[Klaus]

No comment

http://www.opticallimits.com/sony_nex/84...50f3556oss

 

[thxbb12]

Thanks for the review, Klaus.

 

Ugh, that one must rank among the top-3 worse lenses ever tested at PZ!

Making lenses very small is certainly a matter of compromise, but I think this time around they went too far.

I think Samsung took the right approach by being reasonable in the range while still providing a compact lens.

 

Do you have any ETA regarding the review of the Oly 12-50? It will be interesting to see how well (or bad) it performs given the underwhelming impression from most forum users. 

 

Thanks!

[Rover]

Having read the second page, I was expecting 0.5 star rating, or something.

Thanks for the review, Klaus.

 

Ugh, that one must rank among the top-3 worse lenses ever tested at PZ!

Making lenses very small is certainly a matter of compromise, but I think this time around they went too far.

I think Samsung took the right approach by being reasonable in the range while still providing a compact lens.

 

Do you have any ETA regarding the review of the Oly 12-50? It will be interesting to see how well (or bad) it performs given the underwhelming impression from most forum users. 

 

Thanks!

 

Uh, I thought the 12-50 review has been up for at least a month?

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/827-olympus1250f3563ez

[thxbb12]

Having read the second page, I was expecting 0.5 star rating, or something.

 
 

Uh, I thought the 12-50 review has been up for at least a month?

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/827-olympus1250f3563ez

 

You're right, somehow I had totally missed it!

 

Thanks :-)

[arvydas]

   While the graphs look really bad, IMO it would be fair to mention, that the output of this combination (NEX-7 + 16 - 50mm PZ) at it's worst (16mm) and f8, is still capable for excellent quality A4 size prints, and very good A3 (even auto-corrected). 

  

A.

[Klaus]

Well, essentially the corners have a local resolution equivalent to 3.4 megapixels (auto-corrected one).

You may argue that this is good enough for A4 prints. 

However, is this really what you want from a system lens ?

 

In the verdict I mentioned that you should think of this as a 20-50mm lens. If you do so, it is actually a decent lens.

[arvydas]

   Well, my comment is just a remark that things have changed with these high-Mp sensors. If to take a large print as the final measure of system output quality, even with such a crappy lens (technically I do not argue about that) you get the results that are comparable or even better then they used to be on 8 - 10 Mp sensors with high quality lenses. I have a feeling that some users just look at the verdict and start to think that such lenses are next to useless, but it is not. 

   Just for interest, do you have any statistics, what percent of users press link to the Imatest explanations?

 

A.

 

 P.S> This remark is just about sharpness.

[popo]

However, is this really what you want from a system lens ?

In (most) other systems you have lenses to fit various needs. Cheap+small is one such need, where performance is secondary. In that sense, I think this lens is ok and still offer a step up from compact cameras. Without doing a detailed comparison, the closest lens I can think of: the Panasonic PZ, doesn't look all that different.

[marco]

Maybe Sony should produce a camera with a fixed zoom lens. Many people will probably never use a other lens. But this is maybe the RX 100.

 

I don't care so much about the corners but the borders are important.

 

Do you have seen any differences on the NEX 6? This lens is mostly bundled with the 16MP sensor cameras so it would be interesting how it fares there.

[Klaus]

A lower resolution sensor is always more forgiving.