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!

Lens experience with Sony Nex-5 and Nex-7

V

Vivek

Guest
This is Sony's new "roadmap":

Sony Announces Expansion of E-mount Lens Including 5 New Lens Types « SONY make.believe

I hope the others will NOT be dogs like the 16/2.8.

Jono, None of the lenses I have (just 1 sample each, bought randomly) for the m4/3rds show anything this bad. Even the Olympus 17/2.8 lens.

I think it is just a bad design. It is a 5/5 Heliar design and is similar to the Olympus 17/2.8 (m4/3rds), Samsung 30/2 (NX) and the old Olympus pen F pancake 38/2.8 (a decent lens). It just does not work for the 16mm, IMO.
 
Last edited:

alphaman

New member
This is Sony's new "roadmap":

Sony Announces Expansion of E-mount Lens Including 5 New Lens Types « SONY make.believe

I hope the others will be dogs like the 16/2.8...
I imagine you meant "I hope the others will not be dogs like the 16/2.8..."

That said, I don't relate to your experience of the 16/2.8. My copy seems perfectly ok, particularly at f8. I don't think it is as good as it could be, but it is a very cheap lens and I'm taking that into consideration. I imagine Sony will replace it with a Zeiss version in time. The problem is that (IMO) Sony hadn't realised just how popular the NEX system would become and the first lenses (16/2.8 and 15-55) were made on a budget. Perhaps if they had a Tardis, they would go back in time and revisit their decisions - but then the NEX system would have been more expensive!
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
My experience too, I use the 35/2 and 90/2.8. The cheap Contax to NEX adapters seem to be ok from my experience, so no need to splash out!

I have also used a variety of Minolta and Sony A lenses using the Sony adapter (second version) and also with great success. The NEX combined with the Zeiss 135/1.8 looks mad but works very well for available light work, in my case theater photography.
Sorry alphaman, but I don't use Contax G lenses but the Contax MM and AE dslr lenses. I decided to go that way because the wider ones don't have the color casting issues like my Zeiss 25 ZM and VC 15/4.5. And less hassle with different adapters.(I use those on the Ricoh GXR, a dream!)
You can see some of those in the Fun with NEX thread.

I have now the whole range from 18mm to 100mm
Still a few gaps but I have to behave myself.
And three zooms including the supurb Vario-Sonnar 100-300.
Can't wait to work with it for landscapes etc in France.

Michiel
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, None of the lenses I have (just 1 sample each, bought randomly) for the m4/3rds show anything this bad. Even the Olympus 17/2.8 lens.

I think it is just a bad design. It is a 5/5 Heliar design and is similar to the Olympus 17/2.8 (m4/3rds), Samsung 30/2 (NX) and the old Olympus pen F pancake 38/2.8 (a decent lens). It just does not work for the 16mm, IMO.
I imagine you meant "I hope the others will not be dogs like the 16/2.8..."

That said, I don't relate to your experience of the 16/2.8. My copy seems perfectly ok, particularly at f8. I don't think it is as good as it could be, but it is a very cheap lens and I'm taking that into consideration. I imagine Sony will replace it with a Zeiss version in time. The problem is that (IMO) Sony hadn't realised just how popular the NEX system would become and the first lenses (16/2.8 and 15-55) were made on a budget. Perhaps if they had a Tardis, they would go back in time and revisit their decisions - but then the NEX system would have been more expensive!
+1 . . . except I imagine you mean 18-55!:D

Yes Vivek - my 16mm is useable at all apertures - but improves up to f8. Of course, it's not fantastic (why should it be at that price), but I can only assume you have a bad copy?

I also think that the cheap kit lens (18-55) is much better than one has a right to expect.

Funny about lenses though - I found several of the Pentax lenses (including the 15 limited) to be dreadful - in fact, that 15mm limited, despite being 4 times the cost of the Sony was certainly softer in the corners than my copy of the Sony.

Sample variation or not?

The lens map looks interesting - the G zoom is what I'm really interested in, but at least it looks like they're active.

all the best
 
V

Vivek

Guest
May be it is the price factor.

The 24/1.8, despite its over-sized hood (I use a generic, low profile 49mm metal hood), is fabulous. The CA issue is there but is tolerable.

I suspect the fast apertured standard prime will be another Zeiss. Possibly another E-Sonnar.

The pancake mentioned is most likely another Heliar design (like the Samsung 30/2).

Yes, it is good to see them at least responding to the criticism that it is more of an "interchangeable camera system" rather than an "interchangeable lens system". :ROTFL:
 

turbines

New member
Has anyone heard of any rumours regarding other third party lenses in E mount?

******************************************************************

With my Nex5n I currently use

Contax G 28mm, 45mm, 90mm all with dedicated Metabones adapters :thumbs:

Minolta AF 50mm f2.8 Macro :thumbs:

Minolta AF 35-70 f4 sharp & cheap but the range is not ideal

Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6-28 in Alpha mount. Sharp but a real handful and range not ideal for cropped sensor.

Yashica ML 24mm f2.8 :thumbup:
.
Fujinon TV 75mm f1.8 :thumbup:

After some bad experiences with cheap adapters I have settled pretty much on Rayquals with integrel tripod mounts. The tripod mount allows use of some of my heavier lenses on the Nex that otherwise I wouldn't attempt to mount.
 
C

CoDaQue

Guest
Early days here and not much time to test and shoot!

Kit 18-55: I agree, it is above average for a kit lens.
Minolta MD 50 1.7: best 5 eur I ever spent! wonderful smooth portraits at 1.7 (not too sharp).
Minolta MD 28 2.8: wicked sharp wide open. Still need to test it for landscape. for 45 eur can't complain.
Minolta MD 135 3.5: not so sharp wide open. Focus very impractical. But for 45 eur I also can't complain.

Voiglander Heliar 15 4.5 M: Seems very sharp, but I only have used it at small apertures.

Voiglander Nokton MC 40 1.4 M: Heaven and hell. Sometimes smooth beatiful transitions in color and focus plane, sometimes busy bokeh, CAs. I need to master it!

Now what would you put on your bag for a trip to Istambul next week?

WBR!
 

jthurs

New member
Which camera are you shooting with the 5 or the 7?

Hmmm
Sony:
16mm (I think it's fine as long as it's stopped down a bit - bad copy Vivek?)
18-55 kit (better than it should be)
18-200 (good - but I sometimes have trouble focusing in poor light)-quite big, but as hosermage says, not heavy - the lens fits in my barbour jacket pocket with the body sticking out for quick access!
24 Zeiss 1.8 (fab)

Leica M (with the helicoid adapter)
WATE - +1 to Woody - it's grate
24 'lux Excellent - but It isn't enough better than the Zeiss to make me use it (keep it with the M9)
28 'cron Excellent - focuses remarkably close
35 summarit - lovely and very small
35 'lux Excellent
50 'lux Excellent
50 nocti Excellent
75 'cron Excellent
90 elmarit Excellent
in all cases the helicoid adapter makes for fun close focusing.

Leica R:
18-200 f4 (okay - but only a short trial before adding a Sony A mount)
sorry not 18-200 - 70-210 - thank you Bart!
28-90 - Really good - and nice to handle as well
21-35 - soso results - boring range - don't bother
180 f2.8 APO Excellent

I don't have a Sony A adapter yet - so I haven't tried the A mount lenses, but I guess I'll get there!
 

yatlee

Member
I've been looking for a "better" wide angle lens for the NEX-7 without breaking the bank. I wanted the lens to be compact, with minimal barrel distortion and, if possible, no/minimal amount of color cast. I think I've finally found one!

Carl Zeiss ZM 18mm F4.0

IMG_1524 by yatlee, on Flickr
 

etrigan63

Active member
I've been looking for a "better" wide angle lens for the NEX-7 without breaking the bank. I wanted the lens to be compact, with minimal barrel distortion and, if possible, no/minimal amount of color cast. I think I've finally found one!

Carl Zeiss ZM 18mm F4.0

IMG_1524 by yatlee, on Flickr
The trick is finding a ZM 18mm f/4 at a good price! Me want!
 

philber

Member
On my NEX 5:
Contax G 28, 45, 90
Zeiss ZM 18
Leica R 60 Makro, 35-70 f:3.5
Declined to buy: ZA 24 f!1.8
Sold as unusable: Contax G 21
On order: Zeiss ZM 35 f:2.0, Leica 24 Elmar f:3.8

On my NEX 7, the ZM 18 shifts horribly, and the G 28 also, but less so. The suitability of the Elmar 24, as and when it arrives, is in question. ZM 35 should be OK, but only stopped down. Am trying out the ZA 24 again, in case it is better optimized for 7 than for 5N (odd chance).

If I get a really good 24mm solution on the 7, it will be "bye-bye 5N", with the acquisition of another WA, such as Sigma 19mm e-mount, or Leica R 19mm.
 

JimBuchanan

New member
As I had mentioned over on the NEX 7 thread, I am disappointed in the wide lens behaviour on the NEX 7. My ZM25 is usable, but has color shift in the corners... I may go for a SLR 28mm lens.

I still need an effective 24-28mm lens solution. So, 2 comments on the ZM here. Philber, your ZM18 "shifts horribly", but does the resolution hold out in the corners? I was hoping to buy that $1000+ lens with a little more confidence.
 
Hello all,

First post here. I'm an artist (painter, photographer), and also a part-time pro (mostly architectural photography with Canon and Arca-Swiss systems). I've just taken delivery of an NEX-5N (for my Dad, so that I can build him some Adobe DNG profiles), and have an NEX-7 on order (Adorama says late March, as I'm no. 158 on the waiting list). I've ordered the Zeiss 24/1.8 as a basic lens, and am now thinking about other lenses, so this is a very interesting and useful thread. I've used plenty of Zeiss glass on Hasselblads, but have never owned or even used any of the ZM mount lenses. Now I see that experienced users such as Michiel Schierbeek are using the C/Y mount Zeiss lenses (had to look that abbreviation up!), and that looks like a good route, both optically and financially. Would anyone like to comment further on their Zeiss C/Y experience, and give any advice on recommendations for high-quality adapters for the NEX e-mount? At the moment I'm contemplating relatively compact Zeiss C/Y lenses such as the 35/2.8 Distagon, the 50/1.7 Planar and the 85/2.8 Sonnar. Thanks very much.
 

alphaman

New member
On my NEX 5:
...
Sold as unusable: Contax G 21 ...
When you say "unusable", could you elaborate please? I'm quite interested in this lens and have heard adverse comments from digital users, but don't know of any details.

Are there any samples posted online that would illustrate the unusable nature of this optic?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give.
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
Hello all,

First post here. I'm an artist (painter, photographer), and also a part-time pro (mostly architectural photography with Canon and Arca-Swiss systems). I've just taken delivery of an NEX-5N (for my Dad, so that I can build him some Adobe DNG profiles), and have an NEX-7 on order (Adorama says late March, as I'm no. 158 on the waiting list). I've ordered the Zeiss 24/1.8 as a basic lens, and am now thinking about other lenses, so this is a very interesting and useful thread. I've used plenty of Zeiss glass on Hasselblads, but have never owned or even used any of the ZM mount lenses. Now I see that experienced users such as Michiel Schierbeek are using the C/Y mount Zeiss lenses (had to look that abbreviation up!), and that looks like a good route, both optically and financially. Would anyone like to comment further on their Zeiss C/Y experience, and give any advice on recommendations for high-quality adapters for the NEX e-mount? At the moment I'm contemplating relatively compact Zeiss C/Y lenses such as the 35/2.8 Distagon, the 50/1.7 Planar and the 85/2.8 Sonnar. Thanks very much.
Hi Christopher,

I seem to be quiet lonely with the Contax Zeiss route for the NEX-7. I don't regret it. The C/Y Distagon 18mm works fine. The only gap I have with Zeiss lenses is between 18 an 28mm, just because the fantastic 21 mm prices are sky high. The Contax zooms are a little big on the NEX, but they are lovely lenses. ( They are small compared to Canon EF equivalents.)
But I have several alternatives for that gap; the 20/2.8 Minolta MD and the 20 Canon FD (A little better in my opinion). 24mm I have in Olympus, Canon FD and Minolta MD. All these work well on the NEX.

Most of the Contax Zeiss lenses are simply supurb. Also the more common ones like 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7 or 1.4. The only one I am not interested in is the 135/2.8. And if you have the 100-300 zoom you don't need anything else in that range. That lens is just as sharp as the Zeiss primes in that range, only a little slower.

For zooms you could also look for the Minolta MD 35-70/3.5. Look out because ther are two versions, the other one is 35-70/3.5-4.?
It is actually a Leica design.

The wider zoom I am opting for will remain a secret for a while till I have it ;)

Kind regards, Michiel
 

etrigan63

Active member
Michiel,
I have been looking into the C/Y Distagon 18mm myself, but am having a hard time locating them. How would you recommend I search for them and where?
 

monza

Active member
Michiel, you aren't alone on the C/Y front, although I don't have a 7 yet. :)

I have used the 35/2.8, 50/1.7, and the 85/2.8...as I posted earlier in the thread, I have settled on 28/2, 50/1.4, and the 60/2.8 Makro Planar C. I also have the 85/2.8 (about the same size as a 50/1.7) and 100/3.5. Decided to sell the 100/2..too big and heavy...and will soon do a shootout between the 85 and the 100/3.5, and pick one.

I'll post some size comparisons shortly. I use a Fotodiox C/Y adapter which works well.
 
Top