Thanks. I shot those last night with the light going down, to see how a max aperture of f2.8 would do for me, and I could still get away with pretty lowlight. Here is another silly one from last night. Invaders!
SInce the NEX's DR is linear from ISO 400 on, I just left the camera at ISO 400 and boosted exposure in the raw converter. This allows you to maintain a larger DR. The newer 16mp Sony sensor takes it up another notch, and you can basically shoot everything at base ISO, if you want. Of course, with an electronic viewfinder, it may be hard to focus with the LCD screen that dark!
wonderful shots uintaangler! i'm slightly partial to the first one.
uhoh - the first and last are fantastic! looks like the 50/1.2 ltm might draw somewhat similarly to my pen f.
i've been extremely busy lately, and to try and keep myself from being too distracted with photography i've limited myself to my two least favorite lenses. not sure how well that's worked out but here's a few shots with them.
reminds me I have a nice olympus 135/2.8 that needs a workout, and more proof that the 16 produces fine images. You have the "skyscraper vanishes into haze" shot down---I love it every time I see it, but the gargoyle shot is flat beautiful.
sebboh, I am surprised how decent the bokeh is with the kit zoom. There may be sample to sample variation with this lens but my copy is surprisingly sharp and I have yet to see any real degree of CA in poor lighting situations from it. My only criticism, and it may just be with the NEX overall, is that I have missed shots due to poor AF before.
Tariq, based on your pics, I pulled my kit zoom, that I hadn't used in months, and the shots from which I never processed in LR, and compared them against a tolerably comparable zoom, the Contax 35-70. The Sony isn't bad, certainly not for a kit zoom. But the shots you posted owe more to your talent than to the zoom's virtues IMHO. Unless your copy is significantly better than mine...
philber wrote:
Tariq, based on your pics, I pulled my kit zoom, that I hadn't used in months, and the shots from which I never processed in LR, and compared them against a tolerably comparable zoom, the Contax 35-70. The Sony isn't bad, certainly not for a kit zoom. But the shots you posted owe more to your talent than to the zoom's virtues IMHO. Unless your copy is significantly better than mine...
I have read negative reviews of this lens which do not reflect my experience with the kit zoom so major sample variation would not surprise me in the least given the price point for the kit zoom. The Contax 35-70 is probably the all time best zoom I have ever used myself so I would not say the NEX kit is going to stand up to that lens (which is also very different with regard to covered focal lengths). The Sony has a much softer, subdued color palette and the micro contrast is nowhere near as biting as with the Contax or even many of the CV lenses I have tried on the NEX. For a walk around, general purpose lens though, the kit lens avails itself quite well.
Really, not much talent involved with those shots though. The science center releases the butterflies within a large rain forest atrium and they are EVERYWHERE. It would be difficult not to get a decent shot or two.
It definitely sounds like you may have a defective kit lens. One thing that has surprised me about mine is that it is sharp, even into the corners by 5.6. When I first got my NEX 5, I tested the kit lens, fully expecting it to suck big time. I was shocked by how good it was.
Half way down this page, you can see the test I did of my kit lens:
Tariq, I wouldn't say that my lens is defective. It has limitations, 'tis all, which frankly, for a lens of this modest cost, is hardly a capital offense. That said, I tried not one, but two 16mm pancakes, and they were much worse than the zoom, so I stayed away from it. Yet I have seen some pretty decent shots from it posted here, so AFAIAC the copy variation theory is a good one.
philber wrote:
Tariq, I wouldn't say that my lens is defective. It has limitations, 'tis all, which frankly, for a lens of this modest cost, is hardly a capital offense. That said, I tried not one, but two 16mm pancakes, and they were much worse than the zoom, so I stayed away from it. Yet I have seen some pretty decent shots from it posted here, so AFAIAC the copy variation theory is a good one.
If yours is not sharp in the center at the long end, I would think Sony might replace it for you under warranty. Might be worth a try.
