Comments on: NEX-7 Lens Imatest Results

By: Samuel H

Samuel H — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:25:33 +0000

Any chance of throwing in some results with the metabones “speed booster” adapter?

By: wansai

wansai — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 04:28:09 +0000

I got my hands on a zeis 24 f1.8 recently on a Nex7 and it consistently outperforms the kit lense in my shots by quite a large margin (wide open). The corners are a tad soft but not nearly as bad as the 18-55 and the 16. Otherwise the zeis is pretty consistently sharp; though not overly sharp.

I know some people base a good lense entirely on how super sharp it is, but I’m perfectly happy with the clarity of the zeis. Also, it renders very pleasantly, colours pop, and everything i point it at comes out so smooth and buttery. And just as importantly, pictures shot with the zeis have a 3D quality that none of the kit lenses can produce (generally flat images in comparison).

It’s a quality lense that’s not well represented by this data alone.

By: Lee

Lee — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 02:50:58 +0000

I am very surprised by the poor maximum aperture performance of the Summilux, I’d really have expected more for the $3 billion price tag.

By: Roger Cicala

Roger Cicala — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:53:00 +0000

Franz,

There definitely are some issues with the edge and corner microlenses on NEX7s when shot with certain wide angle lenses. I don’t know if “problem with the sensor” is the right description because Sony certainly didn’t design it so it would work with rangefinder lenses. But it is an issue for some folks.

By: franz

franz — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 08:12:34 +0000

hi, i’ve been thinking about getting a nex 7. i was doing some research and read a lot of complaints about images having very soft edges, some were saying it was a problem with the sensor. i konw that sharpness in the center will always be better than sharpness on the edges but from what i read it seems that on a nex 7 the edges are a lot worse than what is expected.

is there really a problem with the sensor? or is the problem with the lenses?

thank you

By: Roger Cicala

Roger Cicala — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 19:18:04 +0000

BF – they’re definitely better by f/5.6, maybe a tiny bit better than that at f/8. It’s certainly decent at that point, although the corners are still a bit soft.

By: BF

BF — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:14:54 +0000

Is there and aperture for the Sony 16 mm pancake where the corners and edges improve? If better than horrible at say f8 then may be a good alternative for outdoor sunlight use. Thanks for all your testing and publishing the results in the detail you do.

By: Roger Cicala

Roger Cicala — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:20:24 +0000

TP,
Yes, because of the average result. We don’t have space to put all the various numbers (at least not yet) but the average is low because the corners and edges are simply horrible. With that good center number, and the corners/edges counting for only 25% of the average value, you can infer how bad they must be to drag the average down that far.
Roger

By: TP

TP — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:00:49 +0000

At f/4.0, “the Sony 16 mm pancake does, of course, still suck.” The max resolution is equal to the sigma 19. Does it “suck” because of the average result?

By: Jordan retro 11 space jam

Jordan retro 11 space jam — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:42:04 +0000

Thank you for this post, I am sure I will come way feeling better as I hope you are today.