Lens Turbo impressions with Canon FD 50mm f1.4 and FD 35mm f2 on Sony NEX

Mitakon Lens Turbo - Canon FD 50mm 1.4 - Sony NEX-6

This turned out to be pretty lengthy blogpost, so here's an overview of what's included for your convenience:

1. Introduction
2. So... what does it look like?
3. Why the Canon FD-mount version?
4. Lens Turbo + Canon FD 50mm f1.4 sample pictures
5. So, what about the Canon FD 35mm f2
6. Compared: Lens Turbo + FD 50mm 1.4 vs EF 50mm 1.8
7. Compared: Lens Turbo + FD 35mm f2 vs Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS (SEL35F18)
8. Conclusion

Introduction

Hey all, in this blog post I'm going to share my experiences with the Mitakon Lens Turbo. I assume most of you have heard of it by now, it's a device similar to the (much more expensive) Metabones Speed Booster. They work in the same manner though, and these so-called Speed Boosters are most easily understood as working as the reverse of a teleconverter.

Instead of concentrating your sensor on a smaller portion of the lens, it instead makes use of *more* of the lens. This is possible if you're using a smaller-than-fullframe image sensor (i.e. camera's with crop-sensor, such as Sony NEX-6, Canon 7D), together with a full-frame lens.
The adapter essentially concentrates the light that normally falls outside of the crop image-sensor onto the the image sensor itself.

If we would visualize sensor-sizes, we could get a graphic like this:

A full-frame sensor, like that in the Canon 5D mark III, is 36mm x 24mm (864mm2).
An APS-C sensor, like that in the Sony NEX-6, is 23.5mm x 156mm (336mm2).


Now you can see part of the reason why a full-frame camera is so expensive: its sensor is 864/336 = 2,5 times bigger than an APS-C sensor!

We can also prove that an APS-C sensor like that in the NEX-6 is a 1.5x crop sensor, by dividing: 36/23.5 = 1,53 or about 1.5 crop.

The reason why the Lens Turbo covers a slightly smaller area than that of the full-frame sensor (orange area) is that it's a 0.726x adapter.
That means that if we do 1.5 cropfactor * 0.726 = 1,089 (actually about 1,112) - basically we have an effective 1.1 crop sensor if we use the Lens Turbo (where 1.0 would be full-frame).


What you can also see is the white-circle, which designates the imaging circle of a full-frame lens. As you can see, a lot of light falls outside of the APS-C area when using a full-frame lens.

The Lens Turbo catches the light of the green area (APS-C + Lens Turbo) and projects that light onto the blue area, which is the area of the APS-C sensor as used in the NEX-6.


So, what this means in practice is that with the Lens Turbo you'll get a close to full-frame (but not quite) effect on a crop-image sensor body.

Now, of course, if you concentrate all the light onto a smaller area, you get the added bonus that you effectively double the amount of light, as that's the amount of light that would otherwise fall outside of the crop-sensor area. 

...

Hold on, that's a huge advantage! 

Double the amount of light can translate into a shutter speed that can be twice as high, or indeed, an ISO-setting (a.k.a. ISO-speed) which is a full-stop lower - MOAR light, hooray!!11!

You can see why these kinds of adapters are also called Speed Boosters.


This all sounds rather good, right? So let's have a further look - there are also more photo's to look at, rather than text, I promise!

So... what does it look like?

Well, the adapter itself looks pretty plain, with some inscribed markings. Inside the package there's a small leaflet, which should be helpful but is actually all in Chinese :)

The adapter itself actually has quite a bit of heft to it - it's quite a bit heavier than you would expect it to be. It's reassuringly solid though, and makes for quite a nice-looking black package on the Sony NEX-6:

Notice the FD-mount aperture locking pin just below the Lens Turbo lens

Another nice thing: the Lens Turbo is actually smaller than a normal adapter. Small camera = good :)

Lens Turbo with Canon FD 50mm 1.4 mounted

Besides weight, a big advantage of small camera's is that it's less in-your-face than a full-blown DSLR. Being less intimidating helps when photographing in public, you stand out way less and keeps people looking natural. It's just a small compact-cam afterall ;)

Why the Canon FD-mount version?

As you can see, I chose the Canon FD version of the Mitakon Lens Turbo. Canon changed lens-mounts in the late 80's from FD-mount to EF-mount. With it, a big difference was introduced, namely that the new EF-mount features all electronic connections between the lenses and their camera bodies. Having an all electronically controlled aperture of course results in that EF mount lenses don't feature an aperture ring. Or at least I don't know of any :)

Now, this is especially important because as you've noticed, the Mitakon Lens Turbo doesn't actually feature any electronic contacts. If I'd mount an EF-mount lens (and I do have some quality EF-mount glass), I'd have no way to actually change the aperture. 

Not exactly what I'd call handy!


The Metabones Speed Booster *DOES* have the ability to communicate and change the aperture lenses electronically on Canon EF lenses, but it's a heck of a lot more expensive - about 3 times as expensive as the  Mitakon Lens Turbo here in the Netherlands. It also does autofocus on Canon EF lenses, albeit very slowly. In fact Metabones themselves mention that it'll likely disappoint and you're better off manually focusing.

Since this is all just a hobby, and I'm actually on a budget of what I'm willing to spend, I chose the Canon FD-mount version.

Some further research actually taught me that the Canon FD-mount version is the most popular, as the FD-mount has one of the smallest register distances (i.e. the distance of the sensor to the lens-mount) of legacy camera systems, allowing other legacy glass to mount on this FD-adapter as well.

This is because mount-adapters are able to fill up the space between the lens and the sensor, as long as the adapting mount (e.g. FD-mount) is larger than the register distance of the host system (e.g. NEX). After all, a lens always projects its image onto the image sensor from a set distance, as designed by its manufacturer. 

Because the NEX-system (neé, Alpha) again has a much smaller register distance than the FD-mount system, adapters like the Lens Turbo are possible which fill in the register distance gap between FD and E-mount, as used by the NEX-system.

E-mount (NEX) and EOS-mount (Canon) compared

The above image (somewhat crudely) shows register distances as illustrated by a Canon 7D and a Sony NEX-6, aligned on sensor-location on the green line. 

The yellow line indicates the lens mount for the NEX E-mount system, whilst the red line does the same for the Canon EOS-mount. 

Anyway, what this illustrates is that there's plenty of space between the yellow (E-mount) and red line (EF-mount) for an adapter to be placed. This space saving is made possible because mirrorless systems, well... don't have a mirror :)

I've only got two lenses for now, since I've only got a it a couple of weeks, which is the Canon FD 50mm f1.4 and FD 35mm f2. As you can see I went for the so called FDn, or New FD, lenses, primarily because they are supposed to be lighter than the older Canon breech-mount lenses. Those breech-mount lenses are easily identifiable from a distance by having a chrome ring at the lens-mount.

Canon FD brothers :)

I bought the Canon FD 50mm 1.4 first, as I was just very curious about how all this manually focusing would work out. It could be that I wouldn't like it at all. So, I chose this lens because it's quite cheap, and the nice thing about buying cheap is of course that it lowers the entry barrier.

Another consideration is that I'm really an autofocus guy, and this is actually the first manual focus lens I've ever held in my hand, let alone use. I wasn't exactly sure that I'd even like manual focusing :)

Luckily, these FD lenses can be picked up for pretty cheap, I paid 50 euro (about 67 US Dollar) for the FD 50mm 1.4, and it's in mint condition. 



On the first day I bought it, I first had to figure out how to correctly mount the Lens Turbo onto the lens. It's actually a bit more finicky then you'd expect. You first have to align the lens on the adapter on the red dot, then twist a bit backwards aligning to the yellow dot, and then rotate again the other way to securely mount it.

Here's a video to show the locking process of an FD lens onto the Lens Turbo:

This extra step is necessary because the Canon FD-mount lenses have a bit of metal sticking out which actually enables the aperture ring on the lens, and it needs to be in the correct place before you can operate the aperture via the aperture-ring on the lens.

That's right: if you haven't mounted the lens, you cannot operate the aperture of the FD-lens by turning the aperture-ring.

If you're wondering if the manual of the Lens Turbo doesn't help, then you're right: it doesn't help. Or, at least, my Chinese isn't very good so it's of no help to me :)

The leaflet included with the Lens Turbo says something about tolerances. Well, I *think* it does so anyway :)

Lens Turbo + Canon FD 50mm f1.4 sample pictures

OK, that's enough talk, what do the pictures look like?

Well, here are some images I shot the first day I had my first lens for the Lens Turbo, the Canon FD 50mm f1.4:

More are available on the webalbum over at:
https://plus.google.com/photos/+HasanKaragülmez/albums/5939560062371528433


I'd describe these as "bokehlicious"  :) 

In fact, I don't have another lens which can so easily throw the entire background into a complete and buttery goo! 
Perhaps I went a bit overboard with some, but hey: it's always nice to play with something new right? :)

I also have a series shot with the Canon 50mm f1.4, where you can see that it is indeed a bit glowy and soft wide open at f1.4 (a crazy f1.0 equivalent with the Lens Turbo), but it sharpens up nicely from f2.0 on.

As another test, I made a little test of all selectable apertures on the FD 50mm 1.4, which goes from f1.4 (duh), all the way to f22:

Canon FD 50mm f1.4 - f22 - hooray for Google+ automatic GIF creation :)

View all intermediate apertures on this webalbum:
https://plus.google.com/photos/+HasanKaragülmez/albums/5948043545042752065

So, what about the Canon FD 35mm f2?

Well, besides obviously giving a wider field-of-view than the 50mm, I read on the internet that the Canon FD 35mm f2 is quite susceptible to flare even in it's native guise. The Lens Turbo is supposed exacerbate this as well. 

Well, without further ado: I can confirm that it does indeed flare more than the FD 50mm f1.4, but it's all at a level that I can live with.

To test the flare, I shot these all in the night of a light project. In other words: plenty of candidates for creating flare :)

So yeah: there's definitely flare, but overall not too shabby at all in my opinion. There's a hint of the blue-dot which apparently plagues many a Lens Turbo, but I don't have a problem with the Lens Turbo if it works like I've posted here. YMMV, as always :)

Another nice thing about the Canon FD 35mm f2 is that it's also noticeably sharper wide-open than the FD 50mm f1.4 - a very nice surprise.

Here's a wide-open f2 shot to illustrate:

Regarding price: I paid 160 euro (about 214 US dollar) for this FD 35mm f2.
Quite a bit more expensive than the 50mm 1.4, but then again, the 50mm 1.4 is just ridiculously cheap :)

Besides, these two FD lenses + Lens Turbo are about the same price for what I paid for the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS (a.k.a. SEL35F18, hands-on post here: http://hasankaragulmez.blogspot.com/2013/05/sony-35mm-18-oss-sel35f18-hands-on-with.html ).

Compared: Lens Turbo + FD 50mm 1.4 vs EF 50mm 1.8

Canon FD 50mm f1.4 - Canon EF 50mm f1.8

I don't have a full-frame camera, unfortunately, but as a final test, why not try and compare these lenses to the Canon 7D with a full-frame EF 50mm 1.8 lens.

Canon 7D - EF 50mm f1.8

Remember, the Lens Turbo is a 0.726x converter, which should make a 50mm lens:
 50mm * 1.5 cropfactor = 75mm * 0.726 = 54.45mm equivalent.

So, basically, we expect to be slightly zoomed in with the NEX-6 and Canon FD 50mm 1.4 compared to the Canon 7D with EF 50mm 1.8, right? Nope!

Here's the Canon 7D with EF 50mm 1.8:

Canon 7D - EF 50mm 1.8

Here's the NEX-6 with Lens Turbo + FD 50mm f1.4:

NEX-6 - Lens Turbo + FD 50mm 1.4

So, you can see here that the Lens Turbo with a full frame Canon FD 50mm 1.4 gives a *MUCH* wider view than the Canon 7D and full frame EF 50mm 1.8 lens. Pretty significant difference huh?

The Canon actually has a 1.6x crop-sensor, so its field of view is equivalent to a: 50mm * 1.6 crop = 80mm full-frame lens. Still very nice for portraits.


The Lens Turbo, on the hand, makes a full-frame 50mm lens behave almost exactly like it would on full-frame.

The nice thing now is that we can change our framing, but still keep our subject in the frame. For example, since we are now able to position our subject closer by, we can blur out the background more as the background is now further away related to the subject.

See here: same camera position, different subject position. Notice the background melting away, making our subject stand out far more:

NEX-6 - Lens Turbo + FD 50mm 1.4

Nice huh?


Another option would have been to bring the camera closer by of course, rather than the subject, but you get the general idea :)

BTW, in practice, lenses designated a certain focal length (e.g. 50mm) can actually diverge a bit, so it's not all exact anyway, but should be close to 50mm.

Compared: Lens Turbo + FD 35mm f2 vs Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS (SEL35F18)

Staying on the same NEX-6 camera, we can do a test here of two 35mm lenses - the Sony SEL35F18 and the Canon FD 35mm f2.

The difference between these lenses specs-wise in native guise is actually pretty close, with the Canon being a full-frame lens, but the Sony being a third of a stop brighter. Also, something not to be sniffed at, the Sony actually has an image stabilizer.

Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS - Canon FD 35mm f2

However, the Lens Turbo makes the Canon FD 35mm f2 give the brightness of a 1.4 lens, and more light beats having an image stabilizer in my eyes. This is especially true for when trying to capture movement as that's where shutter-speed will matter. 
After all: an image-stabilizer cannot stop the world from moving :)

Let's see what the difference is between the SEL35F18 and the Lens Turbo + Canon FD 35mm f2, both on the Sony NEX-6.

Remember here, that the FD will have an expected field-of-view of 35mm x 1.5 cropfactor x 0.726 = 38,115mm. 

But wait: the SEL35F18 should give field-of-view about equivalent to a 50mm full-frame lens, so we expect to be slightly zoomed out with the Lens Turbo + Canon FD 35mm f2.

Let's see, here's the SEL35F18:

SEL35F18 - Autofocus is nice, but it actually missed the head a bit here :)

And here's the Lens Turbo + Canon FD 35mm f2:

NEX-6 - Lens Turbo + Canon FD 35mm f2

As you can see, the Lens Turbo + Canon FD 35mm f2 gives a field of view that is wider than that of the SEL35F18, as expected.

Finally, I can say that both of these lenses are sharp enough for me.

Conclusion

Go buy it :)

No, seriously, if you're even remotely interested, you can buy a Lens Turbo and a nice FD 50mm 1.4 for quite cheap and see if it's worth it or not. If not, you've still not lost a great deal.

It's exactly this mindset I had as well, and I have to say, this really gave me a new dimension in photography. Yes, manual focusing can be hard, though focus-peaking and zooming helps. And yes, these old vintage lenses aren't as clinically sharp as modern computerized designs from 20-30 years later (though some are, few of those are reasonably priced).

But sharpness isn't everything in my opinion, and these lenses already give a me a lot of fun in return for the modest investment I made.

I'll report back if I've got something else to say on the matter, in the mean time, happy shooting and let me know if you've got any questions or remarks. 

I'm here to learn as well after all :)

Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS (SEL35F18) hands-on with Sony NEX-5

I don't seem to find that much info about this lens on the internet, so I thought I would write-up my experience with it - so here it goes, enjoy!

Sony NEX-5 paired with the E-mount 35mm 1.8 OSS, modelname: SEL35F18

DSLR or Mirrorless?

I'm sure many have questioned themselves the same thing, should you go mirrorless or get a DSLR?
In my case, I got the Canon EOS 7D before the advent of mirrorless camera's, I've got it for years now.

It still remains, in my opinion, a top DSLR - it has got fast and accurate autofocus, as prime feature. And whilst sensor performance on APS-C has got better in the meantime (notably the Sony sensors in Nikon DSLR's), I see no need to upgrade to another model.

Even ISO12800 on the Canon 7D can perform very nicely, I think, as long as you take care.

The thing is... it's kinda big. So, when the NEX-5N just came out and was about 600 Euro, I bought the NEX-5 for 400 Euro (about 515 US Dollar) - including kitlens.

And Presto! APS-C sensor in your pocket!

Which is great... except that the 18-55mm OSS kitlens isn't exactly inspring to shoot with, IMHO, so it was a bit of a waiting game for other lenses...

35mm F1.8 OSS for NEX sounds great!

At least, that's what came to my mind when I read about it :)

The price doesn't exactly make it an impulse buy however. In fact, at around 450 Euro here in the Netherlands (about 580 US Dollars), it's just downright expensive.

There's also this little thing called the Sigma 30mm f2.8 available for NEX, for which the DN-variant (identical optically to the new Art-series) is available for around 100 Euro (about 130 Dollar).
That's so much more cheaper than the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS it's not even remotely funny... even the 50mm 1.8 OSS is a lot cheaper at around 280 Euro (~360 Dollar).

However, having both the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 30mm 1.4, I knew that, for my style of shooting, I really prefer something closer to 30mm, because I find 50mm a bit long on APS-C for walkaround purposes.

Really wanted something like the Sigma 30mm 1.4 in a smaller package, the NEX-5 and 35mm 1.8 OSS delivers!

As if by luck, there was a person last Friday (17-5-2013), selling the 35mm 1.8 OSS second-hand for about 350 Euro (450 Dollar), which makes it a whole lot more reasonable in my book! As icing on the cake, it still has all the papers for guarantee, and it was bought new at the end of 2012. That makes the lens almost 5 months old, which is peanuts!

Sounds good right?  So I went out and bought it!

First Impressions

It's tiny!


The 18-55mm NEX kitlens left, the 35mm 1.8 OSS to the right - it's quite small!

As you can see, it's actually smaller than the NEX kitlens. Even relatively small lenses still seem almost comically out-of-place on a NEX-camera, especially with a small body like the NEX-5 - it looks like a lens with a camera-body attached to it!

The Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS, posting next to the oldie NEX-5

And with the lens mounted, it´s still quite a small combination. This actually fits in the pocket of my jacket!

Rest assured though, it actually handles pretty well in practice - it's not a front-heavy combination.

It's also a heck of a lot smaller and lighter than the Canon 7D with Sigma 30mm 1.4 attached, which is a really big plus for just walking around and having a high-quality camera with you as much as possible:

The NEX-5 with the 35mm 1.8 OSS is significantly smaller and lighter than the Canon 7D and Sigma 30mm 1.4

Naturally, I wanted to go out and take some pictures, but the last three days have been nothing but rain and thick grey clouds unfortunately... but let's not get stopped by that.

Bokeh/out-of-focus area quality

Yesterday, I came across the perfect situation to test what the difference would have been if I were to have bought the Sigma 30mm 2.8 by testing the difference between 1.8 and 2.8:

SEL35F18 @ f1.8

SEL35F18 @ f2.8

This test reassures me more than I ever I made the right choice, the f1.8 version looks a lot better better to me - look at what a buttery smooth background this tiny camera is producing!

I think it's a lot more striking than f2.8.


Here´s what f4.0 and f5.6 look like, if you're interested:

SEL35F18 @ f4.0

SEL35F18 @ f5.6

I intend to use this lens wide-open or near wide-open as much as possible, of course :)

Sharpness, Close-focusing and Autofocus accuracy

The closest this lens can focus is with a subject-distance of 30cm from the sensor. That's not very close, unfortunately, but it seems to be fairly typical for this type of lens. The Sigma 30mm 1.4 has a minimum focus distance of 40cm for example.

It does focus pretty accurately and relatively quickly on the contrast-detect-only NEX-5 though. Of course, with contrast-detect autofocus focusing on sensor-output, you would expect autofocus accuracy to be close to 100% - what you see is what you get after all.

So, let's take this full-shot spider photo shot at 1.8, and see how it performs (and note how lovely the out-of-focus areas look, I really love it!)

Itsy-bitsy-spider, accompanied with lovely bokeh

And this is a big crop of the same photo, and note that this is shot wide-open:

Itsy-bitsy-spider posing for the camera

You can even see its eyes and even the tiny hairs on its legs! Sharpness is definitely in the more-than-good-enough area!

No spiders were harmed in the making of these pictures by the way, though, I do think it was a bit terrified - it didn't move at all! At least he had the decency to look into the camera, though I guess it helps if you've got 4 eyes ;)

Anyway, yes, I would say that, for me at least, this Sony 35mm lens is sharp enough!

Note that the NEX-5 is "only" 14.2 megapixel - the 16 megapixel NEX-5N and NEX-6 will be a bit more bit demanding, resolution-wise, and the 24MP NEX-7 of course even more so.

From what I read though, it'll still hold up very good.

Distortion

None that I've noticed. From what I understand from reading online is that it does have a very slight distortion, also see the Matthew Durr review. I can't say I've had to apply any correction whatsoever with this lens, all lines seem straight to me, check it out:

Good news: as good as no pincushion or barrel distortion on the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS

Abberations and fringing

Just about any large aperture lens is going to have chromatic abberation and purple fringing, and so does the 35mm 1.8 OSS. It's actually not too bad, and easily correctable in Lightroom from what I've seen so far (ignore the moire in the focus area please):

Some clour shift inevitable happens with large aperture lenses...

... but the colour-shift is easily correctable - the moire might be a bit harder ;)

Gallery

Here are some other pictures I took the last couple of days (edited in Lightroom), note I only got it four days at the time of writing :)
Click on an image for a larger size, or go and flick through the webalbum!

The large aperture enables you to single out a single tulip, even in a field full of them, SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/2500th

A snail defying grafity underneath a leaf, SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/320th

A fly on my car, there were loads in the forest, SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/1000th

The depth-of-field roll-of is gradual and very smooth, SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/4000th

Pretty big crop of a yellow tulip, SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/1250th

The flip-up display of the NEX-5 makes it easier to compose your photo's close to the ground, SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/4000th

The Pirelli P-ZERO tyres are highly-recommended as far as I'm concerned, very grippy :) - SEL35F18 - f8.0 and 1/60th

One of the first pictures I took with it, you can immediately see on the display what the effect of this lens is - SEL35F18 - f2 and 1/80th

The image stabilizer works quite well (didn't correct the colour-shift) - SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/20th

An orchid that just started blossoming again - SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/60th

This "Midnight Summer"-lamp, designed by Tord Boontje is really lovely - SEL35F18  f1.8 and 1/400th

Stabilizer works miracles here as well, leafs of room-plant - SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/8th

Quite a crop, liked the composition better this way - SEL35F18 f1.8 and 1/60th

Singling out a little leaf, this lens allows you to throw the background right out of focus - SEL35F18 - f1.8 and 1/60th

Spring - SEL35F18 - f4.0 and 1/4000th

Using the flip-up display for composition again - SEL35F18 - f4.0 and 1/1250th

Conclusion

If you've got the funds, go for it!

The Sigma 30mm 2.8 is significantly cheaper, though, and if it works for you - that seems to be a great lens as well.

Note that there's a significant difference in f1.8 and f2.8, however, in background blur and bokeh - you must decide for yourself if you find that important or not.


Also beware though, it's not like you'll buy a lens every week, so think well if you don't want save up for the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS after all.

The Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS is plenty sharp and hardly has any distortion (I'm sure there is some, but it must be so little as to not get in the way).

Even on an old NEX-body like the NEX-5, autofocus is still plenty quick. It's not meant for sport, but then again, the NEX-5 isn't known for sports-photography. I'll be using the Canon 7D for that.
I'm using face-detect autofocus for people photography with the NEX-5 btw, which makes composition and correct autofocus a breeze.

The best thing for me is that the NEX-5 and 35mm 1.8 OSS combination actually fits in the pocket of my jacket. Believe me, you don't even need to try that with the Canon 7D and Sigma 30mm 1.4!

An high-quality APS-C camera, with a very capable lens, right in your pocket - finally I've got the mirrorless combination I´ve been wanting!


And that's that! If you've got any other questions, let me know!

Happy shooting!

Related Links

• Test Charts shot with a couple of various 35mm lenses, including the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS, http://verybiglobo.blogspot.nl/2013/04/battle-of-35mm-lenses-on-sony-nex-7.html
• Lens review on the NEX-7 by Matthew Durr, http://matthewdurrphotography.com/2013/01/12/lens-review-sony-35mm-f1-8-oss/
• Focus test on NEX-5R, note that the 5R has phase-detect autofocus, in contrast (no pun intended) to the NEX-5 that I've got,
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XtVoiHDut0E#t=249s
• Review by Dan Hawk on NEX-7, http://danhawk.com/danhawk/sony-sel3518-35mm-f18-review