In defense of the the 18-55 and 16

Started Nov 24, 2012 | Discussions
Gallen1955 Junior Member • Posts: 25
In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
3

I was thinking that  the Sony 18-55 and 16  lenses are sub par stuff, but I was wrong. I just did not understand the characteristics of the lenses. They are sharp enough stepped down to f8.

In low light them are just not good enough, so faster lenses are in order. When necessary.

Know your lenses,

Seppo

hewitt
hewitt Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
2

Agree totally. Both lenses can produce very decent results, as a quick search of this forum will show. Believe    what you see not what you hear.

davect01
davect01 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,216
yes and no

I agree that the 18-55mm, (don't own the 16mm), is pretty good under ideal circumstances.  
However it is the non-ideal circumstances that it really starts to fail.

-- hide signature --

Novice photobug, proud NEX-3 owner
http://davesnex-3photos.blogspot.com/

Dohmnuill Contributing Member • Posts: 787
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
2

Agree about the 18-55mm, and I've just ordered the 16mm with the UWA converter (12mm).

I did so on the basis of the many examples posted in the 480 pages of the NEX forum thread in the Fred Miranda website.

The 'crons and 'luxes will be better but there's not a huge amount in it. Sure, corners are less well defined, but since I usually darken these on landscapes it's  of no concern to me.

And I'm jack of lobbing in London etc and not having a decent (coat) pocketable camera. The days of toting the dSLR  and looking like Thom the Tourist are well and truly over.

Looking forward to testing, and comparing with some of my Leica, Nikkor and even Industar glass.

santiclaws Senior Member • Posts: 1,180
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
1

Gallen1955 wrote:

I was thinking that the Sony 18-55 and 16 lenses are sub par stuff, but I was wrong. I just did not understand the characteristics of the lenses. They are sharp enough stepped down to f8.

You'd be hard pressed to find a modern lens that did not perform well stopped down to f8, so saying a lens is "sharp enough" at f8 is really not saying much of anything.

hewitt
hewitt Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
3

But in the case of these lenses you don't need to stop them down to f8. I don't claim that I can produce the best example of them at larger apertures than f8 but these are the best I can find for the moment - at f4:





GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,633
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
1

Dohmnuill wrote:

Agree about the 18-55mm, and I've just ordered the 16mm with the UWA converter (12mm).

I did so on the basis of the many examples posted in the 480 pages of the NEX forum thread in the Fred Miranda website.

The 'crons and 'luxes will be better but there's not a huge amount in it. Sure, corners are less well defined, but since I usually darken these on landscapes it's of no concern to me.

And I'm jack of lobbing in London etc and not having a decent (coat) pocketable camera. The days of toting the dSLR and looking like Thom the Tourist are well and truly over.

Who wants to lug around a DSLR if you don't have to?

Looking forward to testing, and comparing with some of my Leica, Nikkor and even Industar glass.

Please post your findings.  One person posted that the 16mm compared favorably to his collection of legacy UWA lenses, as did David K.

As for the 18-55, I can tell that primes are a tad sharper in general, but for most use, I find the 18-55 to be fine.  As for the 16mm, the corners do lack resolution, but the center seems very sharp.  This can be seen in reviews that complain about the lens, such as Lensrentals.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
Dohmnuill Contributing Member • Posts: 787
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16

GaryW wrote:

Dohmnuill wrote:

Looking forward to testing, and comparing with some of my Leica, Nikkor and even Industar glass.

Please post your findings.

I'll do that, Gary, but I guess it will be a week or three before the glass arrives. Slow boats from China (HK) and Korea.

OP Gallen1955 Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
1

Hey all,

Thanks for your comments.

I was initially very disappointed with the 16mm lens, but later on I learned how to use it in a proper way.  Just have f8 and focus on 2m, and you have have focus from 1m to infinity. In good light just shoot on everything. BTW it is useful to know the concept of hyperfocal distance.

Cheers,

Seppo

I know what I am doing, follow me.

hewitt
hewitt Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
2

At the risk of sounding like a Sony employee (which I am not), I felt I should say that to get the best out of the 16mm one does not need to resort to zone focus as you suggest. In fact, with the advent of automatic focus do people still use zone focus? I think probably not. Nor, as I hope I demonstrate above, is the 16mm user limited to f8. I hope the attached further makes my point:



Elyharbour
Elyharbour Senior Member • Posts: 2,419
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
2

I've got a Sigma 30mm but the vast majority of my shots are still with the 18-55. For most end-use purposes it's absolutely fine. You can find the differences if you look really hard, but for a) online photo albums b) moderate size prints you'll never see the difference IMO. But the PPs here will never agree to that.

 Elyharbour's gear list:Elyharbour's gear list
Canon G9 X Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +3 more
RezaTravilla
RezaTravilla Regular Member • Posts: 308
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
1

Gallen1955 wrote:

I was thinking that the Sony 18-55 and 16 lenses are sub par stuff, but I was wrong. I just did not understand the characteristics of the lenses. They are sharp enough stepped down to f8.

In low light them are just not good enough, so faster lenses are in order. When necessary.

Know your lenses,

Seppo

agree with you. Many thinks 16mm f2.8 is a failure lens but hmmm here some examples that i shot yesterday and the result is not like a failure lens. Btw i love shot in B&W so sorry if my photos most of them are B&W

SONY NEX5n + SEL 16mm f2.8

SONY NEX5n + SEL 16mm f2.8

SONY NEX5n + SEL 16mm f2.8

 RezaTravilla's gear list:RezaTravilla's gear list
Nikon D300S Olympus E-M5 II Olympus PEN-F Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +5 more
hewitt
hewitt Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
1

And this is a 25% crop of a photo shot at the longest end of the 18-55!

cxsparc
cxsparc Veteran Member • Posts: 3,430
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16

You don't have to stop most lenses down to f8 though that renders about maximum dof.

The kit lens works great when stopped down one to two stops. At 18mm, f3.5 is wide open, so f4.5/f6.3 is already quite good.

-- hide signature --
 cxsparc's gear list:cxsparc's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony a6000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS +3 more
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,633
Re: In defense of the the 18-55 and 16
1

hewitt wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a Sony employee (which I am not), I felt I should say that to get the best out of the 16mm one does not need to resort to zone focus as you suggest. In fact, with the advent of automatic focus do people still use zone focus? I think probably not. Nor, as I hope I demonstrate above, is the 16mm user limited to f8. I hope the attached further makes my point:

Maybe not.  Unless the carousel was moving, you didn't need 1/400 shutter speed!  You could have used f8 in that case, easily.    But yeah, in dimmer light, go ahead and use other apertures -- it's notthat bad!

On an overcast day, I took a number of photos at f6.3 and larger (smaller f-number), and I don't think f8 would make much of a difference.   Yes, the corners improve as you stop down, but only the extreme corners are really a problem anyway; as a practical matter, it just often doesn't affect the photo and at f6.3 it gets cropped off when you print at 8x10 or 11x14 or whatever.

So, I say, get the photo first, then worry about the corners later, but only use wide apertures when necessary.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads