Sony kit lens as mediocre as Canon's?

Discussion in 'Sony' started by RichA, Aug 4, 2006.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    It doesn't look like it, but one test of it I saw shows it to be pretty
    mediocre.
    For a camera with 10 megapixels, the user would be well-advised to get
    something
    better. Maybe the Zeiss alternative is out for it?
     
    RichA, Aug 4, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements


  2. It's much improved mechanicallty (smoothness, firmness) over the KM
    version, but still essentially a cheap Chinese kit optic. At 18mm, it's
    about as good as any kit lens gets. At 70mm it's fairly soft. I now have
    two of them, one KM one Sony. Earlier in the week I was at a business
    meeting and was suddenly asked to shoot two or three still lifes, four
    book and video covers, and a PR shot live in an office. I had no flash,
    and was not intending to do any photography, just a KM 7D with the
    18-70mm slung in the car with with. The 18-70mm did fine, perfectly. The
    book cover shots needed a tiny barrel distortion correction in ACR. The
    PR shot was amazingly crisp and what should have been rubbish lighting
    actually made a very attractive final shot. I would be hard put to have
    found any other lens in my kit which could have done better.

    But I don't have a 16-80mm Zeiss yet :)

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Aug 4, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    bmoag Guest

    "cover shots needed a tiny barrel distortion correction"

    We live in a different photographic world now. A predictable level of
    barrel distortion is not a deal killer for a lens because of sophisticated
    image processing programs. Most dSLR lenses in the 11-20mm range, regardless
    of their overall zoom range, have significant linear distortion that would
    be hard to accept for in a film and wet print world but can be reasonably
    corrected with some simple image processing in the brave new digital world.
    Does that mean lens quality is declining or overall photographic options are
    increasing?
     
    bmoag, Aug 5, 2006
    #3
  4. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    But doing this causes a loss of image quality and sharpness so it still is a
    problem.
     
    Stacey, Aug 5, 2006
    #4
  5. Why don't you actually buy a camera and then tell us all about it?
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 5, 2006
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Do you have a camera? Lets see some shots.
     
    RichA, Aug 6, 2006
    #6
  7. RichA

    Andrew Haley Guest

    Well, that depends. You have to do raw conversion anyway, so you can
    do the distortion correction at the same time, at high resolution.
    Will this lose quality over not doing any geometric correction at all?
    A little, but will it be visible?

    In the end it's all about cost and weight. Is it cheaper to make a
    sharp zoom lens with some barrel distortion than one without? And is
    the resulting digitally corrected lens quality better value for money
    (and weight) than one without any digital correction?

    I suspect that if you have, say, $500 to spend on a lens, you're going
    to get better quality by a combination of lens design and digital
    correction than the best lens design can possibly do in its own.

    Andrew.
     
    Andrew Haley, Aug 8, 2006
    #7
  8. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Will the distortion be visible?
    I can't see where digital correction is going to improve noticeably on the
    less than 0.01 percent distortion of the $259 50mm Sigma macro.

    Further, most zooms have a sweet spot with very low distortion, the trick is
    finding it and using it if low distortion is needed for a particular shot.
     
    J. Clarke, Aug 8, 2006
    #8
  9. RichA

    Andrew Haley Guest

    I think there has been a loss of context here. We're talking about
    midrange zoom lenses, as the subject line suggests.
    As long as that's the focal length you need.

    Andrew.
     
    Andrew Haley, Aug 8, 2006
    #9
  10. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    ..005 % distortion will be visible? You're sure about that?

    Your problem is that you're assuming that every lens has a huge amount of
    distortion at every focal length but is so incredibly sharp that any
    imaginable loss of sharpness will be acceptable. It ain't so on either
    count.
     
    J. Clarke, Aug 9, 2006
    #10
  11. RichA

    Andrew Haley Guest

    We aren't talking about fixed focal length macro lenses.
    No I'm not. I'm assuming that one selects the focal length based on
    the framing one wants, not on the sweet spot of a lens. This doesn't
    seem to me like a particularly controversial point of view.
    No, not any imaginable amount: the small amount that comes from a
    well-done correction of distortion. I'm stating that a lens plus a
    little correction software gives better bang for the buck than a lens
    without correction.

    Andrew.
     
    Andrew Haley, Aug 11, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.