mco_970 wrote:
I wish there was an adapter that did auto-aperture - or even had a button you pushed to open the lens wide open for focusing, then release the button and the lens is back at f/5.6 or whatever it was set to on the aperture ring.
THAT I would pay some $$$$ for.
hmm, i might pay not to have that. my biggest complaint about native lenses is that i lose my manual mode with auto iso.
Well, I just jumped into the NEX fray several weeks back and now I have the following:
Model: C3 and 5N
Kit: Konika/Hexakon 28/3.5, Pentax SMC-A 50/1.7, Sigma 19/2.8, Sony 18-55.
Accessories: Off brand hotshoe adapter allowing me to use my Metz flash wirelessly!
People in the EU have started getting the NEX-6. I asked one user about color cast with the CV15, and he said it has no color cast, just like on the 5N. It's what people were hoping and assuming, but glad to see it's true!
The CV15 definitely color casts a little on the 5n, so if the report is there is absolutely no color cast on the NEX-6, it'll be interesting to see if Sony has improved things.
alwang wrote:
The CV15 definitely color casts a little on the 5n, so if the report is there is absolutely no color cast on the NEX-6, it'll be interesting to see if Sony has improved things.
Unfortunately, Vivek is not a reliable source of information. He posted a picture that showed a fair amount of color cast with that combination, so I asked him about it. His response: "There is no difference between this (NEX-6) and the 5N with respect to C-V 15/4.5. That is what I meant.".
The 35/1.8 pics look impressively sharp wide open, at least in the center (which is all i really care about at f1.8). A touch of CA, but no big deal. I'm officially excited.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Unfortunately, Vivek is not a reliable source of information. He posted a picture that showed a fair amount of color cast with that combination, so I asked him about it. His response: "There is no difference between this (NEX-6) and the 5N with respect to C-V 15/4.5. That is what I meant.".
To be fair, his response could have been from my wording. I asked him if there was any color cast like there was on the 7, or if was clean like the 5N. When he said no color cast, I took it to mean it was fairly clean, like the 5N.
Here's his pic, and I can see slight cast, it's nothing like the 7.
hmm, just like the pentax, the canon is better than the rokkors in the center and worse in the corners. i doubt the MC would have done much better than either of rokkor 50/1.4s you did have. possibly a little better wide open resolution with a bit lower contrast?
sebboh wrote
hmm, just like the pentax, the canon is better than the rokkors in the center and worse in the corners. i doubt the MC would have done much better than either of rokkor 50/1.4s you did have. possibly a little better wide open resolution with a bit lower contrast?
thats a likely scenario. i also shot a comparison with my siggy 24/2.8 the sony kit and a newly acquired MC 24/2.8 and the MC's performance is pretty bad, how does your MD 24/2.8 E49 perform on the nex7?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
thats a likely scenario. i also shot a comparison with my siggy 24/2.8 the sony kit and a newly acquired MC 24/2.8 and the MC's performance is pretty bad, how does your MD 24/2.8 E49 perform on the nex7?
great in the center, pretty poor on the edges (noticeable CA and softness). it's better at near distances than far. from everything i've heard the siggy is one of the best 24s around, how did it do?
better, but worse than the kit which is pretty awesome @24mm. i will have it ready in about 30 minutes. in the meantime for the pixelpeepers: Minolta MD 100/4 Macro vs Vivitar 100/2.8 100mmMacroComparison by Phillip Reeve, on Flickr
Phillip Reeve wrote:
better, but worse than the kit which is pretty awesome @24mm. i will have it ready in about 30 minutes. in the meantime for the pixelpeepers: Minolta MD 100/4 Macro vs Vivitar 100/2.8
no macro test for the macros?
there's a fair bit of purple fringing on the vivitar at wide apertures...
