The case for the 16mm

[Vidgamer]

The 16mm has been the subject of heated debate, at least on DPR, even in recent months. I finally decided to get one, seeing that actual photos looked good and on David's positive remarks.

At first, I used it indoors, photographing family. Yeah, it's not good for portraits, but in the low light and capturing a wider view, it works well. As long as I don't pixel-peep, the results look good. Since the camera also used ISO 1600, I figure it doesn't matter that it's not terribly sharp. (Am I going to have sharper noise? )

Later, when I try to take some quick test photos, I find that f2.8 is a bit soft, as they say. The corners look really bad. And yet, I didn't notice this on my indoor pics, even though I took quite a few (most at f2.8 and high ISO). I guess I just didn't manage to force a subject all the way into the corner of the frame, ever. Or have any detail that would highlight the blur.

So, I took test shots outside at the woods. Corners remain poor until around f8 where I'm not sure if they're quite "fixed" yet, but are at least no longer obviously blurry. My copy of the lens seem to be slightly worse on one side, but perhaps not by much. But F5 looks pretty good, corners aside, and I think already beats the 18-55 in contrast and sharpness. I guess I should do more testing, but I think the ultimate proof is whether you end up with good looking photos (that aren't too distracted by blurriness in the corners).

So, outside as a travel lens, it should be ok I think? Although, at f8, I shot in kind of overcast morning light, and with a 1/30 (?) shutter speed, managed to get enough blur to negate all of the quality that f8 was supposed to bring to me.

I guess my concern is that I don't want to end up with a lot of photos that seem too flawed just because I wanted a slightly smaller lens. If anything, a prime should do better! I think it does, with some caveats.

[AnthonyC]

I think you have been reading too much DPR and are looking for problems. There seem to be a lot of people active on DPR who had no experience using a wide angle lens before they purchased the NEX. I have three 16 mm options on two APS-C systems. The other two cost almost 10 times as much as I paid for the NEX 16 mm, but in several respects they are inferior. In the past I have owned several 24 mm prime lenses for three brands of 35 mm SLR cameras.

I almost never use a 16 mm (or 24 mm on 35 mm) lens further open than f5.6. The NEX 16 mm is quite good at f5.6. I would rarely use a lens this wide for portraits or family shots. I have used it for large group photos, but it is really too wide for that (distorted faces at edges - a characteristic of lenses this wide).

In October 2007 I spent two weeks in a city with a full frame digital camera. 2000 images were taken with a 24 mm prime. I kept about 30%, which I thought at the time was quite reasonable. Difficult to correct CA or similar was the cause of many rejections. Often they were just poor images - my fault. and see comment below.

In October 2011 I spent two weeks in the same city with a NEX-5. I took 6500 images, about 2500 with the 16 mm. Up to now I have rejected about 10% of the 16 mm images, this compared to 70% in the above situation. (Some of these rejections were due to having the wrong lens on the camera - the 16 mm is not suitable for many situations). This difference is partly due the the lack of an optical viewfinder on the NEX. I am no longer a slave to eye level view. The images were taken from high over my head (and the heads of others) lying on the ground and holding above the water on bridges and quays, from waist level (which I really like) and maybe one in a 100 from around eye level. I do not remember rejecting a single image due to any kind of technical deficiency related to the 16 mm lens.

If you take the cost of this lens into account it is great value, but it is not an all purpose lens as DPR warned in their first review. It is so light and convenient that there is a temptation to keep it on the camera when you should not be using it. I make this mistake repeatedly. I am hoping that one day someone will come up with a small 24 mm (36 mm equivalent) pocketable walk-around lens for the NEX mount that I can keep on the camera most of the time.

[redsim74]

Purchased as part of a dual lens kit, it's an absolute steal. Have been happy with mine so far.

I like having a 24mm eqv wide on any camera, which is why I have the CZ16-80 almost permanently attached to my A700 and why I bought a Panny LX3 as my small p&s (though it doesn't get much use with my NEX-5N around).

[artington]

.

I am hoping that one day someone will come up with a small 24 mm (36 mm equivalent) pocketable walk-around lens for the NEX mount that I can keep on the camera most of the time.

They have! Its called the Minolta 24mm f2.8 MC/MD

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =49&t=6025

[redsim74]

They have! Its called the Minolta 24mm f2.8 MC/MD

How big is it compared to the kit 18-55 once you have the adaptor attached?

I'm looking at picking up an MC Rokkor 55/1.7, to use as a portrait lens.

[artington]

They have! Its called the Minolta 24mm f2.8 MC/MD

How big is it compared to the kit 18-55 once you have the adaptor attached?

I'm looking at picking up an MC Rokkor 55/1.7, to use as a portrait lens.

With a Novoflex adapter (which will cost more than the lens but is money well spent) about 5mm longer

http://www.rokkorfiles.com/24mm.html

[AnthonyC]

They have! Its called the Minolta 24mm f2.8 MC/MD

I meant with a Sony NEX E-mount, not needing an adapter. It does not exactly fit in a pocket!

[Vidgamer]

If you don't mind 28mm, there's always the SLR Magic 28mm/2.8. It looks pretty compact, and the price is not outrageous. If you don't mind 30mm, there's always the new e-mount lens....

I almost never use a 16 mm (or 24 mm on 35 mm) lens further open than f5.6. The NEX 16 mm is quite good at f5.6. I would rarely use a lens this wide for portraits or family shots. I have used it for large group photos, but it is really too wide for that (distorted faces at edges).

True, the distortion at the edge is pretty bad, but even the 18-55 shouldn't be used at 18 for a portrait! No, I just found that for soaking in a room or multiple people in a room, it worked rather well. To use a longer lens, I could get a head-and-shoulders shot, but that isn't normally what I want in an evening/party scene. Actually, the last time I put the 50/1.7 on the camera, that was in daylight, and got a really nice portrait at f2.2. Sharpness was right on and lots of bokeh (although with the Minolta, the blades are starting to be visible even at 2.2 - only 5 of them, sigh).

If you take the cost of this lens into account it is great value, but it is not an all purpose lens as DPR warned in their first review. It is so light and convenient that there is a temptation to keep it on the camera when you should not be using it. I make this mistake repeatedly. I am hoping that one day someone will come up with a small 24 mm (36 mm equivalent) pocketable walk-around lens for the NEX mount that I can keep on the camera most of the time.

That's too bad, because I want it to be a pocketable walk-around lens. Or at least something small.... And preferably with AF....

I figured I can crop to a 24mm view and still have about half the pixels left! So that could also be an option, if not needing the ultimate resolution. Hate to do that, but would probably be adequate for most usage.... Probably would still outperform a P&S or phone camera at the same FOV.

[artington]

They have! Its called the Minolta 24mm f2.8 MC/MD

I meant with a Sony NEX E-mount, not needing an adapter. It does not exactly fit in a pocket!

If the 18-55 E fits in your pocket easily so will this combination - as Imentioned before its about the same size. If you want a smaller combination, that of the Voigtlander 25/4 VM and a Metabones adapter would fit the bill, albeit one stop slower.

[AnthonyC]

If the 18-55 E fits in your pocket easily

It doesn't. The 16 mm does.

[cosmonaut1959]

I have the 16mm I think it is best used as a street camera. I also have the wide adapter and fisheye to. I wouldn't make it my main lens for a landscape either. It s nice if your going for a walk around town, going out to eat and just want a smaller rig to carry.

[pakodominguez]

I am hoping that one day someone will come up with a small 24 mm (36 mm equivalent) pocketable walk-around lens for the NEX mount that I can keep on the camera most of the time.

I do share your feelings, specially this one about a compact 24mm -I belive the Zeiss 24mm f1.8 is a wonderful lens, but it is as big as the kit zoom lens...

Regards

[Vidgamer]

I am hoping that one day someone will come up with a small 24 mm (36 mm equivalent) pocketable walk-around lens for the NEX mount that I can keep on the camera most of the time.

I do share your feelings, specially this one about a compact 24mm -I belive the Zeiss 24mm f1.8 is a wonderful lens, but it is as big as the kit zoom lens...

Regards

What if it were manual-focus and 28mm?

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/08/2 ... ny-nex-c3/

Well, it's not quite as compact as the 16mm, but looks interesting.

I'd be tempted to try it, but I do have a Minolta 28/2.8 I can use (not as compact, of course -- almost kit-lens size) and I'm not a fan of manually focusing a lens. Bokeh is weird with the Minolta, but otherwise it seems nice enough (color, sharpness), but for the size, I can just use the 18-55 kit lens. So, I don't know that I can justify getting a 3rd lens just to get the size a bit smaller.

But if compact size is of primary concern, and if the 16mm is too wide, this seems to me to be an interesting option. I wonder if the quality is any good?

[Vidgamer]

I have the 16mm I think it is best used as a street camera. I also have the wide adapter and fisheye to.

Yeah, the adapters sound like fun too. You don't find it too wide as a street camera?

I'm going to give it a try. I think with cropping, that'll give me more flexibility.

I wouldn't make it my main lens for a landscape either.

What's the problem with using it for landscape? Not at f2.8, that's for sure...

It s nice if your going for a walk around town, going out to eat and just want a smaller rig to carry.

I think my motivation is along these lines. I want to have higher quality than my cell phone, but I'm walking, perhaps some place unfamiliar, and really don't need the camera around my neck looking like a tourist! Whether I am or not.

[alphaomega]

Gentlemen, I recommend the Panasonic LX5 with a 24-90mm zoom as your "walkabout" camera. I have recently "re-wamped" my photographic equipment and now rely on the LX5 for this purpose. My NEX-5 now is in a smallish bag with 16mm, W/A converter, 18-55mm and 55-210mm zoom for medium use (long time away from home or car and needing a choice of lenses) and A580 with Sony/CZ 16-80mm, Sony 18-250, Tamron 10-24 mm and new Tamron 70-300mm permanently fitted to my A550 all for heavy use (not too far away from the car at any one time). The LX5 is wonderful with crisp Jpegs and easily carried strapped to a belt.