How do NEX users cope with such a poor lens quality?

[cxsparc]

I ordered a NEX-7 because I always admired that camera, but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale. This contrasts starkly with performance figures from other camera lines. So do Sony users cope mostly by using alternative company lenses adapted to the NEX like Canon, or lenses used manually?

I have 2 questions for you.

1. Did you order the NEX-7 before you did your research and find out it did not do so well in scorring?
2. What was so interesting with the NEX-7 that you admired so much about it? It has an old outdated sensor which does not do well in higher ISO images.

If it scorred a 1-1.5 score out of 5 on Photozone.de, then why did you buy it?

I don't care about noise as much as some, I own m4/3rds! Also, the camera didn't score poorly, the lenses did. Also, technically your Sigma 30mm is "non-native."

Take a look at my blog, almost exclusively shot using Sony mirrorless cameras and e-mount lenses. I haven't had the feeling that I am limited by the lenses even though I am using only the APSC line lenses.

 

[Sympa]

Well, I'm not an expert. But think about all variables that exist. Like stronger AA filters (on cameras that are expected to be used with primes opposed to entry models). More or less pixel peeping. Blaming front- or back focusing for your blurriness. And so on.

In any case, that last pixel of sharpness was a good indicator in the past, where one was steering on the edge of moire versus sharpness to get a decent image. It is not any more. Sensors have so much resolution that some CA and a lot of distortion can be removed without sharpness loss.

And as for Photozone: for example the 16-50 would do extremely bad on a film camera. On digital however it is part of the new world where size, zoom range and aperture are balanced against distortion and vignetting. The latter are corrected digitally and the result are good images. It is a kit zoom, and it is not a flat field reproduction lens. But neither are other kit lenses.

Take the 18-55 EDII Nikkor kit lens compared to the 16-50 on DxO. Look at the field maps. Wide angle and wide open the Nikkor is better in the center but a disaster at the edges. The Nikon wins when stopping down the lenses, true.



But it is definitely not night and day. And when you compare the size and the versatility of having 16 mm it is not a bad lens at all. Just a different compromise.

 

[OlyPent]

I ordered a NEX-7 because I always admired that camera, but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale. This contrasts starkly with performance figures from other camera lines. So do Sony users cope mostly by using alternative company lenses adapted to the NEX like Canon, or lenses used manually?

I have 2 questions for you.

1. Did you order the NEX-7 before you did your research and find out it did not do so well in scorring?
2. What was so interesting with the NEX-7 that you admired so much about it? It has an old outdated sensor which does not do well in higher ISO images.

If it scorred a 1-1.5 score out of 5 on Photozone.de, then why did you buy it?

I don't care about noise as much as some, I own m4/3rds! Also, the camera didn't score poorly, the lenses did. Also, technically your Sigma 30mm is "non-native."

Take a look at my blog, almost exclusively shot using Sony mirrorless cameras and e-mount lenses. I haven't had the feeling that I am limited by the lenses even though I am using only the APSC line lenses.

 

[cxsparc]

...

Take a look at my blog, almost exclusively shot using Sony mirrorless cameras and e-mount lenses. I haven't had the feeling that I am limited by the lenses even though I am using only the APSC line lenses.

 

[OlyPent]

...

Take a look at my blog, almost exclusively shot using Sony mirrorless cameras and e-mount lenses. I haven't had the feeling that I am limited by the lenses even though I am using only the APSC line lenses.

 

[Marti58]

I ordered a NEX-7 because I always admired that camera, but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale. This contrasts starkly with performance figures from other camera lines. So do Sony users cope mostly by using alternative company lenses adapted to the NEX like Canon, or lenses used manually?

I have 2 questions for you.

1. Did you order the NEX-7 before you did your research and find out it did not do so well in scorring?
2. What was so interesting with the NEX-7 that you admired so much about it? It has an old outdated sensor which does not do well in higher ISO images.

If it scorred a 1-1.5 score out of 5 on Photozone.de, then why did you buy it?

I don't care about noise as much as some, I own m4/3rds! Also, the camera didn't score poorly, the lenses did. Also, technically your Sigma 30mm is "non-native."

Take a look at my blog, almost exclusively shot using Sony mirrorless cameras and e-mount lenses. I haven't had the feeling that I am limited by the lenses even though I am using only the APSC line lenses.

--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

I'll look at your blog. My perspective was formed a long time ago. I compared a $300 Nikon kit lens against a $150 Olympus 4/3rds lens and the Olympus beat it, handily. When Olympus came out with the 12-40mm f/2.8, one of the few lenses that performs excellently wide open, and few lenses under $5000 do, you get spoiled.

you had your perspective formed an long time ago, you still order something that has left you with more questions/ doubts then answers, reading your posts leaves me with an strange taste in my mouth, you seem to be promoting 4/3.

Surprise us with some images you made with your NEX 7

--
"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting."
-Spock

--
*All my Post Processing is done with Capture NX2* or Photo Mate r3
***Only a fool despises good counsel, but a wise man takes it to heart***
Flickr Photo's
Galleries on DPR

 

[OlyPent]

I ordered a NEX-7 because I always admired that camera, but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale. This contrasts starkly with performance figures from other camera lines. So do Sony users cope mostly by using alternative company lenses adapted to the NEX like Canon, or lenses used manually?

I have 2 questions for you.

1. Did you order the NEX-7 before you did your research and find out it did not do so well in scorring?
2. What was so interesting with the NEX-7 that you admired so much about it? It has an old outdated sensor which does not do well in higher ISO images.

If it scorred a 1-1.5 score out of 5 on Photozone.de, then why did you buy it?

I don't care about noise as much as some, I own m4/3rds! Also, the camera didn't score poorly, the lenses did. Also, technically your Sigma 30mm is "non-native."

Take a look at my blog, almost exclusively shot using Sony mirrorless cameras and e-mount lenses. I haven't had the feeling that I am limited by the lenses even though I am using only the APSC line lenses.

--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

I'll look at your blog. My perspective was formed a long time ago. I compared a $300 Nikon kit lens against a $150 Olympus 4/3rds lens and the Olympus beat it, handily. When Olympus came out with the 12-40mm f/2.8, one of the few lenses that performs excellently wide open, and few lenses under $5000 do, you get spoiled.

you had your perspective formed an long time ago, you still order something that has left you with more questions then answers, reading your posts leaves me with an strange taste in my mouth, you seem to be promoting 4/3.

Surprise us with some images you made with your NEX 7

I should receive it in a week, based on average mail shipping. Promoting m4/3rds isn't bad, a lot of people have misconceptions about it, but, the latest offerings are "probably" too expensive, relative to the larger-sensor competition.

 

[OlyPent]

Well, I'm not an expert. But think about all variables that exist. Like stronger AA filters (on cameras that are expected to be used with primes opposed to entry models). More or less pixel peeping. Blaming front- or back focusing for your blurriness. And so on.

In any case, that last pixel of sharpness was a good indicator in the past, where one was steering on the edge of moire versus sharpness to get a decent image. It is not any more. Sensors have so much resolution that some CA and a lot of distortion can be removed without sharpness loss.

And as for Photozone: for example the 16-50 would do extremely bad on a film camera. On digital however it is part of the new world where size, zoom range and aperture are balanced against distortion and vignetting. The latter are corrected digitally and the result are good images. It is a kit zoom, and it is not a flat field reproduction lens. But neither are other kit lenses.

Take the 18-55 EDII Nikkor kit lens compared to the 16-50 on DxO. Look at the field maps. Wide angle and wide open the Nikkor is better in the center but a disaster at the edges. The Nikon wins when stopping down the lenses, true.



But it is definitely not night and day. And when you compare the size and the versatility of having 16 mm it is not a bad lens at all. Just a different compromise.

The Sigma EX primes are similar. Very good in the centre, poor at the edges. I had the 30mm f/1.4, 30mm f/2.8 and 19mm f/2.8.

--
"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting."
-Spock

 

[cxsparc]

Well, I guess that is simply personal preference.

Otherwise millions of analog film, slide and digital SLR either FF or APSC would either switch to m43 (they don't) or crop all of their output (they don't).

I assume you have become used to 4:3 and that is of course not a bad thing. My compact camera also had this format and I shot close to 20k pictures with that. But for travel photography, 3:2 is much more useful to me. I even go sometimes wider by stitching or UWA.

And the thing remains: when going from 16 Mpx m43 to 3:2 you end up with 14 Mpx. If you go from 24 Mpx APSC 3:2 to 4:3, you still have 21 Mpx .

By the way, I can't help but wonder what made you buy the Nex 7 except if it was on offer really cheap.

Of course the sensor itself isn't bad and the camera is nicely built. But the A6000 has a better sensor, is better in just about every function and feature set, is new with warranty and is also dirt cheap, coupled with a kit lens that allows you to go 16mm, 14.9 mm in a pinch using RAW.

P.S: By the way, your thread title is chosen borderline to flaming, I'd recommend to choose your words differently in the future. Imagine the uproar posting a thread in the m43 forum titled "how can m43 users cope with such poor sensor quality". I am surprised actually how calm the responses here are, probably giving you the benefit of doubt

--
German/English Nex/A6000-Blog: http://luxorphotoart.blogspot.de/

 

[CE3]

It's a daily struggle.

 

[D Cox]

Sorry but your post makes it sound like the whole E mount lens lineup is crap, which it's not. Can you post which lenses in particular you were looking at rather than making generalizations like you have?

Mostly, the entry level stuff like the 16-50mm kit lens. But I would be interested in the 75-300mm you have.

I think the original 18-55mm kit lens was better than the 16-50mm. At least, the pictures I shot with it on a NEX 5N were fine. I don't know how well it performs on a 24 Megapixel sensor.

The great majority of photos I took on a NEX were with adapted lenses, simply because I already owned them. Results were very good for the time.

 

[OlyPent]

Well, I guess that is simply personal preference.

Otherwise millions of analog film, slide and digital SLR either FF or APSC would either switch to m43 (they don't) or crop all of their output (they don't).

I assume you have become used to 4:3 and that is of course not a bad thing. My compact camera also had this format and I shot close to 20k pictures with that. But for travel photography, 3:2 is much more useful to me. I even go sometimes wider by stitching or UWA.

And the thing remains: when going from 16 Mpx m43 to 3:2 you end up with 14 Mpx. If you go from 24 Mpx APSC 3:2 to 4:3, you still have 21 Mpx .

By the way, I can't help but wonder what made you buy the Nex 7 except if it was on offer really cheap.

Of course the sensor itself isn't bad and the camera is nicely built. But the A6000 has a better sensor, is better in just about every function and feature set, is new with warranty and is also dirt cheap, coupled with a kit lens that allows you to go 16mm, 14.9 mm in a pinch using RAW.

P.S: By the way, your thread title is chosen borderline to flaming, I'd recommend to choose your words differently in the future. Imagine the uproar posting a thread in the m43 forum titled "how can m43 users cope with such poor sensor quality". I am surprised actually how calm the responses here are, probably giving you the benefit of doubt

 

[Marti58]

I ordered a NEX-7 because I always admired that camera, but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale. This contrasts starkly with performance figures from other camera lines. So do Sony users cope mostly by using alternative company lenses adapted to the NEX like Canon, or lenses used manually?

I have 2 questions for you.

1. Did you order the NEX-7 before you did your research and find out it did not do so well in scorring?
2. What was so interesting with the NEX-7 that you admired so much about it? It has an old outdated sensor which does not do well in higher ISO images.

If it scorred a 1-1.5 score out of 5 on Photozone.de, then why did you buy it?

I don't care about noise as much as some, I own m4/3rds! Also, the camera didn't score poorly, the lenses did. Also, technically your Sigma 30mm is "non-native."

Take a look at my blog, almost exclusively shot using Sony mirrorless cameras and e-mount lenses. I haven't had the feeling that I am limited by the lenses even though I am using only the APSC line lenses.

 

[teddoman]

I ordered a NEX-7 because I always admired that camera, but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale. This contrasts starkly with performance figures from other camera lines. So do Sony users cope mostly by using alternative company lenses adapted to the NEX like Canon, or lenses used manually?

The premise of your thread may actually have some elements of truth to it. E mount does have an assortment of cheaper lenses that I never even batted an eye at. And having a full range of choices is great for users.

But keep in mind that the "NEX line" is E mount, which includes expensive FE lenses designed for the demands of Sony's current and future high resolution sensors. Zeiss Sigma Rokinon also produce E mount AF lenses (some of which are APS-C only).

For those who want quality lenses, there are plenty. A broad brush generalization like this is not useful. It'd be more useful to look for quality lenses in a certain focal length or zoom range. E mount's strengths and weaknesses are more apparent when you get specific.

 

[OlyPent]

I ordered a NEX-7 because I always admired that camera, but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale. This contrasts starkly with performance figures from other camera lines. So do Sony users cope mostly by using alternative company lenses adapted to the NEX like Canon, or lenses used manually?

I have 2 questions for you.

1. Did you order the NEX-7 before you did your research and find out it did not do so well in scorring?
2. What was so interesting with the NEX-7 that you admired so much about it? It has an old outdated sensor which does not do well in higher ISO images.

If it scorred a 1-1.5 score out of 5 on Photozone.de, then why did you buy it?

I don't care about noise as much as some, I own m4/3rds! Also, the camera didn't score poorly, the lenses did. Also, technically your Sigma 30mm is "non-native."

Take a look at my blog, almost exclusively shot using Sony mirrorless cameras and e-mount lenses. I haven't had the feeling that I am limited by the lenses even though I am using only the APSC line lenses.

 

[OlyPent]

I ordered a NEX-7 because I always admired that camera, but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale. This contrasts starkly with performance figures from other camera lines. So do Sony users cope mostly by using alternative company lenses adapted to the NEX like Canon, or lenses used manually?

The premise of your thread may actually have some elements of truth to it. E mount does have an assortment of cheaper lenses that I never even batted an eye at. And having a full range of choices is great for users.

But keep in mind that the "NEX line" is E mount, which includes expensive FE lenses designed for the demands of Sony's current and future high resolution sensors. Zeiss Sigma Rokinon also produce E mount AF lenses (some of which are APS-C only).

For those who want quality lenses, there are plenty. A broad brush generalization like this is not useful.

I've never been system-tied. I know people who are. I have no issues buying outside Sony if that is where the good lenses are, Sigma, Rokinon, Zeiss.

 

[Miro Maric]

but I was on Photozone.de and out of all the cameras I've looked at, the quality of the lenses for the NEX line have to be on average the worst, with some scoring a 1-1.5 out of 5 on their scale.

I share the same experience with Photozone.de. Not only in the case of Sony E-lenses I share the same experience for Oly and Canon lenses too. So from my point of view Photozone.de is one of the best web sites for testing the lenses.

Till end of 2015 I have used on NEX-5 & NEX-7 bodies:

Sony E 16mm f/2.8

Sony E 30mm f/3.5 macro

Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS

Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS

Sony E 50mm f/1.8 OSS

Zeiss E24mm F1.8 (I guess this one is not tested on Photozone.de)

I sorted them according to my experience from bad to good. Sold them all. Not ready to pay Zeiss prices for average quality.

Regards,

 

[grasshpr]

The Sigma EX primes are similar. Very good in the centre, poor at the edges. I had the 30mm f/1.4, 30mm f/2.8 and 19mm f/2.8.

 

[Tuloom]

No, most people do not buy non native lenses with adapters for the NEX or a6x00 cameras.

OP is talking about NEX, but you are probably right about most.

Only people who like to experiment with adapters and non-native lenses do that kind of thing. They seem to have more time and money on their hands then common sense.

Stupidest thing I've seen on the internet in years. There are thousands of images posted with adapted lenses on better forums from the NEX days. Leica M, Zeiss ZM, Contax G, FD, MD... the list is endless.

I bought into mirrorless when Panasonic released the first one, (G1) in 2007. I've owned over 200 lenses that I've used on it and other cameras and what I found with older lenses is yes, they often do not do as well as modern lenses, with a few exceptions (Contax 180mm f/2.8, Schneider 25mm f/0.95, Olympus 50mm f/1.8). Reasons are obvious, modern lenses have inexpensive aspheric elements, cheap ED glass so they can be built to a better optical spec for less money than in the past. However, stopped down below where the aberrations aspherics and ED glass correct for, most of them except for the worst ones will produce results on par with the average modern lens.

The silly argument I Was responding to was for non-native. Non native does not necessarily mean older, but they certainly can be. It's ignorant hogwash. Good lenses are good lenses. The bad ones are bad. Simple. They need to be named. Generalizing is useless.

 

[Off The Mark]

No, most people do not buy non native lenses with adapters for the NEX or a6x00 cameras. Only people who like to experiment with adapters and non-native lenses do that kind of thing. They seem to have more time and money on their hands then common sense. As for those that do that, they deserve what they get and issues found when using adapters that do not work as well as simply buying native lenses.

While using ONLY native lenses might be an ideal situation for YOU, I am sorry to say that you seem extremely condescending in your remarks about those of us who DO employ non-native lenses.

Firstly, Sony itself makes (or has made) FOUR different adapters for putting A Mount lenses on to E Mount bodies. Does it make sense for them to financially research and produce those adapters if using non-native lenses appealed only to people who want to "experiment"? that seems like very bad business sense.

And there are how many other companies that produce adapters for mounting adapted lenses on to E Mount? Metabones, Sigma, Viltrox, TechArt, FotoDiox, Comlite, Novoflex? Others??? The fact that all those companies have a VIABLE BUSINESS making lens adapters pretty much shows there is a NEED for many people (not you, but many others) for adapting lenses.

Metabones just announced version 5 of their EF to E Mount adapter. Seems like that need is still there.

Secondly, what would you do if you wanted a 17-50 f/2.8 zoom for your crop sensor camera? Please link to the native E Mount 17-50 (or 16-50) f/2.8 lens for me. Oh, and please link to the native E Mount lens that is longer than 300mm for me, too.

Thirdly, you say "They [people who adapt non-native lenses] seem to have more time and money on their hands then common sense." Have you LOOKED at the price of native E mount lenses??? If so, you have probably noticed that the cheapest 85mm f/1.8 for E Mount costs $1,200 , while one can buy a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $479 and a Canon 85mm f/1.8 for $369. Last time I checked, spending $1,200 on a lens required MORE MONEY than spending $369 on a lens... even adding in the cost of the adapters still requires LESS money (and if you are buying multiple lenses to go with a single adapter, it works out even better).

I suggest that if people can not find native lenses to work with the a6x00 cameras, they should find an other format or camera company that provides what they are looking for. If the Sony APS-C E-mount system does not have what you want or need, look elseware.

That's your opinion and suggestion, and that is fine, but why? Or better yet, why not? There are MANY wonderful photos taken by people with third-party lenses adapted to E Mount bodies. And even if you take away the benefits that are lost by mounting non-Native E Mount lenses on to E Mount bodies, there are still features provided by E Mount bodies that the user may want. For example, my a6300 has excellent 4K video, and is extremely good at higher ISO Video, far better than ANYTHING that Nikon has. So why shouldn't I be able to mount my numerous Nikon lenses on to my a6300 and get the best of both worlds?