Inchiquin Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 A couple of months ago I vaguely remember someone (Bryan?) saying that he wished there was a zoom lens for the NEX as good as the Canon 24-105, but I've looked back and can't find it now. At the time I think I promised to do some comparisons between the two and also the Canon FD 50mm macro that I hooked up to the NEX6. I've finally got round to doing something about it today. The results from the Canon macro were truly appalling so I need to look and see if I did something wrong before bothering to post anything. But the test between the Canon 24-105 and the Sony 16-50 was quite revealing, as shown in the 100% crops below. Both images are straight out of the camera (RAW) with capture sharpening turned off. The Sony was at 50mm, the Canon at 80mm so they are direct equivalents. The Canon shot is above, the Sony below - and clearly superior. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Interesting comparison. The Sony shot is definitely the clear winner. I know little about such things, but it could be that the NEX-6 adds some sharpening, even in RAW mode. You never know what is going on behind the scenes. Whatever the case, the 16-50 looks like a good little performer. I opted for the NEX-6 body only because I already had the Sony 18-55, and I prefer manual zooms. Now I kinda wish that I had shelled out a bit more and got the more compact 16-50 as well. Dumb of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Yes that was my wish Alan, and I am surprised by your findings here! I also have the 24-105 on a 5DII so can and will do the same comparison. I have reported in the past that I had a very dodgy Canon 24-70 f2.8 from new, which made a number of trips to the repair shop, so Canon is certainly not immune where poor quality control is concerned. That lens was as sharp as a sharp thing in the centre, but the edges could be appalling. I use mainly manual focus primes with the NEX and have published a comparison showing why http://bryansphotographs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/50-mm-lenses-on-sony-nex-6.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kilpatrick Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The 16-50mm was only an extra £50 over the body cost of a NEX-6 back at The Photography Show so I bought it. Excellent little lens. Sold my 16mm f/2.8 and passed the converters over to our daughter, as she has a 16mm, as with the 16-50mm and the 10-18mm nothing else was needed. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 Following Alan's comparison with the Canon 24-105, I have updated my blog on 50mm lenses to include that lens (on the 5DII) and have also thrown in a bargain basement Pentax 50mm f1,7 (on the NEX). My findings do not corresponb with yours Alan, maybe I have a duff 16-50? Tried both manual and autofocus with the Sony, but relied on Canon's centre spot focus (I find it difficult to manually focus a DSLR, even using live view). The address, as above http://bryansphotogr...sony-nex-6.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 My findings do not corresponb with yours Alan, maybe I have a duff 16-50? Tried both manual and autofocus with the Sony, but relied on Canon's centre spot focus (I find it difficult to manually focus a DSLR, even using live view). Or maybe I've got a duff 24-105? I must say results from the Zuiko look terrific. I've just ordered my X-T1 so I'll do the same test with the Fuji included when it arrives. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 The 16-50mm was only an extra £50 over the body cost of a NEX-6 back at The Photography Show so I bought it. Excellent little lens. Sold my 16mm f/2.8 and passed the converters over to our daughter, as she has a 16mm, as with the 16-50mm and the 10-18mm nothing else was needed. David Interesting. I didn't go for the 16-50 with my NEX-6 because of some negative and lukewarm reviews that I read -- loads of distortion at 16mm, softer than the original Sony 18-55 (which I'm still using), etc. Also didn't like the power zoom much. I guess this goes to show that a lens is often only as capable as the person behind the viewfinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 Interesting. I didn't go for the 16-50 with my NEX-6 because of some negative and lukewarm reviews that I read -- loads of distortion at 16mm, softer than the original Sony 18-55 (which I'm still using), etc. Also didn't like the power zoom much. I guess this goes to show that a lens is often only as capable as the person behind the viewfinder. I got the 16-50 partly because I worried that I might miss the extra couple of mm after 5 years of having 24mm available on FF (ironically I've hardly ever used the extreme wide end on the NEX), but mainly because the whole point of buying the camera for me was to have something pocketable, and the 16-50 is less than half the length of the 18-55 and slips easily into a large pocket. The power zoom is not ideal but in practice it's easy enough to use and since for stock I'm not usually relying on the zoom to compose images precisely, it doesn't cause me any irritation at all. Perhaps I will do a comparison between the 16-50 and the 24-105 at the wide end. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.