06-20-2021, 05:07 AM
06-20-2021, 10:59 AM
Huh... I almost missed the fact that it has no stabilizer.
9 stops of vignetting and 8% distortion is bit steep, any way you slice it, so gods bless the corrections.
9 stops of vignetting and 8% distortion is bit steep, any way you slice it, so gods bless the corrections.
06-20-2021, 12:07 PM
Not bad at all, that standard zoom. And the price? The Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 DX ED (remember thatone, Klaus?) was (quite a bit) more expensive more than a decade ago. And the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM that followed that Nikkor a few years later was in a similar price range as this Sony too.
06-20-2021, 12:27 PM
Quote:While Sony's APS-C lens lineup is still far from being complete, it has now assembled an interesting gang of quality zoom lenses - the Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS, E 16-55mm f/2.8 G, and E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS represent a quite compelling compact and low-weight combo.
Correct. And it stands out the "gap" between 55 and 70mm (of course Klaus didn't list the Sony-Zeiss 16-70mm ƒ/4 because it's controversial.
BTW, for the wide end the recent Tamron 11-20mm F/2.8 Di III-A RXD is getting very good preliminary (p)reviews... They say it's much better than the Sony 10-18 ƒ/4, being a stop faster (but not OSS and larger/heavier).
06-21-2021, 10:21 AM
(06-20-2021, 05:07 AM)Klaus Wrote: [ -> ]Very good ... unless used without auto-correction
https://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha...ony1655f28
In your review you compare to the underwhelming 16-70, do you have a comment vs the 18-105, your last favorite (based on your review some 5 years ago)?
06-21-2021, 01:49 PM
Well, if you look at the review of the 18-105mm f/4 G, the MTFs are substantially worse and it has distortion issues of its own.
The 18-105mm f/4 G was the best option back then but it can't really touch the 16-55mm G.
The 18-105mm has one neat aspect - it doesn't extend.
The 18-105mm f/4 G was the best option back then but it can't really touch the 16-55mm G.
The 18-105mm has one neat aspect - it doesn't extend.
08-28-2021, 09:15 AM
Something has awoken the Evil Proofreader (SM) aspect of me...
There's the "With activated image distortion, there is nothing to worry about ..." bit in between the two distortion charts, which should probably be "with activated distortion correction" or something.
Alright, I'm going back to work instead of pestering people and reading reviews while I should be laboring!..
There's the "With activated image distortion, there is nothing to worry about ..." bit in between the two distortion charts, which should probably be "with activated distortion correction" or something.
Alright, I'm going back to work instead of pestering people and reading reviews while I should be laboring!..
08-28-2021, 10:19 AM
Thanks for the hints, highly appreciated. I corrected the sentence.
Interesting to read that I'm obviously not the only one procrastinating by voluntarily spending time on tasks, that others would often find unbearable
Interesting to read that I'm obviously not the only one procrastinating by voluntarily spending time on tasks, that others would often find unbearable
08-28-2021, 06:52 PM
Actually amazing that resolution etc. is as high as it is after the incredible amount of correction that is necessary to fix that 8% distortion and more than 9 stops of vignetting ....
08-28-2021, 08:17 PM
(08-28-2021, 06:52 PM)wim Wrote: [ -> ]Actually amazing that resolution etc. is as high as it is after the incredible amount of correction that is necessary to fix that 8% distortion and more than 9 stops of vignetting ....
The 9 stops are for a large part just moved out of the way, so would have no impact on the resolution measurement... So whether there was a lot or no vignetting has no bearingon the MTF results.