I might be in Love (Carl Zeiss 24mm 1.8 mini-review)

Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8 lens for Sony NEX
Image at f1.8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

We have all read and heard by word of mouth, about the so-called “legendary” glass made by lensmakers, Leitz (Leica) and Carl Zeiss. (this is a gear-review and yet another gear-head blog. So for you artists, you may want to skip on and read this guy’s blog. ).

 

For more than 35 years, I have shot various 35mm SLR/DSLR cameras and lenses. For the most part, I have found the better (“pro”) Nikon and Canon glass hard to beat, with good contrast, color, sharpness, and where applicable, bokeh. Occasionally, one of the third-party manufactures would rise to the top (I owned a Tokina ATX 300 f2.8 prime that I think goes head-to-head with its Nikon-equivalent; and a Sigma 14mm f2.8—likewise). But with the possible exception of my original Takumar 55m and 135mm lenses used with my Asihflex SLR, I have never owned (or even shot) any of the “legendary” glass.

All I can say is, “wow”!

I wasn’t born in Missouri (my younger sister was). But I lived there during my first 2 years of life (formative?). And I have always been “from Missouri” on these so-called “legendary” lenses. Could they really be that good? Could they really be that much better? The price tags certainly suggest that they “should be.” My friend and mentor, Ray Laskowitz, has been telling me how I would like the Zeiss glass and how I would probably relegate the other lenses I have already acquired for my Sony Nex-6 mirrorless camera to “paperweight” status. Since they weren’t particularly high-end (the Sigma 19 and 30 primes I reviewed recently), and not particularly expensive, I didn’t doubt that he was right—about their status.

These images are only “snapshots”

Carl Zeiss 24mm @f11
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Sigma 19mm @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

But in spite of the “hype,” what I did not anticipate was my near-visceral reaction to seeing the Zeiss-rendered images on screen! All I can say is: “wow“! On most of the illustrative images here, I did nothing more than to adjust the contrast slightly in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), and in only the case of the Redbud branch, selectively take the “brightness” down just a smidgeon. I also did moderate “capture” sharpening on all except the one labeled “unsharpened.” I have always been one to do some “cleanup” work in Photoshop and some selective sharpening and contrast adjustment and (yes, Al  ), boost saturation in many instances.

With these images I am finding myself resisting any changes to color, saturation and for the most part contrast.  There was absolutely no saturation boost (other than the addition of some “local contrast” adjustment in ACR) to any of these images.  And, they are sharp! The raw, unsharpened image of the Bradford Pear branch illustrates that (remember, it is at f2.8 and was taken handheld).

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Equally impressive (and expected) is the soft, creamy bokeh of this lens. There is none of the unpleasant, circular out of focus areas I saw in the Sigma 30mm f2.8 when shot wide open. And, these images are pure snapshots. They are all handheld, taken quickly between trips to and from work during the week. I have spent but a few minutes with the lens, but cannot wait to get it out into the field and give it a real workout.

Carl Zeiss 24mm @f1.8; UNSHARPENED
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

This lens is less than a week old to me, and yet, I am pretty sure I won’t take it off the camera very often. And, this is not even a “true” Carl Zeiss lens (though it is supposed to have all Zeiss optics). It is a co-venture with Sony and is marketed and badged as a Sony-Zeiss lens. It has the Sony e-mount and focuses fast and silently on the Nex-6. In ACR, the lens correction is found, not under the Zeiss category, but under the Sony category (threw me for a loop at first, until it dawned on me to search the database for Sony lenses).

I did not anticipate my near-visceral reaction to the Zeiss-rendered images

I have yet to do any “apples to apples” comparisons (if that is even possible). The images here are as close as I can get but are at least a week (maybe 2) apart and so the subjects have “moved on.” But it is enough to be convincing, in my judgment. In fairness, the Sigma image of the Bradford Pear is at f3.2 and the Zeiss, at f11 (I was out “snapshooting” and didn’t have the presence of mind to take an image at f11 with the Sigma. Maybe I will find the time later on to try some of those comparisons. But I don’t really think it’s necessary).

For anyone who, like me, thinks this is a first class lens worth splurging for, there is even better news. Zeiss announced this month that it will offer a series of lenses aimed squarely at the APS sized sensor, mirrorless, market (currently only for Fuji and Sony). These lenses will not be badged or co-ventured. They are pure Zeiss, but will be designed to mount on these cameras and be fully functional with the bodies, including AF. I am in, Zeiss!

The “Sigma Pair”; Sigma 19 and 30mm f2.8 for Sony NEX

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @ f8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Recently, I have been happily blogging here about my newest “toy.” I don’t want anybody to get the wrong idea; I am totally committed to my (so-called) “full frame,” FX, 36mp Nikon D800 and my “pro” f2.8 Nikkor lenses. I am not abandoning them by any means.  I do, however, see their use becoming more “focused” (yes, pun intended ). The “big gun” will still be carried into the field for serious landscape work and of course any of my limited wildlife and sports shooting. I will pack and carry it on my upcoming trip to the Mediterranean, but I see its use there more limited than originally thought.

There is more to the equation than sharpness

The NEX is just so beguiling. It is small and light, which is really nice, after carrying the DSLR around for so long (I can remember a time not so long ago when I actually favored the size and heft of the DSLR body). I spend a lot more time traveling these days. For just carrying around to many of the new places we visit, I can see the NEX being used much more conveniently–and more consistently.

But the proof is still in the image quality results. And for me, the jury is still out. I am “experimenting” with different lens combinations, and shooting scenarios. Nothing “scientific”; just kind of empirical experimenting. And, as such, after reading the reviews in a number of different places, and learning of the B&H deal to purchase the pair for $199, shortly after receiving my NEX,  I ordered up the Sigma f2.8 19 and 30mm e-mount lenses. For anyone who has ever purchased camera lenses, you know that is in “junk bond” range. But the reviews were mostly positive, so it seemed like it was worth taking a “flier.”

Why? There is, in my view, little not to like about the Sony 15-50 f3.5-5.6 lens I bought with the camera. The 35mm equivalent of this lens matches pretty much to my Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, but at 1/10 of its size and nearly weightless, it is very compact and easy to carry. It is reasonably sharp, renders good color and contrast. However, at its modest wide open aperture, there is little room for creativity. It should be a fine working lens for “reportage” style shooting (capturing the daytime cities, buildings, and activities). It appears to be at its sharpest right around the f8 range (though my non-scientific testing seems to tell me this isn’t a critical issue) and this will work for daytime shooting in most instances. But here was a reasonably inexpensive opportunity to try two fixed aperture f2.8, fixed lenses.

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @ f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The “pixel peepers” will immediately note that the Bradford Pear in bloom image; shot at a fairly wide avenue, suffers from many variations in sharpness at different depths of field.  I don’t find the result “bad,” but it is certainly not the kind of image quality I would expect from a higher end lens–at least not at a very close viewing distance.  The isolation shot of a shoot of blossoms is a perhaps less difficult test and shows the estimable capability of this inexpensive optic to create reasonably nice bokeh with decently sharp areas of an image even with relatively shallow depth of field.

Sigma 19mm f2.8 @f3.2
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The low light capability of “fast” lenses is less of a factor today

Still, it’s hard to go wrong with these lenses for their modest cost. They are both about the same size and weight. Both are larger (nearly 2x as long as the 16-50) and therefore slightly less convenient, but not by much. They are still much smaller and lighter than their 35mm DSLR equivalents. They are not going to win any awards for build quality or beauty of construction. Externally, they are all-plastic, and I would guess they are plastic wherever metal or glass are not required. This makes them lightweight, but I would guess, not particularly durable. I hear stories about photojournalists and traveling photographers who beat up their equipment. If you are in this business, you probably won’t be using these lenses anyway. I have known others like me, who seem almost proud of the fact that they beat their equipment up. I am not in that camp. My father and grandfather were engineers and master craftsmen, and both taught me from an early age to appreciate and care for your tools. I “baby” my photographic equipment, and durability will probably not be an issue, unless it is just mechanical build quality (when I first moved to AF camera’s I owned a Ritz Camera Brand Quantaray zoom lens. I think it was one of the sharpest and nicest lenses I ever owned. But I took two of them back because the focusing motor/gear gave out within a year. Then I gave up).

All photographic gear is a compromise – no exceptions

I have read reviews (particularly on Amazon) about there being a “rattle” in the lens. If you rotate it lengthwise, you will feel a part that moves back and forth. I am told that this is part of the AF mechanism in the particular lens design. It doesn’t seem to affect the lens working or the images; so I am not bothered by it (particularly at a $99 price point). My friend, Kerry Liebowitz once said to me that “all photographic gear is a compromise—no exceptions.” Wise words. And for the rather modest cost of these lenses, I expect some compromise. I was not surprised at what I received (at this time, Sigma has completely re-designed both of these lenses, as well as bringing out some new offerings. I have not seen them. They are priced a twice the price of these 2 lenses, and I suspect the deal from B&H was tied to their knowledge that they were going to be older/discontinued models soon.  I expect that they will continue to be widely available on eBay and Amazon).

Over the nearly 40 years I have been photographing, the technology of lens manufacture has become so much better that the difference between a “cheap” lens and a very “expensive” lens is much less apparent. Indeed, there are those who assert that the $99 Sigma 30 is every bit as sharp as the $1100 Carl Zeiss e-mount lens. Maybe (though I have my doubts). But there is certainly more to this “equation” than sharpness. In my view the Sony 16-50 is sharp enough for everyday use and if that were the only factor, I wouldn’t ever take it off the camera. The low light capability of “faster” (wider aperture) lenses was once a much more important factor than it is today, in my view. With the NEX capability of acceptably low noise images at very high ISO settings, it becomes less important.

Sigma 30mm f2.8 @f9
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The 19mm (roughly 28 mm at the 35mm-equivalent on the NEX’s “APS” sensor) produces about what you might expect from a $99 lens from Sigma. The image of the church does not seem to me to be any improvement in terms of sharpness, color or contrast than equivalent shots with the Sony 16-50 lens has produced. So I will need other factors to cause me to use it over the Sony.

It’s hard to go wrong with these lenses at their modest cost

Now, the elusive concept, bokeh, becomes a serious consideration. “Faster” lenses should afford the ability to use selective focus (by intentionally creating or leaving out of focus areas in the image) to make creative images. Indeed, it may well be the difference between “making” and “taking” photographs. The bokeh of both these lenses is “better” than the Sony 16-50 (which is to be expected, both from the fact of the wider aperture, and the fixed focal length). Is it good enough? I think a lot will depend on the image and the lighting. I think the bokeh on the 30mm (45 at 35mm equivalent) is marginally better than on the 19mm. I do see some (almost unpleasant) circular out of focus areas, though, on the daffodil images shot at large apertures. Still, the sampling is small, and I will continue to carry them and play with them.

Sigma 30mm f2.8 @f2.8
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Would I recommend them? That’s a harder call; but probably. If your budget is tight, they are your “gateway” to e-mount, AF, relatively fast 2.8 fixed lenses for the NEX. If your budget isn’t tight, they are a pretty low-cost way of seeing what the NEX sensor will do with such lenses (unless, of course you have already budgeted for and will be able to immediately get the Zeiss lens). I suspect that I will eventually “replace” these lenses with something of higher quality, but time and experimentation will tell. I have the Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8 e-mount lens for the NEX on the way.  This lens is actually badged as a “Sony” lens but is marketed as a co-designed Carl Zeiss Sonnar T lens.  I believe that what this means is that it is Zeiss glass (Sonnar optical design is patented Zeiss technology) and a Sony focusing motor and e-mount.  I’ll know more, of course, when I have it “in hand.”  I am looking forward to mounting it on the camera and seeing what the extra aperture will do and if that “legendary” Zeiss glass will really outshine the cheaper glass. I am also watching for reviews of the announced Sony 35mm, f1.8 e-mount later this year. Those could easily be replacements for these two lenses. I will surely be reporting back in over the next months on this subject.

“Playing with NIK”

Fisherman’s Wharf, San Francisco
Copyright 2011 Andy Richards

My photographic imagery is 98% “traditional. I don’t generally experiment with special techniques. I try to portray what I “saw” in the field.  I don’t mean to say that this is the same thing as “reality.” Most of my landscape work is really intended to be art. I am not aware of any rule that says that photographic “seeing” in these conditions must match reality. Instead, I aim for what I saw in the field, or sometimes what I saw as a possibility in the field.

When I use the word “photorealistic” I mean what our eyes (and mind) might see, shown in a “traditional” photographic presentation

Nonetheless, I still believe 98% of the images I create are “photorealistic.” In other words, they are designed to look and appear as traditional photographic images.

High dynamic range (HDR) software is (or was, for a time) “all the rage” for some photographers. In my own view, it was more often than not, grossly overused and often produced garish results that the creator called “painterly.” My own very occasional use of HDR software (I prefer Photomatix) has been mostly for sophisticated blending of individual digital captures, with a goal of creating a “photorealistic” result. I blogged about this on 2 other occasions, first introducing the topic in my March, 2009 blog, “High Dynamic Range Photography,” and later “Managing Dynamic Range Digitally (a comparison of HDR conversion methods and software)” in September of 2010.

When I use the word “photorealistic” in this context, I don’t necessarily mean what was physically, electronically or chemically possible, but rather, what our eyes and minds might see, shown in a “traditional” photographic presentation.

I do appreciate that what many of us do, as photographers, is art. And art doesn’t have any pre-determined borders, in my view; even in a “traditional” photographic context. As such, I am not against trying new things in an effort to present an image in its best light.

Last month Google created an opportunity for owners of Nik products to “upgrade” to the entire suite. I took advantage. As I find time and opportunity, I have begun to explore some of the “preset” formulas in this set of plug-ins to Photoshop (and Light Room). The bread and butter parts of the suite for me have been Dfine noise-reduction software, Nik sharpener, and Viveza.

Fisherman’s Wharf; San Francisco
Copyright 2011 Andy Richards

Color Efex Pro is also part of the suite. Color Efex Pro is essentially a set of preset filters. As such, I have used it only sparingly and only for a very small handful of the many filters available. The graduated neutral density filter is by far my favorite, and the one that gets the most use. It just does a better job in a very short time period than any blending I can do on my own (including the estimable counterpart in Adobe Camera Raw). But with the Nik U-point control points and a great deal of adjustability in how all of these filters are applied, it is a pretty diverse set of filters. I have generally eschewed the filter called “details enhancer.” This is partly because I have seen it overdone so much and it reminds me of the garish HDR images referred to above, and partly because I think the “structure” adjustment in Viveza 2 and in Nik Sharpener is so much better, and so much more subtle.

Art doesn’t have any borders, even in a traditional photographic context

But recently, I was working on the image here and decided I would take a test run though some of the Color Efex filters. Suddenly, I found an image that I thought the details enhancer filter was well suited for. You can see the difference in the before and after images here. The traditional photorealistic presentation, is, in my view, unremarkable. It just doesn’t seem to have any punch to it, either artistically or visually. But the moderate use of one of the preset details enhancer filters transforms this image into what appears to me to be like a nice oil painting.

Over time, I am certain to experiment more and more with some of the “artistic” options in the Nik software. I probably won’t often say this, but thank you Google for making this suite of software so attainable recently.

The Sony NEX 16-50 “E-mount” Zoom

Barn
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Last week, I reviewed the Sony Nex-6 camera body. One of the interesting features of this line of Sony cameras is the large selection of third party lens adapters available, making it possible to mount almost any mount system lens.  While most of these lenses will use the camera’s auto focus (or any other “auto” features for that matter), they will work perfectly well in manual focus mode. There is some “quirkiness,” though. Neither the camera’s onboard information, nor the embedded EXIF information will give you the aperture value, the focal length or the shutter speed value. I used the manual metering system and the on-screen “real time” histogram feature to estimate exposure. And, it appears that on the lenses which do not have physical aperture settings, the camera will default to the smallest aperture and there does not appear to be any way to adjust that. On lenses with aperture rings, you will be able to set the aperture.  Sony does make an adapter for its own lenses (i.e., the A-mount series that mounts on its DSLR cameras) that will pass the autofocus and exposure information through to the camera body and vice versa.

I purchased the Rayqual adapter for Nikon “G” series lenses (these lenses do not have a physical f-stop selector ring, but are instead all chosen by one of the camera’s “command” dials). The G adapter will work with any existing compatible Nikon “F” mount lens (or any lens fitted to the Nikon F mount).  There are a number of manufactures that offer adapters, and reviews seem to suggest that quality of manufacture is all over the place.  The Rayqual was recommended to me by my pro friend and I thought it made sense to go with something known.  The guy at Cameraquest was very accomodating.

Of course, the camera’s “APS” sensor means you will have to apply the 1.5 field of view factor to the lens. But there are some very sharp, fully manual, older lenses out there (i.e., the venerable 50mm f1.8). I played around with a couple of my own Nikon lenses and found that in reasonable light conditions, focusing (either on the back LCD or in the viewfinder) is relatively easy.

Nikon 24-70; approximately 50mm ( 75 equivalent), f22, 100 ISO

My primary motivation for purchasing this Nex-6, though, was to find smaller, more convenient setup to use while traveling and while out walking around, that would give me image quality like I have grown to expect from my DSLR setups. The NEX has the promise of doing that, in my view. But using an adapter and manual older lenses may defeat that purpose. While they are fun to play around with, I don’t want to be doing that when I am on vacation in new places. I want to shoot and have reliably good quality results.

For that reason, the Sony E  SELP16-50 F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS zoom is a very attractive lens. The 35mm equivalent of approximately 24-75mm is a pretty useful range for “street” shooting and “walking around.” Of course, 28-300 would be nice (and they do offer that option), but it comes at the expense of size, weight, and … well, expense (the E-mount 18-200 is over $800). I don’t intend for this camera to replace my D800 DSLR. It is a significant upgrade replacement to my Canon G12, though and will undoubtedly get lots of use. As such I really wanted the 16-50 to be acceptable. It didn’t have to match up to the performance of my f2.8 Nikkors.

Sharpness:

I am pleased to say, I am pretty impressed, given the challenges the lens faces. The lens, fully retracted, measures only 1 1/2 inches long (there is a serious typo in the dpreview literature – though it would be amazing to have a zoom of this range that measured only 3/16 inches  ). The overall depth of the Nex-6 with this lens attached is a mere 2 1/2 inches! The lens is image stabilized (OSS), with a minimum focus distance of just under 10 inches. Its minimum aperture (depending on zoomed length) is between f22 and f36. It is a very lightweight addition to an already comfortably light and small body.  The barn above, was shot at 50 (75) mm at f16.  You can see that at those specs, the lens produces a relatively sharp, edge to edge result.  But how does it do at wider apertures, and at other focal lengths?  You can see in the image below of the white house that, stopped down, the lens performs nicely at its wide end (note that this was distortion-corrected in ACR using its lens database).  For daylight images, I cannot think of a reason not to stop the lens down to its “middle” ranges (f8-11-16), unless trying to obtain a specific DOF result.

16mm at f16

I will leave the technical specifications, like resolving power, distortion measurements, and other things to the technocrats and pixel peepers. My criteria was whether I was going to be able to bring home some “wall hangers,” using this lens. I think I can.

My non-scientific testing involved setting the camera up in my basement, mounted on a tripod using the same image, from a stationary position. I also used the IR remote to ensure no camera movement was involved. I am still trying to master the settings and particularly the AF technology on this little unit. To the best of my observation, the IR remote did not cause the camera to try to re-focus (which is a good thing).   However, as I glean more knowledge about the AF technology in this camera, I wonder if that is really what is happening.  From what I read, the default AF system in the camera works with “contrast detection” (as opposed to “phase detection” on most DSLR cameras).  What I am learning this means, is that the camera, when set to its AF setting, is constantly searching for a sharp exposure.  So, it may just be that in good light, the AF performance is just that good, and  and locked on when the remote triggered.

What I generally concluded was that there is little difference in sharpness from wide to small aperture and from short to long focal lengths. This is particularly true (as might be expected) in the center of the lens. But I am pleasantly surprised at the edge to edge performance. Granted, this combination is not going to be an architectural setup. Nor will it be up to the standards I generally expect from a “grand landscape” image shot with a “pro-specs” lens. But for its intended use, the results were very acceptably sharp and pleasant.  All images were at 100 ISO.

50mm @ f22

50mm @ f8

55mm f5.6

Since a common concern is whether these lenses are sharp at their longest lengths, I started there. I then tried some additional, varied settings of the same image:

16mm @ f3.5 (wide open with this lens)

16mm @ f3.5 cropped for center

16mm @ f22

23mm (approximately 50mm 35mm equivalent) @ f4

23mm @ f8

Distortion:

Sony 16-55 “uncorrected” at 16mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Other reviewers have noted that this lens suffers from significant distortion and some vignetting, particularly at the wide end.  The “before and after shots” here confirm this.  Both images were adjusted for contrast in my ACR raw image converter (Adobe Camera Raw), run through Dfine’s noise software and the default settings Pixel Genius’ “capture sharpening” engine.  They are otherwise uncorrected except that I applied the “lens correction” facility (again at its default settings) in ACR before opening it in Photoshop.  Some of the curvature can, of course, be attributed to the user.  A higher camera position would help here, if possible.  But you can see the pronounced curvature in the first image and the somewhat “tamer” curvature in the corrected version.  You can also see noticeable vignetting in all 4 corners of the first image and essentially no trace of it in the corrected image (no filters were used in this example, by the way, so this is the “bare” lens being demonstrated).  Sony is aware of this issue.  Again, I am not an engineer (and the world is a better place because of that ) but it is my understanding that this is a design issue that cannot be overcome at this point (somebody will figure it out some day).  This is physically a very short lens for its zoom range, and also small, working on a larger sensor than many of these smaller lenses have used in the past.  To “combat” these issues, Sony has firmware in the camera that “corrects” for this.  For Nex users that are using one of the earlier models (Nex-3, 5 or 7), it is my understanding that it will be necessary to upgrade the firmware to take full advantage of this.  Caveat:  the Sony firmware correction will only work on jpg files.  For those of you shooting jpg (there is a 10-step program for you out there ), I understand from what I have read, that this works very well indeed.  For the rest of us, some correction in post-processing will be necessary.  Adobe has done a great job of incorporating lens correction algorithms in their Light Room and ACR modules, including this lens.  I don’t have any familiarity with other raw converters or post-processing software, but it would not surprise me to find something there.  I consider the “corrected” image somewhat “normal” for this type of image, at the selected focal length of 16mm (24mm at 35mm-equivalent).

Sony 16-50 “lens-corrected” in ACR
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Bokeh:

For the few who don’t already know this, the word actually comes from the Japanese, “boke,” and refers, in loose translation, to blur.  For photography purposes, it is usually referred to as the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas rendered by the lens.  With regard to this particular lens, I can only really refer to the last 2 letters of the word in describing my reaction to the 16-50′s Bokeh:  ”eh.”  :-).

Seriously, as I have said previously, it is a multi-purpose zoom in which Sony is trying to accomplish an awful lot of engineering, including a wide focal length range, reasonably wide apertures, and above all, very small footprint.  Given its modest price and versatility, I think they have done admirably well.  I think it would be unrealistic to expect it to stack up again virtually any prime lens and particularly the Zeiss glass or any of the Leica, Nikon, Cannon, Zuiko, Voightlander, or other “legacy” lenses that can be fitted via an adapter.  As part of my overall purchase, I picked up the pair of Sigma-manufactured e-mount f2.8 primes (19mm and 30mm).  When I get a chance to get in the field and do some real world testing, I hope to report on them. for now, here are two “test” examples.  Images are not very exciting, but given the time of year here, they are what I have to work with .  The first image is at the widest end of the lens, wide open.  The second is at the longest focal length, again, wide open.  I did not do any sharpening on these two images, so they are pretty much what you see is what you get (other than whatever PS did during the jpg conversion and resize, and I can say they looked pretty sharp on my screen as they came out of ACR).

Sony 16-50 @ f3.5; 15mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Sony 16-50 @ f5.6; 50mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

I used the same default “capture sharpening” using Pixel Genius’s “Photokit Sharpener,” and identical contrast and local contrast adjustments in ACR on all the illustrated images.  I did not do any other sharpening.

While the light was not quite as nice on the final image, I wanted to include it to show that the lens is decently sharp at the wide setting and its wide-open aperture, too.  With appropriate “creative” sharpening in post-production, I can see that this lens will produce very acceptable images.

16mm @ f3.5