NEX-3 & 16mm 400€ - good?

[emr]

I just noticed that a certain photography store has the black NEX-3 with the 16mm pancake on special offer for 399€. I'm pretty tempted by this, but just wonder about two things.

First, does anybody here have only the pancake and how limiting do you find it? I actually have the 15mm lens for my Pentax, but don't know how well I'd do with just that lens. I know the kit zoom isn't that expensive and there's a gazillion lenses I could use with different adapters, but much of the appeal of this camera is the small size and no other lens (with an adapter) is as small, I believe.

Second, is the 16mm pancake really as bad as some reviews suggest? Photozone is one site which I value quite a lot and I've never seen them crush a lens like they did with the 16mm:

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/542-sony16f28nex

 

[ptomsu]

It depends what you expect from a lens. For me the 16 Sony is the main lens I am using on the NEX5, as it results in a very small and light combo. The IQ is ore than ok for me and I am pretty demanding if it comes to IQ.

So my advice - just go for it and you will love it! And - forget all these reviews, I actually have stopped wasting time on reading reviews, especially if they start smashing certain products. Better ask the dealer to make some test shoots and make yourself a picture if you like this or not.

 

[douglasf13]

First of all, I would take Photozone reviews, like most reviews, with a grain of salt. I actually questioned Klaus about testing adapted M lenses on NEX at infinity, and he responded by saying that it wasn't necessary, because most would focus at hyperfocal distances anyways!?!? Anyways, read through this whole thread (3 or 4 pages, total) for a nice rebuttal to Photozone's tests from David Kirkpatrick:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4549&start=15

For me, the 24mm (equiv.) focal length is not an ideal everyday length, so I adapt smallish M lenses to the camera in addition to the Sony 16mm. I'm currently waiting on the arrival of an MS Optical Perar, which is even smaller than the Sony 16mm with adapter, but it is expensive, and I don't know what the IQ is like, yet. Olympus Pen F and Contax G lenses also seem to be good options.

 

[sebboh]

i got the NEX-3 with just the pancake and have been quite happy with it using mostly small pen f lenses and the 16mm pancake when i need a wide angle. 24mm equiv isn't what i would call a good walk around focal length and this particular 24mm is more limited than some. i would limit it's use to either landscape work at f/5.6 and smaller where it actually performs quite well (for it's price) or f/2.8 shots at mfd. i do not like it's performance focused at the 3-8ft range due to the steep drop of in sharpness at the corners (and never use it for such a shot anymore).

 

[emr]

Thanks, everybody. But it's not just Photozone. I just checked the Dpreview site and in their lens part of the review, the border IQ of this pancake does not look too good eiher to me. But then again, the important subject is usually in the middle, so...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex5nex3/page8.asp

But I think that a pancake lens at for example 28mm would probably be great as the only lens.

 

[douglasf13]

Who knows what distance dpreview tested the lens at, but I think the results in that test look pretty good at f5.6. In fact, compare it to the $550 Pentax 15mm f4 Limited at various apertures, and the Sony 16 starts looking really good in dpreview's tests.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=87,49&fullscreen=true&av=3,4&fl=16,15&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

Compare it to the expensive Nikon 16-35 f4 at 16mm and f5.6 on APS-C, and the Sony is a little less sharp in the corners but sharper in the center:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=87,91&fullscreen=true&av=3,4&fl=16,16&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

Also, you could always just crop out a bit for a 28mm (equiv.) field of view, and that would get rid of the corners.

Ultimately, I can't find a single lens around the 15 or 16mm mark (prime or zoom) that outperforms the Sony 16mm on APS-C in dpreview's tests. You'll really need to go fullframe with something like the ZA 24mm or Nikon 14-24, etc, to get a noticeable improvement at that field of view.

 

[emr]

Douglas, that was indeed an eye-opening comparison if it is valid. Considering how the 15mm ltd is actually pretty good by my own experience and different tests, the 16mm isn't probably too bad. On the other hand, that big a difference makes me wonder if it really is valid. But people are discussing if the PZ test does justice to the Sony lens. Go figure.

 

[meilicke]

Thanks Douglas, good to see there are some good reports out there on the 16. I was beginning to lose faith. As soon as my 16 arrives, I can at least convince myself one way or the other. :thumbup:

 

[douglasf13]

BTW, the lens correction for the Sony 16mm that is built into Lightroom 3 works pretty well.

 

[emr]

BTW, the lens correction for the Sony 16mm that is built into Lightroom 3 works pretty well.

Any idea about Aperture 3?

 

[douglasf13]

I'm not sure. Jono would be a good person to ask.