Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next OL lens test report - Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G
#1
Very good ... unless used without auto-correction

https://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha...ony1655f28
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
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. Big Grin
#3
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.
#4
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).
stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#5
(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)?
#6
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.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#7
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. Smile

Alright, I'm going back to work instead of pestering people and reading reviews while I should be laboring!.. Big Grin
#8
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 Wink
Editor
opticallimits.com

#9
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 ....
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#10
(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.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)