Smiert Spionam
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
sebboh wrote:
the main issue here is, as philip says, there are no top shelf aps-c ultrawides. by his own criteria there are really only 4 in current production by anyone even for FF dslrs (2 canon T/S lenses, Z* 21mm, and the nikkor 14-24mm). if you want to spend less than $2k you cannot get one at all (turns out they're actually kinda hard and expensive to make).
Good post -- an important observation.
The move to digital vastly expanded casual users' access to, and participation in, lens evaluation. Finally, we could all see exactly how our lenses performed at different apertures and in different environments, without having to use complicated testing regimes or record keeping. The NEX platform has further expanded this possibility by giving us a system on which virtually any lens made could be compared with any other. No more difficult comparisons of unlike systems, sensors, formats -- NEX has leveled the field, making it possible to compare SLR zooms with rangefinder wides, all on the same camera. That's pretty amazing, and has led to some great insights -- but it's also contributed a lot of noise. Thoughtful reviewers note a particular weakness (ALL lenses have them), and before long the chattering trolls (dpreview is the worst) turn that insight into a declaration of "unacceptable".
If you pull back a little, though, it's clear (as sebboh says) that wides are, except for the very high end, an ongoing problem, regardless of platform. People cluck about how "weak" the native e-mount 16/2.8 is, but its performance is probably middle-of-the-pack for APS wides. If you discount its performance at f/2.8 (a speed only reached by one APS zoom), it's fine. Compared to the 10-22, 10-24, 10-20, and 12-24 zooms, it's often a little better in the center, and a little worse in the corners (and sometimes not even that). None of those lenses are world class, either -- but like the 16/2.8, they're generally pretty decent. Shoot it at f/5.6 or f/8, and it's as good as any other wide lens made for the format. Maybe the Sigma 8-16 is a standout -- but even it is slow, a bit bulky, and doesn't allow filters. The real point is that there are no perfect no-compromise wide APS lenses.
On FX/full-frame, things honestly aren't that much better, though there are options at the upper end of the market. I can't think of a single <$1500 lens at or wider than 24mm that doesn't involve serious compromises, either. Virtually all legacy primes are seriously flawed at wide stops (and often stopped down, too). The most direct analog of the 16/2.8 in the Nikon line is the 24/2.8 (AIS or AF-D, which are more alike than different) -- and it's no better than the 16/2.8 (maybe a little better wide open on FX than the 16 is on the NEX, but it doesn't improve as much as the 16 does stopped down). Personally, I use the 16-35. It's not a perfect lens, but in the most important focal lengths (for me) it's outstanding. The only lenses that beat it in the 18-28mm range are the 14-24/2.8, 24/1.4g, and a couple of Zeiss primes. It easily outperforms both legacy primes and its APS-C counterparts, and I accept its limitations.
I'd love a reasonably compact truly stellar wide prime or two for the NEX. Unless and until one emerges, though, I'm not going to wring my hands too much longing for something that doesn't exist for any other APS camera, either.
|
