More on the Sony NEX-7

I’m still waiting for a bit of sunny weather or a clear evening to go out and try some stuff.  (Well, the camera is with me every day when I go out, just that with this crappy weather I’m not venturing out much.)

One thing’s for sure is that I need to have more than just that 18-55 slow-ish zoom.  I’ve got the 16mm f2.8 pancake lens but since I’ll be selling off my NEX-5, I may need to include that as part of the package to get a half-way decent price.  But what lenses to get next?  The 18-200mm, which is no faster than my 18-55 but faster than the 55 to 200?  The 30mm, which has macro capabilities?  I’m thinking that it could be the 50mm because at maximum aperture of f1.8 it’s the fast E mount lens Sony is currently selling.

Here’s a roadmap for Sony E mount lenses, which I found here.

Another option might be to buy the Sony adapter that would let me use their A mount lenses on the camera.  Not sure if I want to go there or not.

By the way, the folks over at DxOMark have done their testing on the NEX-7 and you can check out some comparisons.  Here’s the Sony vs. Nikon’s J1 and V1 – no surprise that the Sony comes out the winner.  This one’s a surprise though – the Sony NEX-7 vs. Sony’s A65 and A77 – the NEX-7 beats them all – don’t they all have the same sensor?  Check out this one – Sony NEX-7 vs. Pentax K-5 vs. Nikon D7000 – the results are so close they’re probably statistically insignificant.

Here’s Sony’s

Share
This entry was posted in Gear. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

6 Comments

  1. Posted February 13, 2012 at 7:16 am by Eugene Kan | Permalink

    No consideration of legacy lenses?

    M-mount offers you some pretty compact options while I’ve bought a few Minolta legacies and built an ok assortment for cheap for my NEX-5.

    • Posted February 13, 2012 at 7:34 am by spike | Permalink

      Eugene, I’m definitely open to suggestions though cost is an issue.

      • Posted February 13, 2012 at 7:42 am by Eugene Kan | Permalink

        M-mounts ALWAYS expensive however the legacy lenses from Minolta are pretty cheap. Wider ones are expensive but
        I purchased the following Minoltas
        -$175 USD shipped 24 mm f/2.8 for
        -$100 USD locally 50mm f/1.4
        -$20 USD shipped 135mm f/2.8 (hardly use it though)

        Other stuff like 35mm f/2.8 is cheap like < $100 USD shipped off eBay I think.

        They aren't the fastest but if you look for the Rokkor line it's all quite sharp.

        http://www.rokkorfiles.com/

        A lot of reviews there.

        • Posted February 13, 2012 at 2:56 pm by spike | Permalink

          Thanks for the specific recommendations. Question: does autofocus work with these lenses?

          • Posted February 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm by Eugene Kan | Permalink

            No autofocus, but generally for walk around during the day with plenty of light (which you seem to like), you can set aperture at f8 or f11 and it’s a breeze to manual focus with focus peaking.

  2. Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:06 am by UII | Permalink

    That’s the problem with the NEX cameras. Almost NO lenses. And those available (other than the crappy 16mm) are HUGE! What’s the point of a slim, hard-to-hold body with coke cans sticking out of the front? You have a choice of big and slow, or big and expensive.

    It starts to make more sense for use with M mount lenses, but the Ricoh M mount GXR module blows the NEX-5 out of the water:

    http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/2011/12/ricoh-gxr-a12-m-and-sony-nex-5n.html

    I doubt the extra pixels on the NEX-7 will help here. The crux of the matter is that the Ricoh module has it’s micro-lenses specifically set up for M glass:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/ricoh_lens_mount_a12.shtml

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>