The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Leica M to NEX Adapter
- Thread starter ptomsu
- Start date
V
Vivek
Guest
Why "even the 16mm"? It is a great match for the NEX sensor.
V
Vivek
Guest
John, How can you compare a wide to a manual focus moderate tele to say one is better than the other?
Have you or anyone else tried a Leica M mount 15 or 16mm lens to compare with the Sony 16/2.8?
barjohn
New member
I'm only looking at image sharpness in the center with framing such that the image size is comparable and nothing more. In the case of the 40/2 test against the 18-55, I set the 18-55 to 40 mm to match the field of view. You can see the difference for yourself in the above images. I thought the 18-55 would perform better that what I saw and when seen alone it seems OK; but when compared side by side to a known high quality lens its weakness is obvious. The 16mm is a closer match in terms of producing a sharp center image.
V
Vivek
Guest
Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr
NEX-5, ISO1600, 1/50s, Pentax 110 18mm f/2.8 (fixed aperture lens) (The peanut flash was not used.)
i have not been impressed with the image quality of my copy. it is rather sharp and contrasty in the center, but the edges are quite weak reaching acceptable by f/8. i find the distortion and CA rather annoying and the bokeh quite disturbing outside of the center of the image. for landscape stopped down to f/8 i'm ok with the results and it works great for indoor video. i had hoped it would work for close focus dramatic perspective distortion type shots but i haven't liked what i've seen from it in that capacity (particularly transitions to out of focus).
V
Vivek
Guest
Sebboh, I am not sure if the lens is used right. Use a polarizer on it (cheap, $5 from China- HOT showed a picture) while using outdoors.
Also, not many use wide apertures for landscapes- it can be done effectively but isn't called for normally.
Distortion is there but isn't objectionable. Perspective distortion (user error) compounds it and makes it worse than it actually is.
It is a fantastic wide angle lens for very little price.
Also, not many use wide apertures for landscapes- it can be done effectively but isn't called for normally.
Distortion is there but isn't objectionable. Perspective distortion (user error) compounds it and makes it worse than it actually is.
It is a fantastic wide angle lens for very little price.
polarizers tend to have an uneven effect on a lens that wide which some object to. i only find them useful for certain situations certainly not every outdoor shot. landscape is the only use for it where i don't find the lens performance objectionable (i never said anything about using wide aperture for landscapes that is silly in most situations). purposeful perspective distortion is what i planned on using it for (not accidental user error). the pincushion distortion isn't terrible (but works against perspective distortion since it is pincushion not the normal barrel distortion of a wide angle), but it robs more edge sharpness when i correct for it. it is exactly the quality of lens i would expect for the price - fine for some situations but not satisfactory for some of the types of shooting i would like to use a wide angle for. i will just stick to tiling shots from less wide lenses for those purposes. i know you like the lens for its IR and UV characteristics, but i don't have much interest in that type of photography. it is always possible i have a poorer sample than you as well.
V
Vivek
Guest
A cheap polarizer (even when it is rotated such that the polarization is weak) will cut all the UV off. It does that uniformly, even with wide angle lenses.
I have no idea if the kit 16/2.8 would be useful for IR. It certainly is transparent to near UV and hence the solution to one problem.
I have no idea if the kit 16/2.8 would be useful for IR. It certainly is transparent to near UV and hence the solution to one problem.
as would a standard UV filter, hence the name, without blocking ~50% of the light. polarizers aren't really weak or strong at different angles they are selectively blocking light whose waveform has a specific polarity. in some light situations most of the light will have a specific polarity and there will be a particularly strong effect at one orientation and a particularly weak effect 90° from that. in general, when not shooting a lot of sky or reflections polarizers have the added "feature" of acting as ~1/2 stop ND filters. in any event i don't believe any of my issues with the lens have to do with it's UV characteristics. i just mentioned UV because i remembered you were quite excited about the lens in that respect. i don't think it's a bad lens for the price, i just am not particularly impressed with it, and judging from its reviews i'm not the only one.
V
Vivek
Guest
Sorry, you missed the point. Not only the 16mm is transparent to near UV but the NEX sensor is also very sensitive to UV. Cheap plastic polarizers cut off UV more efficiently (0% near UV) than most UV filters.
sorry, i continue to miss the point. what if i don't want polarization? also, where did i say i had not tried a polarizer on the 16mm? i'm sorry, i have shot both with and without a polarizer and i'm not particularly pleased with what i see from the 16mm in either condition. you asked what it was that i didn't like about the lens' performance and i told you.
V
Vivek
Guest
UV affects clarity (contrast and sharpness) as well as the colors. These stem from the fact that the NEX sensor is sensitive to UV and the 16mm lens is transparent to UV. I suggested a polarizer as an efficient UV cut off filter.
yes, i know. i stated why i thought having a polarizer always on the lens was not preferible.