The Sony 16 always seemed like an ok performer to me. The main problem is that there's that severe drop off in resolution as you get really close to the corners. I often ended up just slightly cropping that part out, which gave me about a 19mm lens, anyways. The CV 15 didn't have this issue.
With the NEX-7, the CV 15 has quite a bit of color shift, and, even the Sony 16 has a little, FWIW.
Just wanted to drop in to mention that I updated my spreadsheet for prime lenses / lens weights with the E-Mount Sigma lenses... they come in very favorably against most others, with price and performance factored in, these seem like compelling options!
millsart wrote:
Why not just use the Sony 16mm with and/or without the rather excellent UWA converter ?
I've had the VC 15 and 12 myself, and the 12mm is pretty poor, no where near worth $900 when a $200 lens and $99 converter provide better quality and also AF
VC15 is a good lens, at least on the NEX5, but again, didn't make much sense using a $500 lens thats f4.5 when the 16mm faired about as well stopped down, was cheaper, lighter, and had AF
Its not to say the Sony 16mm is ideal, its not, but neither are any other ultra wide options short of getting a bulky adapter and using APS-C ultra wide zooms designed for DSLR's, which while providing good results, make the entire NEX rig bigger than some DSLR's themselves, totally defeating the point.
RF wide glass just isn't going to work that well on any mirrorless unless its specifically designed for it.
Sony will in time come out with a good quality UWA zoom for next which should be the way to go, but in the meantime, I've found nothing better, nor more practical than the 16mm and UWA converter...Show more →
I don't think filters will work with the converters - the lens hoods are fixed, aren't they?
My experience could somewhat come down to adapter used as well mind you. I was just using a cheaper one, but that seemed to work well with most lenses. Just can't bring myself to spend NovaFlex type money on something I don't use much.
I see color shifting on the NEX7 with even the 15vc and a little bit of smearing as well. I don't know if its just my lens, or adapter, or maybe lens+adapter, but optically my 16mm is every bit as sharp in the center, and matches the VC in the corners at f5.6. Tolerances might prove that the VC15 could yield slightly sharper results for some, but the color issue I think is an across the board problem.
The 16mm with the .75x conversion lens though is far sharper than the 12VC was on, and that was testing when I had the NEX5 still, so I'm sure on the NEX7 the difference is going to be even more pronounced.
12VC is just an expensive no go IMHO
Also interesting with the Sony UWA converter is that is actually seems to improve the corners over the naked lens, which seems optically impossible, but eyes don't lie.
millsart wrote:
My experience could somewhat come down to adapter used as well mind you. I was just using a cheaper one, but that seemed to work well with most lenses. Just can't bring myself to spend NovaFlex type money on something I don't use much.
Also interesting with the Sony UWA converter is that is actually seems to improve the corners over the naked lens, which seems optically impossible, but eyes don't lie.
Personally I am not really somebody who is in love with the lens adaptation game. I happened to have a bunch of RF lenses that I use(d) on film, which were at the time better options than the kit lens. Now that native mount lenses are being released, I'm revisiting how much sense it makes to keep doing this.
Tariq - I would love a Tokina 12-24 f/4 or something like that for the NEX. For me UWAs don't have to be fast to be effective.
corposant wrote:
Personally I am not really somebody who is in love with the lens adaptation game. I happened to have a bunch of RF lenses that I use(d) on film, which were at the time better options than the kit lens. Now that native mount lenses are being released, I'm revisiting how much sense it makes to keep doing this.
Agreed. I used a few 50mm RF lenses like a 50mm 1.5 Sonnar copy and my excellent ZM 50 2.0, and while both are very good lens, it just really failed to make sense to me anymore when for $300 you can get a Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS. Its every bit as sharp, lighter and doesn't need an adapter, has AF and even a rather effective IS system to boot.
I understand that some people do prefer the methodology of working with manual lens, or that have a collection of lens they use for other bodies such as a true RF camera, but the days of spending big money for basically zero gain compared to native offerings is over for me.
I personally like having the AF option. I will MF some landscape shots, usually from a tripod, but I'm not one that thinks I'm a better photographer because I adapted lenses or anything like that.
I think some people seem to think that because it requires more skill, its more fulfilling or something. I'm not one to agree.
I've never heard of any photographer being well regarding at how skilled they are at manually focusing, or if they are using a Russian copy of a lens thats older than they are.
Just comes down to the image, and if it was focused by the camera, or by a human using peaking, or zone focusing etc, doesn't really matter.
corposant wrote:
Personally I am not really somebody who is in love with the lens adaptation game. I happened to have a bunch of RF lenses that I use(d) on film, which were at the time better options than the kit lens. Now that native mount lenses are being released, I'm revisiting how much sense it makes to keep doing this.
Tariq - I would love a Tokina 12-24 f/4 or something like that for the NEX. For me UWAs don't have to be fast to be effective.
Maybe, but if you like the rendering of some of those adapted lenses, then it makes sense. I really enjoy the colors from the CV lenses, if the new Sigma lenses can equal them I will mostly be sold on going to Sigma for the 19 and 30. I will keep my CV 90 for now. I'm sure everyone has a few that they don't want to let go of.
Jacob D wrote:
Maybe, but if you like the rendering of some of those adapted lenses, then it makes sense. I really enjoy the colors from the CV lenses, if the new Sigma lenses can equal them I will mostly be sold on going to Sigma for the 19 and 30. I will keep my CV 90 for now. I'm sure everyone has a few that they don't want to let go of.
There's merit to that point, sure. I only have 3 RF lenses left, but I like each of them for their unique/individual qualities, especially how they look wide open.
By the same token, I was talking offline with a forum member yesterday about how the proceeds from the sale of my 28 Cron could completely outfit me with an OM-D with the best m4/3s glass. This is being discussed ad nauseum on the Leica (new products) page, but there's a point where native lens solutions will make holding onto these legacy lenses "pointless."
millsart wrote:
My experience could somewhat come down to adapter used as well mind you. I was just using a cheaper one, but that seemed to work well with most lenses. Just can't bring myself to spend NovaFlex type money on something I don't use much.
I see color shifting on the NEX7 with even the 15vc and a little bit of smearing as well. I don't know if its just my lens, or adapter, or maybe lens+adapter, but optically my 16mm is every bit as sharp in the center, and matches the VC in the corners at f5.6. Tolerances might prove that the VC15 could yield slightly sharper results for some, but the color issue I think is an across the board problem.
The 16mm with the .75x conversion lens though is far sharper than the 12VC was on, and that was testing when I had the NEX5 still, so I'm sure on the NEX7 the difference is going to be even more pronounced.
12VC is just an expensive no go IMHO
Also interesting with the Sony UWA converter is that is actually seems to improve the corners over the naked lens, which seems optically impossible, but eyes don't lie.
I think the UWA just seems sharper when attached because the magnification is less. FWIW, Photozone's tests show a decrease in resolution with the UWA attached.
corposant wrote:
There's merit to that point, sure. I only have 3 RF lenses left, but I like each of them for their unique/individual qualities, especially how they look wide open.
By the same token, I was talking offline with a forum member yesterday about how the proceeds from the sale of my 28 Cron could completely outfit me with an OM-D with the best m4/3s glass. This is being discussed ad nauseum on the Leica (new products) page, but there's a point where native lens solutions will make holding onto these legacy lenses "pointless."
Yeah, that's what I finally ran into. I sold several thousands of dollars worth of rangefinder lenses that I'd purchased trying to find the right combination of qualities and happily replaced them with $750 worth of lenses from Sigma and Sony, Go figure!
Jacob D wrote:
Douglas, did you hold onto any RF lenses to use with your NEX?
Only the Contax G 90, since I don't have an equivalent focal length in native e-mount. The Sony a-mount 85/2.8 is a very good performer, so, if the e-mount mid-tele that is coming next year is based on that design, I'll probably trade out for that. I don't use a tele like that very often, anyways.
All of my other rangefinder lenses are either sold or being prepared for sale. I'm living lean with 3 cheapie e-mount lenses.
I'm headed that direction too. I'll probably hold onto the CV 90, I don't expect Sony to produce anything as well corrected or lightweight, but who knows.
I'm really looking forward to the wide angle zoom on the roadmap... I hope that one comes this year, and that it's a performer.
I'm only using an adapter for my Rokinon fish. Otherwise sticking with emount for the size and AF. Something wide would be nice if it were nice and compact. For now, I am sticking with my 18-55 and 50 1.8 (selling my 18-200 just because it's a little bigger than I like).
The problem with native lenses is that they are... native. Unusable on any other camera. I use NEX5N atm, but with all these mirrorless offerings, I have no clue which camera I'll be using this time next year. I do know which lenses I'll be using though, and I'll probobly be using some of those same lenses 10 years from now. I do understand the AF argument, but I'm all MF
briantho wrote:
The problem with native lenses is that they are... native. Unusable on any other camera. I use NEX5N atm, but with all these mirrorless offerings, I have no clue which camera I'll be using this time next year. I do know which lenses I'll be using though, and I'll probobly be using some of those same lenses 10 years from now. I do understand the AF argument, but I'm all MF
I generally thought the same, but I've only got $750 invested in lenses, and I'd likely make most of that back if I were to sell them. I've really changed course with my thinking on the whole thing. Of course, if the various 35mm rangefinder lenses were performing better than the native lenses, it'd be a different story, but it's tough for the rangefinder lenses to compete with some of these native lenses with telecentric designs, on NEX.
briantho wrote:
The problem with native lenses is that they are... native. Unusable on any other camera. I use NEX5N atm, but with all these mirrorless offerings, I have no clue which camera I'll be using this time next year. I do know which lenses I'll be using though, and I'll probobly be using some of those same lenses 10 years from now. I do understand the AF argument, but I'm all MF
I don't know if legacy lenses really have the future proofing they used to. Who for example could of ever guessed that APC-S was going to be used on some many mirrorless cameras, much less something even smaller like m4/3. Even if there was nothing like color shifts, you could still be looking at having your 24mm, which was normally your wide angle now serving as a normal 50mm equiv. Throws your whole kit off.
Then of course there is always the unknown of how a sensor will work on new bodies. NEX5n for example seemed to worked pretty good on some wider RF glass, but then you go and upgrade to a new body and boom, color shifts and bad smearing.
Maybe there will be a FF mirrorless that works great with legacy glass. Maybe there won't be. Maybe there will be a FF mirrorless but perhaps its going to have the same color shift issues we see now. Maybe someone is going to come out with a totally new technology in 5 years time with adaptive fluid based lenses and no one is going to have any real interest in shooting legacy glass. Maybe future lenses will have the ability to mimic the unique renderings of different optical formula's at the press of a button. Or maybe we could still be shooting the same old things, point is I don't think anyone knows.
I think for me, I'd be a little disappointed if theres no better tool than what I'm currently working with in 10 years time.
