Why the lack of pancake primes for NEX

[edwardaneal]

the problem with pancake lenses is that they almost always sacrifice quality as compared with a regular lens of the same focal length

I would rather have that quality - a nice 35mm f/2 that is no larger than the 18-55 and sharp across the frame wide open would make me much happier than some pancake 35mm that was soft in the corners unless it was stopped down

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[ntsan]

The Panasonic pancake are quite sharp at wide open and give really good quality, the 20MM F1.7 is giving serious money to the more expensive/fatter Leica F1.4

 

[Jon Rty]

If Samsung can make a 30mm F/2 and Panasonic can make a 20mm F/1.7 pancake that's sharp across the frame wide open then there's no reason why Sony couldn't do it. Heck, it doesn't even need to be a pancake, something between 30 and 40mm would be more than enough.

the problem with pancake lenses is that they almost always sacrifice quality as compared with a regular lens of the same focal length

I would rather have that quality - a nice 35mm f/2 that is no larger than the 18-55 and sharp across the frame wide open would make me much happier than some pancake 35mm that was soft in the corners unless it was stopped down

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[Just Having Fun]

One or 2 more pancakes would make the NEX system completely amazing. I don't think the UWA has ultra wide appeal though.

You have the 16 (24), now add a 24mm (36) and a 32 (48) if possible and everyone would be happy.

 

[edwardaneal]

this is the wide open chart for the Samsung 30mm f/2



not exactly what I would call sharp wide open - heck the Sony 16mm is just as sharp in the corners and much sharper in the center

If Samsung can make a 30mm F/2 and Panasonic can make a 20mm F/1.7 pancake that's sharp across the frame wide open then there's no reason why Sony couldn't do it. Heck, it doesn't even need to be a pancake, something between 30 and 40mm would be more than enough.

the problem with pancake lenses is that they almost always sacrifice quality as compared with a regular lens of the same focal length

I would rather have that quality - a nice 35mm f/2 that is no larger than the 18-55 and sharp across the frame wide open would make me much happier than some pancake 35mm that was soft in the corners unless it was stopped down

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[edwardaneal]

just to illustrate my point about the compromises of pancake lenses vs regular lenses. here are the charts for the samsung 30mm f/2 vs the nikon 35mm f/1.8 with both lenses stopped down to f/2.8





as you can see the normal design has much better across the frame sharpness

for me having smaller size is great, but not at that big of an expense of image quality

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[maple]

yours is probably only wishful thinking. I would like to stress that NEX may not be optimized for primes on its own shorter flange distance E mount, and that could be why the 16mm WA is only mediocre optically, and why the lack of further compact primes.
--
Maple

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

yours is probably only wishful thinking. I would like to stress that NEX may not be optimized for primes on its own shorter flange distance E mount, and that could be why the 16mm WA is only mediocre optically, and why the lack of further compact primes.

I hope you're wrong about that. What a shame it would be for NEX to have the best mirrorless sensor but not be able to couple it with a few great compact primes.

Incidentally, anybody know the registration distances of the mirrorless formats--NEX, NX, m4/3--and whether there's really that big a difference between them?

 

[blue_skies]

yours is probably only wishful thinking. I would like to stress that NEX may not be optimized for primes on its own shorter flange distance E mount, and that could be why the 16mm WA is only mediocre optically, and why the lack of further compact primes.

I hope you're wrong about that. What a shame it would be for NEX to have the best mirrorless sensor but not be able to couple it with a few great compact primes.

Incidentally, anybody know the registration distances of the mirrorless formats--NEX, NX, m4/3--and whether there's really that big a difference between them?

• E (eighteen) mount: 18.0mm

• MFT mount : 19.0mm

• NX mount: 25.5mm

• M mount: 27.8mm

also read:

• http://petavoxel.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/ltm-on-nx10/

• http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1013&message=37617469

 

[Knallberto]

I use 30 lenses ... wrong ... exact: 29 ... with my NEX5 ... Konica, Sony, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Fujian ... from 8mm to 500mm

Last pictures ... 1 hour old ...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=39044157

 

[Mark_McD]

yours is probably only wishful thinking. I would like to stress that NEX may not be optimized for primes on its own shorter flange distance E mount, and that could be why the 16mm WA is only mediocre optically, and why the lack of further compact primes.
--
Maple

I think that's a serious overstatement on the SEL16F28's quality.

Don't get me wrong, I don't claim it to be the sharpest lens available- but to say it's "mediocre" is pretty inaccurate.

To add to that, it has probably one of the best coatings of any lens I own, which is pretty well un-flare-able even in direct sunlight.





One of the most unique things about the SEL16F28 is the fact that it appears to almost have a built-in CPL for skies. I've never put an actual CPL on it and I've gotten quite amazing cloud contrast, which I can't replicate with even my Alpha 35mm / f1.8 (which is considered to be sharper than the alpha 35mm / f1.4).

Before any comments get tossed about the second picture, it has vignetting added in post.

here's another with the SEL16F28's "mediocore quality."



or the first shot I took with it when I received it (from just outside my office, just to test it):



Getting that much contrast in a photo I've gotten with other lenses- but only with a CPL and/or grad ND. Never just the lens itself (as is the case with above pictures) or particularly from a lens that has absolutely no lens hood.

(the earlier two were taken with a rubber hood attached, the others were not)

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[edwardaneal]

well - I am not an optical engineer, but I would think that flange/mount distance would not be the big deciding factor. I would thing that the distance of the optical center of the lens from the sensor would be more important. I would also think that the further that distance is the straighter the light path and the better the MTF of the lens

yours is probably only wishful thinking. I would like to stress that NEX may not be optimized for primes on its own shorter flange distance E mount, and that could be why the 16mm WA is only mediocre optically, and why the lack of further compact primes.
--
Maple

--
My kit - D200, 10.5mm f/2.8D, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.4G & 70-300VR
NEX-5 18-55 OSS

Lenses worth mentioning owned and sold– 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2.8D, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2D-DC, 180mm f/2.8, 300mm f/4D-ED

 

[Mark_McD]

I don't own or use a 16mm. If that invalidates my observations in your eyes then so be it. I've looked at many reviews (slrgear, photozone, etc.) and sample images as a potential customer, and have arrived at my conclusion that way. In a way I sympathize with your defense of the 16mm. The m4/3 17mm is similarly criticized, but I've gotten good results from it as well. The difference is that I'm not under the illusion that it's a great lens. It's not.

Look, please don't confuse criticisms of NEX with trolling. I'm not here to troll--life is too short to get your kicks out of annoying others. I want to learn about NEX and keep up with all the NEX developments in case it eventually hits the point in its progression that I can consider switching from m4/3 to NEX. That doesn't mean I don't already have opinions about NEX, and it just so happens some of them are negative. Strip away any trolling tone that you imagine to be in my posts and I think you'll identify many of the same criticisms that your fellow NEX users have toward NEX.

But hey, I'm just another stranger on the internet. You don't have to take my word for it. Life will go on either way.

That's fine by me- most reviews compare the SEL16F28 to among some of the sharpest WA's- all which are not perfect.

The "negatives" of the SEL16F28 are:

-It has high field curvature (higher than a lot of other WA's I've seen) as a result, wide apertures have very fast corner-falloff.

-It does have geometric distortion (which is correctable pretty easily in post- LR3 has lens profiles for it, as does dXo and most any raw converter I've seen)
-It is not razor sharp.

The "positives" of the SEL16F28 are:

-It has among the most contrast of most any lens I've seen, although sometimes a bit low in micro-contrast.

-It is virtually flare-proof. I've shot this lens directly into the sun and the most you can get is a green orb, which is assuming you point it at mid-day sun (holding the camera over your head).
-The obvious- it's an f2.8 24mm EFL lens, most WA's are much slower.

-It is fairly low in CA (although I have seen some cyan fringing at corners in harsh direct lighting)
-It can be had brand new for about $150

-It is a very tiny lens (which is in part why it has high geometric distortion and such high field curvature)

To me it is both absurd and silly to point out the flaws of the lens- which is really quite a nice WA- especially for how cheap it is!

do note: I'm not saying it's only good for the money, but you will not find a lens this fast, this wide and this small for similar or more money.
you won't find one this small and this wide for similar or more money either.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[headofdestiny]

yours is probably only wishful thinking. I would like to stress that NEX may not be optimized for primes on its own shorter flange distance E mount, and that could be why the 16mm WA is only mediocre optically, and why the lack of further compact primes.
--
Maple

This is not a limitation. Sony can add as much length to a lens as they wish to deal with corner issues, and I think that is why we're seeing lenses a little bigger than many were hoping for.

 

[maple]

I can be wrong, and I hope so. NEX 7 body alone is so perfect in form. Perhaps the 18-55 kit lens is still the way to go, i.e., sacrificing compactness somewhat.
--
Maple

 

[RussellInCincinnati]

Mark McD, your sample photo taken with the Sony 16mm e-mount lens, featuring deep, crisp shadows, despite having the sun directly in the picture , is remarkable. Hence my remarks.

It's not often where one sees a photo where a lens can be said to have taken the image that few others could. Your statement noting that the e-mount 16 is virtually un-flareable is not contradicted by your example. What a neat, 67-gram tool to have in one's bag when you're facing a bright light source in a photo.

Reviews at lenstip and kurtmunger have not given the lens special credit for flare resistance, but you are making the case that this lens at least has a special edge or two over a typical wide angle zoom.

Am kicking myself for not having ordered the 16mm with my Nex 5. Maybe will pick one up in a Nex 7 kit some day. Can imagine solving certain problems by using the 16mm lens, cropped down somewhat, with a 24 megapixel sensor, for a situation that is not so wide angle but has difficult backlighting.

Here's a scene from yesterday where flare could have been a problem, but wasn't. Not because of the simplistic lens, though, it's probably more because of a deep, fitted lens hood. Hoods usually solve the flare problem for lenses less mighty than the e-16. Hats off also to the perfect combo of the Nex 5 sensor and Raw Therapee for image development, and tripods making a 1/3rd second exposure (F8, ISO 200) practical.

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

The "negatives" of the SEL16F28 are:

-It has high field curvature (higher than a lot of other WA's I've seen) as a result, wide apertures have very fast corner-falloff.

-It does have geometric distortion (which is correctable pretty easily in post- LR3 has lens profiles for it, as does dXo and most any raw converter I've seen)
-It is not razor sharp.

The "positives" of the SEL16F28 are:

-It has among the most contrast of most any lens I've seen, although sometimes a bit low in micro-contrast.

-It is virtually flare-proof. I've shot this lens directly into the sun and the most you can get is a green orb, which is assuming you point it at mid-day sun (holding the camera over your head).
-The obvious- it's an f2.8 24mm EFL lens, most WA's are much slower.

-It is fairly low in CA (although I have seen some cyan fringing at corners in harsh direct lighting)
-It can be had brand new for about $150

-It is a very tiny lens (which is in part why it has high geometric distortion and such high field curvature)

To me it is both absurd and silly to point out the flaws of the lens- which is really quite a nice WA- especially for how cheap it is!

do note: I'm not saying it's only good for the money, but you will not find a lens this fast, this wide and this small for similar or more money.
you won't find one this small and this wide for similar or more money either.

Thanks for the extremely detailed reply. I'm trying to reconcile your experiences with it to reviews and samples I've seen. Do you shoot it primarily stopped down, say f/5.6-f/8? If so, I think I've figured out why we have such a gulf between our opinions of the lens. See, I do most of my personal shooting in artificial indoor light (out of necessity--work during the day, and family doesn't stop being interesting at night), so NEX's extra stop or so of high ISO ability over m4/3 is appealing to me. For that I need to shoot at large apertures, so I'd be using the 16mm at f/2.8 almost all the time. Wide open it looks like sharpness falls off very quickly and more steeply toward the edges than I've ever seen in any lens. I can live with a bit of CA, and light falloff doesn't bother me, but if the lens is soft wide open anywhere but dead center that makes it a non-starter for my use of it. I don't need it to be tack sharp across the frame, but I'd like to see a little better performance wide open. Of course YMMV.

You have a point about it being a bit petty to point out the flaws of the lens considering its design constraints. It's a large aperture pancake wide angle after all. But that claim would have better support if there were an alternative at a similar focal length and aperture, maybe a bit larger and more expensive for instance. If there were another wide angle large aperture lens to choose from, especially one of higher quality and price, we could compare the two and pick the one that suits our needs better. Since it's the only option it's gonna get kicked around a bit, more so than it probably deserves, because in essence we're "stuck" with it. "Don't like it? Don't buy it," you might say. But what other options are there? I think that's the issue.

 

[Mark_McD]

The "negatives" of the SEL16F28 are:

-It has high field curvature (higher than a lot of other WA's I've seen) as a result, wide apertures have very fast corner-falloff.

-It does have geometric distortion (which is correctable pretty easily in post- LR3 has lens profiles for it, as does dXo and most any raw converter I've seen)
-It is not razor sharp.

The "positives" of the SEL16F28 are:

-It has among the most contrast of most any lens I've seen, although sometimes a bit low in micro-contrast.

-It is virtually flare-proof. I've shot this lens directly into the sun and the most you can get is a green orb, which is assuming you point it at mid-day sun (holding the camera over your head).
-The obvious- it's an f2.8 24mm EFL lens, most WA's are much slower.

-It is fairly low in CA (although I have seen some cyan fringing at corners in harsh direct lighting)
-It can be had brand new for about $150

-It is a very tiny lens (which is in part why it has high geometric distortion and such high field curvature)

To me it is both absurd and silly to point out the flaws of the lens- which is really quite a nice WA- especially for how cheap it is!

do note: I'm not saying it's only good for the money, but you will not find a lens this fast, this wide and this small for similar or more money.
you won't find one this small and this wide for similar or more money either.

Thanks for the extremely detailed reply. I'm trying to reconcile your experiences with it to reviews and samples I've seen. Do you shoot it primarily stopped down, say f/5.6-f/8? If so, I think I've figured out why we have such a gulf between our opinions of the lens. See, I do most of my personal shooting in artificial indoor light (out of necessity--work during the day, and family doesn't stop being interesting at night), so NEX's extra stop or so of high ISO ability over m4/3 is appealing to me. For that I need to shoot at large apertures, so I'd be using the 16mm at f/2.8 almost all the time. Wide open it looks like sharpness falls off very quickly and more steeply toward the edges than I've ever seen in any lens. I can live with a bit of CA, and light falloff doesn't bother me, but if the lens is soft wide open anywhere but dead center that makes it a non-starter for my use of it. I don't need it to be tack sharp across the frame, but I'd like to see a little better performance wide open. Of course YMMV.

You have a point about it being a bit petty to point out the flaws of the lens considering its design constraints. It's a large aperture pancake wide angle after all. But that claim would have better support if there were an alternative at a similar focal length and aperture, maybe a bit larger and more expensive for instance. If there were another wide angle large aperture lens to choose from, especially one of higher quality and price, we could compare the two and pick the one that suits our needs better. Since it's the only option it's gonna get kicked around a bit, more so than it probably deserves, because in essence we're "stuck" with it. "Don't like it? Don't buy it," you might say. But what other options are there? I think that's the issue.

It's pretty decent wide open, the things to avoid with it at wider apertures is very close focusing (unless you intentionally want the effect).

I understand it to be why the DPReview of the SEL16F28 advises against it for a kit lens.

I'm primarily a normal shooter (with legacy lenses), so I don't have a huge amount of shots with the SEL16F28.
Here's one of the ones I have (without the UWA) of it @ f3.5:



I believe I have a couple raw's in LR3 that I have yet to process, I'll search through tomorrow for some of the f2.8 shots I've done and post them. However, I would note that with a lens this wide (if you abide by the 1:1 shutter rule) you can shoot it @ 1/25 shutter without any serious concerns for shake (I've shot it lower than that successfully as well). Combine that with the ISO performance of the Nex and you can pretty readily shoot @ ISO 1600 / 3200 (depending on your NR software, experience, etc) with pretty respectable quality (so perhaps a higher aperture won't be out of the question for your uses).

Again- I'll check my library I generally avoid shooting it even this wide (f3.5) but based on what I've seen from it- I won't shy away from opening up the lens from a distance.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[Mark_McD]

Mark McD, your sample photo taken with the Sony 16mm e-mount lens, featuring deep, crisp shadows, despite having the sun directly in the picture , is remarkable. Hence my remarks.

It's not often where one sees a photo where a lens can be said to have taken the image that few others could. Your statement noting that the e-mount 16 is virtually un-flareable is not contradicted by your example. What a neat, 67-gram tool to have in one's bag when you're facing a bright light source in a photo.

Reviews at lenstip and kurtmunger have not given the lens special credit for flare resistance, but you are making the case that this lens at least has a special edge or two over a typical wide angle zoom.

Am kicking myself for not having ordered the 16mm with my Nex 5. Maybe will pick one up in a Nex 7 kit some day. Can imagine solving certain problems by using the 16mm lens, cropped down somewhat, with a 24 megapixel sensor, for a situation that is not so wide angle but has difficult backlighting.

Here's a scene from yesterday where flare could have been a problem, but wasn't. Not because of the simplistic lens, though, it's probably more because of a deep, fitted lens hood. Hoods usually solve the flare problem for lenses less mighty than the e-16. Hats off also to the perfect combo of the Nex 5 sensor and Raw Therapee for image development, and tripods making a 1/3rd second exposure (F8, ISO 200) practical.

That's exactly my point though- most reviews focus on the "bad" of the SEL16F28 rather than "the good." As I know you're aware, Russell, I'm pretty fond of legacy lenses. When I was searching for a WA for the Nex, I was considering RF lenses (which have far more issues with CA on the nex) and are often a lot slower.

I was pretty impressed with the deal I got on the SEL16F28 (from the bay) which was brand new for around $150 shipped. I wasn't expecting much (especially with the comments) but was pleasantly surprised when I tried it out.

I think if you have aspirations for any uses that wide, the SEL16F28 makes a pretty good option for what it offers.

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[mynakedsoda]

I thought I already posted in this thread but can't find it. At the risk of repeating myself I think the reason is Sony didn't realize what this system would be to alot of people. Many here will argue that kit lenses made the most sense initially. I'd agree but at the same time I think they should have come out with atleast one high quality prime initially that was capable of resolving the detail the sensor can capture. I don't see that in either of the kit lenses or the upcoming macro (based on the samples I've seen).

It isn't that it is impossible for Sony to build a high quality pancake of course. Don't believe those that say it is impossible. If others can build that type of lens then why couldn't Sony? I just don't think Sony sees a market for it that is as profitable as what they can get off of compromised zooms. Their loss IMO and these type of lenses are prestige items IMO as well as the items that keeps users loyal to certain systems. Don't get me wrong. I love my Nex. I just think it could be so much more than what it is if Sony fully supported it. As an upgrade for a point and shoot small digicam shooter or a second system for those of us with very complete DSLR system but want or need a second camera capable of high image quality and also allows us to use our existing glass when we want through adapters it is perfect. It could be alot more though.