Disappointed with FE 28mm on APS-C

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by Noor, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. Noor

    Noor TalkEmount Regular

    116
    Jan 25, 2016
    Noor Arnaout
  2. WT21

    WT21 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    611
    Aug 7, 2011
    I don't know about the comparison to the zooms, but the FE lenses always look better on Full Frame. It's a myth that crop "cuts away the bad parts." Extreme corners are indeed cut, as is the edge vignetting, but resolution in the middle is better on full frame, as the lenses are designed for full frame. The 28, though, should still be strong on the a6000 relative to other APS-C lenses
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. TedG954

    TedG954 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Nov 29, 2014
    South Florida and NE Ohio
    Ted Gersdorf
    I have the 28/2 mounted on my A7II and I couldn't be happier with it. I'm very pleased with its performance and I haven't experienced the distortion often associated with the lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Noor

    Noor TalkEmount Regular

    116
    Jan 25, 2016
    Noor Arnaout
    yes the A7II would be more forgiving as the "sensor density" on the a6000 is much higher.
     
  5. Nexnut

    Nexnut TalkEmount Top Veteran

    DXO mentions about 13MP resolution on the NEX-7, usually these numbers are pretty close to what you'd get from the same lens on the A6000. Looking at your images though the resolution is nowhere near those 13MP. I'd guess even at f8 it's closer to half the linear resolution of 24MP, somewhere about 6MP. That's a pretty bad result for your copy; I'm getting much better resolution from some of my 30 or 40 year old legacy glass on the NEX-7.
    BTW, have you taken some shots at closer distances? How do they look?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  6. Noor

    Noor TalkEmount Regular

    116
    Jan 25, 2016
    Noor Arnaout
    I'll take shots at closer distances and post them , I just don't get it why the images are muddy ! , is does not look like de-centering to me !
     
  7. Noor

    Noor TalkEmount Regular

    116
    Jan 25, 2016
    Noor Arnaout
  8. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Veteran

    347
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    What exactly is the problem, looking on my work monitor I can't see any real differences (although the work monitor isn't the greatest).

    Paul
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. WT21

    WT21 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    611
    Aug 7, 2011
    It's not strongest at f/2, but stops nicely next stop up.

    On crop, I've used this lens mostly for people (closer focus) and have been quite happy. I don't think I've used it for landscape/infinity focus. Will have to test it, and see how it looks.
     
  10. Noor

    Noor TalkEmount Regular

    116
    Jan 25, 2016
    Noor Arnaout
    View the edges at 100% , the 16-50 "kit lens" is yielding sharper images at f/8 !
     
  11. WT21

    WT21 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    611
    Aug 7, 2011
  12. WT21

    WT21 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    611
    Aug 7, 2011
    I looked more closely at your pics. The 28/2 is just barely better than the 1650 at F/4 (or 4.5 in the 1650's case), and it is not doing any better at f8, and like you said, the very edges are a bit weaker (not a lot weaker, but a bit).

    I'm assuming your point is, for a prime that costs what it does, you expected better??

    I would suggest further tests. Have you seen this replicated in many shots, or is this the only test? if this is the only one to date, then more should be done. the 1650 is stabilized, whereas the 28 is not. Shutter speeds were quite high, and the subjects stationary, but was there e.g. a strong wind blowing? Just a thought.

    Also, check out closer focusing. Is your use case distant objects only and always stopped down? If so, if this test replicates further, then I'd say there's no reason for you to use the 28 over the 1650.

    TBH, I'm also pretty darn impressed with that 1650 performance!
     
  13. Noor

    Noor TalkEmount Regular

    116
    Jan 25, 2016
    Noor Arnaout
    Yes I was expecting better from a prime !

    I have read that at infinity focus , field curvature comes into play .. I will try focusing it manually over the weekend and see what I can get .. Interesting read : Field Curvature - a Layman's Guide (or How to Focus a 'Tricky' Lens)

    And yes ! the 16-50 is very underrated ,people enjoy bashing it for sport ! It is bad in the wide end but beyond 20mm it's rather impressive for a cheap kit !
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  14. WT21

    WT21 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    611
    Aug 7, 2011
    I just returned my 16-70 because I was really underwhelmed with it's output for the money. Maybe I should try the 16-50, lol.
     
  15. Noor

    Noor TalkEmount Regular

    116
    Jan 25, 2016
    Noor Arnaout
    Yes , if you live in the US you can rent the lens and try it ! , (we envy you for such facility!)
     
  16. fractal

    fractal TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 17, 2014
    Southeastern PA
    Chris
    You're not having much luck with these lenses.
     
  17. Nexnut

    Nexnut TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Sadly he's not the only one.
     
  18. Noor

    Noor TalkEmount Regular

    116
    Jan 25, 2016
    Noor Arnaout
    yes ! :( The only lenses I've had luck with are the Samyang 12mm F2 (razor sharp at f/2 !) and I guess my copy of the kit lens is not bad lol
     
  19. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    I'm not sure how this "rumor" started, but lenses designed for FF are not better on APS-C. You can simply check DXO or any other site that does objective measurement of lenses used on both APSC and FF to prove this out.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Nexnut

    Nexnut TalkEmount Top Veteran

    You might want to try the Sigma trio*. They're 'only' f2.8 but you get some mighty fine glass for your money and I've yet to find something sharper at those focal lengths for my NEX-7. I've owned pretty much all the native Sony glass for my NEX at some point but had some really bad luck with Sony's zoom lenses (mostly seriously decentered copies), some primes as well and again, we're not alone in that regard. My copies of the 50/1.8, 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 were fine but I replaced them with lenses that I somehow liked better, e.g. the 24/2.8 Zuiko (my second copy, the first one wasn't up to snuff).

    *In case of the 19 and 30mm Sigmas the original versions seem to perform slightly better optically than Sigmas newer offerings.