Photoclubalpha

Just a thought here. The new E mount 24/1.8 is reported to be excellent. The 16/2.8 is pretty good up to the edges. Now might a 16/2.8 image on the 24mp NEX 7, cropped to 24mm (16mp?) to cut the soft corners have equivalent IQ to a 24mm Zeiss at 2.8 on a 16mp Nex 5N? One for you, David?

I doubt it, as the 16mm is sharp enough - just very low in contrast (despite resisting flare). It reminds me of the original Minolta 35-70mm AF f/4 which used the first hybrid plastic-glass aspherical element made, and fewer elements than earlier zooms.

I have not tried the 24mm, but if it follows normal Zeiss design practice it will be considerably higher in contrast and that will make videos and JPEGs look better. RAW shots can be adjusted.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:I doubt it, as the 16mm is sharp enough - just very low in contrast (despite resisting flare). RAW shots can be adjusted.

David

Ah, but video aside, isn't that the point? Raw files can be contrast adjusted in ACR / LR. Very big price differential if the IQ can be equalised with a few seconds pp...

Then there's the whole depth of field issue. We're talking about a 1.5x crop from an APS-C sensor and f/2.8 lens to get the same angle of view as a f/1.8 lens without the crop. That's about three to four times shallower depth of field available to the longer, faster lens. The 24/1.8 could stop down to f/6.3 and still have a shallower depth of field than the 16/2.8 in this scenario. That, and the superior contrast, are what $1k gets you.