Photoclubalpha

Reading old reviews on the Sony NEX 7/A6000 and other more recent reviews on Sony 24mp APS-C cameras, several well respected review sites remarked that the current crop of cheaper and even more expensive Sony lenses mainly zooms 'struggle' with the 24mp sensor. I'm not sure how to interpret that, any suggestions. So in other words does that mean you have to spend a fortune on a lens before it no longer struggles with the sensor? If that's the case, then I might have to re appraise my system.

I've seen reports like this too, and wonder if there is a test standard that would give a definitive answer. if there was we could relay on the data.

Edward, I have been going on about the standard of Sony kit E lenses and mid range on the 24mp cameras, it seems there is a lot of critics right across the photographic world, so i'm not the only one to complain. As you say there is no data (that I know of) to give a definitive answer as to what level of optical quality is required to meet the demands a 24mp sensor? Its seems that Olympus/Panasonic to quote another pair of CSC cameras, enjoys some superb kit lenses as does Fuji. I Love the A6000 but that love is now being tested because of the lenses. Never had this lens problem with the 16mp A mount SLT cameras.

I can only give a partial and "unscientific" answer to this question. I purchased the A6000 last year when Sony provided a £50 cash-back. I only use Sony zooms on this camera, these being E-mount 10-18 wide, 16-50 pancake and 55-210 tele.
All my pictures are for Alamy. In general sunlit pictures can be uploaded at full size. The exception being some images taken with the 10-18 where one side or the other is not sharp. A good part of the time this problem does not occur. In dull weather I often reduce image size to nearer 24-30Mb, but that is not necessarily a lens issue. I mostly use 200 ISA sunlit to max aperture/shutter speed combination for image depth sharpness.
I am impressed by the overall quality of the 16-50 pancake. This is certainly not an expensive lens. The 55-210 is a sterling performer. I worried about lens performance with the A6000 compared to my NEX-6, but not now. So I am happy with the overall performance at my requirement level (Alamy QC) even at full image size. That may not be enough for "pixel peepers".

I'm not really sure about how you compare the quality and what you mean by using lenses on 24mp APS sensor, but DxO done some a lab test with a6000 and most E format lenses. It can be see in this link.
http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/launched- ... ype=global

Also you can see compare camera+lenses with other format and product makers.
like example:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/S ... 3_1083_942

or standart Zeiss Zoom

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/S ... 3_1629_942

or kit lenses

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/S ... 3_1082_942

or more fun
Nikon crop with Sony E

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/S ... 8_1083_942

When you do comparing the camera and lenses take a look on sharpnes, it's actualy give you idea about resolution in a landscapes work

I hope the test from DxO give the answer what we can have for $$$$ and quality of some lenses.

I think most people have higher expectations over increases in pixels, than actually gets delivered, even with good primes. I don't feel you have to spend a fortune on lenses, but obviously some are better than others. I've never been unhappy with my Tamron optics, but moving from 16mp to 24mp was a fairly mild increase in resolution. In many shots it really doesn't show up much if at all. I spent a while testing this and came to the conclusion it's not the lenses that are poor, but there is only so much you can pull out of a scene. Both 16 and 24mp are very satisfactory even for big printing. Now moving to a 36mp FF sensor, I'd expect another jump up..but really I can't see the need even for scenic shots. A move to 36mp on APS-C would likely produce less obvious differences

It's like scanning film I can scan 50mp 35mm photos, but I ain't getting 50mp worth of detail, and you won't bar some exotic ultra low super high res b&w film. I think resolution isn't an issue now, and it hasn't been for some time. If you give people 50mp, they will want 100mp, then 200mp.

Welcome back Barry, thanks for your input, you make some very valid points, its mostly the review sites that are being critical of Sony for not keeping lens performance up with ever higher pixels. One example was review that said the older 18-55 E mount kit zoom was quite good on the older NEX-5N at 16MP but the lens fell short of an equal performance on the later 24mp NEX 7. I think the camera manufacturers have a lot to answer for, they invented the pixel race to sell cameras.

You often don't get a good impression of the actual picture quality from internet postings. But having looked at quite a lot of images that have drawn loud complaints about lenses or cameras, most seem to be photographer error or totally unreal expectations from on the run snapshots.

Dull, sometimes almost non-existent lighting with lack of composition even of what I assume to be the center of interest, and fussy backgrounds. Add to that the lack of knowledge about differential focusing or really anything about apertures at all. And those who do attempt to use PP software are all over the place, and I don't mean differences in opinion about a vision of the scene. Such things as massive cropping, crazy attempts to sharpen what was never there and extreme exposure errors which I wonder how they came about. It would have been better to leave the camera on P.

There seems to be expectations that you spend a few hundred dollars and the camera ( and lens ) knows what you are doing even if you don't.

But having said that very few companies have paid any attention to higher quality APS lenses because I suspect that they have not sold well and they are not much cheaper or easier to manufacture than 24 x 36 lenses. So we get a small range with hopefully a number of decent lenses that have been designed to meet strict pricing policies. A company could produce a 50-135 or 50-150 lens but what is the point when you have FF 70-200 in both f 2.8 and 4.0 ? It is a pleasant surprise that Sigma have produced the 18-35 and now 50-100 and Tokina has the new 11-20 zoom.

Here ends my Sunday Rant.

Good rant Peter, I have decided to get the Sony E 18-200 LE manual zoom as my general purpose lens. It gets a good reviews and they recommend it as a step up from the kit lens. Mind you, as DC Resource said, when on the camera it looks more lens than camera.

Samyang do some nice E mount wides in E mount. I already have the Sigma 30mm DN prime, and it takes razor sharp pics. Tamron make a 18-200 in E mount but it got poor reviews from DXO, Shame as their zoom range is usually very good in A mount or Canikon.

Update, I think I have cracked it thanks to Kurt Munger, he suggests using 12mp instead of 24 on the NEX 7 and A series, I tried it and my pictures became very sharp indeed, it works and may be opens up my lens choice. I only shoot stills.

Well 12 in focus is better than 42 not in focus.

When I was reading David's latest article I was sort of wondering who many of the usual suspects in DPR etc would use some of his photos go to prove the lens is only sharp in the middle with absolutely useless edges.

It's very easy to forget that the 24MP APS-C sensor is equal to a 56MP full frame, and therefore higher resolution than the A7RII and even than the Canon 5DSR. So of all the sensors out there, it imposes the greatest demands on the centre of the image field (for full frame lenses) or the entire field (for APS-C lenses). Here's what I have found: some wide aperture lenses are soft fully open, such as the 50mm f/1.8 OSS, but sharpen up quickly on stopping down. Older zooms are generally soft wide open, while new zooms tend to be very sharp centrally but have a little more obvious fall off, not always corrected fully by stopping down.

All the OSS lenses, such as the 10-18mm f/4, are completely dependent on constant power to the focus and OSS mechanisms (even when OSS is turned off, the lens is parked electronically not mechanically). All E-mount lenses depend on power even for manual focus and the slightest loss of power will have serious results. Therefore, it's absolutely vital that the mount electrical contacts are perfectly clean and maintained well, and the battery is reliable and in good condition. The slightest fluctuation in power-up status of any E-mount lens can decentre it (OSS) or lose focus and at the worst can lose sharp imaging (because for zooms, they depend on power-up to move two or three groups into place before even focusing). I now think that the problems with some lenses on the original A7R are related to power drain, and that's why the new GM lenses use such unusual solutions to moving the glass. So many people report exceptional performance from old manual adapted lenses - and these, of course, are completely free of this problem.

Good post David and I never realised the importance of power supply to the lens, I'm much happier using A mount lenses on my A6000 via an adapter. I get superb results from both my Sony DT 18-50 SSM F/2.8 and Sony 18-135 SAM F/3.5 and I mostly use manual focus. Now that Sigma have launched the MC-11 adapter, it opens up a whole new world for E mount users, especially E mount APS-C as the lens choice/performance/price ratio is abysmal.

Testing the MC-11 right now. Do not hold your breath... I've identified problems within minutes of getting it, and my findings have gone straight back to Sigma.

Let us know soon David as I am keen to get one. Give us a clue in the mean time.