/ Register


  1. Welcome to Cameraderie.org—a friendly camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Your Views on the Kit 18-55mm

Discussion in 'Sony' started by Ghosthunter, Mar 21, 2011.

Top Rated
Page 1 of 2
  1. Ghosthunter

    Ghosthunter boo! Subscribing Member

    3,374
    Sep 8, 2010
    London UK
    Andy
    Looking at getting another AF lens for the NEX but the only choice i have below 55mm is the 18-55mm. I'm not convinced it makes good use of the sensor and i can't afford the new Zeiss 24mm f1.7 when it comes out. So convince me the 18-55mm is good or not or should i just wait and save up for he next year for the Zeiss which is looking to be about £1,200+:eek: 

    Please post any examples you think worthy. :smile:
     
    Ghosthunter, Mar 21, 2011
    #1
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    6,689
    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    I don't spend much time with the 18-55, but I don't have any problems with it. Here are a couple of color landscape type shots and a couple of B&W street type all taken with the kit lens. I usually just leave the 16 on it, but every now and then want something longer. I'm showing the largest versions I have on Flickr - they all look really good full screen on a 21 inch monitor...

    -Ray

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/5400849963/" title="Stroud in Snow by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 34186 "1189" height="800" alt="Stroud in Snow" /></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/5401232442/" title="Stroud in Snow (1) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 34187 "1024" height="690" alt="Stroud in Snow (1)" /></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/5396146309/" title="KoP (3) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 34188 "1024" height="688" alt="KoP (3)" /></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/20889767@N05/5475417120/" title="Philly 2-24-11 (11) by ramboorider1, on Flickr"> View attachment 34189 "1024" height="689" alt="Philly 2-24-11 (11)" /></a>
     
    Ray Sachs, Mar 21, 2011
    #2
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee All-Pro

    1,534
    Jul 8, 2010
    It does the job, but not as elegantly as other lenses. There is a lot of distortion at the wide end that has to be corrected if it is obvious in the content of the picture. It is not necessarily sharp. Like many other lenses it performs best around f5.6 or f8. It is compact and light and balances well on the NEX. I just put up some pictures from this weekend taken with the 18-55mm, all at f8 I believe (be sure to view them full size; WP creates crappy thumbnails). Here is another one on Flickr.

    I like the camera, but I am anxious for better lenses native to the NEX mount. Would love a 24, 28 or 35mm prime. In the meantime the 18-55mm is OK.
     
    Andrewteee, Mar 21, 2011
    #3
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    4,990
    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    Both of the kit lenses for the NEX are vastly underrated. Check out Super Novak's gallery in DPreview. He's got some AMAZING shots with the NEX + 18-55.

    Hope this link works: NEX 5: novak977: Galleries: Digital Photography Review

    He does great work during PP, but if the lens/camera doesn't capture the original image, no amount of PP will work.
     
    Armanius, Mar 21, 2011
    #4
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Ghosthunter

    Ghosthunter boo! Subscribing Member

    3,374
    Sep 8, 2010
    London UK
    Andy
    Ray

    Thanks for the images. They certainly are up to par and I have seen them before. Thanks

    Andrew

    Lots of detail in those shots, very nice.

    I think i have been spoiled by my Voigtlander 25mm as it is SO damn sharp and gives shed loads of detail. Trouble is it's not AF and it's f/4 which isn't a problem in good light but a problem in difficult light. Mind you the ISO is so good that shouldn't matter. If the IQ was better on the 18-55 i would snap one up but like the 16mm it is lacking.
     
    Ghosthunter, Mar 21, 2011
    #5
  6. Ghosthunter

    Ghosthunter boo! Subscribing Member

    3,374
    Sep 8, 2010
    London UK
    Andy
    The night time images are superb, really great detail and no noise and they have that certain something that expensive primes have, very very nice....BUT the day time shots suffer the same as the 16mm in that they kinda look gritty and lack fine detail and sharpness. OK I am pixel peeping which is not a good thing to do but there is something about the daytime shots that i don't like. It may be too much contrast, i dunno but they all have something about them that put's me off a bit. I guess recording the images in RAW is going to give the best chance but it is a shame that they are way off what can be achieved by a £35 manual prime.

    I'm dying to see how much the 24mm f1.7 is going to be but i fear it's going to be well over £1000 which is just madness when you consider i could get a Fuji X100 for about the same money. There is never the right lens att he right price that gives what you want. even in the Canon range!! Ho hum... Better either start saving hard or get the 18-55mm and put up with it.....or perhaps I'm being too picky! :biggrin:

    Does anyone know if Lightroom 3.3 automatically sorts out the barrel distortion that the 18-55mm gives at 18mm?
     
    Ghosthunter, Mar 21, 2011
    #6
  7. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee All-Pro

    1,534
    Jul 8, 2010
    Any idea when the Zeiss 24mm is due out? And why another 24mm prime? Is 24mm the new 28mm (which was the new 35mm...)?
     
    Andrewteee, Mar 21, 2011
    #7
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    6,689
    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    The sharpness across the entire shots on those first two color ones I showed is actually pretty amazing to me when I have it full size on the monitor - some weird fragments or something when I exported it for Flickr, but the originals are SHARP. That said, those are both taken at f6 or faster, so they don't speak at all to your concerns at larger apertures... I'm very happy with the IQ, but I'm notoriously unconcerned about the kinds of details others fret over...

    -Ray
     
    Ray Sachs, Mar 21, 2011
    #8
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Ghosthunter

    Ghosthunter boo! Subscribing Member

    3,374
    Sep 8, 2010
    London UK
    Andy
    No Idea when it's due but back in early Feb they said 2-3 months for full details so i guess there's still more time to wait. 24mm on the Nex (x1.5 crop) is equiv to 36mm on FF which for me is pretty spot on. I went out with the Voigtlander 25mm and that was pretty damn close to ideal focal length for me too when out and about. When i had my Canon 40d I had the 24-105mm f4L which was brilliant! I do sometimes like a bit of zoom action!:smile:
     
    Ghosthunter, Mar 21, 2011
    #9
  10. Ghosthunter

    Ghosthunter boo! Subscribing Member

    3,374
    Sep 8, 2010
    London UK
    Andy
    Glad to hear and see that the lens is sharper than 1st thought. However i think it's the contrast which is too much as i have turned it down a tad in Lightroom and it does seem to help. :thumbup:
     
    Ghosthunter, Mar 21, 2011
    #10
  11. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee All-Pro

    1,534
    Jul 8, 2010
    Ah, I was thinking it was 24mm in 35mm equiv... 36mm sounds more appealing.
     
    Andrewteee, Mar 21, 2011
    #11
  12. olli

    olli Super Moderator Emeritus

    2,015
    Sep 28, 2010
    Metro Manila
    olli
    Andy Lightroom has lens profiles for all three of the available E-mount lenses. You'll find them under Lens Correction in the Develop module. You can also create your own lens profiles and save them.

    Regarding the 24 Sony Zeiss - there is no way on earth it will cost more than £1000. The built like a tank Sony Zeiss 24 for A-mount doesn't even cost that much. The only small sensor Sony Zeiss available for comparison is the 16-80 zoom which costs just over £600.
     
    olli, Mar 22, 2011
    #12
  13. Ghosthunter

    Ghosthunter boo! Subscribing Member

    3,374
    Sep 8, 2010
    London UK
    Andy
    Hurah, I found the lens correction profile, thanks for the tip:thumbup:

    According to Google the Sony Zeiss 24mm f/2 for A mount is floating around £1450 and most of the Distagon's are well over £800 so it isn't going to be cheap. I'll keep my fingers crossed though.:smile:
     
    Ghosthunter, Mar 22, 2011
    #13
  14. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin Hall of Famer

    3,465
    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    He's definitely working those daytime images very hard with the post-processing, probably at the expense of fine detail.
     
    Luckypenguin, Mar 22, 2011
    #14
  15. olli

    olli Super Moderator Emeritus

    2,015
    Sep 28, 2010
    Metro Manila
    olli
    Google is telling you lies Ray. Sony Zeiss 24 f2 999.95 at Jessops; 989.99 at Warehouse Express. I'm betting somewhere around 599-650.
     
    olli, Mar 22, 2011
    #15
  16. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    6,689
    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    That wasn't me, but I'll jump in. There's been so much speculation about this lens' price - I guess we'll know when we know. The least expensive Zeiss I know of is the 16-80 A-mount, which is a sterling lens but evidently is subject to a good bit of sample variation - I knew one guy who didn't get a good one until his third try but then it was about his favorite lens. I had one for a few days and was blown away by its clarity. That one is about $750, that US dollars, so about 450-460 UK pounds? A lot of speculation that a 24 prime aimed at the Nex market wouldn't be more than that. Then again, if its top of the line Zeiss, it could be MUCH more than that. I know I'm gonna want either that or an X-100. If I can get an X-100 I'm gonna give it a good workout and see if I like it as much or more than the Nex for street shooting. If so, I'll keep it and hope the Zeiss 24 costs a lot to make the X-100 easier to rationalize. :cool:  (yes, my motives are purely selfish.) If the X-100 viewfinder doesn't work for me as well as the Nex tilt-screen, I'll sell it (probably get pretty much all money back out of it, if I get a reasonably early version of it) and get the Zeiss 24 for the Nex and probably figure I saved a few hundred dollars. Either way, I've got this decision down to about a $200-$500 swing, which makes it all sound much more palatable.

    -Ray
     
    Ray Sachs, Mar 22, 2011
    #16
  17. olli

    olli Super Moderator Emeritus

    2,015
    Sep 28, 2010
    Metro Manila
    olli
    Nice bit of rationalization there Ray (or should I call you Andy?) Sorry about the confusion.
     
    olli, Mar 22, 2011
    #17
  18. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Legend

    6,689
    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Rationalization is my specialty! And I'll answer to almost anything...

    -Ray
     
    Ray Sachs, Mar 22, 2011
    #18
  19. Ghosthunter

    Ghosthunter boo! Subscribing Member

    3,374
    Sep 8, 2010
    London UK
    Andy
    Still a huge amount of money just for a lens though.
     
    Ghosthunter, Mar 22, 2011
    #19
  20. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee All-Pro

    1,534
    Jul 8, 2010
    Great lenses are never cheap. Assuming it is a great lens.
     
    Andrewteee, Mar 22, 2011
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...