Hmm I've never had metering problems on the NEX using alt glass. In fact, it's as good if not better than traditional metering, doesn't get quite as confused when there's a lot of sky in the shot.
mco_970 wrote:
I tried it with my 16mm lens at f/22 and saw the same thing. Definitely pops the aperture wide open?
hmm, i must admit i never use autofocus so i don't know about how autofocus is done on E lenses. metering is certainly done stopped down (so i figured focusing would be as well) – if you stop down in A mode it stops down as you turn the dial and stays stopped down when you trigger the shutter (in manual focus mode).
Have you looked into getting a 16MP $600 A35 to be used with the 16-50 lens instead of a $325 adapter?
Reportedly the 16MP A57 with 1080 60p HD will be announced in March and most likely the body will be in the $700 price range since the 24MP A65 body costs $800. "IF" Sony offers a A57+16-50 kit, that will bring the cost of the lens down quite a bit - that's a big IF!
sebboh wrote:
hmm, i must admit i never use autofocus so i don't know about how autofocus is done on E lenses. metering is certainly done stopped down (so i figured focusing would be as well) – if you stop down in A mode it stops down as you turn the dial and stays stopped down when you trigger the shutter (in manual focus mode).
That makes sense. The 16-80 seems to behave the same as other MF lenses on the LA-EA1. It would be a nice DMF adjunct for lenses on the LA-EA1 if they could automagically go to full aperture when you use MF assist (IF the lens doesn't focus shift).
A.Y. wrote:
Have you looked into getting a 16MP $600 A35 to be used with the 16-50 lens instead of a $325 adapter?
Reportedly the 16MP A57 with 1080 60p HD will be announced in March and most likely the body will be in the $700 price range since the 24MP A65 body costs $800. "IF" Sony offers a A57+16-50 kit, that will bring the cost of the lens down quite a bit - that's a big IF!
Yeah, I am looking at the options. 5N + EVF + LA-EA2 is getting expensive - on par with A65, etc. which might be more suitable in the end game. And an A55 w/ 16-80 weighs just a few oz. less so it's still a lightweight kit.
In case you want to shoot family video, the new 16-50 f2.8 was designed for HD so the AF should be video silent, not so with the 16-80. Also for family video, get 1080 60p and save yourself a lot of headache dealing with 1080 30p.
A.Y. wrote:
In case you want to shoot family video, the new 16-50 f2.8 was designed for HD so the AF should be video silent, not so with the 16-80. Also for family video, get 1080 60p and save yourself a lot of headache dealing with 1080 30p.
All SSM lenses have silent AF, but the 16-50 also offers an almost silent aperture mechanism.
well looks like my 70400g deal will go through--I may test it on the LAEA1, but seems worth it shooting birds to have "2" AF. I do see it as low as 325. I will try to test for light loss 1 vs 2 and sharpness.
mco_970 wrote:
ps. Amazon has the LA-EA2 in stock this morning - $318. I ordered one and can possibly do a few tests on 5N w/ 16-80 before I send back the LA-EA1.
TY so much for heads up on this--I also grabbed one, and my 70400 is shipping tommorrow--for just a bit more than the zm18--though I know IQ cannot equal ZM
The lens retail price is going up 200, so I am pretty happy to get one at a bit under 1300.
Anyone curious can see many samples full size here.
I'm also curious as to whether the laea2 will AF my sigma 8-16...that would be nice!
doh, so i found the mirror for my a55 intending to do a test tonight. unfortunately i left my tripod with a friend. i tried setting the camera on a table, but there was no way i could take the mirror in and out without changing the framing.
i'll have to have a look at the shots to see if anything meaningful can be taken from them.
ok here is my half-assed test consisting of only two shots, and i'm just showing you 100% crops of the focus point. both were shot at f/5.6 and iso 100 from about 3 meters from the subject under identical and relatively harsh and low artificial light. the lens used was the canon FL 55/1.2, which easily outresolves the a55's sensor at f/5.6. images were shot in aperture priority to see how differently the camera metered the scene with mirror versus without. 10s timer was used and the camera was placed on a 150lb marble table (sorry no tripod for me today). images were manual focused using 15x magnification. due to the poor light it's possible focus could differ by as much as a mm. the only processing done was to apply the lightroom beta 4 defaults on import, normalize white balance between shots, and boost exposure 1 stop to both images (to make detail more visible in the crops). anyway here are the unlabeled crops: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7176/6925093277_8287cb01fc_o.jpg http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7185/6925093235_09660c0f93_o.jpg
caveats: framing was not quite identical as i could not remove the mirror without moving the camera. i'm not sure i could even on a tripod as the mirror is much easier to remove and replace with the camera upside down. the mirror had some dust on it that i could not remove with minimal effort and a rocket blower. white balance appears a little different between the two shots despite identical values and identical light. i'm not sure if this is due to the mirror or camera related – all my sony cameras show similar WB variation when i shoot high speed bursts as well (has anybody else noticed this?).
anyway, can you folks tell which shot was with the mirror and which wasn't (no cheating and looking at exif!). while this may not be a perfect test i think it probably reflects the amount of difference one would see in real world shooting.
Huh. I opened them in separate tabs and flipped back and forth. I cannot tell. My eye sees the first one as a bit crisper, but it could easily be the WB??
I need to shoot a wedding in about a month. Luckily I am the second photographer, not the first! (so she has more stress than me...)
Do you think that this combination of the 16-80 with the LA-EA2 would work well in that environment? (on a Nex 5N or 7). The chapel is relatively dim. The Sony/Zeiss 24-70 looks quite nice, but it is $1,000 more expensive, and I don't have that extra money at the moment.
I need to shoot a wedding in about a month. Luckily I am the second photographer, not the first! (so she has more stress than me...)
Do you think that this combination of the 16-80 with the LA-EA2 would work well in that environment? (on a Nex 5N or 7). The chapel is relatively dim. The Sony/Zeiss 24-70 looks quite nice, but it is $1,000 more expensive, and I don't have that extra money at the moment.
I will give the LA-EA2 + 16-80 a good workout over the weekend & post some samples & impressions. I would expect 16-50 at constant f/2.8 has the advantage over the 16-80 w/ it's variable aperture...
I need to shoot a wedding in about a month. Luckily I am the second photographer, not the first! (so she has more stress than me...)
Do you think that this combination of the 16-80 with the LA-EA2 would work well in that environment? (on a Nex 5N or 7). The chapel is relatively dim. The Sony/Zeiss 24-70 looks quite nice, but it is $1,000 more expensive, and I don't have that extra money at the moment.
I would definitely not attempt to shoot an indoor wedding with the 16-80: it's just not bright enough. I'd figure out what the first photographer will be shooting with, and then pick something complementary, either relatively long or relatively wide.
If you have to be able to cover all bases, the 24-70 is probably your only practical solution. You could try to save a few bucks with the Sigma 24-70. You could also try renting the Zeiss 24-70 instead of buying.
alwang wrote:
I would definitely not attempt to shoot an indoor wedding with the 16-80: it's just not bright enough. I'd figure out what the first photographer will be shooting with, and then pick something complementary, either relatively long or relatively wide.
If you have to be able to cover all bases, the 24-70 is probably your only practical solution. You could try to save a few bucks with the Sigma 24-70. You could also try renting the Zeiss 24-70 instead of buying.
honestly, to shoot a wedding without breaking the bank i would just rent a nikon d700 and 24-70mm.
edit: ok not entirely true. last time i shot a wedding it was with the a55 and a rokkor 58/1.2, but that was for fun not money.
alwang wrote:
If you have to be able to cover all bases, the 24-70 is probably your only practical solution. You could try to save a few bucks with the Sigma 24-70. You could also try renting the Zeiss 24-70 instead of buying.
24-70 seems like it might not be wide enough on a crop... Totally agree about 16-80 being not bright enough unless it's an outdoor event. Even then, the lens is so darned slooow at the long end.
And an A55 w/ 16-80 weighs just a few oz. less so it's still a lightweight kit.