Sony NEX Lens Impressions

as rick said, three primary outdoor filters: circular polarizer (CPL), neutral density (ND), and graduated neutral density (GND).

If you can only have one filter to stay on the lens, choose CPL. It is also somewhat acts as ND as it cuts light entering the sensor, although not as much as dedicated ND. IIRC, the optyczne published CPL round-up (including high-end ones) and the winner is Marumi Super Circular Polarizer DHG. Avoid cheap CPLs: chances they blur your precious pics :(

If you have NEX-5N, probably you also can nix the GND. Just shoot RAW, expose to the brightest part of the scene, and push the shadows in RAW converter. Or use Sony's excellent HDR or DRO features. You wont get much noise in the shadow because the SNR of NEX-5N sensor at base ISO is that good.

(ref: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page17.asp)

I wouldn't leave a polarising filter on the lens all the time. As Rick says, it cuts light transmission, which means slower shutter speeds or larger apertures. Also, it doesn't have any effect much of the time. With wide angle shots it can have a negative effect with unnatural shading in the sky as it only affects part of it.

I do carry a polarising filter as it's useful for darkening blue skies so they don't look washed out and for cutting reflections in water and on shiny surfaces.

I keep a UV filter on the lens except when using another filter. I can't see any difference between shots taken with and without the UV filter and it does help protect the lens.

I used to use graduated neutral density filters quite often with film. However I don't so much with digital as the graduated filter in Lightroom has the same effect of darkening the sky.

Has your NEX been good? Will Santa be bringing anything new for it this holiday?

I just thought I'd bump this up to see if anyone has had the opportunity to try out new lenses or other NEX related fun?

I've been poking around with some different lenses… to summarize:

CV 21/4, 35/2.5, 90/3.5
– All very good on the NEX 5N.
– 21 and 35 have a little purple color shift at the edges, which can be corrected in cases where it stands out.
– All are lightweight, use 39mm filters, and can be found for under $300 used.

CV 12/5.6
– Good on the NEX 5N.
– Not much color shift, but a little to be sure.
– Corners are soft, but probably 80% frame is sharp (much better than Sony 16).
– Expensive at ~ $550 used.
– Too wide for my taste, too much edge distortion for my taste, I didn't keep it.

CV 40/1.4, 75/1.8
– Very good on the NEX 5N.
– No colorshift to mention.
– Classic glowy wide open, very sharp from 2.8 onwards
– Lots of CA.
– Small but heavy.
– SLR lenses may be more economical, lighter, but slightly larger.
– I didn't keep them.

CV 15
– On my want-to-try list.
– Lightest of all.
– Looks to be better than the CV 12 in all aspects.

The Contax G lenses are a good alternative. I gave the 28/2.8 a shot but focusing via the adapter was not for me. The image quality on those is outstanding though (people such as Rick that own them already know this), better than my CV lenses and probably as good or close to as good as any Leica lens on the NEX. They're a little larger than the CV's and a little more money. If someone develops a good adapter I think the G's are going to become scarce and expensive!

I had a chance to try out a couple of Olympus lenses also. The 24/2.8 was not good. Not sure if there was a problem with the lens, or something else. The 50/1.8 was surprisingly good, very close to the CV 40/1.4 in terms of IQ… and they can be had for less than $40.

edit: I almost forgot to add, the 18-55 kit lens is very good from 28-35mm. Not so bad up to 28 and not so good after 35. In the sweet spot though it's just as sharp as anything else I used, but its downfall is CA, even when stopped down :(

Just thought I'd share. It helps to have friends who are into photography to borrow lenses from and what not :)

Jacob,
Love your site and this discussion has been great. I just got into 4/3 but went a different route. I got an OLY EPL-1 with a 14-42 and a 40-150 lens. I will be adding a
Panasonic 20mm 1.7 for Xmas. So far I really like it and hope to have the system figured out by the time our Spring backpacking season opens up in Minnesota.

Thanks David.

It's nice that there are so many options now in semi-compact cameras. I have not tried 4/3 yet, when I first delved into digital even APS-C felt a little confining, and moving to FF just felt natural… but it comes down to personal preference. The NEX was different enough from anything else that I was tempted back to the evil APS-C again :)

I don't see myself hanging up my 5D any time soon, but definitely not backpacking with it any more!

Jacob,

Thanks for the testing! What didn't you like about the OM 24mm/2.8? Any chance you'll be getting a OM 21mm/3.5 to test out?

I've found through Lightroom that my favorite photos are leaning toward the wide end when using the kit 18-55. Mostly at 18mm, some between 24-28, and again at 55. I'm thinking that I might be better off getting some primes in these areas instead.

Have you heard anything good/bad about the E-Mount 50/1.8? Or do you think I'd be better served getting a manual 50 at 1.8 or 1.4?

Hi Eric,

When it comes to being a guinea pig I don't mind at all as long as it's camera lenses or beer we're talking about.

The Oly 24/2.8 I had was spanked in sharpness, contrast, and color by every lens I put it against. Based on photos I've seen taken with it, it should have done better, so it could had been an issue with my sample.

I doubt I will have any Oly 21's over here. I've got the CV 21 (thread mount) which is quite a bit smaller, several ounces lighter, and roughly the same price in the used market.

The Sony 50/1.8… I don't know. There are so many good 50's around $300 seems like a lot. Contax/Yashica (Zeiss) Planar 50/1.7 comes to mind. Ok no AF, but a little lighter, less money, and very nice optics! Buy a Rokkor 50/1.7 for $20 and try it out before you commit :) … wait don't you already have a nice 50?

Have you considered if the 18-55 has enough reach for you at 55?

This is growing by the way:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkDLVsAmrk_bdHFRdTktaThNeFFaYXVFOHFES2xCdVE#gid=0

Jacob,

When you talk about lens weight, you don't seem to include the adapter for the Nex. I know the adapter I have for the MC Rokkor lenses is quite heavy. Are there really lenses that are lighter than the SEL50F18's 202g when you include an adapter? I guess I'm curious what adapter you use?

What a great thread! My apologies for being late to the game and perhaps missing its critical mass of interest.

The NEX-5n is a fantastic camera. It has the same quality as the much heavier Nikon D7000 (which I own), because it has the same sensor in it. Whaddya know.

Unfortunately, I think the system lenses that ship with the NEX are only "sufficient", with the exception of two: the 16/2.8 pancake and the Zeiss 24/1.8. The latter is too big. The former is a perfect backpacking/snapshot lens, but its strength is only its form factor (small and light), not its IQ (it lacks corner sharpness, but not outrageously so if you're presentation is limited to flickr et al.). I own the 16/2.8. I like it, but it's pretty much relegated to snapshooting, or when I need to hand the camera to somebody else to take a picture of me.

I own a NEX-7 but haven't taken it backpacking yet. I'm still trying to learn its nuances.

The real reason I own it is that I have a 20 year old investment (that I've flipped a few times) into Leica M glass (I still own and shoot my old M6), including the two best lenses that I've ever owned: the Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8 and the Leica Tele Elmarit-M 90/2.8 (and these aren't even Leica's best lenses). I have a few other M lenses too, including (what I think is) the spectacular little CV 35/1.4 and the two Zeiss ZM "C" (compact = light = small) lenses, and the best bargain in M lenses today: the CV 15 Heliar, which has miraculous IQ.

I've shot these lenses mostly on my M6, which, if you get good scans and use slow film and a tripod, you get great images. I had a several-months long affair with an M9 two years ago (loaner) but the darn thing is a brick to wear around your neck, has a terrible screen, bad high-ISO performance, a bug in SD card writing that causes image corruption (I was one of the unfortunate few that experienced it and lost quite a lot of images from one of my treks), doesn't shoot video (yes – today – this is stupid), has this terribly narcissistic aura about it (is it the red dot?), and weird colors in environments with a lot of UV (high altitude).

But my Elmarits – these are really my personal dream lenses – they have charming character, are very small and light, impeccable sharpness, and beautiful smooth (not "swirling") bokeh. So I tried to pair them through the mFT revolution with a number of "sensors" to try to get those sensors to capture what these lenses were capable of. So, through a series of Oly and Panasonic bodies in mFT formats, I remained disappointed. The sensors were the limiting factor, and the images were ho-hum.

Then one day, I shot them on a NEX-5n, and voila! A sensor (other than an M8/M9) that could capture the beauty of microcontrast in the Elmarits. The shots were gorgeous – as gorgeous as anything I ever got out of the M9.

Now, for a number of reasons I didn't like the UI of the 5n, the lack of a built in viewfinder, and getting good audio with video was more than tricky, and video is important to me. However, when I started studying the UI of the NEX-7, as well as its video capabilities, I knew that this was the body that I was finally looking to pair with my Elmarits for digital use.

So, I'm now in that period where I'm studying the NEX-7, learning its UI, and the nuances with its sensor, which certainly behaves differently than the 5n (including slightly poorer high ISO performance – ah well), and I suppose in January sometime, I'll post some images from the NEX-7 with my M lenses.

In conclusion, for me, it's all about the glass, and the digital body is only a necessary (and depreciating) evil. And finally, with the NEX-5n and NEX-7, I think we have – for the first time ever – a body that can capture what some of the really fantastic lenses out there are capable of – which means that the body may now start to transition (a little) towards a piece of gear that lasts for a little bit longer period of time without fear of rapid (months-long) obsolescence…

FWIW I'm still nervous about taking a computer (NEX-7) rather than a camera (D7000) into hostile environments. I've taken the D7000 through rain, snow, dust, etc. I don't think the NEX-7 will fare as well. And, so far, the Leica M6 is still the only camera I've ever owned that I can keep around my neck at 20 below and it still keeps on clicking just fine (although I find my own abilities to still keep on clicking at 20 below are waning).

For Christmas, my wife gave me a Holga 120N. I just may reserve that for my next trek, as my middle finger to the establishment: this whole digital obsolescence thing is such a scam!

Ryan, thanks for adding your experience to the mix of opinions here. I think hit the nail on the head when you talk about investing in a system, since the cost of quality glass far outweighs the cost of body. With all the changes in this space, it will be interesting to see which companies and systems emerge.

Dirk

Craig, you're correct I don't factor the adapter weight into the lens weight because I share it between the lenses, but of course it still needs to be added to the overall carried weight.

At the end of the day there are a handful of 50's that come into the ballpark of 200g with adapters, so nothing really lighter than the Sony E 50 (not by any significant margin if at all). The Sony is probably the no-brainer, but at the price point there are options, and if you don't mind a slightly heavier 50 then there are even more. The Sony does look pretty good optically from reviews I've seen so in interest of keeping things simple it might be the way to go if you have the $300 to spare.

I think an important point to make for anyone considering using legacy glass is that adapters weigh between 60 and 90 grams (give or take depending on the make, model, etc…) and you don't need one for each lens unless you're carrying lenses of different mount types, which is not very efficient but might be desirable if you have certain favorites.

Ryan,

Thanks for sharing your insights with the 5N and 7. Definitely people like yourself who have fallen in love with rangefinder lenses find these cameras attractive. It seems to be a little bit of a happy accident that many (not all) RF lenses work well with the 5N whereas they didn't with the 5, and early reports are showing that 7 takes a step backward in that respect (hence the happy accident theory). I think I have finally sworn off using SLR glass on the NEX simply because once you've used a quality RF lens on it, everything else feels too big.

The Elmarit 28 and Tele Elmarit 90 are sweet lenses. I spent some time trying to locate a TE 90 that didn't have rear element rot and was in good condition for a decent price… sort of like trying to find a warm, light, and inexpensive sleeping bag :) As Leica's go they're actually pretty reasonable though. The Voigtlander 90/3.5 APO Lanthar is a nice, inexpensive lens in this range.

The longer RF lenses don't seem to have many (if any) issues with the 5N or 7. It's the wider lenses that can. I know the Elmarit 28 works well with the 5N, so I'll be interested to hear if it works as well with the 7 (i.e. how do the corners/edges look? are you seeing any detail smearing?)

The 15 is known to be very good on the 5N, I have heard it doesn't translate well to the NEX 7.

The biggest "issue" for the RF lenses with the NEX seems to be in the 21-28mm range, where not many work well, even on the 5N. I know a few guys who have said screw it and shelled out for the Leica 28/2 or 24/3.8… but I'm not quite ready to drop $3000+ on the Summicron or Elmar, especially not for backpacking use where I might have an expensive spill or two. Then again, as you mentioned, Leica is built to survive, maybe it's the best option after all!

As an aside, the Ricoh GXR with its M-module handles the RF lenses better by design. All of them work as they should, no corner smearing or color vignetting that we get with (some lenses) on the NEX 5N and 7. A new M-module based on the 5N sensor (presumably without AA filter) is expected for 2012, which should maintain the performance of the lenses and provide the resolution and DR of the 5N. It should be quite a combination. Now if they only release a body update to go with it!

There are also rumors that Sony will release a full frame NEX7-like body in 2012

Happy Holidays everyone!

I’m also a bit late here, but as a Nex fan I figured I might as well chime in with some input.

I got myself a Nex-5 last summer, and it’s what I used for all of the shots in this gallery. When I went to Africa, I took only a Sony Nex 18-200mm lens, and a Nex 16mm f/2.8, the pancake. I shot more images with my 4×5 than I did with the 16mm pancake, but that was mainly because of a reluctance to change lenses all the time, partly due to the weather conditions.

As far as the quality of the images I’ve been very pleased. I sold a copy of one of them (the sunrise shot from Kilimanjaro), and printed at 10×15 inches, its native resolution, the person who bought it was blown away when I received the matted and framed print.

Most of the images that I have up on display are big 24×30 prints made from drum-scanned 4×5’s. The Nex images fall short only in resolution, even with that superzoom lens. It’s pretty big, but still quite a bit smaller than the Nikon lenses for my D300, which I’m planning on selling, now that I have a Nex-5 and a Sony Alpha a77. I’m planning on selling the Nex-5 when I’m able to get a Nex-7, but in the mean time, I’m using the a77 which has the same sensor that the Nex-7 does (but it’s available here, which the Nex-7 is not) for a documentary film project, and it’s also what I’ve been using for my film projects for my video production classes.

If my budget allowed, I’d love to use those gorgeous Leica lenses on it, but that’s the breaks. The Zeiss lenses that Sony has in its Alpha lineup are great lenses — the 16-80mm Zeiss zoom is reasonably sized and has excellent image quality. I only wish that it were faster, but if it were, it would also be a lot bigger, so you can’t have it all.

BTW, it’s also worth noting that the image stabilization that Sony has in the Nex lens lineup is phenomenal. Although I always have a tripod with me for the 4×5, I don’t presently have a SlideFix rail for my Sony, so I’ve been using that handheld for the most part, and it’s been giving me excellent results.

Here's a new tidbit…

Conurus, a cottage industry responsible for developing a lens conversion process to allow Contax N (Autofocusing Zeiss lenses) to be used on Canon SLR's, has been working on a Canon EF to Sony-E mount adapter. Until recently not much information has been forth coming from Conurus, however a video has now surfaced showing that they have the communication issues solved for aperture control, and according to a forum post by them, also for image stabilization. Whether or not AF will be included is yet to be seen. There is no information yet as to the development status of their adapter… however they mention via the forum that the adapter has an integrated tripod mount… so you can bet that something exists beyond the rough prototype seen in the video!

This will probably peak the interest of anyone who already owns canon EF, and especially EF-S lenses since they will soon be usable on the NEX via the Conurus adapter.

Here's a link to their forum post at dpreview.com (there is a little confusion from one member at the beginning of the post).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1042&thread=39258520

I'm going to commit heresy here and say that I don't think the difference in quality between budget or kit lenses and expensive glass is really that significant in real life unless you're into pixel peeping or billboard size prints. I've been using kit lenses for over a decade and not one publisher has ever complained about the quality. Last summer I had a photographic book on the Cairngorm mountains in Scotland published. The majority of the images were taken with Canon 18-55 kit lenses, some with the Canon 55-250 lens and a very few with a Tamron 11-18 lens. The book has had good reviews and the images look fine. I don't think heavier, bulkier lenses would have made any noticeable improvement.

Next year I have a book coming out on my Pacific Northwest Trail hike. This will have over 90 images, all taken with the Canon 450D and 18-55 lens. The roughs I've seen look excellent.

For the past year I've been using an NEX 5 with 18-55 lens and the image quality is better than with my Canon 450D and 18-55 lens – due to the sensor not the lens.

Kit lenses have the great advantage for backpacking of being light weight, low bulk and inexpensive. The last means damaging one isn't a costly problem.

The latest digital processing software – DxO Optics Pro and Lightroom 3 – can overcome lens deficiencies too.

Sometime next year I hope to get an NEX 7 and the Sony 55-210 lens and then ditch my Canon stuff. With a wide angle zoom as well, which Sony say should come out next year, the NEX system will provide everything I need.

Hi Chris.

First, congrats on your books! That's awesome.

I wouldn't call it heresy :) To clarify one point straight away, I'm not advocating heavier/bulkier lenses and definitely not claiming that a heavy lens is a good lens. I'm not sure that anyone here has suggested that, I don't believe so. On the contrary, the lenses that I'm using are lighter (even with my adapter figured in) than the 18-55 kit lens, and more compact.

I do think the 18-55 is a good lens; at some focal lengths it can be very sharp. It doesn't control distortion or chromatic aberration very well though. But those can be mitigated to an extent by processing the photos, as you noted. It doesn't have a prominent signature which is either good or bad depending on personal preference.

I try to avoid debating subjective issues, this is one that surfaces often in photography forums. The only way to quantify differences is to directly compare lenses, and even then the whole issue of subjectivity rears its head.

Personally I don't have a set requirement for a lens to be "good" to me. I don't look at MTF charts in deciding whether or not a lens is up to snuff. I use the lens and when I look at the results, if I like the way it renders then I consider the entire package; size, cost, how it controls various aberrations, the build quality, how it handles etc… No doubt there are some lenses out there that are hard to find flaw with, but not most. I might choose to forgive certain "issues" if there are aspects that I really like. Lenses come in so many flavours, I like to try a few to find the ones that I like best.

I DO pixelpeep when evaluating lenses for sharpness and resolving power, and don't see any reason this should have a negative connotation associated with it. The only other way to quantify resolving power is to look at MTF charts and I try to avoid making decisions based on those. I look at the image at 100%, if what I see does not look like an enlargement (i.e. it does not look mushy and I can make out details that I expect to be there) then I deem it good. At this point I know that only the sensor resolution will limit the print quality (putting print device and media aside). To make an analogy, before I made strides toward UL packing, I would say my gear is light enough, and I thought weighing it was for nut cases. This is true of course, we are a little nuts! But we are better for being a little nutty. I think a little time putting a lens through some trials is time well spent. I have years of enjoyment from my SLR lenses which I have not sold/changed/bought since intially settling on them.

If we are only talking about resolving power of the lens, I think to say that "billboard sized" prints are needed to see differences in resolution is to exaggerate the point a bit, but I do get the point and agree to an extent. Differences in resolution can be seen starting at 8×10, 11×17, 13×19, etc… It can be subjective though.

I guess my questions for you are: Why do you attribute the better image quality with your NEX over the 450D to the sensor and not the lens, or combination of? …. and what is better about the IQ between the two?

Another congratulations on the books here :)

> I wouldn't call it heresy :) To clarify one point straight away, I'm not advocating
> heavier/bulkier lenses and definitely not claiming that a heavy lens is a good lens.

It's not really heresy, and in fact doesn't even contradict most of the lens sharpness weenies' findings. The differences in sharpness from lens to lens are most noticeable when it's wide open. Pro lenses tend to be sharper wide open, and often have larger maximum apertures than non-pro lenses. Stop them down to f/8, and it's going to be hard to tell the difference.

Unless you're mainly photographing wildlife, I don't think you need big, fast lenses in the wilderness. If you ARE mainly shooting wildlife, then faster lenses are probably an asset, as is a lot of reach, so you're probably stuck with big, honkin' lenses then :)

Good comments to put this all in perspective, Chris, Rakesh, et al.

I loathe sitting in front of a computer and fooling around with post processing software. That's not to say that I don't like the *option* of doing so when I'm trying to achieve, say, some sort of artistic effect, like the following image, for a small print on my wall.

Beargrass. Big Mountain, Whitefish, MT. Nikon D7000 & Nikkor 85/1.8.

This was taken with a nice sensor and a crappy lens. But post processing can help me squeeze out good quality in the image, and allow me to get the look I want, because I've captured the information in the good sensor.

If you have a small, or crappy sensor, and either a good, or crappy lens, then what you are able to do in post processing is more limited than what you can do with a good sensor and a crappy lens.

With a good sensor, and a good lens, then your options open way up in post – and perhaps more importantly – you can capture phenomenal out of camera images *without* fooling around with them in post, because a high quality lens already has outstanding microcontrast and sharpness – two effects that are nearly impossible to replicate with post processing sharpening, contrast, and definition algorithms without imparting icky digital looks to your images. Sharpening is certainly getting better in the big ones (especially if you shoot RAW) but contrast and definition algorithms are rudimentary at best.

Obviously, photography that is published online or as complement to text (like we do here) or otherwise for "documentary" or "photojournalism" is more a function of the photographer's eye for capturing a scene – much more so than the gear (camera, lens, sharpness, etc.).

Free Heel. Bridger Foothills near Bozeman, MT. Panasonic TS1.

And then, at some point, it's a pretty good thing to simply throw out everything you know about photo gear, break all the rules, blow out your highlights, and just goof around. This allows you to skip the process of being a technical photographer and enjoy the art of capturing the moment and framing the scene. This is one of my favorite photos that I took in 2011, and it came from my phone (crappy sensor, crappy lens):

Mom and Son. Sypes Canyon Trail near Bozeman, MT. iPhone.

Jacob, I was more commenting on Ryan's comment that the NEX lenses are only 'sufficient'. I've found the 18-55 excellent. I think it's an almost ideal backpacking lens. The improvement in IQ is in the amount of noise visible at higher ISOs. With the Canon 450D 400 is just about okay. At 800 much noise is visible. With the NEX 5 800 is okay and 1600 not too bad. Only at 3200 does noise start to become intrusive.

Like Ryan I don't want to spend time doing post processing. I especially don't like all the fine tuning needed to reduce noise whilst not losing detail. I prefer images without noise problems in the first place. Coming from many years of using transparency film I am used to getting the best shot I can in camera. I always use manual exposure controls and use the histogram as the guide. Almost all images are at f5.6, f8 or f11. I adjust the speed or ISO rather than the aperture. This way I usually get files that require little post processing.

Whilst many of my images appear online or as adjuncts to text I always take them assuming they might appear in a photographic book or as a standalone print. And having had one photo book published this year I am hoping to do more in the future.

Bumping to accompany the BPL article.

Check out this very detailed review that Jacob from BPL put together on the NEX.

Lots of photos to illustrate the abilities of the camera in use, with different lenses from other manufactures, and comparitive photos showing different visual effects from different lenses.

Definitely helped with me my education into "real" digital cameras as I transition from my pocket "idiot" camera to something better.

http://hikeitlikeit.com/2012/photography-and-backpacking-8/

-Tony

Stir again…

The real difference between cheap lenses and good lenses is light fall off in the corners of images along with several other factors. If this is not a concern in your landscape then kit lense or the cheapest thing you can buy is perfectly Good IMO.

If you want to stitch your images together to be able to print BIG with high resolution, then you must have a lense with little light fall off in the corners so banding does not occur. This means either you MUST use a crappy lense at its optimum setting if it even has such which means more stitching lines usually, or a Better lense.

As for CA/Sharpness/Resolution… Doesn't really matter on today's camera bodies as they all resolve about the same until you start printing HUGE and everyone has easy access to post processing capability.

A few days ago Sigma announced a couple of lenses: 19/2.8 and 30/2.8.

At first blush I took these as four-thirds lenses, but it looks like Sigma will be making them for both the four-thirds cameras, as well as the NEX. They appear to be fairly small and light, the 19 is the larger of the two and is spec'd at 140g and 45mm long, with a 46mm filter size… not too bad.

I have not searched around for any specs on the 30mm, but it should be smaller and lighter, which would also make it smaller, lighter, and about a half stop faster than the Sony 30/3.5 macro lens, although it will lack macro capability.

These might be the first two interesting options in native NEX mount from a third party manufacturer, pending cost and performance of course.

Sigma has a less than stellar reputation, but their lenses have been improving consistently, and a lot of their professional lenses have gotten pretty good reviews. Personally, based on what I've seen of Sigma's lenses over the years, I think Sigma is underrated, but then I don't shoot test charts, I make pictures. :)

Sigma even made a 28-70mm for Leica (that is sold with the Leica name on them) many years ago.
Not that good mechanically but OK ( for Leica standard) optically.
( I sold some)
Later on the same optics (Sigma made)were encased inside a lens made by Kyocera (same part of the factory that made Contax stuff)
However I don't see much love here for the very nice 200-500 F 2.8 .
Great for wildlife with that amazing aperture.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-sigma
(you will need one of those packs with a built in frame for this)
Franco