FlyPenFly wrote:
Sony coatings are pretty good for color though. I was never dissapointed with the color on the 18-55 on the 5N. The newest Sigma HSM lenses though seem to be using a much nicer coating than their old lenses.
When I compared the 18-55 on the original NEX-5 to my alt lenses, the washed out color palette of the kit lens was pretty noticeable. Same goes with the 85 2.8 SAM when compared to better alt lenses on the A900. I don't think the color on those lower end Sony lenses is as good as the best Minolta lenses and is a noticeable step down from the Sony Zeiss lenses as well. But for the price they are, it's hard to complain I guess. The color from the Sigma 19 reminds me more of the better Minolta lenses with regard to color rendering.
Interesting about colors in general. I think you might be right though, the colors out of the SAM 35mm F1.8 aren't fantastic but the sharpness is quite good. In fact, I think Tamron coatings are sometimes better especially in their high end F2.8 zooms.
Anyways, here are some old samples I have from the Sony NEX kit lens.
The colors are good but not exceptional. I don't remember how much post this has but IIRC, I don't add much vibrancy or saturation, just a bit of contrast. I really crushed the blacks on these a bit too much though. This was before I calibrated my monitor.
I must say, this little 19mm is getting me pretty excited for the 30mm that I have on the way, since the 30 is the better of the two lenses. Even this 19mm lens is very sharp in the center at f2.8, and looks ok to me at f5.6 in the corners, considering the other wide options for NEX out there. It's not a razor at the extreme corners, but it's probably usable with some adjustment in LR.
Here is an infinity shot at f5.6 on the NEX-7 with standard LR4 import settings, except that I activated CA correction. I didn't use a tripod with these, so take them with a grain of salt. Just a quick corner check.
For the sake of comparison, I focused my new 30mm to infinity for another extreme corner look. This are straight out of LR4 without any adjustments, other than CA correction. Like the 19, CA is the main issue with this lens, although, as you can see, the 30mm is much sharper at the edges, even wide open.
This is 30mm at f2.8 on the NEX-7. Like before, there wasn't a tripod involved here, so take these with a grain of salt.
The 30mm is pretty remarkable for the price, from what I can tell so far. Man, if they'd have somehow managed f2, it would have been just about perfect, but I'm ok with f2.8 for most things.
One nice thing: it looks like the 30/2.8 actually has a full stop more light transmission at f/2.8 than it has at f/4. That isn't true of most legacy lenses, and lots of new ones, too. The fact that the Sigma is both a legitimate f/2.8 and fully usable at that stop helps make up for the fact that it isn't faster.
I did some more testing of the Sig 19 on the NEX-7 yesterday and I have to say I'm pretty happy with it's performance. In fact, I really doubt there is anything that would perform better on the NEX-7 near this focal length. Does anyone know of anything? This lens really is a no brainer.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I did some more testing of the Sig 19 on the NEX-7 yesterday and I have to say I'm pretty happy with it's performance. In fact, I really doubt there is anything that would perform better on the NEX-7 near this focal length. Does anyone know of anything? This lens really is a no brainer.
the zm 18/4 probably once you've corrected for color shift. big price difference though.
FlyPenFly wrote:
And I just ordered one. Thanks Jerk.
The CA looks really great on that compared to what I remember from the kit lens.
Ha ha.
The CA on the sample I have really is not that bad at all. I have really only noticed it on detail at the edges and corners and it's minor enough that PS/ lightroom can pretty much automagically get rid of it. I saw much, much worse CA on the ZF.2 35/2 I owned in the corners.
sebboh wrote:
the zm 18/4 probably once you've corrected for color shift. big price difference though.
Have you tested that lens at infinity on the NEX-7 and found sharp/ non-smeared corners out of curiousity?
Yes, the price difference is HUGE. If Sigma is making money on these $200 NEX lenses, which have this sort of decent performance, we all are being ripped off by most of the other lens makers.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Have you tested that lens at infinity on the NEX-7 and found sharp/ non-smeared corners out of curiousity?
Yes, the price difference is HUGE. If Sigma is making money on these $200 NEX lenses, which have this sort of decent performance, we all are being ripped off by most of the other lens makers.
i don't have the lens, but i've seen some promising samples.
"If Sigma is making money on these $200 NEX lenses, which have this sort of decent performance, we all are being ripped off by most of the other lens makers. "
I think you are correct! Sigma has discovered the App Store pricing strategy, I would imagine they will sell a gazillion of these which would be great for all of us.
The biggest gripe I have with Sigma is their quality control. I have a Sigma 50/1.4 and it took 3 tries to get a copy which did not have issues. Likewise, I've sent back my first copy of my 19/2.8 because it was defective.
Despite that, I guess I am looking forward to my second copy.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, the price difference is HUGE. If Sigma is making money on these $200 NEX lenses, which have this sort of decent performance, we all are being ripped off by most of the other lens makers.
I must admit, now that I have the two Sigmas and the Sony 24 and 50, I'm succumbing to the fact that these "made for NEX" lens designs make quite a bit of sense compared to the expensive ZMs that I've been using. They're generally pretty sharp across the frame, the camera automatically fixes the Sony lenses' vignetting and writes it to the raw file (if you set it to,) and CA seems the only issue, which seems easily correctable. I've also been a bit surprised that the size of the 24 and 50 doesn't really bother me, because their weights aren't too bad.