18-105G -- Good or Great?

For discussion of the E and FE mount mirrorless system
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

pakodominguez wrote:
bfitzgerald wrote:I suppose the point to make here is if you're applying such big corrections then you have to design a lens that covers an even wider field of view to compensate for the "corrected image" I don't expect optical perfection all lenses are compromises to a degree, but I'm not sure sloppy lens design fixed via software (either in camera or in raw suppport aka ACR etc) is the way to go. I don't see any particular reason why the 18-105mm has such wild distortion (esp pincushion) the Nikkor 18-105mm I had def did barrel and it did pincushion at the tele end (the 18-135mm more so mid focal lengths less so top tele end) that was noticeable but nowhere near as mad as the Sony E mount lens. I'm not sure the faster aperture is to blame either
The Sony E 18-105 F4 is a compact lens. That is the difference with your SAM 18-135 or the Nikon 18-105. In order to achieve that, Sony "finished" the design taking in account the flexibility software correction give to them. A "better corrected" constant F4 zoom won't be the same size.
You can use as example to compare sizes 2 lenses you do know well: the Canon 24-105 F4 IS and the Minolta 24-105 3.5-4.5 -even if the Canon is a newer design, it is bigger and heavier and just slightly better than the Minolta.

We must have different ideas of what compact means :mrgreen:
Capture.JPG
(43.39 KiB) Downloaded 4081 times
User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by pakodominguez »

bfitzgerald wrote:
We must have different ideas of what compact means :mrgreen:
Capture.JPG
ha, ha...
Now, compare this constant f4 that doesn't extend when you zoom, with your cherished 18-135 f3.5-5.6.
Image
Lets have a good laugh again...
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by Vidgamer »

Perhaps it was a joke? Or is there a reason you can't have a 6x zoom on a Nex? Does it violate the law of A-mount users, that only they are allowed to have substantial lenses?
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

The 18-135mm is an extended lens design, closed it's about the same size as the Tamron 17-50mm
I'm not sure why anyone would be dumb enough to make a non compact lens for a compact system camera, but evidently Sony did (yes we get the reason for that on a 70-200mm lens internal zooming) it makes a lot less sense on this type of lens though.

Nothing wrong with the idea of an 18-105mm f4 (good range handy speed). I expect a bit more filter size due to the increased speed. Also no mechanical linked focus or zooming fine for video not so hot for stills then again that distortion esp at the tele end could cause no end of problems for video users.. This is why I've not been interested in E mount much, it doesn't really know what it is or what it's trying to be, stuck in a no mans land between the idea of a compact system camera, without the range of lenses to support that concept.

The reason the Canon 24-105mm f4 is so big is partly down to Canon's big lens design, and shoving an internal AF motor in there (one reason) AND having IS in the lens with all that lumped together = big lens. If the 18-135mm was screw driven it would probably be even smaller, but it is far from a big lens by any stretch of the imagination it's smaller than the equivalent Canon lens too.
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bfitzgerald wrote:The 18-135mm is an extended lens design, closed it's about the same size as the Tamron 17-50mm
Adding the adapter to the 17-50, it's about the same size on my camera as the 18-105G.
I'm not sure why anyone would be dumb enough to make a non compact lens for a compact system camera, but evidently Sony did (yes we get the reason for that on a 70-200mm lens internal zooming) it makes a lot less sense on this type of lens though.
With an ILC, you don't see the advantage to being able to put on different lenses? Why be artificially restricted to only have compact lenses? You can decide before you go out what sort of lens would be best for that use. There are times where the 18-105 is going to be an advantage, and still more compact than using a DSLR with something similar. Or for travel, I can just carry a couple of pancake lenses. I love the flexibility. At any rate, there is choice.
Nothing wrong with the idea of an 18-105mm f4 (good range handy speed). I expect a bit more filter size due to the increased speed. Also no mechanical linked focus or zooming fine for video not so hot for stills then again that distortion esp at the tele end could cause no end of problems for video users..
What do you mean that video has distortion? It's all corrected, whether it's video or stills, before you see it. The power zoom does work better for video, but using the zoom ring for stills is very natural, and not really different than a mechanical zoom, except for the smoothed motion.
This is why I've not been interested in E mount much, it doesn't really know what it is or what it's trying to be, stuck in a no mans land between the idea of a compact system camera, without the range of lenses to support that concept.
What lenses are you missing? Is there a specific lens that, if Sony made it for the native e-mount (even though you could always use your a-mount lenses with an adapter) that would allow you to buy into e-mount? Or just that you need the security of a complete system, just in case? I think for many pros, they need that security, and they probably should be using Canikon. For most of us, there's a huge range of lenses.

For primes, there's at least 12mm, 16mm, 19mm, 20mm, 24mm, 30mm, 32mm, 35mm, 50mm, 60mm just for the "old" APS-C format, and from Sony, Sigma, Ziess, Samyang, etc. Zooms range from wide end to tele, although if you want higher-end tele, your best bet is to use a-mount w/adapter. There are enough lenses that you can have several and decide on each outing which to take. You're not forced to use just the kit lens. Of course, if you like none of the lenses or prefer a different brand, then follow your desires, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a compact system and it doesn't mean that it isn't a useful ILC system for others.
The reason the Canon 24-105mm f4 is so big is partly down to Canon's big lens design, and shoving an internal AF motor in there (one reason) AND having IS in the lens with all that lumped together = big lens. If the 18-135mm was screw driven it would probably be even smaller, but it is far from a big lens by any stretch of the imagination it's smaller than the equivalent Canon lens too.
And yet the point remains that if you use a DSLR, it's likely that the lenses will also be larger, not just the body. And using the 18-105G on the Nex doesn't turn the Nex into a DSLR-size behemoth.

If your main use of a camera is with large tele lenses, I wouldn't see a need for a compact camera.

What I think your problem is, is that you're invested in a-mount, and see the affordable options, particularly with used lenses, and moving to another system seems like a bad deal. You like the mechanical zoom, so power zoom must be a fault, not a feature. OVF is superior to EVF, even though OVFs are often small and not really as good until you get to the expensive high-end cameras. That's fine, just continue to use your existing system. You seem surprised, though, that others would see value in the new system.

I think this is an example of the business tactic of disruption. Maybe not the best example, but an example. You have users of the traditional equipment who will scoff at the inferior newcomers. "Can't everyone see how inferior they are?" Meanwhile, they compete in price and features, and possibly replace the old guard. This is what underlies the anxiety -- the fear that in the future, the old format will lose out to the new one. In this case, Sony will be blamed, but it will have been the market that has spoken.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

The market isn't really speaking very little impact on ILC systems in the EU and USA for some reason buyers don't get it..and honestly I don't get it either

There is a disruption as in attracting people's attention in a good way, and one akin to turning up at a party uninvited, drunk and making as a$$ of yourself and getting knocked out :mrgreen:

Jury is out on ILC systems, honestly I'm not convinced I see very few advantages (bar playing with legacy MF lenses and adapters) and a lot of disadvantages. Once you start shoving OSS, in lens motors, power zoom motors into a non extending lens design it's never going to be small. Sure you can leave distortion correction on but it's a poor design that needs that much help in software.

ILC makers are trying to be a video and stills shooters dream come true and they will never appeal to both crowds at the same time you can't have power focus/zoom and please stills shooters we dumped that junk years ago because it wasn't as good as mechanical focus/zoom.
I take about 3 videos a year if that maybe a party and it's far from serious, trying to design a camera and lens system ground up to appeal to video users isn't going to work for stills shooters. I'm not against smaller cameras but it's entirely wasted unless you can offer smaller compact stuff to use on it, and what I've seen so far ain't that small.

Small camera big lenses = odd concept
User avatar
bakubo
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5864
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by bakubo »

bfitzgerald wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would be dumb enough to make a non compact lens for a compact system camera, but evidently Sony did (yes we get the reason for that on a 70-200mm lens internal zooming) it makes a lot less sense on this type of lens though.
Others can decide if it is dumb or not, but Sony has been doing that from the beginning with NEX:

Image

Image
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bfitzgerald wrote:The market isn't really speaking very little impact on ILC systems in the EU and USA for some reason buyers don't get it..and honestly I don't get it either

There is a disruption as in attracting people's attention in a good way, and one akin to turning up at a party uninvited, drunk and making as a$$ of yourself and getting knocked out :mrgreen:
I think a lot of why people don't "get it" is because they trust a traditional camera and brand. People know that big cameras are "pro" and there ya go. Bigger is better. It's only true to some extent. Having used 35mm film cameras, I never did understand why I had to buy such a big camera that had an even smaller "sensor". It's really unnecessary.

As for the market, how's the a-mount market doing? Which is Sony going to find more profitable? I guess time will tell.
Jury is out on ILC systems, honestly I'm not convinced I see very few advantages (bar playing with legacy MF lenses and adapters) and a lot of disadvantages. Once you start shoving OSS, in lens motors, power zoom motors into a non extending lens design it's never going to be small. Sure you can leave distortion correction on but it's a poor design that needs that much help in software.
It's a design decision. It should be judged on the end-results, as a complete system.

You make it sound like the 18-105 is the only lens for ILC cameras, and therefore they're all doomed due to the size. It's just one lens. You can avoid it. Most lenses are pretty compact.
ILC makers are trying to be a video and stills shooters dream come true and they will never appeal to both crowds at the same time you can't have power focus/zoom and please stills shooters we dumped that junk years ago because it wasn't as good as mechanical focus/zoom.
I like the PZ even for stills use. The one on the 18-105 feels somewhat similar to a mechanical zoom. It's really different how they programmed it. I even sometimes use a PZ on the ol' A100, although it behaves more like a video zoom than this one. I think Sony is going for an electronic solution, as they are largely an electronics company. There's no rule that says that mechanical zoom is better than power-zoom any more than OVF is better than EVF. You could make a list of pluses and minuses for either, but I would think it would come down to personal preference to a large extent.
I take about 3 videos a year if that maybe a party and it's far from serious, trying to design a camera and lens system ground up to appeal to video users isn't going to work for stills shooters. I'm not against smaller cameras but it's entirely wasted unless you can offer smaller compact stuff to use on it, and what I've seen so far ain't that small.
I really missed the video, during the period where I was mostly using the DSLR. It's not that I often use video, it's just that when an event occurs that calls for it, it's nice that it's right there. I have a couple of things on video that probably wouldn't have come out nearly as well on a cheap camcorder or any cell phone. Deal-breaker? Maybe not, as I can trust today's cell phones more than in past years, so these days, I could probably use that as a fall-back.
Small camera big lenses = odd concept
But it's an ILC! You can remove the not-so-big lens at any time and swap it for another, smaller one! We're not really talking about really big lenses, even though the 18-105 pushes it. I've seen big lenses, and my largest are smaller than the monsters that many DLSR owners take pride in owning. Even for my DSLR, I looked for more compact designs, such as the 100-300APO. (I've used that one on my Nex-5! :shock: )


The 18-105 is about the same length as the 55-210 (collapsed), but it's wider, but this can give you an idea of the size advantage of the Nex, even with a "big" lens:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#375.90,333.21,ha,t

This is what I have been using:
http://camerasize.com/compact/#375.360,333.185,ha,t

And this is basically what I used on my last trip (Nex-5 not a 5N, tho):
http://camerasize.com/compact/#333.185,34.369,ha,t

Can you see a size difference now? :lol:
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bakubo wrote:
bfitzgerald wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would be dumb enough to make a non compact lens for a compact system camera, but evidently Sony did (yes we get the reason for that on a 70-200mm lens internal zooming) it makes a lot less sense on this type of lens though.
Others can decide if it is dumb or not, but Sony has been doing that from the beginning with NEX:
...
What would be "dumb" is to run out and buy a DSLR and an even larger equivalent lens rather than just use the 18-105 for the events where I don't mind the extra bulk.
Mark K
Grand Caliph
Posts: 395
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:10 pm

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by Mark K »

Got the lens first sight when I saw one. Superb build quality like 10-18 but....it is too large. The zooming are maded for video shooting so it is very tricky to zoom it in a proper way. I gave it to my brother very soon. It looks the ultimate Nex camera's zoom is 16-70
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by Vidgamer »

Mark K wrote:Got the lens first sight when I saw one. Superb build quality like 10-18 but....it is too large. The zooming are maded for video shooting so it is very tricky to zoom it in a proper way. I gave it to my brother very soon. It looks the ultimate Nex camera's zoom is 16-70
It's a lot more expensive, though. I saw a couple of comparisons (links posted to DPR a few months ago), and there wasn't a whole lot of differences between the two lenses. So, if you can suffer with the size, I think it's a pretty good value, if you can call a $600 lens a value. ;-) Well, if you want a kit lens upgrade with zoom, you don't have a lot of choices.

When I viewed those comparisons, the 16-70 looked better than the 16-50pz most of the time, but sometimes, the difference was extremely subtle, at least until you started looking near the edges or corners. But more recently, someone posted comparison photos between the 16-70 and 16-50, and many people guessed incorrectly which lens took which photo.
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: 18-105G -- Good or Great?

Unread post by Vidgamer »

I was able to use the lens a lot yesterday, and I have to say that while I'm very happy with the results overall, the lens is kinda sluggish to get going when waking up. Sometimes, half-pressing to get focus took a bit before it would finally figure it out. It seemed more of a problem than I had with my 16-50, which has always seemed really responsive. Once engaged, it seemed to do fine, but going into sleep mode, I wonder if it resets the focal length, focus, etc.? (It definitely resets the zoom if you turn it off..) So, to be ready to take a shot, be sure to wake it up and prefocus in the general direction before you need to be ready.

I think the lens is for those who want a kit-lens-upgrade combined with the convenience of a zoom. While it's compromised as all zooms are, the color and sharpness seem to be better than the kit lenses (although I really need to do more testing to be sure).
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests