hellooooo... look at what you are comparing 1st laa... you're comparing a sub 1k lens with a Carl Zeiss which will drop you 4k... how to compare like that? its like comparing kancil and ferrari (i dont even wanna bother starting with BMW or Merc)

ever heard of 人比人, 比死人? same goes here la... geez... u wan compare then ma go buy each and every lens out there, then you will find your answer.

each and every lens is designed to gather light to create and image onto a film/sensor. some will do it better than others, usually with a heavier price tag. if all you want to do all day is comparing specs, then what you are is someone who KNOWS about lens specs and details. you know nothing about MAKING images which the lens is designed to do. obsession with sharpness and all, ask yourself this, do you really print it into roadside billboard size to be able to see what is living inside the pore under the eyebag? highly doubt so. but then if you do, then i congratulate you. but then again, i still highly doubt you will achieve that because to be be at that level, you no longer will be bothered with shrimp sized details like these - but instead be out there MAKING images.

and please read this before planning to ask "then why is my lens not razor sharp until can cut my eye until i go blind and never get to see any more picture anymore?"

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm


This post has been edited by lwliam: Aug 10 2010, 01:20 PM

jerrylyh, how about take a look at minolta 70-210 f/4, the beercan. its better than both the aforementioned lenses, you can get a good copy for around RM800

This post has been edited by lwliam: Aug 10 2010, 04:29 PM

what NEX? i dont see any NEX... i see white only...

p/s: well mike, its not to say dont care about the sharpness of the lens, of course it is an important part of the equation, just that try not to dwell in it as after a certain limit (and in fact, that limit is actually not very high), the how sharp an image a lens can produce will be merely a minute fraction of an image's outcome.

This post has been edited by lwliam: Aug 10 2010, 04:37 PM

jerry, yes yes, the minolta 70-210 out there are nearly all used units, they dont produce new ones anymore actually. their price rarely drop, even in the near future as the build quality is really top notch, so if you're lucky, when you sell it back out again in the future when u upgrade to 70-200 2.8 G, you could even sell it at a higher price. you get constant aperture, sturdy metal build, actual glass lenses (instead of polymer lenses in newer lenses), and the barrel doesnt extend when zooming (although it does extends by half an inch when focusing from MFD to infinity)

This post has been edited by lwliam: Aug 10 2010, 04:48 PM

8tvt, u nak jerry jual kidney ke?

I'm in love with the NEX-VG10 already... VG10, here I cum...

dah nak raya, sig use the money to give duit raya..

what is the next best glass next to STF which is AF capable?

what do u mean by manual photography? The 2.8 can give u a better subject separation from the background and works better in low light, most importantly, the 16mm f/2.8 makes for a very compact package to be carried around in pockets and bags

but isnt the point of getting a NEX/PEN/LX are due to them being compact yet capable of producing good quality images?

cjlai, u da man.. Makes me more tempted to go NEXt..

8tvt, the adapter allows you to use A-mount lenses on the NEX and at the same time able to control the aperture of the lens manually, current adapters doesnt allow you to do that, hence, you are always shooting at the largest aperture at all times..

uncle/edward, i KNOW i want it... but water flow is like dripping tap like that now.

yes exactly.

eugene, not necessary.. you have to check the warranty card's fine print, no point asking the sales person, they wouldn't know either.

Definitions of fine print on the Web:

the part of a contract that contains reservations and qualifications that are often printed in small type



Camera Sony DSLR-A700
Exposure 0.067 sec (1/15)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 400
Exposure Bias +1 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire



Camera Sony DSLR-A700
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/1.7
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 1000
Exposure Bias +1 EV
Flash Off, Did not fire

This post has been edited by lwliam: Aug 11 2010, 01:18 AM

i wonder who... *hides in nuclear terran bunker*

This post has been edited by lwliam: Aug 11 2010, 01:45 AM

why not check it out?

the effects were deliberate ler.. in fact, the purpose is to show what were the actual lighting at the point of shooting. tungsten lighting bathing from top, and florescent side lighting. shots were taken without flash so not to kill the original lighting

no offence, but your edited version does not represent the light there on location. it seem nothing but normal. plus, it appears to be a bit too warm.

This post has been edited by lwliam: Aug 11 2010, 03:26 AM

different people have different ways of representing what they shoot. if you find it horrendous, its merely your own POV. i appreciate your honest judgement. my POV instead is that sometimes, people should think out of the box, following the crowd only takes you so far. 'correct' white balance for every single shot in the series.. bahhh... mundane...

This post has been edited by lwliam: Aug 11 2010, 03:29 AM