Sony 16mm f2.8 on NEX C3, better than old 3 or 5?

Discussion in 'Sony' started by Ghosthunter, Feb 22, 2012.

  1. I used to have the 16mm f2.8 on an old NEX 5 and it wasn't a nice lens. I have recently seen images from this lens on the 5n and 7 and the images look much much better. I'm asuming the images would be the same on my C3 as they are on the 5n as they are both basically the same camera. Reviews are very positive out there! Anyone got any C3 samples?
  2. lattiboy

    lattiboy Regular

    Mar 6, 2011
    Can't speak to the differences between bodies, but....

    I bought the 16mm on a lark for a cheap price on ebay. I was not expecting much.

    On my 5N center sharpness is really, really good. The corners are a little "meh" until f/4-5.6, but unless you're buying a much slower Skopar or much more expensive Leica, I think that's what you would expect. Not to mention the the OOF rendering is actually nice and it focuses VERY close for a WA.

    Really can't find much to fault it, especially considering it runs about $150-160 used.
  3. As you have said the corners do look soft but as it's 16mp I'm sure a bit of cropping would sort that out!!
  4. Biro

    Biro Super Moderator

    Aug 7, 2011
    Jersey Shore
    I don't know if this matters... but I understand the 5N corrects for distortion and CA in Sony lenses while the C3 does not. I'll be reading the answers to the OP's question because I'm trying to decide whether to get into a small NEX system. I can now buy the C3 with the 16mm for $499 or the 5N body-only for $599. If I picked the second option, I could perhaps go for the new Sigma 19mm and 30mm primes for NEX that are due out shortly.
  5. If that is the case, you might want to spring for 5N, because the distortion on my C3 is horrible.
    Corners are ugly also, but distortion definitely steals the show (in the negative way, of course).
  6. How daft is that, not having distortion and CA correction in the C3.:doh:

    I'm interested in the Sigma 19mm, hopefully it will be better than the Sony 16mm.
  7. Country Parson

    Country Parson Top Veteran

    Apr 5, 2011
    North Carolina
    I don't understand the problem with the 16. This pic was taken with the 16 on a NEX5 last summer. OK, it was at f5, but the rose was at f3.5.


  8. madmaxmedia

    madmaxmedia Veteran

    Nov 10, 2010
    Los Angeles
    The CA bothers me the most on the Sony 16mm and kit zooms, I personally never liked these lenses. But with the 5N it's like they're brand new lenses (subjective impact to me), I actually enjoy them now.
  9. nexolino

    nexolino New Member

    Aug 22, 2012
    Don't understand what's the fuss with CA... shoot RAW and get rid of it in PP... it's one of the lens flaws that are easily corrected.
  10. madmaxmedia

    madmaxmedia Veteran

    Nov 10, 2010
    Los Angeles
    That's totally valid if you always shoot RAW anyway, but not everyone wants a 'RAW only' lens. So it's just something to know about the lens going in, not something to automatically exclude it from consideration.
  11. snkenai

    snkenai All-Pro

    Oct 5, 2010
    kenai, AK
    Stephen Noel
    I rarely shoot raw, so good lens and jpeg, IS important for me. I understand that others do it differently. And that is one of the things that makes photography so adaptable to everybody, no matter what their desire or skill level. (or software ability)
  12. camram

    camram New Member

    Sep 21, 2012
    Same here with me. I hardly shoot raw. I am starting to play with my camera a little bit more. So I am not clear what makes the CA different in 5N, I thought they both use the same lens
  13. madmaxmedia

    madmaxmedia Veteran

    Nov 10, 2010
    Los Angeles
    The CA is technically the same, but the 5N removes it automatically in-camera. So it's largely absent from the actual images you get.

    It can be removed on your computer anyway, but it's nice to have the auto-removal if you shoot JPEG.