Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #20 · OMD-5 or NEX 6 or fuji x-e1 what to get |
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said anything about the Sony cuz I really don't know. But of the first... ummm, 5 or 6 lenses Sony released for it almost everyone with large system experience said they were pretty much total crap. The posts large enough to tell or the 100% crops I saw eliminated any doubt in the truth to those claims. But then I stopped tracking Sony lenses all together and at about that time it came to my attention there were Zeiss offerings for it. What's happened since is actually unknown to me but I thought I would poke a little fun at the system anyway.
On µ4/3 I've only been impressed with 2 or 3 native (Oly/Pana) lenses and only one of those exhibits any actual "character" at all. The lions share of the rest fall into the very bland characterless but "pretty good" category. And then there are the two Voigtlander lenses which I haven't seen enough of to know but assume that they have to be great - I mean they're voigtlander and they're really fast... right? A few pana lenses look better than they actually are with the in-camera cheating, err, I mean enhancements and corrections, that Panasonic saw fit to add in. But even then they often show their true colors anyway.
So while I was partially kidding via some assumptions, about the Sony line-up the percentage of µ4/3 lenses which in terms of character and overall IQ, come even close to sets like that of the Zeiss C/Y, Leica, Voigtlander, Canon L, the better Pentax lenses both M42 and K, the OM system line-up, Tamron SP, Tokina AT-X, or some of the better Minolta models either MD or AF... is very close to zero! Not zero, but very close. And these lenses very often carry a MSRP higher than that of much better or same grade lenses for Nikon, Canon, and Pentax that I know of. IMO it's pretty much a case of extreme ridiculousness when all things are considered - taking in the big picture so to speak. And it's not the format either because I can adapt those mentioned above and they either retain the character they're known for or offer a slightly different yet just as unique one. While I can still notice these things most of the time in web-sized images the differences are quite profound when printed large or when viewed at close to 100%. The advent of higher density sensors additionally hides more when the images are scaled too - so it's more common now than it was to look at a web sized scale and think the lens is good - or at least better than it actually is.
I dig the little µ4/3 bodies most of them, but the lens line-up? Nah, no fun, no character, only convenience is there with no need for adapters, IS in the Pana ones, and of course AF for the non Voigtlanders. At least for the majority of available offerings that really is the case IMHO.
I've not seen anything to indicate that the Sony/Zeiss 24/1.8, Sony 35/1.8, Sony 50/1.8, Sony 10-18, Sigma 19 or Sigma 30 are anywhere near crap on NEX. Who is saying that??