• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Not so great, Sony ...


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,545 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 February 2018 - 11:39 AM

Taken at 24mm f/4 without correction.

Attached Files


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 Marco

Marco

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 12:51 PM

24-105?



#3 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 February 2018 - 12:58 PM

yes



#4 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,545 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 February 2018 - 01:15 PM

On the camera you can't disable distortion autocorrection. Thus normally you won't see those corners (5+EV vignetting there).


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#5 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 07 February 2018 - 02:18 PM

Your findings are not isolated, Fred Miranda has reported that too.

 

Does the resolution fall below the basement too?



#6 obican

obican

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 436 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 02:49 PM

I was about to ask if that's with distortion correction turned off. 



#7 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 03:50 PM

   Five stops??  Good grief!



#8 Marco

Marco

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 04:37 PM

I think it's a compromise. The question is, how looks the end results.



#9 AN2

AN2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 04:59 PM

No strange, I have seen 6.33eV result at somewhere.

And what about the resolution?



#10 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:27 PM

I think it looks a lot like the old Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 at 11mm when mounted on a Canon 1D body (I've tried it a couple of times for fun when travelling in Kazakhstan). On the other hand, some people like to add this kind of trashy vignette in post anyway... (yeah... I'm trying to find a bright spot - pardon the pun :))



#11 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 07 February 2018 - 08:18 PM

Was going to get a6000 after checking Sony lenses offering and their quality i am hesitating...

#12 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 08:21 PM

   That means wide open it's light equivalent is F22 in the corners!



#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,973 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:12 PM

This is an artistic lens to accentuate the center. Or "what bokeh can't deliver, will be swallowed by a black hole". 



#14 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:37 PM

This is an artistic lens to accentuate the center. Or "what bokeh can't deliver, will be swallowed by a black hole". 

*inverted black hole



#15 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,545 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:49 PM

It performs better than the Canon L and Nikkor overall.
  • Rover likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#16 Ron H

Ron H

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 07 February 2018 - 11:05 PM

Reminds me of the old days of putting too thick of a filter on a wide angle lens and wondering why the corners were so dark. 



#17 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:10 AM

It performs better than the Canon L and Nikkor overall.

I wonder why they couldn't just bite the bullet and go for a 82mm front filter to ease the vignetting problem... probably they were egged on by those who demand as compact a design as possible, and 82mm filters are still seen as "too large".



#18 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:19 AM

Even the Nikkor 24-120mm f4 gets by with a 77mm filter size. The issue is the undercorrection, not the filter size?



#19 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:34 AM

  I think Rover meant that using a larger filter size would have enabled the designers to use greater diameter glass reducing it's ferocious vignetting! 

 

  At least if that is what Rover meant?.......I agree with him! 



#20 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:41 AM

If the designers corrected the huge barrel distortion at the wide end, they do not need to think about a bigger front element, a bigger filter size, because the vignetting is not there then...

 

And bigger front elements means much more weight, and a higher price.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de