NEX6 and the Sony 10-18/4 E

[kxl]

I don't do brick walls tests nor pay too much attention to MTF charts. My lens tests consist of actual use, and I judge a lens' merits based on those results. Highly unscientific and intensely subjective, but it works for me. Recently, I have been enamored by the dramatic perspective of ultrawide angle lenses and had bought a Sigma 8-16mm for my NEX6. While it delivered on drama, it fell short on image quality -- the edges came out "smeared." Not good enough even for my relatively undemanding eye. So, I returned it and bought a Sony 10-18mm. Tested it this past weekend, and I must say - this one is a keeper. Here are a few examples:

 

[behyer]

Your images look great. I've had a similar experience with my 10-18. I have a NEX-6 and NEX-7, and it works great on either camera. BUT.....

I'm torn as to whether I should keep it, or sell it and get the Zeiss 12/2.8. I think I would like the extra stop, which in practice is more like two or three. I agree with Klaus' (Photozone) tests that show it is best at f8 or f11. I saw a test elsewhere of the Zeiss 12/2.8 that showed it with good corner detail at 2.8, and getting really good only a stop or two closed down.

What do you think?

 

[bwcolor]

When shooting RAW, how well controlled is chromatic aberration? I always get a bit curious when someone presents highly processed monochromatic samples. I suspect that the Zeiss will prove the better lens in this respect. No suggestion of any attempt to mislead. The samples provide look great.

 

[kxl]

I'm torn as to whether I should keep it, or sell it and get the Zeiss 12/2.8. I think I would like the extra stop, which in practice is more like two or three. I agree with Klaus' (Photozone) tests that show it is best at f8 or f11. I saw a test elsewhere of the Zeiss 12/2.8 that showed it with good corner detail at 2.8, and getting really good only a stop or two closed down.

What do you think?

I'm sure the Zeiss 12mm will be better in quite a few respects over this lens. If I can afford it, I'd certainly buy the Zeiss when released, especially since I know I'd be using it a lot, and a lens that wide wide open opens possibilities if it performs well wide open. Budget would be my only constraint, so if you don't have the budgetary constraint, I'd say go for it.

When shooting RAW, how well controlled is chromatic aberration? I always get a bit curious when someone presents highly processed monochromatic samples. I suspect that the Zeiss will prove the better lens in this respect. No suggestion of any attempt to mislead. The samples provide look great.

These were jpegs out of the camera, so I wouldn't know about CA when shooting RAW. I would agree that the Zeiss lens would be better in this, and in all likelihood, quite a few other respects.

 

[Pablito]

I just got the Sony 10-18 and results look VERY good to me, very sharp even in the corners. Also the lens profile in ACR does a good job at fixing the distortion, and I assume the CR (have not looked that carefully yet).