I'd have to see some samples showing where f/1.4 versus 1.8 actually made a noticeable positive difference in the shot regarding DoF before I'll believe it. My thinking is that would have to be a rare and demanding subject for a wide or normal prime. With so many other factors contributing the the appearance of DoF, including how harsh the focus falloff is, how large the image will be printed, and what the standard viewing distance will be, a half a stop on the aperture is nothing.

As for the 20, it makes sense to me. Sony appears to be very responsive to customer whining when it comes to the NEX system, and the most whining I hear (aside from "My RF wides don't play well with the sensor") is that there aren't enough wides and people want small lenses.

Lee Saxon wrote:
Hope it's drastically better than the 16...
mawz wrote:
The only real problem with the 16 is poor QC at the factory, there's a number of bad copies floating around.

Guess I had one of those :/

I found it only acceptably sharp at the center and poor everywhere else. I also thought distortion (which is not subject to sample variation) was horrible.

Lee Saxon wrote:
Lee Saxon wrote:
Hope it's drastically better than the 16...
mawz wrote:
The only real problem with the 16 is poor QC at the factory, there's a number of bad copies floating around.

Guess I had one of those :/

I found it only acceptably sharp at the center and poor everywhere else. I also thought distortion (which is not subject to sample variation) was horrible.


i find it to acceptably sharp except in the extreme corners, it has a funny look to it in the corners besides softness that bothers me though.

example shot:



clicking on it should take you 2048 pixel version of it.

Yep, my copy was pretty much like Sebboh's. I think it is an underrated lens, considering the size and price, despite it not being perfect.

If you're just getting into the NEX, you can buy a new 6 and get the 16mm for free at B&H through 2/2. Hard to beat that price.

douglasf13 wrote:
Yep, my copy was pretty much like Sebboh's. I think it is an underrated lens, considering the size and price, despite it not being perfect.

Ditto the friends copy that I test drove.

You do have to watch the extreme corners though, they get funky even when the rest of the frame is acceptably sharp.

mawz wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
Yep, my copy was pretty much like Sebboh's. I think it is an underrated lens, considering the size and price, despite it not being perfect.

Ditto the friends copy that I test drove.

You do have to watch the extreme corners though, they get funky even when the rest of the frame is acceptably sharp.

Yeah, the extreme corners do drop off a cliff.

douglasf13 wrote:
... I agree, but it's a matter of weighing size vs. DOF control. For me, f2 would probably be the sweetspot for size vs. DOF control with aps-c mirrorless, considering how relatively large the f1.4 and f1.8 offerings are from Fuji and Sony. The Fuji 35 f1.4 is considerably larger than a 50 Summicron-M, and it still doesn't quite have the shallow DOF of a 50 Summicron on an M9.
...

Agreed. I love the Canon 40 2.8 on FF, but f/2.8 doesn't provide quite the DOF control that I would want on APS-C, f/2 would have been perfect.

The sigma 30/2.8 is not significantly smaller than the Sony 35/1.8.

Well supposedly Sony will be releasing a FF NEX late 2013/early 2014 and zeiss will be making af primes for it so perhaps that will satisfy more people around here ..... though I suspect the complaining will then be about the prices :P

ken.vs.ryu wrote:
The sigma 30/2.8 is not significantly smaller than the Sony 35/1.8.

Sure, but the Samsung 30/2 is significantly smaller than both, even if you add the extra 7mm for the difference in the mount registrations.