sebboh wrote:
here are two rather similar shots from the same place as the previous panorama i posted. both are taken with the sony 16mm at f/11:
the lens is very good in the center at f/5.6 and the corners become usable at f/7.1. best corner sharpness is at f/11 but some center sharpness and contrast is lost by then to diffraction. i find f/2.8 and f/4 to be pretty much unusable due to the way the look of the lens changes from the center (where it is still decently sharp) to the edges where it is terrible.
thanks! i was very happy with them till photoshop finished putting together the pano of the same scene with the contax 45. not really a fair comparison though.
Finally got to try the Contax G Biogon 21mm f2.8 on my new NEX 5n. Sorry for the boring photos, I just took theese on the way to and home from work to see what perfomance was like, and didn't have time for anything fancy.
The results are indeed much better on the NEX 5n than on the NEX 5, but not perfect by any means. What do you think?
I havent ruled out that lens completely since the others (28/45/90) are so good, but I cant really judge from your examples. I see that it looses sharpness in the edges (more than the others it appears) but the color fringing is supposed to be the major problem. Do you have any examples of that?
wfrank wrote:
briantho, I recognize those streets very much...
I havent ruled out that lens completely since the others (28/45/90) are so good, but I cant really judge from your examples. I see that it looses sharpness in the edges (more than the others it appears) but the color fringing is supposed to be the major problem. Do you have any examples of that?
Yup, streets of our capital. Haven't seen any trace of color fringin, but vignetting is apparent. Fixed that easy in LR.
philber wrote:
Briantho, your shots unfortunately disply what mine show too. A great lens, but corner performance is just lethal...
I agree, corners are bad, but NEX 5 was even worse.
The Contax G 28/2.8 has as the 21/2.8 a protruding rear element, as far as I can tell as much. The protectors at the rear barely touches the plate a couple of mm's above the sensor. The linked original size is PP'd for reduction it size - therefore it probably look over sharpened and noisy but it wouldnt have to. To me it shows a very good edge performance which I dont see in the 21. (5N)
wfrank wrote:
The Contax G 28/2.8 has as the 21/2.8 a protruding rear element, as far as I can tell as much. The protectors at the rear barely touches the plate a couple of mm's above the sensor. The linked original size is PP'd for reduction it size - therefore it probably look over sharpened and noisy but it wouldnt have to. To me it shows a very good edge performance which I dont see in the 21. (5N)
The G21 also fits without modification with my no brand adapter.
Nice photo. I have the 28 too, haven't had a chanse to use it yet on 5N. I'll take it to the fairs tomorrow for some shots.
Jacob D wrote:
I walked out to get the mail and snapped a few shots in the font yard. This is what the CV 40/1.4 looks like outside.
...Little bit of glow and fairly wild bokeh Sharpens up at f2.8 but the edges aren't great still.
wfrank wrote:
The Contax G 28/2.8 has as the 21/2.8 a protruding rear element, as far as I can tell as much. The protectors at the rear barely touches the plate a couple of mm's above the sensor. The linked original size is PP'd for reduction it size - therefore it probably look over sharpened and noisy but it wouldnt have to. To me it shows a very good edge performance which I dont see in the 21. (5N)
Just picked up a G28 as well, and it looks like my rear protectors are also touching the plastic plate around the sensor (NEX-5N). I can lock the lens in place without too much resistance, but I can see that the two little wings have already left light marks on that plastic plate. Wondering if this is going to cause any negative effects? I could I guess file those wings down, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. I'm using a no-name adapter.
wfrank wrote:
The Contax G 28/2.8 has as the 21/2.8 a protruding rear element, as far as I can tell as much. The protectors at the rear barely touches the plate a couple of mm's above the sensor. The linked original size is PP'd for reduction it size - therefore it probably look over sharpened and noisy but it wouldnt have to. To me it shows a very good edge performance which I dont see in the 21. (5N)
What was your aperture on that shot Frank?
The edges are very good: I noticed on the full size it gets a tad fuzzy in the lower lefthand corner.
Well it's obviously a great lens. Next time you have a wonderful shot like that shoot some at f/16 and 22. I'd bet that corner would be just like the rest. And I don't think the overall image will seem less sharp.
Well that's my new theory on the wides right now, hehe.
I've been shooting 4-5.6 for the sensor, but just not getting the edges. However As I look at some test shots--for example the 35/1.2--the thing is fantastic edge to edge at f/22 and looks quite crisp.
I think the sensor optimum of f/4 may be a dog whistle when it comes to getting the best out of the wides
. Thank you
Sharpens up at f2.8 but the edges aren't great still.
