Tariq Gibran wrote: Smiert Spionam wrote:
Looks like a very reasonable lens, and a bargain. I\'ve got the 30/2.8 on the way, and looking forward to it.
From the crops I\'ve seen (here and on blue skies\' thread on DPR), I\'m not sure the 19/2.8 offers much over the 16/2.8, though. The corners probably don\'t fall off as precipitously as the 16, though overall sharpness doesn\'t look any better, and might not be as good (stopped down, anyway -- the 16 is so weak at f/2.8 that I never shoot it there). I suspect the choice between the two would have more to do with focal length than absolute image quality.
Maybe that would also depend upon which NEX they are mounted. Seems like I recall many saying the 16 performed much better on the 5n than the previous NEX\'s. It may be that the 16 is poor on anything else, particularly the NEX-7 outside of the center- or have you used it on the NEX-7?
I use the 16mm on the NEX-7, and previously did on the 5n. For all practical purposes, it\'s fine on both (much worse on the original 3 & 5, apparently). F/2.8 is weak, but it\'s tack sharp in the center at f/4, very adequately sharp to the short edges by f/5.6, and best overall at f/8. It\'s not a perfect lens -- the corners only become really adequate by f/8, and overall sharpness never matches the center at any f/stop. What I\'ve seen from the 19/2.8 doesn\'t look dramatically better, though -- it\'s probably more consistent across the frame, but not as sharp as the 16 in the center, and with weaker edges.
That\'s not to say that the 19/2.8 isn\'t a fine lens -- it\'s almost certainly better wide open, and the focal length may be a better match for some people.
