Ultra wide prime - 14mm or 16mm or?

[o2mpx]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?

Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.

Appreciate any recommendations.

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

For landscape, Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar 15mm f/4.5 Aspherical III works great.


flickr.com/photos/zodiacphoto1
"The function of art is to hold the mirror up to nature" - Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

 

[Ryanide]

I can not comment on other brand lenses, but I own the 14mm and just bought the 16mm G. If I had to choose one, it would be the 16mm. It is considerably lighter, smaller and uses the same 67mm filers that I already have for my other lenses. It is a fantastic choice to complement the 20-70mm G (which is my primary zoom lens) when you want wider and brighter than F/4. On the other side the 85mm 1.4 II makes for a great 3 lens carry, depending of what you’re shooting of course.

The 14mm is a great lens and actually quite compact, but the fact that it takes rear filters is kinda a bummer. I would consider that as more a special case use lens, architecture or Astro, where as the 16mm is more general wide angle, plus if you use it on a high resolution camera with the APS-C 1.5x crop, you get a 24mm. This makes for a better choice for me than the 16-25mm f2.8 zoom as I really don’t need the in between focal lengths (just crop) and it is smaller and lighter. Also, the 16-25mm is a reverse zoom, meaning the lens if fully extended at 16mm, making it considerably bigger than the prime 16.

 

[ahaslett]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

For landscape, Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar 15mm f/4.5 Aspherical IIIworks great.

flickr.com/photos/zodiacphoto1
"The function of art is to hold the mirror up to nature" - Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Just be careful if you buy a used one. The first manufacturing batch was all over the place. Test that hard stop infinity is at least at 40m.

It has really great classic rendering, takes filters, and is small.

Andrew

 

[Martin_99]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

If budget is not an issue, I would actually consider ultrawide zoom, like Sony 16-35f4 G. The reasoning is, that you don't need fast aperture anyway, primes at that FL are not much smaller and you will be much more flexible in cases you decide to take only one lens (I can't imagine to take only 20mm lens, not mention 16mm)

 

[dcstep]

I love my 14mm GM, but the 12-24G and GM are both wonderful lenses.

 

[Lan]

I love my 14mm GM, but the 12-24G and GM are both wonderful lenses.

Agreed! I have the 12-24 f4/G and it's optically good - my only nitpick is that it's more prone to flare in certain circumstances.

Another somewhat left field option is the TT Artisan 11mm FF fisheye - it's nicely made, and optically good. Less prone than flare, cheap, and fisheye is fun

 

[QuietOC]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

That Sigma is very nice. It is not that much wider than 20mm.

The Voightlanders are not as good optically as the 4/12-24G. My favorite is the 10mm F5.6 maybe just because I haven't had anything else that wide other than the 6.5mm fisheye.

 

[MVDH]

Assuming that you are comparing the FE 14 GM with the FE 16 G, consider that the big plus of the 16 mm is that it can take filters. For landscape use this can be significant for you (think of polariser for streams/water, ND filters for longer exposures).
If you're also interested in the night sky as part of your landscape photography the 14 may be more interesting.

I don't have either of them yet, but I'm very interested in the 16mm for landscape and would be nice addition to my FE 20-70F4 for a lightweight hiking/landscape kit. The 16 adds ultra wide range to the 20-70 but also night sky capability for which I now use FE 20 F1.8G in addition to the FE20-70.
But personally I'm not a big fan of the ultra wide photography that we often see, so for my use 16 mm would satify my needs. Some may prefer much wider.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62121798@N08/sets

 

[Vincent DP]

Assuming that you are comparing the FE 14 GM with the FE 16 G, consider that the big plus of the 16 mm is that it can take filters.

The FE 14 GM can take gel filters on the mount side, there is a slot.

I have both the FE 14 GM and the Voigtlaender 15mm f/4 - I mostly use the CV 15, I like its rendering and sunstars. The 14mm I use for night /astro.

 

[travelinbri_74]

It seems the 14GM is the sharper lens, but - as a 14GM owner - I am also considering the smaller and lighter 16, which is also optically excellent, as a travel compliment to the 20-70. 14 is a lot wider than 16 - so it depends how you shoot.

I am also interested in the new Samyang 14-24.

Here is a great real world comparison between the 14GM, 16G and 20G:

 

[Matt2134]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

I think the 14mm is demonstrably the better performing lens for IQ, sharper with less distortion. It's actually a stand-out in the line up, a really good lens.

But you need to use it either with rear filters which are an absolute pain, or a 100mm square front filter with a holder which is much better, but still less convenient than magnetic circular filters, you also lose the possibility of a CPL effectively.

So I'd say the arguments for your use against are that the 14 is filter-awkward and that is designed for astro as well as landscape and therefore you are paying for an aperture you won't use much (though the 1.8 can be very useful), even though it is the better lens. And a great landscape lens.

The 16mm will be fine for quality I have no doubt (I haven't owned one) even if it comes second to the 14mm when pixel peeping, and allows 67mm filters - the only consideration for you is whether 20mm - 16mm is worth the effort. If you were using the 24-70 it may make more sense, but with the excellent 20-70, maybe there's an argument that the 14mm would give you sufficient difference from your existing kit to make it all worthwhile?

 

[PWPhotography]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

Since you already have 20-70 G, I'd suggest 14 GM as two complement very well. 14 GM is very versatile, indoor hand-held, UWA and evening sky. I always carry 14 GM into whatever trips because of its versatility. I also have 16mm from 16-35 PZ but I leave it at home mostly these days. Sigma 17mm doesn't give you much from 20-70 G except 3mm wider, and 17mm is not that wide enough and f/4 is not fast enough indoor for example or architecture in my opinion.

 

[dcstep]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

I think the 14mm is demonstrably the better performing lens for IQ, sharper with less distortion. It's actually a stand-out in the line up, a really good lens.

But you need to use it either with rear filters which are an absolute pain, or a 100mm square front filter with a holder which is much better, but still less convenient than magnetic circular filters, you also lose the possibility of a CPL effectively.

So I'd say the arguments for your use against are that the 14 is filter-awkward and that is designed for astro as well as landscape and therefore you are paying for an aperture you won't use much (though the 1.8 can be very useful), even though it is the better lens. And a great landscape lens.

The 16mm will be fine for quality I have no doubt (I haven't owned one) even if it comes second to the 14mm when pixel peeping, and allows 67mm filters - the only consideration for you is whether 20mm - 16mm is worth the effort. If you were using the 24-70 it may make more sense, but with the excellent 20-70, maybe there's an argument that the 14mm would give you sufficient difference from your existing kit to make it all worthwhile?

Not against you photographers that NEED you filters, but I can't remember the last time I needed a filter on my 14mm, my 20-70mm, my 70-200mm or my 600mm. I shoot in RAW and optimize contrast and color in RAW conversion. I don't do long-exposure water falls and water, since I'm a realist and I don't own a polarizing filter, which is one of the few that I might possibly use


I know, I know, some people use a filter on over half of their shots. Back in my film days I had a red filter and a polarizing filter, but just don't need as much in-camera adjusting because of our excellent RAW conversion software these days.


I looked through my photostream for the last few months and don't see a single shot where I think, "I wish I'd had a such and such filter."

BTW, I LOVE my 14mm GM.

--
Dave

 

[Matt2134]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

I think the 14mm is demonstrably the better performing lens for IQ, sharper with less distortion. It's actually a stand-out in the line up, a really good lens.

But you need to use it either with rear filters which are an absolute pain, or a 100mm square front filter with a holder which is much better, but still less convenient than magnetic circular filters, you also lose the possibility of a CPL effectively.

So I'd say the arguments for your use against are that the 14 is filter-awkward and that is designed for astro as well as landscape and therefore you are paying for an aperture you won't use much (though the 1.8 can be very useful), even though it is the better lens. And a great landscape lens.

The 16mm will be fine for quality I have no doubt (I haven't owned one) even if it comes second to the 14mm when pixel peeping, and allows 67mm filters - the only consideration for you is whether 20mm - 16mm is worth the effort. If you were using the 24-70 it may make more sense, but with the excellent 20-70, maybe there's an argument that the 14mm would give you sufficient difference from your existing kit to make it all worthwhile?

Not against you photographers that NEED you filters, but I can't remember the last time I needed a filter on my 14mm, my 20-70mm, my 70-200mm or my 600mm. I shoot in RAW and optimize contrast and color in RAW conversion. I don't do long-exposure water falls and water, since I'm a realist and I don't own a polarizing filter, which is one of the few that I might possibly use

I know, I know, some people use a filter on over half of their shots. Back in my film days I had a red filter and a polarizing filter, but just don't need as much in-camera adjusting because of our excellent RAW conversion software these days.

I looked through my photostream for the last few months and don't see a single shot where I think, "I wish I'd had a such and such filter."

BTW, I LOVE my 14mm GM.

I use an ND filter and a CPL from time to time, but I just work on the basis that if I need one of those, I am using my 20-70, and the 14mm GM is usually without - I do have a filter holder for it (square 100mm filter system) but I am not sure if I have ever used it. The one I'd want most would be a CPL, and that's just not happening

I agree though - the 14mm GM is a stunning lens, you can do much more with it than you might expect.

 

[Matt2134]

Assuming that you are comparing the FE 14 GM with the FE 16 G, consider that the big plus of the 16 mm is that it can take filters.

The FE 14 GM can take gel filters on the mount side, there is a slot.

I have both the FE 14 GM and the Voigtlaender 15mm f/4 - I mostly use the CV 15, I like its rendering and sunstars. The 14mm I use for night /astro.

Haida (I think it is) do a mount side filter kit that is better than gels - but I still always found it too much of a fiddly mess around to bother with

 

[PWPhotography]

Looking to add an ultra wide prime either to expand the wide range of the 20-70, or to take by itself when needing to travel light. Given the size, price differences, is there a significant IQ difference favoring one over the other? Or perhaps the Sigma 17mm F4?
Lens will be used for landscapes at mid aperture, so wide aperture lens isn’t needed.
Appreciate any recommendations.

I think the 14mm is demonstrably the better performing lens for IQ, sharper with less distortion. It's actually a stand-out in the line up, a really good lens.

But you need to use it either with rear filters which are an absolute pain, or a 100mm square front filter with a holder which is much better, but still less convenient than magnetic circular filters, you also lose the possibility of a CPL effectively.

So I'd say the arguments for your use against are that the 14 is filter-awkward and that is designed for astro as well as landscape and therefore you are paying for an aperture you won't use much (though the 1.8 can be very useful), even though it is the better lens. And a great landscape lens.

The 16mm will be fine for quality I have no doubt (I haven't owned one) even if it comes second to the 14mm when pixel peeping, and allows 67mm filters - the only consideration for you is whether 20mm - 16mm is worth the effort. If you were using the 24-70 it may make more sense, but with the excellent 20-70, maybe there's an argument that the 14mm would give you sufficient difference from your existing kit to make it all worthwhile?

Not against you photographers that NEED you filters, but I can't remember the last time I needed a filter on my 14mm, my 20-70mm, my 70-200mm or my 600mm. I shoot in RAW and optimize contrast and color in RAW conversion. I don't do long-exposure water falls and water, since I'm a realist and I don't own a polarizing filter, which is one of the few that I might possibly use

There are several 100mm holder systems available for 14 GM. I have Nisi 100mm holder and a 6-stop Nisi ND filter for 14 GM but have not actually used it in the fields. CPL is not suitable for UWA lens. Personally I have not used CPL for a long time. I have not found CPL generated better photos in regular landscape type and you have many tools in post processing these days. CPL is only needed to get rid of water reflection under circumstances.

For a trip with lots of water scenes, I will carry 16-35 PZ that can more conveniently to use my two 82mm BT x4 ND filters via 82-72mm adapter, such as in Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks . 16mm usually is wide enough for outdoor landscape/waterfall scenes.

I know, I know, some people use a filter on over half of their shots. Back in my film days I had a red filter and a polarizing filter, but just don't need as much in-camera adjusting because of our excellent RAW conversion software these days.

I looked through my photostream for the last few months and don't see a single shot where I think, "I wish I'd had a such and such filter."

BTW, I LOVE my 14mm GM.

Me too. It's a lens I always carry into whatever trips as it's versatile to me, indoor hand-held, evening sky and architecture.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[MikeInOr]

• I also have the Sony 12-24/4 G lens and love it! Some times I wish it was a little smaller and lighter. But every time I look for an AF prime to replace it I come up short in one way or another. Then there us also the problem with filters that work with the bulbous front element. But I still love the lens and would highly recommend it!

 

[Impulses]

I can not comment on other brand lenses, but I own the 14mm and just bought the 16mm G. If I had to choose one, it would be the 16mm. It is considerably lighter, smaller and uses the same 67mm filers that I already have for my other lenses. It is a fantastic choice to complement the 20-70mm G (which is my primary zoom lens) when you want wider and brighter than F/4. On the other side the 85mm 1.4 II makes for a great 3 lens carry, depending of what you’re shooting of course.
The 14mm is a great lens and actually quite compact, but the fact that it takes rear filters is kinda a bummer. I would consider that as more a special case use lens, architecture or Astro, where as the 16mm is more general wide angle, plus if you use it on a high resolution camera with the APS-C 1.5x crop, you get a 24mm. This makes for a better choice for me than the 16-25mm f2.8 zoom as I really don’t need the in between focal lengths (just crop) and it is smaller and lighter. Also, the 16-25mm is a reverse zoom, meaning the lens if fully extended at 16mm, making it considerably bigger than the prime 16.

The 16G is also relatively lightweight and compact despite being much faster than the alternatives, the Sigma 17/4 DN is still 225g and the CV 15/4.5 Heliar is like 295g, whole the Sony comes in at 305g and it has one of the shortest MFDs of the bunch but with AF... It'll probably be my next/last prime for now, for these and all the reasons you outlined, plus the strong flare resistance and the common filter threads size.

 

[Impulses]

Assuming that you are comparing the FE 14 GM with the FE 16 G, consider that the big plus of the 16 mm is that it can take filters. For landscape use this can be significant for you (think of polariser for streams/water, ND filters for longer exposures).
If you're also interested in the night sky as part of your landscape photography the 14 may be more interesting.
I don't have either of them yet, but I'm very interested in the 16mm for landscape and would be nice addition to my FE 20-70F4 for a lightweight hiking/landscape kit. The 16 adds ultra wide range to the 20-70 but also night sky capability for which I now use FE 20 F1.8G in addition to the FE20-70.
But personally I'm not a big fan of the ultra wide photography that we often see, so for my use 16 mm would satify my needs. Some may prefer much wider.

I love shooting UWA, I think it's a fun challenge, but I gotta agree with the usefulness factor... The wider one goes the trickier and more niche it gets, I've got an 11mm that's fun for the occasional shot and sometimes yields something really striking but most of the time it's just too wide... 16mm is a lot more useful overall, even 18-20 is but as least a good 16mm can easily be cropped to 24mm or something in between.

The really short MFD also makes the 16G extra versatile...