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!

When a 3% pincussion makes you a "serious shooter"..

V

Vivek

Guest
The Biteus 85/1.8 with its 3% pincussion distortion is now touted as a "must have for every serious Sony shooter". Luckily, I am not serious and may not even be a Sony shooter for long.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I thought it was a must have with or without Lloyd Chambers approval whether you are a "serious" Sony shooter of not.

End of the day - it doesn't really matter what the distortion is if it is adequately corrected in software (no this isn't a Sony apologist argument but a fact that just about everyone is releasing lens corrections for modern lenses.) No one is seriously going to forego any sort of processing be it in camera JPEG or using your RAW converter of choice.

I'm not trying to persuade people in either direction but rather provide rational perspective. A set of pictures taken with a lens are worth so much more than graphs/words more often than not IMO.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
I thought it was a must have with or without Lloyd Chambers approval whether you are a "serious" Sony shooter of not.
+1. Not much different in the distortion department from several other recent offerings incl. the much touted Sony FE 28/2 and the now already claimed to be legendary Leica Q.

Btw, the lens is called Batis :facesmack:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I thought it was a must have with or without Lloyd Chambers approval whether you are a "serious" Sony shooter of not.

End of the day - it doesn't really matter what the distortion is if it is adequately corrected in software (no this isn't a Sony apologist argument but a fact that just about everyone is releasing lens corrections for modern lenses.) No one is seriously going to forego any sort of processing be it in camera JPEG or using your RAW converter of choice.

I'm not trying to persuade people in either direction but rather provide rational perspective. A set of pictures taken with a lens are worth so much more than graphs/words more often than not IMO.
It started with Zeiss posting handheld portraits using (what they claimed to be) an A7r. I bet there is no firmware for these lenses for the A7r. The charts they supply are with the in camera corrections.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Is anyone seriously going to shoot and use these lenses without the software correction? Heck even our $6-9k technical camera lenses have software correction options in Capture One.

:facesmack:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I think this is the price of making the lens small, plain and simple. Software correction works fine most of the time.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Vivek, your such a character dude :salute:

With the software correction, I found both of these lenses to be excellent when I tried them last week. Both are going in my bag when they become available. My impressions, sample stills and video here: http://thecameraforum.com/cinegear-2015-lenses-bots-drones/
The new Sheiss is not the old Zeiss. The only value proposition here is the Sony electronics that gets upgraded every year or so.
 

turtle

New member
Look at the Leica Q, which is no different. I personally would rather have this compromise with software correction than carry another half kilo attached to the front of my camera. If the files look good the files look good. I could not care less about anything else

Quality Control will need to be good. The 35mm FE Sonnar fiasco has me wary.
 

turtle

New member
What is the concern - I'm trying to understand.

Is it that the software distortion control reduces quality? What about if 'corrected' frames perform just great (and measurably so)?

Is it that its reportedly a Tokina design? What if quality control is great and tested optical quality is top tier?

I see a lot of concern, but I am not exactly sure what it is that has been identified as the problem?
 

Annna T

Active member
I think this might be the concern. How much you can "see" of this in actual use can be discussed at length here in the forum :talk028:
Well, there is truth in LensRental saying. But on the other hand, they have tested a zoom which has already very weak corners with respect to center sharpness. So of course they will get even worse. However if the lens is good in the corners, chances that you can see a significative (aka perceivable with naked eyes in a print) degradation of the corners are lower than with such a weak zoom.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
What is the concern - I'm trying to understand.

Is it that the software distortion control reduces quality? What about if 'corrected' frames perform just great (and measurably so)?

Is it that its reportedly a Tokina design? What if quality control is great and tested optical quality is top tier?

I see a lot of concern, but I am not exactly sure what it is that has been identified as the problem?
No one is making up any concerns/issues. Check Malina's post (#15). If that does not raise any concerns, you should be good to go with these. :)

FWIW, it is Tamron and not Tokina. :)
 
Top