USD 600 camera worthy of a USD 5400 lens? – Resolution (NEX-5N with Leica glass)

[flyalf]

Hi,

I have made a little comparison by NEX-5N of Leica WATE@18mm versus the kit zoom E 18-55/3,5-5,6.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Unfair comparison. But I wanted to see how big a difference the Leica glass makes.

Please feel free to ignore, or read more on:

http://flyalf.wordpress.com/2012/02/...rsus-kit-zoom/

This small comparison has confirmed me of the value of using money on lenses. The Leica WATE on 18mm is surprisingly much sharper than the inexpensive Sone E kit zoom at same focal length. Actually the Leica is better at edge sharpness fully open (f/4.0) than the Sony at its optimum (around f/8), and approximately the same sharpness of the least resolution part of Leica as the highest resolution of the Sony (edge sharpness at Leica/4.0 = centre sharpness of Sony/8.0).
Please also remember that this comparison is resolution only, and that bokeh, distortion, flare and ghost have not been compared. Yet.

[uhoh7]

Originally Posted by flyalf

Hi,

The Leica WATE on 18mm is surprisingly much sharper than the inexpensive Sone E kit zoom at same focal length.

This is a surprise? This result was clear soon after the original nex-5 was releassed and M adapters available, more than 18 months ago.

The WATE is also wonderful on the nex-7.

[craygc]

Honestly, the kit lenses are terrible. I use them for kids photos as the autofocus helps but beyond that, not at all

This is the Nex 5n and the Leica 90mm SAA @ f/4 and minimum focus


These are with the 21mm Asph Elmarit






Use the viewfinder with all of them...

[flyalf]

Originally Posted by uhoh7

This is a surprise? This result was clear soon after the original nex-5 was releassed and M adapters available, more than 18 months ago.

The WATE is also wonderful on the nex-7.

Your welcome.

[Bugleone]

Strangely enough, i see this the other way around,...how fantastically does the inexpensive and small kit zoom chase afte the vastly more expensive Leica lens!

While you can of course see a difference (bit 'off' in one could not!),..the difference is NOT FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS different,......the centre crops at f8 are NOT massively different in my eyes, for example look at the weatherboarding strips on the building in ffront,...it's vitually the same in both crops and NOT the massive difference one might expect given the huge price differential.

Also,...craygc,..the kit lens is NOT "terrible",....it's actually a bit of a triumph given it's type and low cost. When i started to use teh NEX 3 with kit lens I expected little as i mainly wanted to use my Canon FD and pentax K glass,...however, I found the kit lens to be far better than some lenses I have used (over the last 30 years) costing far more.

Provided one keeps the lit lens on f8 then one has a very nice little 'set of focal lengths' in a very small package that perfroms really well in most circumstances where f8 is usable. I currently have two 20x16 inch prints in an exhibition, both made with NEX3 and lit lens here is one which staggered me when the girls were pulling it off the printer with it's high quality, especially since I was formerly a medium & large format film user;

[OwenStegemann]

5000 dollars could buy you one hell of a vacation.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by OwenStegemann

5000 dollars could buy you one hell of a vacation.

It could, but vacations last a few weeks, while a lens can last a lifetime.

[flyalf]

Originally Posted by Bugleone

Strangely enough, i see this the other way around,...how fantastically does the inexpensive and small kit zoom chase afte the vastly more expensive Leica lens!

Thanks for new perspective, its up to the viewer to decide. So my printed conclusion is of course my personal subjective opinion.

The small kit zoom is ok when it comes to sharpness, but Im a bit bothered by the high amount of distortion, and will try to check flare&ghost. For normal photographing of people neither of this will be any issues?

[thegman]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

It could, but vacations last a few weeks, while a lens can last a lifetime.

+1 for the vacation, memories can last a lifetime too, I don't think any of my photos would be improved by a $5k lens vs. a $500 one.

[segedi]

I use the kit zoom mainly for videos. And it works very well for that. I find the corners kind of mushy with wide open legacy lenses which is a bit disappointing. But the Ricoh GXR works well for that.

[raid]

I am totally in the dark about the meaning of WATE. What does it stand for? Should I have known?

Raid

Originally Posted by flyalf

Hi,

I have made a little comparison by NEX-5N of Leica WATE@18mm versus the kit zoom E 18-55/3,5-5,6.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Unfair comparison. But I wanted to see how big a difference the Leica glass makes.

Please feel free to ignore, or read more on:

http://flyalf.wordpress.com/2012/02/...rsus-kit-zoom/

This small comparison has confirmed me of the value of using money on lenses. The Leica WATE on 18mm is surprisingly much sharper than the inexpensive Sone E kit zoom at same focal length. Actually the Leica is better at edge sharpness fully open (f/4.0) than the Sony at its optimum (around f/8), and approximately the same sharpness of the least resolution part of Leica as the highest resolution of the Sony (edge sharpness at Leica/4.0 = centre sharpness of Sony/8.0).
Please also remember that this comparison is resolution only, and that bokeh, distortion, flare and ghost have not been compared. Yet.

[f16sunshine]

Hello Raid

WATE is an acronym from Leica for their Wide Angle Tri Elmar lens.

I can't imagine spending $5000 on such a lens but, I'm not wide angle users so much.

[f16sunshine]

I just looked at your comparison. It's fun but not surprising. Sort of like comparing a base model Kia SUV to a fully loaded Porsche Cayenne.

[kanzlr]

indeed. and really, only the corners are substantially better with the WATE.
If you shoot architecture or landscapes, that's (somewhat) important. Otherwise it isn't.

[dave lackey]

A lens is always money well spent...you get it back and usually more when you decide to sell it. A vacation....well, you get memories that fade and photos taken with lesser lenses.

I would forego the vacation for a year or so and get the lens for future vacations. That is if I had money for either.

[raid]

Originally Posted by f16sunshine

Hello Raid

WATE is an acronym from Leica for their Wide Angle Tri Elmar lens.

I can't imagine spending $5000 on such a lens but, I'm not wide angle users so much.

Thank you, for the explanation, Andy. I did not the menaing of WATE.

[CK Dexter Haven]

Originally Posted by dave lackey

A lens is always money well spent...you get it back and usually more when you decide to sell it. A vacation....well, you get memories that fade and photos taken with lesser lenses.

I would forego the vacation for a year or so and get the lens for future vacations. That is if I had money for either.

Photos taken with "lesser lenses" are still photos you don't have if you forego the travel.

And, i still don't know what it means to be a "lesser lens." If no one tells you what lens was used to make a photograph, is there still such a thing as a "lesser lens?" Is every photograph, throughout the whole of history, a "lesser" image because it wasn't made with the most recent Leica glass?

If so, 96.3% of working/published/exhibited photographers are somehow fooling themselves.

If you need a $5,000 lens, something's wrong.

Smiley face, smiley face, etc., etc.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

It could, but vacations last a few weeks, while a lens can last a lifetime.

To me, no lens is worth equal to a vacation.

[Justin Smith]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

To me, no lens is worth equal to a vacation.

I totally agree!!!

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

To me, no lens is worth equal to a vacation.

Hm... A Noctilux vs one week with drunken apes on Mallorca? Thank you, I´ll take the Noct.

[zvos1]

That Sony sensor in 5n is worthy of any lens...

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

It could, but vacations last a few weeks, while a lens can last a lifetime.

most of my trips last a lifetime

[rdeleskie]

I enjoyed the test, thanks for posting the results. What I found interesting is how well the WATE held up in the corners compared to the kit lens (I'm specifically talking about the results wide open at 18mm). From what I have read about the NEX5N, I would have expected the reverse: the kit lens performing well in the corners because of sensor optimization, the WATE less so.

[Speedfreak]

Thanks for the comparison. Not that the WATE would be anywhere in my league of budget, but at least I know what I am missing.

Even though Leica glass may be priced like luxury, these lenses will still be awesome in 30 years. The Sony kit looks and feels like a disposable in comparison.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Speedfreak

Hm... A Noctilux vs one week with drunken apes on Mallorca? Thank you, I´ll take the Noct.

It's good that *that particular* idea of a vacation never entered my mind

My idea of a vacation is a week off work, traveling with my family.

That wins over any lenses, especially a Noctilux.