Fisheye adapter and zoomin with prime during video

[supernovak]

I am just wondering if anyone could comment on the quality of fisheye adapter (or better overall quality of 16mm + fisheye adapter combo).
It seems that 16mm 2.8 is good but not great lens and perhaps putting the not-so-great adapter would make a mediocre fisheye lens.

Any comparison with Minolta/Sony 16mm fisheye on a900 is welcome, as that is one of my favorite lenses on my a900.

If this combo is capable of delivering decent results, I will preorder Nex5 with 16mm, fisheye adapter plus extra battery for now.

Also, does anyone know if it is possible to use digital zoom while recording with NEX5?

720p uses only 1280 horizontal pixels, while NEX has almost 5000 horizontal pixels - you could zoom in 4 times, creating 125mm 35mm-eqivalent viewwith 16mm NEX lens, and still have 1:1 optical quality. I guess I am dreaming, but that would be cool.

[pakodominguez]

It seems that 16mm 2.8 is good but not great lens and perhaps putting the not-so-great adapter would make a mediocre fisheye lens.

How do you know the Fisheye adapter is a "not-so-great" lens? have you seen any sample?
in the video world, wide and fisheye adapters are common accessories for Pros and amateurs and usually, you get the quality you paid for (a fisheye adapter for video can be really expensive...) I expect Sony using all their expertize in this field and bringing a more-than-decent fisheye adapter for 150 US$

Regards

[supernovak]

Hi Paco,
No, I don't know - I am just saying that, since the lens seems to be pretty good but not great (softer edges), the not-so great adapter will make things even worse.
that is really just my question - is the fisheye adapter up the game?
I really hope it is great and then this combo would not be not much worse (at14MP) than my a900 + 16mmFE; I would buy it in the blink.
Minolta's 16mm FE is a great lens, super sharp in the middle but losing gas towards edges significantly.
novak

It seems that 16mm 2.8 is good but not great lens and perhaps putting the not-so-great adapter would make a mediocre fisheye lens.

How do you know the Fisheye adapter is a "not-so-great" lens? have you seen any sample?
in the video world, wide and fisheye adapters are common accessories for Pros and amateurs and usually, you get the quality you paid for (a fisheye adapter for video can be really expensive...) I expect Sony using all their expertize in this field and bringing a more-than-decent fisheye adapter for 150 US$

Regards

[pakodominguez]

Hi Paco,
No, I don't know - I am just saying that, since the lens seems to be pretty good but not great (softer edges), the not-so great adapter will make things even worse.

English is not my first language (don't even my second language...) but i understand this is the second time you are affirming the fisheye adapter is not-so-great!

You will have to wait until the first unit get delivered, in about 2 or 3 weeks. If by any chances the wide angle adapter doesn't fill your expectations, you can get the E to A mount adapter and use your actual fisheye (I know, the crop factor...)

I'm actually more concerned about the amount of CA on the E 16mm f2.8...

[supernovak]

I don't worry about CA too much, as I shoot RAW and CA is easy to clean with lens profiles (I use DxO and LR3B2 for this).

And, again, I am not affirming that the adapter is bad - i am simply asking a question if anyone knows how good it is, as it better be good to deliver decent quality.
that's all! and English is my third language as well, so no worries!

Hi Paco,
No, I don't know - I am just saying that, since the lens seems to be pretty good but not great (softer edges), the not-so great adapter will make things even worse.

English is not my first language (don't even my second language...) but i understand this is the second time you are affirming the fisheye adapter is not-so-great!

You will have to wait until the first unit get delivered, in about 2 or 3 weeks. If by any chances the wide angle adapter doesn't fill your expectations, you can get the E to A mount adapter and use your actual fisheye (I know, the crop factor...)

I'm actually more concerned about the amount of CA on the E 16mm f2.8...

[pakodominguez]

Some Fisheye samples here (thanks to Gigo, from Dyxum) -looks fine to me. I'll get the Fisheye anyway, I was about to buy one, Sigma or Minolta/Sony but I decided to wait and now the NEX system offer me one for "only" 150 Bucks
http://image.yodobashi.com/catalog/maga ... 08-001/19/
http://image.yodobashi.com/catalog/maga ... nex15b.jpg

[supernovak]

It does look good, specially in the middle. Thanks for catching this.
Would love to get NEX5 + 16mm and FE adapter

Some Fisheye samples here (thanks to Gigo, from Dyxum) -looks fine to me. I'll get the Fisheye anyway, I was about to buy one, Sigma or Minolta/Sony but I decided to wait and now the NEX system offer me one for "only" 150 Bucks
http://image.yodobashi.com/catalog/maga ... 08-001/19/
http://image.yodobashi.com/catalog/maga ... nex15b.jpg

[KevinBarrett]

Has anybody tried the fisheye adapter with sweep-panorama mode?

[David Kilpatrick]

It is compatible - this much is revealed somewhere by Sony.

David

[InTheSky]

Minolta's 16mm FE is a great lens, super sharp in the middle but losing gas towards edges significantly.
novak

I have not found this on my copy ... , have you some example of this bad performance of the 16mm 2.8 ?

At F2.8, yes there is some softness, but closing the aperture help the lens a lot. And it is also depends on the focus point.

So fare, I'm always impress by the result of the Minolta 16mm 2.8 (yes it is expensive on ebay ... , but it is not loosing is value when it is time to resell it until now).

Don't forget that until now, in optical word there is no gift ... usually you have the quality of what you have paid for (exception for rare lenses and some Leic... and others lenses ).

Regards,

Frank