I am not sure why you have to be so defensive. My comment was about the samples the OP posted. I did not chose those. They look bad to me, that is all
I dont think i was being defensive, your post was quite flaming though so i was merely presenting a different view.
Telling it the way I see it is not flaming.
I am the one with a different take.
With all due respect, but going to a thread about a specific lens and saying you dont see why that lens exists is a bit flaming. Its not like someone asked you if you enjoyed the 16mm focal length
Now, this is flaming.
I think you're the one who's flaming here? Everything you are mentioning here is downsides of the 16mm f/1.4, and if you can't find anything more to be negative about than some texture in bokeh balls (in a pic from not the most skilled reviewer btw) you're projecting the same negativity on Sony colors.
There isn't any balance in your comments on this lens, as you aren't saying anything about the positives, or situations the negatives simply don't matter. There's no bigger lie than an instantly repeated selection of truth.
Perspective:
- more bokeh isn't always better than less. Sometimes less is more.
- a large aperture isn't only about more bokeh, it is also about gathering more light, which can't be done in the same way with stabilization
- distortion of a nearby subject isn't always a bad thing. It can be desired, not often with portraits, but more often with other images.
- texture in bokeh isn't always a fault of the lens. Sometimes you simply have to clean the glass on the sensor side of the lens, sometimes it is the subject not being smooth while the blurring simply isn't massive enough to blur it away. Furthermore bokeh is a complex thing. Most lenses are very good at some distances, while being weak at other distances. You'll have a hard time to compare different lens options at all possible distances and amounts of contrast at contrasting edges at every area on the frame etc etc., as it takes a very extensive testing. If you do even with the best bokeh monster lens you'll find weaker spots if you really want to.
- the positive of a 16mm lens is it is useful when you need a 16mm lens. The negative is it isn't any other focal length, however, that is true for all primes. There will always be situations a 16mm is needed, maybe not for you, but definitely for others
I can see positives about this 16mm lens:
- it gives 16mm when you need 16mm (might seem kind of obvious, but i'am just pointing it out as it might be a little hard to understand for J A C S. Maybe he doesn't need it, but hey, that's not a fault of this lens, is it?)
- it gathers a lot of light for when you need a faster shutter speeds without a higher ISO
- it gives at least more bokeh than any other 16mm option so far on the M system, and when distortion is not a problem or even is desired you can produce a fair amount of it. I can tell from my Samyang 12mm f/2.0 it is really fun to play around with wide angle perspective (including heavy distortion) and bokeh, and it gives you lots of creative options which are really challenging in a fun way.
- it will be the sharpest option for 16mm on the M system
- I can see a lot of bokeh balls from this lens without texture. There are more seconds in those youtube links than only the one J A C S picked for highlighting the texture in bokeh balls.
--
If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.
