardly constitutes a "nonsensical attack" it is rather an apt observation that you never provide any evidence for your opinions.Absolutely not. I'm not changing my policy, especially not for nonsensical attacks like your's.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Your attack doesn't change the fact that the images above demonstrate some of the weaknesses of those lenses.
Also I imagine that anyone coming from a P&S camera would find those images encouraging.
--
Vintage person with a bit of a thing for vintage lenses...
Yes, they do and the OP responded with examples of where that's true. Do you not see it?Let's see the post again:Attacking a poster when you don't like the message isn't really all that persuasive.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Where was he wrong in what he posted, instead?
"No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them."
It certainly is a nonsensical and uncalled for attack. The OP demonstrated his ability to notice the lens weaknesses in a subsequent post by pointing out examples of those weaknesses. Do you not see them?Pointing out that you never provide any evidence for your pontifical opinions hardly constitutes a "nonsensical attack" it is rather an apt observation that you never provide any evidence for your opinions.Absolutely not. I'm not changing my policy, especially not for nonsensical attacks like your's.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Your attack doesn't change the fact that the images above demonstrate some of the weaknesses of those lenses.
Last edited:
AviPro
Senior Member
Very nice photos, very artistic!
HarveyLouis
Well-known member
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 49
After reading through this entire thread, I have a few comments:
(1) The OP mentioned about wanting to shoot photos of moving children. For this situation, with an A6XXX series camera, you are going to want native Sony or Zeiss glass that takes full advantage of the AF system. The Sigma primes (i.e. 16mm 1.4, 19mm 2.8, 30mm 1.4, 30mm 2.8, 60mm 2.8) referred to multiple times in this thread are all fine to fantastic optics when used with mostly static subjects but with the reverse-engineering that Sigma has done in leiu of buying the AF protocols from Sony, you will find the AF performance disappointing when shooting action, compared with native Sony glass.
(2) I see the OP debating between the A6300 and A6500. I would say go with the A6300 and invest the savings in glass because (a) there is virtually no difference in image quality between the two cameras; (b) good glass is a better investment than camera bodies as lenses retain their value over time while camera bodies are replaced every year or two by a newer model; (c) by the end of the year, both the A6300 and A6500 will be superceded by Sony’s newest APS-C model.
(3) If you do indeed buy a Sony camera, you can download a free version of Capture One, which is an excellent RAW processor. You can find free tutorials on YouTube.
(4) The Olympus system, mentioned by someone, is highly desireable due to an excellent selection of good glass. However, only two Olympus bodies, the EM1 and EM1ii, are equipped with phase-detect AF, so most Olympus camera bodies will struggle with shooting action. There is also the matter of the smaller 4/3 sensor requiring wider-aperture lenses to offset the effects of diffraction, poorer signal-to-noise ratio, and lower dynamic range.
(5) Even if the OP finds that zoom lenses better suits his style of shooting, I would still recommend buying at least one good quality prime lens, so he can see what the full capabilities of the camera are.
(1) The OP mentioned about wanting to shoot photos of moving children. For this situation, with an A6XXX series camera, you are going to want native Sony or Zeiss glass that takes full advantage of the AF system. The Sigma primes (i.e. 16mm 1.4, 19mm 2.8, 30mm 1.4, 30mm 2.8, 60mm 2.8) referred to multiple times in this thread are all fine to fantastic optics when used with mostly static subjects but with the reverse-engineering that Sigma has done in leiu of buying the AF protocols from Sony, you will find the AF performance disappointing when shooting action, compared with native Sony glass.
(2) I see the OP debating between the A6300 and A6500. I would say go with the A6300 and invest the savings in glass because (a) there is virtually no difference in image quality between the two cameras; (b) good glass is a better investment than camera bodies as lenses retain their value over time while camera bodies are replaced every year or two by a newer model; (c) by the end of the year, both the A6300 and A6500 will be superceded by Sony’s newest APS-C model.
(3) If you do indeed buy a Sony camera, you can download a free version of Capture One, which is an excellent RAW processor. You can find free tutorials on YouTube.
(4) The Olympus system, mentioned by someone, is highly desireable due to an excellent selection of good glass. However, only two Olympus bodies, the EM1 and EM1ii, are equipped with phase-detect AF, so most Olympus camera bodies will struggle with shooting action. There is also the matter of the smaller 4/3 sensor requiring wider-aperture lenses to offset the effects of diffraction, poorer signal-to-noise ratio, and lower dynamic range.
(5) Even if the OP finds that zoom lenses better suits his style of shooting, I would still recommend buying at least one good quality prime lens, so he can see what the full capabilities of the camera are.
Last edited:
skanter
Forum Pro
The OP is coming from a P&S, I’m assuming woud be very happy to make images as good as the ones above or those posted with the many 16-50 FlickR links.Pointing out that you never provide any evidence for your pontifical opinions hardly constitutes a "nonsensical attack" it is rather an apt observation that you never provide any evidence for your opinions.Absolutely not. I'm not changing my policy, especially not for nonsensical attacks like your's.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Your attack doesn't change the fact that the images above demonstrate some of the weaknesses of those lenses.
Also I imagine that anyone coming from a P&S camera would find those images encouraging.
Yet someone who has posted nothing and pixel-peepers insist that the lens is “unacceptable” and advise the OP and other newbies to avoid. This happens time and time again, and it is absurd as well as doing a disservice to beginners.
All modern lenses are fine for beginners, it is skill and exprience they need - not blowing up corners to look for “softness”. Instead of getting good advice, they often get long explanations and justifications for buying more lenses they don’t need and spending more money. There seems to be no perspective or understanding regarding the process of learning photography.
--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” — HCB
—
Native New Yorker:
http://www.blurb.com/b/7943076
__
Street Gallery:
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
__
Recent Photos:
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Recent-Photos
Last edited:
Luddhi
Forum Enthusiast
In what sense is it "a nonsensical and uncalled for attack"? You provide no evidence for your opinions. You have made a large number of posts derogating the kit lens but have provided no evidence. Those who have made positive claims for that lens have provided evidence and, as some of those people are experienced and skilled photographers such as Skanter, they have demonstrated that it is a good lens for many applications. Saying that there are weaknesses in someones photos does not make your point. There are many reasons why such photos may show "weaknesses" including intent and post processing considerations.
I think you should read what Mordi said, ie: “"The images may not be great but in the absence of other evidence, they look perfectly acceptable when you download the jpegs." I did, and checked the eyelashes (and bird eyes) and at 100%, they look quite good for lenses that sell for under $200 each when purchased in a kit.
One of the reasons I've cut way back in posting here is because I am annoyed at the way some forum members dump on entry level equipment and those who seem to boost it.”
The kit lens does not measure up to my Zeiss lenses but for its intended purpose it does fine—as Brian Smith said: ‘it is a great day-to-day type compact lens'
I think you should read what Mordi said, ie: “"The images may not be great but in the absence of other evidence, they look perfectly acceptable when you download the jpegs." I did, and checked the eyelashes (and bird eyes) and at 100%, they look quite good for lenses that sell for under $200 each when purchased in a kit.
One of the reasons I've cut way back in posting here is because I am annoyed at the way some forum members dump on entry level equipment and those who seem to boost it.”
The kit lens does not measure up to my Zeiss lenses but for its intended purpose it does fine—as Brian Smith said: ‘it is a great day-to-day type compact lens'
Joachim Wulfers
Veteran Member
He may not have been wrong, but he did not contribute anything to the question of the OP. All he did was saying that "one needs experience to recognize flaws in a lens". If we would judge the photos of the legendary and famous photographers, I suspect most of their pictures would wind up in a waste bin. Because based on sharpness, DR, etc., their tools were not what is now state of the art.Attacking a poster when you don't like the message isn't really all that persuasive.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Where was he wrong in what he posted, instead?
--
JoWul
It's simply a personal attack by a fan in defense of their favorite widget. Just like what you're doing.
As I said, it's not necessary since, like it or not, the fans of the lenses provide sufficient evidence of the weaknesses of those lenses with their own image posts.
You never answered my question. Do you not notice the same weaknesses in the lenses shown in the images posted, as the OP did?
Last edited:
I said, "Learning how to evaluate images and gear is a skill developed with experience and the desire to improve."He may not have been wrong, but he did not contribute anything to the question of the OP. All he did was saying that "one needs experience to recognize flaws in a lens".Attacking a poster when you don't like the message isn't really all that persuasive.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Where was he wrong in what he posted, instead?
At least get the quote right.
It partly addressed his "Care to elaborate?" request. How I elaborate is my decision and you have no say in the matter.
Last edited:
Luddhi
Forum Enthusiast
Asking for evidence is an attack? Do you not notice the silliness of that claim?
And you continue the attacks.
One more time...the evidence is in the images already posted.
And you still haven't answered my question.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Since my posts bother you so much I invite you to put me on your ignore list.
Last edited:
Luddhi
Forum Enthusiast
Again I think that word does not mean what you think it means. It is not an "attack" to point out that you do not provide evidence. It is asking you to back up your claims.
Your question is meaningless. The evidence is in photos posted, go look at Skanter's work or some of the other photo collections he linked to.
No I won't put you on my ignore list. I have no such list. I will, whenever you post your unsupported attacks, respond appropriately.
I have seen them. I've seen nothing there to change my mind about the lens.
So, you're going to be stalking me. I'm not surprised.
Bye.
Last edited:
W3PYF
Leading Member
- Messages
- 908
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,078
I promised myself I would not respond, but I must.The OP is coming from a P&S, I’m assuming woud be very happy to make images as good as the ones above or those posted with the many 16-50 FlickR links.Pointing out that you never provide any evidence for your pontifical opinions hardly constitutes a "nonsensical attack" it is rather an apt observation that you never provide any evidence for your opinions.Absolutely not. I'm not changing my policy, especially not for nonsensical attacks like your's.Hmmm. Nearly 15,000 comments over 13 years and no gallery images, no evidence of actually owning Sony gear. At least this forum member had the courage to post some images, even if they may not be the greatest.No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
How about breaking a 13 year record and posting some images?
Your attack doesn't change the fact that the images above demonstrate some of the weaknesses of those lenses.
Also I imagine that anyone coming from a P&S camera would find those images encouraging.
Yet someone who has posted nothing and pixel-peepers insist that the lens is “unacceptable” and advise the OP and other newbies to avoid. This happens time and time again, and it is absurd as well as doing a disservice to beginners.
All modern lenses are fine for beginners, it is skill and exprience they need - not blowing up corners to look for “softness”. Instead of getting good advice, they often get long explanations and justifications for buying more lenses they don’t need and spending more money. There seems to be no perspective or understanding regarding the process of learning photography.
--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” — HCB
—
Native New Yorker:
http://www.blurb.com/b/7943076
__
Street Gallery:
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
__
Recent Photos:
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Recent-Photos
First of all, I took to heart the criticism of one image, the sunset at Arches - I realized it had been edited on my iPad from a jpeg. I always shoot RAW+jpeg, so here is a Lightroom-edited raw processed in Lightroom on my new 4K iMac. It looks better to my eyes.
Sam, I'm with you and Mordi re beginners. I was a Nikon shooter when, on a visit to B&H, discovered that Sony was selling an NEX-6 five years ago that could, with dumb adapters, shoot my Leica M glass. I bought the 16-50 with the body only because it was so cheap. No, it was not in the same league as my 35mm Summilux, 50mm Summicron or 90mm Tele-Elmarit, but boy was it convenient.
Five years later, those kit zooms still do well.
I own 2 primes for my A6000 - a Sigma 19mm f2.8 and a 12mm Rokinon f2. And the original 16-50 and 55-210 that I bought for my NEX-6. I carry it when I don't want to carry a heavier system.
Luddhi
Forum Enthusiast
Stalking you? For goodness sake buy a dictionary. But since you turn up everywhere doing your 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner' impersonation whenever the kit lenses are mentioned then I am bound to come across your posts.
Stalking you? As if you have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation—I've yet to see anything other than bloviation and unsupported opinion. So certainly not, but I will not let pass your unsupported diatribes against the kit lens. It is a great lens for its purpose and price range as Imaging Resource, Brian Smith and DxO Mark all attest. Is it a Zeiss Makro Planar? No, of course not, but for anyone starting out it is a no-brainer. And for a trail or street lens it has proven its worth.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum