Image courtesy: Photozone.
Klaus from Photozone has some bad news for us. He tested three NEX lenses and all are delivering sub average results when used on the NEX-7. The 24 Megapixel sensors demands high quality lenses and the cheaper 16mm, 18-55mm and 30mm macro can’t exploit the full sensor potential. The only exception is the [shoplink 8448]50mm f/1.8[/shoplink] lens and very likely the still to be tested and wonderful [shoplink 8450]Zeiss 24mm f/1.8[/shoplink]. Here are the latest three tests from Klaus:
1) The Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS (Click here to read the review) kit lens isn’t good enough for the NEX-7: “it may perform decently on lower resolution NEX cameras (the 3 and 5 series). However, its capabilities are clearly overstrained on Sony’s 24 megapixel sensor. In so far it is very surprising that Sony is also offering it bundled with the NEX 7.”
2) The 16mm f/2.8 pancake (Click here to read the review): “the Sony E 16mm f/2.8 may be a controversial lens on lower resolution NEX cameras. However, it seems rather pointless to use it on the NEX 7 – 24 megapixel are way beyond the capabilities of this tiny lens.”
3) Klaus also tested the A-mount Zeiss 85mm Planar lens on the NEX-7 (Click here to read the review) and while it definitely performs much better there are still some issues: “even the mighty Zeiss isn’t perfect anymore on the 24 megapixel sensor. At max. aperture the center performance is certainly very good but the border quality is a bit lower than expected. This is somewhat surprising considering the fairly big lens to sensor distance due to the required adapter. The decrease in border quality either relates to a difficult sensor characteristic or, possibly, to a sub-optimal sample of the lens.”
All these lenses do deliver a better performance on other NEX cameras with lower resolution sensors like the [shoplink 8452]Sony NEX-5n[/shoplink]. This is a call for Sony to focus on the development and release of good quality lenses! The NEX-7 remains a top seller surpassing the direct competition like the Fuji X PRO 1 and Olympus E-M5 at Amazon US (place 2), Amazon Germany (place 8), Amazon France (place 4) and Amazon UK (place 17). And they would sell ton of lenses if there would be more of them.
—
Sony NEX-7 preorder search links: [shopcountry 8454].
Sony 50mm f/1.8 preorder search links: [shopcountry 8448].
Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 preorder search links: [shopcountry 8450].
104 Responses
Jeezz, Louise. Sad news indeed. 🙁
Guess I better hold on to my 5N a while longer than juz swap it with 7. 🙂
It could help if they also tested 7 with Leica’s (not the wide primes, we all know the terrible cornering) Who knows? Juz a thought.
This is why I decided not to buy a Nex-7!
Typically Sony users see 3rd party lenses as competitive to the Sony lenses. Buy a Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji – they all have lenses that outperform the “pirate” brands.
Sony has a few Zeiss and G lenses that are great – but the cost is even greater.
Sony has a lot of good lenses itself in the Alpha range that do not wear the G or Zeiss badge. But the two kit lenses are… well kit lenses meant for NEX-3/5/C3/5N. Why they offer the 18-55 with the NEX-7 that is unclear even to me.
Sorry for asking…does that mean the results are worse than on the nex3/5 or just not as much better as you would hope having 24 mp??
Ditto. A little unclear from the article.
Lenses don’t suddenly perform “worse” on a higher resolution sensor, their MTF and distortion characteristics are fixed as part of their design.
What changes is the they can’t take advantage of the extra resolution of the sensor. so the size you can print at is limited by the lens rather than the camera. Whether or not that is an issue depends on how big you plan to print at, and how close people are going to look at your print.
FWIW, I’ve made intermediate size prints with lenses that have been panned by Photozone (Minolta 35/1.4) with no issues whatsoever. I rarely find myself in need of extreme cropability with wider lenses, as I’ll just use a longer focal length instead, though NEX is a bit limited in that regard due to the limited number of lenses available.
Thanks for the explanation Carl.
Apart from the wide-angle rangefinder lenses, a lens is not going to be _worse_ on a 7 than on a 5n. It is just that where there is a slight blur from some aberration, the 7 can show it more clearly.
The perfect sensor would have a higher resolution than the best possible lens (better than the diffraction limit). Then it would make sense to use such a sensor for testing lenses.
As it is, you are testing the lens and sensor together.
This is serious if you ask me ! Those lenses perform really bad on the Nex7. Sony needs to fix this.
Well – just compare the results with the 85mm Zeiss Test on the A700: Yes, the difference of borders to the center is bigger on the NEX 7, but even then the borders are as sharp or sharper than they were on the A700. Stopped down to F2.8 the NEX7 stomps the Zeiss results on the A700. So “they are not good enough for the NEX 7” really has a very different meaning to what naive people tend do understand it: They understand it as “The NEX 7 is bad even with Zeiss Lenses” – which is utter bullshit actually.
I find it very strange that all the blame is laid on the lenses and not at the camera. To me it all sounds like the camera is at fault as well.
Cramming 50% more pixels on the same sensor size seems to have made the NEX7 too precise when it comes to catching the lightrays in the right place. Yes an expensive very high quality lens might be able to match the needs of this sensor, but it is still compensating for what is (in my eyes) essentialy a fault in the design of the camera.
It’s rare to see greater nonsense than this.
@ Spoon: Unfortunately it is not so rare to see people criticizing others without any arguments. BTW: I am not saying high quality lenses are not important, they are, but saying there is nothing wrong with the NEX7 too me is not true as well.
Neonsquare
PLEASE READ THIS:
The simple answer is that after using the NEX-7 for some 4,000 frames over the past four months, street shooting as well as landscape work, I don’t feel that I am making any compromises in image quality over any other camera that I own (except the IQ180 on an Alpa – but that’s another story).
I miss my Zeiss A lenses, but not the bulk of my A900. I prefer the huge clear viewfinder of the A900, but not the bulk tradeoff that it means. The EVF on the NEX is actually pretty terrific, especially for low light work where it actually beats a large SLR viewfinder.
Sony’s E series zooms aren’t great, but neither are they terrible. On the other hand the 24mm Zeiss, the 50mm f/1.8 and the 18mm pancake are terrific. Being able to use just about any other lens, including all my Zeiss glass and Leica M lenses on the NEX-7 clinches the deal.
I came down to Mexico in November shooting with the NEX-7 because it was the latest and greatest, and more importantly because I was finishing up my rolling review series. But, even though I have my Leica M9 and Fuji X100 here as well, along with a NEX 5n, it’s the NEX-7 that goes over my shoulder each day.
I have the IQ180 and Alpa here as well, but except for a few days out shooting landscape in the car, it has stayed at home, because much of my shooting here is hand-held. I also hike a lot. The Sony 18-200mm is also the lens I use most, because it is the most versatile. Because of its reach and stabilization it’s become a favorite. I sometimes curse the CA at the long end, and some distortion at the wide end, but LR4 cleans both us nicely. I’ve also learned to stop it down a bit for optimum resolution. Working in a sunny country helps do this more often than not.
I love using great lenses, but I love getting the shot more, regardless of the lens needed.
I’ve read your post – as you told. In what relation do you see it regarding what I said?
Omg, I temporarily lost faith in humanity after reading this. Certainly you are aware that we are talking about performance bottlenecks here, and the camera is not it.
sony better put some more energy in better lenses and not in more camera’s everytime..
Hey, bad news
But it’s strange because on the Sony a77 the “normal” lens have good results and sometimes become better than when mount on a smaller sensor like a55 or others Sony DSLR.
The a77 have a sensor than take the good part of a lens, why not the 7 ??
So what they’re saying is to invest in some adapters and buy high-end lenses from other upstanding lensmakers.
Done and done!
This doesn’t surprise me. The 50mm f/1.8 and the Zeiss 24mm are the only decent NEX lenses Sony makes. Unfortunately, we’ll have to live with that for quite some time. Sony’s lens roadmap doesn’t look very good for serious NEX shooters.
I get around the NEX lens situation by using my old Nikon AI glass on my NEX-5N. They work great.
I think Klaus is losing it. Just look at all those real live superb pictures on the net with the NEX7 and 18-55mm/16mm/24mm/50mm etc………..
Klaus needs some fresh air and has to come out of his dark stuffy office and take some real pictures.
It is well known fact that even a “bad” lens can take a good photo if you work around it’s weaknesses – for example, don’t put any sharp details at the corners.
If you look the measurements, it’s undeniable that they are way worse than recent alpha-mount lenses.
I suspect that for most real life situations these NEX-lenses are indeed good enough. Just don’t go shooting brick walls with them 😉
“Photozone: Most current NEX lenses are not good enough for the NEX-7!”
Does this mean he is still keeping his NEX-7 and did not sell it for 1,000 Euros? LOL.
I am comfortable with this conclusion than the “faulty sensor” in the NEX-7 idea. 🙂
i love graphs without pictures to tell me how image quality is
I’m with Austin. And with Marcellin. Use your EYEBALLS, that’s what they’re for–to make visual judgments about what’s good and what’s not.
I have the good fortune to have a brand new NEX 7 with a Zeiss 24 and a Sony 18-55 and started with comparisons between the two–taking a few pictures of the same subject–USING MY EYEBALLS–comparing them. What a novel idea.
The results were interesting.
As imagined and reported many times over–the Zeiss 24 was spectacular–sharp, clear, up to the point where screen enlargement had the pixels consume the image.
The SONY 18-55 was dramatically varied. At 24mm, same as the Zeiss, the image fuzzed out long before the pixels took over and with significantly less quality than the Zeiss–BUT, still an acceptable image if used/printed at small to medium size.
Surprisingly, at 55mm (and this is contrary to the info of the charts) the detail, and its ability to sustain, was almost as good, crisp, etc., as with the Zeiss 24 before the pixels took over.
SO…, I’m usin’ my EYEBALLS, and, while I long for the day when Zeiss produces a comparable zoom range (and I will stretch to be able to pay for it), the SONY, realistically, and judiciously used, is good. Look at the ratings–about 7.5 on a scale of ten. That’s accurate. It ain’t what it’s not.
We all know of that Sony has a lens problem.
Most of the current A-Mount will be a problem above 24mb also I bet
Unfortunatelly Sony is just too worried flooding the market with new cameras every six months and bullying certain websites instead of developing new lenses.
There are already FIVE Nex cameras released (3, C3, 5, 5N and 7) and only seven lenses (not counting third-party lenses)…
Just because a lens cannot resolve every pixel at 24mp, doesn’t mean that the lens is worthless. It depends on your subject matter and audience. If you want a wide shot, the 24mm lens just won’t cut it. The 16mm will do better than nothing.
Also, I often shoot at 6mp. I like being able to raise the resolution when needed, but if I am taking pictures at a birthday party, who is really going to want a pic bigger than 8×10?
So, I agree, Sony needs better lenses, but some people spend way too much time looking at pixels instead of pictures.
Lens quality is extremely important…more important than the camera quality because when you invest in a system, the expectation is that the lens you buy can possibly last you your life time and beyond. Camera bodies will be replaced every so often. Some people upgrade yearly. However, if the lens quality are not of high enough, then upgrading your camera won’t yield the upgraded picture quality that you are expecting. That means you will eventually need to upgrade your lens in order to properly use a new camera, which just adds to the total cost of the system.
Bout a 24mp camera to shoot it at 6mp??
Yup, youre a Sony user.
How are those 6mp ISo 3200 pics of your bookshelf doing bud?
Bahahahaha
There’s obviously a big problem with that series of tests. All the Sony NEX lenses have been tested on the NEX-7 by Jean-Marie Sepulchre with a professional protocol (DxO Analyzer), and the results are completly different. They have been published as an ebook, but you can see some examples here :
http://www.questionsphoto.com/article/646-sony-nex-7-tirer-la-quintessence-du-capteur
Since 2008 Sony has released 18 (!!!) cameras between dSLR/SLTs (or 23 if you count the Nexes).
A lot more than that if you buy the claim that Sony sensors are the ones making Nikon cameras great! 😉
And that’s bad how?
They could spend more re$ource$ on lenses instead.
Doubtful that one affects the other.
It’s not because lenses are so bad, but because NEX-7 sensor is substandard. The camera is OK, but its sensor isn’t good enough. It makes the camera way too overpriced, it figuratively prevents from doing good photos.
The NEX-7 is n°2 in the DxOMark rating of APS-C format category :
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings
The test is flawed. When a Sony camera gets a top rating the test must be flawed.
Canon, where is my paycheck?
That sensor is the same that is used in the A77, just like the EVF.
Miniaturisation costs.
I agree with this findings. I had to sell my 18-55 and 16 after buying the Nex 7 (had the 5N) I only kept the Zeiss 24mm. This camera is really demanding and also hope that Sony puts out better lenses.
I would completely agree with Photozone conclusion.
The 24mm Zeiss is amazing with the NEX-7 and 50mm is very good.
The rest is junk at any price. (they are decent but not that great even on the 5n)
I have said this before, the current crop of E-mount lenses were developed with the 3 and 5 in mind, with the exception of the 24mm Zeiss. They are simply not good enough, and no it is not the camera.
Jack
Please remember that the lenses are not tested at the same size. A lens maybe good for an A3 but not good enough for an A2. Photozone is testing lenses for the maximum output size. Who prints in A2 here ?
A given lens gives the same quality at a given output size, even if the photo has been taken by a 100 Mpx sensor. I think we are going to laugh when looking at the test of Nikon lenses on the D800. I bet that they all will suddenly become not so good.
All this stuff is pixel peeping without any interest. More than this, there’s an obvious problem with Photozone tests since ALL the professional tests have given a much better result.
I also think this is true. The same issue with noise performance. Because you can zoom in closer, you see more noise. If you compare same sized crops, they perform the same.
Same thing with the resolution figures, look at what the maximum resolution the sensor can dissolve is. It is much higher than a 12M or 16Mp sensor. I think if you look at the pictures they will look ok. Only when cropping very hard you will notice the softness.
Just my initial thoughts.
From Nikon I have seen lenses perform worse when switching from 12MP to 16MP.
I like photozone.de reviews, one of the few tech review sites I visit regularly, the tests are consistent and one can find helpful info beyond resolution (decentering,quality control issues etc), I think it is always important to take into consideration what you’ll be shooting,
my favorite Canon lens (50mm 1.2) gets only a 2 star rating and I have been using it successfully on 80% on my assignments….my current favorite lens for the Nex 7 is the 35-70mm F4 Minolta I got on ebay for $22+$5 shipping….don’t really care how it would rate in a test lab, it does exactly what I want it to do
The best review is the one you write yourself!
I rented a Canon 5D Mk3, last week, before all of the negative reviews hit the ‘net. Because I hadn’t read the reviews, from the ‘Net Gurus” I didn’t know that my “tack sharp images” were actually soft 😉
To quote Bob Dylan, “Don’t’ follow leaders, and watch the parking meters”
+1
All pixel peepers should fucking die. “Ze pixels in grid B2-A4-Z1 all seem to be a fraction of a petapixel blurrier than on the NEX5N, viewed at 1100% magnification upscaled using per-pixel-richness software INC!”
Not all lenses need to be ultra sharp and cost half a months paycheck “OH NOES! The pixels are blurred! Now I need to delete all my shitty cat pictures because, well.. they aren’t good enough anymore!”.
The kit lenses are not high-end lenses, they were never meant to be (look at the price tag). NEX is a new format, more Zeiss lenses and G-lenses are in development. In the meantime, be happy with what you got or go for legacy lenses if no-flaw optics is what you are after (be honest, how often is it needed?).
I have a NEX-7, I use all kinds of lenses (NEX, M42, Alpha). Most of them a “cheap” lenses that one of the pixelpeepers would never get close to, because in their “expert” world – where they take overexposed pictures with the wrong white-balance (and of course, blame the equipment) of boring subjects; they are TURDS.
I have not been as satisfies with a cameras IQ as when I first started using the A900. The dynamic range is fantastic, the tones are magnificent and it is a joy to operate.
What size do you normally print at?
I don’t like his language, but have to agree with Oliver. If you stop down to f5.6 or better, those lenses aren’t much behind the much more expensive ones.
The reason I got the 7 is so I wouldn’t have to lug around my DSLR. Sony’s lenses fit right in with this small light concept and they’re quite reasonably prices. People can get carried away with lens specs and forget that content is the most important picture element and not how clear your picture is from edge to edge.
Some people would rather read test reports than take pictures.
Sounds like Klaus is the new Ken Rockwell, being controversial to make a name for themselves. I guess it’s good for drawing traffic to his site, just like Ken…
Controversial, really?
Many posters on these forums have said similar things for a while now.
With the exception of 24mm Zeiss and 50mm, the E-mount lenses are not very good on the NEX-7
They decent on the 5n but not great.
(I own all of them with the exception of 30mm Macro and 18-200)
Photozone do usually very good tests and have not shown any bias against Sony.
Sony 70-400 is marked as previous model on Slovakian site http://www.sony.sk/product/ddl-telephoto-lenses/sal-70400g
Good to know,
The rumor is that its to be replaced and updated.
Maybe this is the start, and as inventory fall around the world a replacement will start to ship.
For real … who uses Sony lenses on a Nex exept for soccer moms? at least 90% of the NEX Bodys in the hands of real photographers will never see anything else then vintage glass.
I think it’s a great idea to make Sony realize that if so inclined, you could easily devote coverage to negative aspects Sony products…
I for one, upon reading this post will not be buying the Nex-7/16mm combo as I had planned.
If you wanted to shoot at F2.8 and print A2, that’s a good decision. If A3 is enough for you to print F4 photos, that’s not a good decision.
Please buy this ebook : it’s in French, but the the graphics are universal. It’s only 15€ for the test of 52 lenses on the NEX-7. A real professional test with DxO Analyzer.
http://izibook.eyrolles.com/produit/2047/9782212029413/Le%20Sony%20NEX-7?search_text=access+2010
(I’m not the writer of this ebook)
Can’t order the book in the United States. In fact, the checkout doesn’t seem to list any English speaking countries. You have to pick the country from the drop down – no US, no UK.
Hehehe… Of course you can pick them! But they’re there in French! Hehehe
Well, at least you’re making a NEX-7 available for someone else. That person will probably be thanking you as he/she takes pictures and enjoy using his/her new camera. The lenses may not test to be great, but they’re useable.
Sony is well-aware of their lenses problems and it’s been like that for quite some time, they said they would change but so far nothing happened, is there another way to look at it besides a disrespect with their consumers?
I don’t think it’s disrespect. They had admitted that when they started their NEX lineup, it was never meant for true photographers but more for point and shoot users. The lens issues werent that big a deal The fact that many people started buying the nex as a substitute for their dslrs was a big surprise to Sony. Because of that, they decided to change their strategy and put more resources into Nex systems to create higher quality glass and cameras. This was just last year. It takes 6 months just to communicate the change in strategy within the company. Expect another year before true quality products start showing due to this change. In the mean time, they may be tweaking near future products to conform with this strategy.
Not just Sony, it was also a Big Surprise to Canikon. The success of the NEX 5n and NEX 7, plus the maturing of m43, has caught them snoozing.
The question is will Sony give us more Zeiss lenses in E-mount, before Canon arrives on the scene with a Pro Quality mirrorless system ???
It takes a while to design and manufacture lenses. The flood didn’t help. They are probably capacity constrained at the moment. You can’t build capacity overnight, but the signes are trending positive.
I agree its a shame the lenses cant utilise the full potential of the sensor but that’s to be expected when you start putting 24mpix in a camera. The best lenses in world can, and will be out resolved by technology eventually, is that REALLY a problem?
This article is sort of useful in the way it highlights the lack of good glass on the system, but it can also be very damaging as it makes things look far worse than they actually are, and considering the fact sony arnt happy about this site, this isnt what we need
I don’t understand the ratings here. A great number of other wide angle lenses from other manufactures have lower resolution scores than the 16mm and get 3 or 4 stars. They also used an expanded resolution chart with higher numbers than most all other lenses to make this lens look worse. I have seen many very sharp examples with the 16mm.
Really? What wide angle prime lens from any manufacturer has a worse MTF distribution? I even looked at wide angle zooms, which normally have lower resolutions than primes, and even some of those have twice the resolving power as the 16mm at the corners. I looked at Canon, Nikon, Sony, and couldn’t find one that performs worse. Are you finding numbers from a different site?
How about the Tamron 18-200mm? Is it decent? I was thinking of picking one of these up. I already have the 18-270mm on my Canon 7D and its great.
Stupid question(?): shouldn’t corner performance be less of an issue when using a full frame lens (the 85mm) on a crop sensor body? Aren’t we effectively cropping out the corners of what would have been the full frame image area?
Come on guys, just see it from a positive point of view: With the NEX-7 Sony has entered the top of the mirrorless league and wasn’t prepared for that from the lens point of view, which were designed for consumer cameras. It’s good to see that at least the SEL-50F18 and the SEL24F18Z are capable to follow. Sony should sell the 50mm as a kit lens option anyway. But there’s more to come and after I saw first impressions from the two Sigma lenses here yesterday I’m really looking forward especially to Klaus’s and Kurt’s reviews of these, since I’ve always found them very useful and the examples looked very promising.
While the analogue era I usually walked around with only two lenses: 85mm and 20mm and others only for special occasions, while these days I’m having so many lenses to adapt to my NEX, that I’m not in a hurry to buy more. So, take your time Sony to make the SEL-50F18’s quality the future standard.
Today I thought I had a boring afternoon testing an Leica Summicron 1:2/35 with Tilt-Adapter at the Railway Station until I checked the pictures at home on a big screen. Whow, will be fun for a while until finally the SEL-50F18 gets available and reviews of these two Sigma lenses. No need to whine, guys, since there should come some announcements from the roadmap soon…
I guess since my only native E mount lenses are the kit lenses and the 55-210mm then. For my non critical needs, the lenses I have work fine. I’ll be buying better lenses in the future, but there’s really no reason to hold off on buying a NEX-7 (at least for me). It’s terrific.
And just think, with the money you saved on the Sony lenses, you’ll be able to buy some better lenses in the future.
It takes a lot of resources to start a new camera-lens system and at least Sony is trying something new.
While the NEX can be awesome in many regards, it always reminds us of lost opportunities for greatness. Mediocre lenses on ridiculously sized bodies – none of them with thought about the end user.
I’m very impressed that the 16mm doesn’t lose any IQ when the wide adapter is attached. I wouldn’t have believed it if not for this test.
I’m a bit sick of lens testers telling what should and should not be used for “serious photography” though…
From the 16mm test…
“…this is certainly not acceptable for any kind of “serious” photography.”
Pah-Leazzzze! Testers job is not to tell me or my clients what qualifies as “serious”. Just tell me what the lens does and I’ll work with its strengths and weaknesses on my terms for whatever type of photography I do, “serious” or not. Did you see those uber high center resolutions? That will make for excellent magazine cover portraits with blurry edges framing a super sharp face… SERIOUS!
Testers should stop telling togs what kind of equipment to use. I may have clients that want the Holga Light Leaks or the Polaroid SX70 Roller Marks… and they may pay me dearly for those imperfections just to get the look. Every tool has strengths and weaknesses. Testers should tell us about them and let us take it from there. I may actually purchase a lens based upon its weaknesses rather than its strengths.
Yes, it is impressive that the VCL-ECU1 Super Wide Angel Converter isn’t lowering the SEL-16F28’s quality. And I really love the two converters on my NEX-5. But knowing their limitations at 14.2 Megapixels already, I’ve no doubt that’s ridiculous using this lens and the adapters with 24 Megapixels. Blowing up the edges like that should come close to CCTV lenses on a NEX, which is fun and can be used “seriously” under very special creative conditions, but Sony can’t seriously offer this their NEX-7 users as their Wide Angle, Super Wide Angle and Fish Eye solution. Don’t try to blame the tester for telling the simple truth after having answered your questions about strength and weakness already (you might haven’t read the test, did you?).
“Don’t try to blame the tester for telling the simple truth…”
That wasn’t “truth”. That was an opinion. Why is tester telling me what lenses should or shouldn’t be used for “serious” work? Tester knows nothing about my work, or how seriously I take it.
Okay, so define your very special own way of serious photography rolling on the floor crying against a very serious test pointing out the few strength (image center + converter not dropping the image quality) plus the weakness that the 24 Megapixels sensor is multiplying the corner and border problems of the SEL-16F28 already known from nearly every tester since the first tests at 14.2 Megapixels, so it’s the truth to me. If you want to misuse one single sentence for your big show on stage as a victim offended by a free review, because the tester is not accepting your individual creativity of corner and border softness, well, do what ever you want – to me it looks like stupid fanboy behaviour, that does not convince me against these advanced and very informative photozone reviews I’m reading for a long time already. But good luck as a hysterical sensitive photography artist, anyway!
NEXfive I think you are incredibly short sighted to not see Clyde’s extremely valid point that what makes “serious photography” is completely subjective to the viewer and photographer alike. As mentioned, corner sharpness is not the be-all, end-all of IQ- merely a characteristic of the lens. For portraiture, or those who consistently use vignetting in post production, the corners don’t fucking matter.
Well, Clyde & solo, if you don’t want to talk about the review at all, but prefer to pick out one sentence for your drama queen show of being insulted by a free review, you can do that, and I’m pretty happy not to hear your voices, but I totally agree with Klaus, that buying a lens from a serious company to use with an advanced camera, a quality level is necessary this lens can’t provide to 24 Megapixels, especially since I own one myself including the two converters and like it very much with my NEX-5 beyond its limitations. Nevertheless for that special portrait style you’re both obviously into I’d go for a $25 CCTV lens, but possibly you’ll proof me wrong with your forthcoming Soft Corner Exhibition at MoMA, good luck…
I’m sure most current lenses get most jobs done.
I waited for the NEX-7 until I could have it with the kit lens, then proceeded to buy both the LA-EA1 and the LA-EA-2 so I can use it with all my A-mount lenses.
The kit lens is good enough for casual photography, and that’s good enough for me.
Just out of curiosity: what can the EA1 do that the EA2 cannot?
The EA1 wlll only work with Sony SSM and SAM lenses. It doesn’t have the SLT mirror and PDAF of the new EA2 (EA2 works with screw drive lenses and all Sony/Minolta lenses and man third party lenses).
Thank you. My question was the other way around tho. Klipsen bought both adapters, but if the EA2 can do all, why buy the EA1 as well?
You would have to go for the EA1 if you don’t want the light loss caused by the mirror as tested here:
http://thesybersite.com/sony/a55/index.htm#slt_mirror_image_quality
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/a77-reviews-in-stock-status-and-another-slt-mirror-light-test-in-stock-in-uk-spain-canada-and-cina/
Additionally if one changes many different lenses quite often, it might be good to have two adapters.
sony = gap after gap …. no lenses for NEX lineup, no FF camera …
Andrea, do yourself a favour and ignore Photozone in future, it is really just some silly spotty teenager testing lenses, lots of babble and no value. Quote Photozone and people will think you are on par, do you see the risk? I am not kidding sir.
+11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
The good news is: The lenses do not outperform the sensor.
Think of it positively. If you could get just as sharp pictures with the 18-55 mm, what purpose would the 50 mm serve, let alone the Zeiss 24 mm?
I’d agree with the notion that most of the NEX lenses simply aren’t good enough for the NEX 7 – if you want to get the utmost out of the camera. It should be noted that all the NEX lenses are perfectly usable (imo) for most photography and people shouldn’t be put off by looking at the very high standards some testers aim for. In my experience, none of the NEX lenses are so bad that you can’t use them – far from it!
I’d agree that the 50/1.8 and 24/1.8 are the only lenses Sony make for the NEX that are going to get the best out of the camera and think that perhaps Sony should have brought out more lenses when they launched the NEX 7, perhaps a better 16mm and a 90mm as well (and all in black!!!).
I think that there’s room for both “budget” lenses (existing 18-55mm, 16mm, etc) finished in silver for the NEX3 and 5 and top spec lenses such as the 24/1.8 and 50/1.8 but those in black to show the difference immediately. There are different budgets and different needs but I do think that Sony need to answer the need for top quality NEX lenses pretty quickly.
There are alternatives such as the Sigma 30mm 2.8 which has been well received and I can see Sigma perhaps beating Sony to the market with a small range of desirable primes (finished in black Sony!) and perhaps a quality zoom or two …
As to using the EA2 adapter, I have one and it works very well and it serves a very useful purpose when I need a longer lens on the NEX. I have used the 135/1.8 Zeiss with it for theater photography and have been pleased with the results but it would be a bit too chunky for continual use, particularly with wide-angle work – sort of defeats the object of having a small camera system and making it big and clunky, doesn’t it?
So, I’m looking forward to s series of top drawer NEX optics finished in black (and soon), over to you Sony …
To calm down the discussion – look at this: http://www.systemkamera-forum.de/sony-nex-objektive/32230-sony-16mm-f2-8-konverter-vs-voigtlaender-12mm-f5-6-a.html. I am still waiting for the SEL16mm and VCL-ECU1 to try them on my NEX-7, but I am pretty sure that I will find the use for them.
I just took a look at my 16mm NEX-7 tests and find they much better than the Photozone results. I think Photozone has a bad sample of the lens and why aren’t there some real world photo samples like all their other reviews.
Yeah, missed the samples too, but using the SEL-16F28 plus the two Converters on my NEX-5 myself for a while and knowing the limitations, I’d never expect these to work fine with 24 Megapixels.
Thanx for that Link, Jiri. I’ve been curious for that comparison for a long time and I’m glad I’ve decided for the cheaper (and much smaller) Super Wide Angle solution, since the Voigtländer isn’t doing that much better on a NEX-5/5N. Klaus already did the test with that Voigtländer on a NEX-5 and it might be interesting to see it tested again on a NEX-7: http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/544-voigtlander12f56nex
I agree about the kit lens not being up to the task of the 7’s sensor, I use it almost exclusively for video because of the OSS. I have the 50/1.8 and the 24/1.8, that pair produces much sharper images than the 18-55. But any decent prime will outperform the typical kit zoom. In addition to the 24 & 50, I also use a bunch of Rokkor primes – 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 58/1.2 (the bokeh beast!) and 85/1.7 and they all outperform the 18-55 and in many cases the 24 & 50’s from Sony. The Rokkors really help to show the full potential of the Nex7’s incredible sensor as most of them have better contrast than any E-mount lens along with the amazing Minolta bokeh and colors.
“Most” is incorrect. They’ve tested 4 of 9 E-mount lenses currently on the market. 3 under performed while the 50m performed well out in the field. The 2 18-200’s, the 24 1.8, and 55-210 from Sony haven’t been tested yet. Nor has the 30mm from Sigma (which I hear performs just fine on the NEX7.) The 16, 30 Macro, & 18-55 never held any interest for me anyway.
Zeiss 85/1.4 is not really sharp lens at f1.4. Klaus could have bothered to look at Sony/Zeiss catalog data before blasting a series of inadequate comments.
Zeiss 85/1.4 is portrait lens that is characterized with a bit of softness at max aperture and retains this up to f4. This largely done to optimize bokeh performance and rendering of portrait photography.
I am surprised and disappointed with the unprofessional approach of photozone.de
you are surprised? photozone is a joke.
And this is news? People have has been saying the NEX lenses are not good enough for a long time now. Especially when you think of how big they are. NEX is meant to be a small system, yeah?
In August 2011 I was ready to by a NEX… until I heard about the lack of quality lenses, especially the lack of small, quality lenses. m43 has a better overall design (sensor ratio and size, flange length), and in the next couple of years sensor tech will get them to a stage where they can print retina standards at reasonable sizes. But their lenses are high quality now. So you can buy the great lenses now, use the good cameras now, and in a year or two upgrade to a great camera… and by then m43 will have dozens of quality native lenses.
Although by then, I may have upgraded to the A99…. who knows.
+1……………………….
Hey, there’s a big fanboy drama going on here and you’re adding fuel to the fire!
Of course the first lenses SEL-16F28 & SEL-1855 were a little too weak already for the 14.2 Megapixels sensor of the first NEX generation, not because they’re really bad, but the large sensor is quite demanding if one wants to get the most out of it. Then the second generation with 16 Megapixels got Lens Compensation, but the NEX-7 with 24 Megapixels is far beyond the limitations of those two lenses. That’s the news, not more and not less. Not a big deal for those able to understand these excellent reviews at photozone.de and used them to improve their lens usage, but you see here how the ordinary fanboys hate Klaus for publishing his reviews.
Additionally you’re wrong about m4/3, because most of the APS-C users would rather prefer to switch to full frame instead of a smaller sensor and you’re also not getting the low light quality with smaller sensors, but since m4/3 is a multi company standard the lens situation is much better there. I guess Sony simply did not expect this fast E-Mount success into the advanced photographers league and their engineers’ NEX-7 home run. Serious photographers don’t mind this, since they’re loving E-Mount as a platform to use many other even eccentric lenses. But company addicted fanboys do have a lot of problems with this situation. Personally I’d preferred the NEX-7 with less Megapixels anyway, but on the other hand I’m not in a hurry to buy one and have got more than enough lenses here to have a lot of fun with my NEX-5…
Thats the real thing stoping me from buying a nex camera…im thinking about the Nx200 more and more
i jumped the gun to get the x pro 1 instead 🙂
fuji seems to know what they’re doing with still shots when they released the 3 prime lenses (probably all you’ll ever need for that camera)
not criticizing the nex-7/sony, it is probably a much well rounded camera for general usage. all it needs is a good fast pancake or fast 35mm prime and they’ll dominate the still shot market as well!
For everybody dismissing photozone (incl. those purposefully lying for effect: “spotty teenager”), can you point me to any factual mistake they make?
It is very clear that the NEX-7 sensor has an off-axis problem. All lenses tested on different resolution sensors (eg, on the Nikon D200 and D7000) produce a higher resolution for all apertures and position in the image. The NEX-7 is the exception in that it does so only in center and does the worst wide-open in the corners.