From: RichA on
Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects.
16mm Sony on the NEX 5. I'm still waiting for some person with access
to PUT a decent, normal lens on the camera with an adapter (a 50mm
legacy prime would do) and see if the fault lies entirely with the
lens and not with the camera as well.

http://www.antidotepictures.com/Photography/Sony-NEX/12495675_Axbi3#899406266_4L9BH-O-LB

From: Val Hallah on
On Jun 15, 5:40 am, Robert Coe <b...(a)1776.COM> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:24:58 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects.
> : 16mm Sony on the NEX 5.  I'm still waiting for some person with access
> : to PUT a decent, normal lens on  the camera with an adapter (a 50mm
> : legacy prime would do) and see if the fault lies entirely with the
> : lens and not with the camera as well.
> :
> :http://www.antidotepictures.com/Photography/Sony-NEX/12495675_Axbi3#8...
>
> Rich, you've convinced me: it's a crappy lens. You've made your point three or
> four times. But I've never seen the lens and probably never will. And I've
> never seen the camera it goes on and probably never will. So do I have to care
> whether it's any good? And if so, why?
>
> Bob

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286547/The-mane-attraction-Briton-scoops-Frances-photography-award-amazing-horse-picture.html
From: Eric Stevens on
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:46:40 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
<spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:24:58 -0700, RichA wrote:
>
>> Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects.
>> 16mm Sony on the NEX 5. I'm still waiting for some person with access
>> to PUT a decent, normal lens on the camera with an adapter (a 50mm
>> legacy prime would do) and see if the fault lies entirely with the lens
>> and not with the camera as well.
>>
>> http://www.antidotepictures.com/Photography/Sony-NEX/12495675_Axbi3#899406266_4L9BH-O-LB
>
>Looks like a bad lens for pixel peepers.
>Looks like a good lens for photographers.

Working on the theory that any 16mm lens is better than none?



Eric Stevens
From: RichA on
On Jun 15, 6:46 am, Robert Spanjaard <spamt...(a)arumes.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:24:58 -0700, RichA wrote:
> > Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects.
> > 16mm Sony on the NEX 5.  I'm still waiting for some person with access
> > to PUT a decent, normal lens on  the camera with an adapter (a 50mm
> > legacy prime would do) and see if the fault lies entirely with the lens
> > and not with the camera as well.
>
> >http://www.antidotepictures.com/Photography/Sony-NEX/12495675_Axbi3#8...
>
> Looks like a bad lens for pixel peepers.
> Looks like a good lens for photographers.
>
> --
> Regards, Robert                                      http://www.arumes.com

Why? Because it's compact?
From: RichA on
On Jun 14, 11:40 pm, Robert Coe <b...(a)1776.COM> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:24:58 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Check out the smearing at the edge, the prism-like chromatic effects.
> : 16mm Sony on the NEX 5.  I'm still waiting for some person with access
> : to PUT a decent, normal lens on  the camera with an adapter (a 50mm
> : legacy prime would do) and see if the fault lies entirely with the
> : lens and not with the camera as well.
> :
> :http://www.antidotepictures.com/Photography/Sony-NEX/12495675_Axbi3#8...
>
> Rich, you've convinced me: it's a crappy lens. You've made your point three or
> four times. But I've never seen the lens and probably never will. And I've
> never seen the camera it goes on and probably never will. So do I have to care
> whether it's any good? And if so, why?
>
> Bob

Why never? They sell Sony's everywhere. You'll see it.