Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 or Sony 16mm f/1.8.... which one do you prefer and why?

Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 or Sony 16mm f/1.8 G.... which one do you prefer and why?

The Sony is 304g, costs around 1000 euro in my market but it has some pretty strong distortion, and it needs to be stopped down for best corner sharpness, and even aps-c corners need to be at f/2.8.

The Viltrox is 550g, costs around 600 euro, has next to no distortion, and is very sharp corner to corner from f/2.8.

Maybe I have overlooked some differences that are important to you, please tell us.

If you compare the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM to the Canon RF 35mm f/1.4 VCM the latter has some crazy distortion giving no weight savings at all, but between the two 16mm lenses there is a serious difference in weight relatively, however, for me, 550g is still not that heavy in absolute terms that I need a huge weight reduction. Less weight is always welcome, but 400 euro extra and trading some IQ....

OTOH, 304g is attractive as a just in case lens, not adding much weight to the bag, while the weight2IQ ratio is nice.

I prefer the Viltrox... because I already have it

If it I did not already have it, I don't know. My guess is the AF performance of the Sony will be similar to my 20/1.8— which is tied for "best AF I've ever owned" lens. It's certainly smaller than the Viltrox. It's also certainly more expensive. The Viltrox is great— no complaints. So I will probably not get the new Sony.

But it looks like it is a great lens.

MediaArchivist said:

I prefer the Viltrox... because I already have it

Click to expand...

Yeah, same for me.

MediaArchivist said:

If it I did not already have it, I don't know. My guess is the AF performance of the Sony will be similar to my 20/1.8— which is tied for "best AF I've ever owned" lens.

Click to expand...

Ah, I forgot about that aspect. I like fast AF, but in a wide angle I don't need it so much. As long as it's accurate it's fine by me.

MediaArchivist said:

It's certainly smaller than the Viltrox. It's also certainly more expensive. The Viltrox is great— no complaints. So I will probably not get the new Sony.

But it looks like it is a great lens.

Click to expand...

I think both are great options.

I was already sold on the Viltrox 16/1.8 and was convinced I'd buy it this summer it when early leaks of the 16G surfaced... I haven't finished reading/watching reviews but now I'm leaning heavily towards the Sony.

From what I've gathered so far the Viltrox may or may not be the better astro lens, it might have slightly better coma correction (I've not seen a direct comparison so I'm extrapolating a little) but the Sony is no slouch there when compared to older options like the Laowa 15/2... The Sony is relying a lot more on software corrections (duh, there's a reason it's smaller/lighter) but it does so effectively and it actually has lower vignetting.

I think the Viltrox has smoother rendering but I dunno how much that matters on an UWA. IQ nitpicking aside, the Sony has some very real practical advantages for me beyond the smaller size and lighter weight; but that in and of itself likely means I'll bring it out more often for various purposes, instead of my 20/1.8 G or my 17-50/4 (I don't think it's quite as special as the 20G btw).

For one thing the much shorter MFD and higher max magnification (0.25x) on the Sony 16G is something that can have some real creative uses, it's something I admired on the Laowa 15/2 and I really appreciate on my 20G (~0.2x), 17-50 (~0.2x at 17mm), and 35GM (0.25x). Finally the 67mm filter threads are kind of a big deal for me, as I already have a bunch of 67mm filters (B+W CPL, Breakthrough Photo 3 & 6-stop NDs, Formatt 18-stop ND, Hoya night sky red intensifier).

The Viltrox would literally end up costing me the same as the Sony after I buy a larger night sky filter and maybe a second CPL to share with my 135/1.8 (on which I'm using no filters so far otherwise, since literally all my other lenses share 67mm).

Ultimately I really wanna try using the 16mm in a combo with my 35mm and 75 or 135mm... The Sony is small enough that I think I could fit it, my 35GM, and the Samyang 135/1.8 in the same PD 6L Sling. With the Viltrox I'd have to stick to the 75mm as the 3rd lens in that bag. Ironically thanks to the rendering I think the Viltrox might be the better lens when used in crop mode in a pinch, but again the size and weight of the Sony means it's more likely I'll use it like that.

So, still undecided but I'm leaning heavily towards the Sony 16G... Before it was announced I was expecting it to be $100 more and I wasn't expecting 67mm filter threads. Oh! I forgot the other main thing pulling me towards the Sony, much better flare resistance, that's something my 20G and 35GM excel at so it's not surprising but still a valuable trait. The Sony is only $800 USD here and the Viltrox is $580, so I think the price gap is smaller (none for me once I take some filters into account).

As an aside, I hadn't put much stock into it even though I did plan to use the Viltrox for astro, but I'd seen one user comment that in freezing temperatures it would fog up much quicker than their 20G and they even had some AF issues due to the cold... I don't think any prime is sealed well enough to stop air from traveling thru it but I didn't think the user was BS'ing either (they seemed interested in the 16G then IIRC were turned off by something on it, I forget what).

Has anyone had any issues with the Viltrox in colder temperatures? I live in the tropics right now but will be moving north in the future and would have a real shot at capturing auroras, which is like half the reason I'd wanna have a lens like this TBH, so I'd hope either would perform well there... I know I'd want something wider than my 20G, and the 16G does seem appealing as a much smaller alternative than my 17-50/4 for other general purposes.

I've always had a 20 or 24mm in addition to my main wide/normal prime, but having develop an eye for shooting UWA and with the cropping leeway on the A7R IV I think at times I'd be fine with 16+35+w/e. As a convenient walkabout lens I'm keeping the 17-50/4 though, if I still had the 17-28 I might be slightly less enthusiastic about either 16mm.

I already own the Viltrox and I’m unlikely to sell it soon. The small size of the Sony is appealing however.

I haven’t used my Viltrox in extreme cold but these shots were in fairly cold (below freezing) conditions as I recall.

https://flickr.com/photos/129729978@N02/sets/72177720322718803

Some items are in this using other lenses. The water tower shots are outside in the cold. I wasn’t out that long. Maybe 15-20 mins.

Also note that the flare handling seems good. Streetlights on edge of frame haven’t caused any harm.

UncleVanya said:

I haven’t used my Viltrox in extreme cold but these shots were in fairly cold (below freezing) conditions as I recall.

https://flickr.com/photos/129729978@N02/sets/72177720322718803

Some items are in this using other lenses. The water tower shots are outside in the cold. I wasn’t out that long. Maybe 15-20 mins.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that's useful.

UncleVanya said:

Also note that the flare handling seems good. Streetlights on edge of frame haven’t caused any harm.

Click to expand...

Haven't encountered these ring flares?


Bastian does punish lenses in this regard to find the worst case scenario, but stuff like the 20G & 35GM and even the 14GM did relatively better IIRC... Coatings still seem to be a weakness for third parties, although Viltrox's 135/1.8 did better than average for a tele.

I haven’t seen those flares but I have only owned the lens a few months. I can easily imagine scenarios to induce it and I might like or hate it depending on what the shot was.

Impulses said:

I was already sold on the Viltrox 16/1.8 and was convinced I'd buy it this summer it when early leaks of the 16G surfaced... I haven't finished reading/watching reviews but now I'm leaning heavily towards the Sony.

From what I've gathered so far the Viltrox may or may not be the better astro lens, it might have slightly better coma correction (I've not seen a direct comparison so I'm extrapolating a little) but the Sony is no slouch there when compared to older options like the Laowa 15/2... The Sony is relying a lot more on software corrections (duh, there's a reason it's smaller/lighter) but it does so effectively and it actually has lower vignetting.

Click to expand...

I played with the Z mount Viltrox one time on my Z9 and I like it pretty good, really sharp and coma is well-controlled, so it's a pretty decent Milky way/Night sky lens, I haven't have any first hand experience with the Sony 16 but from few pretty reputable review online such as Gordon Laing from Camera Lab, it looks to be a prtetty decent lens too, I saw his night sky sample looks OK, not any better or worse than the Wiltrox, even the sun stars is not too bad, so it's a very decent landscape lens, the only thing I hate about all these new Sony lenses is they have massive distortion and vignetting and you have to use the lens profile to correct it, and I am multiple system user and this can be a huge issue, but for Sony only shooter it 's not a big deal. With that being said, if I am making my decison between the two I personally will go with the Wiltrox any day becasue it's cheaper and has very similar performance as the Sony and ( I assumed) it has slightly better MF experience base on my other sony lenses.I know all AF lens sucks in MF operation as they are mostly " Focus-By-Wired", but some are worse than some others.

I know the Sony is lighter, so I guess that's also a big factor for a lot of people, i don't care for size and weight that much since i don't hike 10 miles to do Astro these days and I am already so used to lens like Sigma 14 1.4 Sigma 20 1.4 , Sigma 35 F1.2, ..... 10 oz or 16 oz really means nothing to me, not yet at least, but a lens with good coma control, better MF operatoon, easier to install heater..... those matter to me way more than 10 Oz extra weight or $500 cheaper or more expensive, but I do understand everyone has different priority.

The Sony , being super light weight and so much fun with low MFD makes it for me!

Orsonneke1 said:

The Sony , being super light weight and so much fun with low MFD makes it for me!

Click to expand...

Good point, a low MFD is certainly a plus on a wide angle.

thunder storm said:

Orsonneke1 said:

The Sony , being super light weight and so much fun with low MFD makes it for me!

Click to expand...

Good point, a low MFD is certainly a plus on a wide angle.

Click to expand...

Ironically I they the Viltrox would have nicer rendering at short distances if you're being really picky about that, because the (very extreme) corners get stretched less by software corrections and the bokeh is smoother in general... The Viltrox has less outlining and even less onion ringing I think, but yeah the Sony will focus much closer so regardless of rendering it can achieve a more unique perspective.

When the Viltrox came out and basically overshadowed the Laowa 15/2 in every regard, the MFD was the one thing on which it had taken a step back so I'm glad to see the Sony excel at that (and flare resistance, seemingly, I'd like to see Bastian at PhillipReeve put it thru his torture test but they don't get pre release lenses and that kinda thing).

The 20G is more special in this regard, it has almost no cat's eye (something the vast majority of fast modern lenses have to a greater degree), smooth rendering even beyond the low standards of UWAs, and it relies less on software corrections... Can still do 0.2x max magnification. The 20G is either great or fantastic in a bunch of areas where the 16G is more average, but it does have more significant focus breathing and vignetting than the 16G.

I just watched Christopher Frost's review of the 16G and flare ghosting against that street lamp does seem surprisingly low, but I don't think he tested it stopped down (which is seemingly where the Viltrox does worse, this does vary a lot, some lenses do better wide open or stopped down). Coma looked solid, I still don't quite understand why PetaPixel concluded it suffers from significant astigmatism...

If anything it seems it might suffer a bit from field curvature, I can't remember if someone mentioned it here before but in Gerald Undone's review the wide open corners (at short distances, at longer distances it may well be irrelevant) do sharpen up when you focus on the corner instead of the center, but then the center suffers a little. IIRC the 24G (which also relies on a lot of software geometric corrections) behaved somewhat similarly...

Impulses said:

thunder storm said:

Orsonneke1 said:

The Sony , being super light weight and so much fun with low MFD makes it for me!

Click to expand...

Good point, a low MFD is certainly a plus on a wide angle.

Click to expand...

Ironically I they the Viltrox would have nicer rendering at short distances if you're being really picky about that, because the (very extreme) corners get stretched less by software corrections and the bokeh is smoother in general... The Viltrox has less outlining and even less onion ringing I think, but yeah the Sony will focus much closer so regardless of rendering it can achieve a more unique perspective.

When the Viltrox came out and basically overshadowed the Laowa 15/2 in every regard, the MFD was the one thing on which it had taken a step back so I'm glad to see the Sony excel at that (and flare resistance, seemingly, I'd like to see Bastian at PhillipReeve put it thru his torture test but they don't get pre release lenses and that kinda thing).

The 20G is more special in this regard, it has almost no cat's eye (something the vast majority of fast modern lenses have to a greater degree), smooth rendering even beyond the low standards of UWAs, and it relies less on software corrections... Can still do 0.2x max magnification. The 20G is either great or fantastic in a bunch of areas where the 16G is more average, but it does have more significant focus breathing and vignetting than the 16G.

I just watched Christopher Frost's review of the 16G and flare ghosting against that street lamp does seem surprisingly low, but I don't think he tested it stopped down (which is seemingly where the Viltrox does worse, this does vary a lot, some lenses do better wide open or stopped down). Coma looked solid, I still don't quite understand why PetaPixel concluded it suffers from significant astigmatism...

If anything it seems it might suffer a bit from field curvature,

Click to expand...

That's a thing that can be overlooked very easily.

Impulses said:

I can't remember if someone mentioned it here before but in Gerald Undone's review the wide open corners (at short distances, at longer distances it may well be irrelevant) do sharpen up when you focus on the corner instead of the center, but then the center suffers a little.

Click to expand...

That can be a downside, but it might be very rarely a problem, for me at least. Most of the time I'm shooting up close I want a certain subject to pop out from a background, and almost never that same subject is in both at the borders and at the centre. It can happen, sure. But I would take a short MFD with this problem over a long MFD without this problem, all other factors being equal.

Impulses said:

IIRC the 24G (which also relies on a lot of software geometric corrections) behaved somewhat similarly...

Click to expand...

Viltrox only advantage basically is price. Otherwise if money is not an issue get Sony The weight difference is signficant.

I have Sony 14mm GM. It's the lens I carry into whatever trips as it's very useful to me, such as indoor hand-held. 2mm wider is quite noticeble. 16mm lenses can use regular filters however.

PWPhotography said:

Viltrox only advantage basically is price.

Click to expand...

I think there's an advantage for IQ as well, although - to Impulses' point - field curvature might play a role in test results of the Sony for border/corner sharpness.

PWPhotography said:

Otherwise if money is not an issue get Sony The weight difference is signficant.

I have Sony 14mm GM. It's the lens I carry into whatever trips as it's very useful to me, such as indoor hand-held. 2mm wider is quite noticeble.

Click to expand...

Use the FL you need. Like most lenses, 14mm can be wide enough, but it can be too wide as well. The same is true for a 500mm.

PWPhotography said:

16mm lenses can use regular filters however.

Click to expand...

--
R5 & RV
EF & FE

thunder storm said:

Impulses said:

thunder storm said:

Orsonneke1 said:

The Sony , being super light weight and so much fun with low MFD makes it for me!

Click to expand...

Good point, a low MFD is certainly a plus on a wide angle.

Click to expand...

Ironically I they the Viltrox would have nicer rendering at short distances if you're being really picky about that, because the (very extreme) corners get stretched less by software corrections and the bokeh is smoother in general... The Viltrox has less outlining and even less onion ringing I think, but yeah the Sony will focus much closer so regardless of rendering it can achieve a more unique perspective.

When the Viltrox came out and basically overshadowed the Laowa 15/2 in every regard, the MFD was the one thing on which it had taken a step back so I'm glad to see the Sony excel at that (and flare resistance, seemingly, I'd like to see Bastian at PhillipReeve put it thru his torture test but they don't get pre release lenses and that kinda thing).

The 20G is more special in this regard, it has almost no cat's eye (something the vast majority of fast modern lenses have to a greater degree), smooth rendering even beyond the low standards of UWAs, and it relies less on software corrections... Can still do 0.2x max magnification. The 20G is either great or fantastic in a bunch of areas where the 16G is more average, but it does have more significant focus breathing and vignetting than the 16G.

I just watched Christopher Frost's review of the 16G and flare ghosting against that street lamp does seem surprisingly low, but I don't think he tested it stopped down (which is seemingly where the Viltrox does worse, this does vary a lot, some lenses do better wide open or stopped down). Coma looked solid, I still don't quite understand why PetaPixel concluded it suffers from significant astigmatism...

If anything it seems it might suffer a bit from field curvature,

Click to expand...

That's a thing that can be overlooked very easily.

Click to expand...

Depends on how much the field curves, in was direction, etc. From the reviews I've seen I don't think it's significant at longer distances, definitely not when stopped down, might be more obvious at close distances but I do agree it'd be kinda irrelevant then (if you're at MFD the edges are likely not in focus anyway, unless you're doing some really unusual framing and then you can compensate for it).

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

I can't remember if someone mentioned it here before but in Gerald Undone's review the wide open corners (at short distances, at longer distances it may well be irrelevant) do sharpen up when you focus on the corner instead of the center, but then the center suffers a little.

Click to expand...

That can be a downside, but it might be very rarely a problem, for me at least.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I was talking about the same thing here...

thunder storm said:

Most of the time I'm shooting up close I want a certain subject to pop out from a background, and almost never that same subject is in both at the borders and at the centre. It can happen, sure. But I would take a short MFD with this problem over a long MFD without this problem, all other factors being equal.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I just dunno to what extent it's an issue at different focusing distances. The 20G has a really flat field in general, most high end Sony primes do tbh so I'd be surprised if the 16G had issues at longer focusing distances.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

IIRC the 24G (which also relies on a lot of software geometric corrections) behaved somewhat similarly...

Click to expand...

--
R5 & RV
EF & FE

Click to expand...

I dunno if this was already discussed in this thread, I think it was a different one, but I think PetaPixel got a less than optimal sample TBH... I didn't think coma or astigmatism was something that could vary a lot from sample to sample, but different reviews saw some variation in that even with the 14GM, so evidently it's one more thing we should be looking at with new purchases...

Anyway, Lenstip's results on the 16G look fine to me, for comparison you can dig up their Laowa 15/2 results (which it easily bests) or their 14GM results (which they seemed to have a less than optimal sample of, see the corresponding section in the other 14GM review I'm linking below).

https://www.lenstip.com/686.7-Lens_review-Sony_FE_16_mm_f_1.8_G_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-14mm-1-8-gm/#Coma

Edit: In that PhillipReeve review the 14GM ends up looking somewhat better than the Viltrox and definitely better than the Laowa... Frankly speaking I'm not that picky that I'm overly worried about this, I want a fast ultra wide to shoot auroras, in other instances I may just opt for 20mm or even stitching with the 35GM...

I don't think the corners make or break those shots regardless unless you're very picky or printing huge. From the start I've been more concerned with A) flare handling (since I know that's something Sony could do better, generally) B) other more general aspects of rendering which may or may not be noticeable, particularly when using it in crop mode. YMMV

I can understand that if someone wants it solely for astro and have no regard for weight/size then a more in depth comparison would be important. OTOH the low amount of vignetting would be a bonus even in that instance, the Viltrox (and other wider/faster options) will have noisier corners after correcting vignetting...

I wonder how hard core wide field astro shooters see that tradeoff?

thunder storm said:

PWPhotography said:

Viltrox only advantage basically is price.

Click to expand...

I think there's an advantage for IQ as well, although - to Impulses' point - field curvature might play a role in test results of the Sony for border/corner sharpness.

thunder storm said:

Otherwise if money is not an issue get Sony The weight difference is signficant.

I have Sony 14mm GM. It's the lens I carry into whatever trips as it's very useful to me, such as indoor hand-held. 2mm wider is quite noticeble.

Click to expand...

Use the FL you need. Like most lenses, 14mm can be wide enough, but it can be too wide as well. The same is true for a 500mm.

Click to expand...

14mm wide is much needed in architecture especially interior. If you checked my Flickr albums I have tons of shots indoor, churches, buildings etc. Also great for evening sky. Someone even prefer 12mm or even extreme 10mm wide for the purpose. But 12/10mm lenses usually a bit slower than f1.8 as otherwise the size/weight will be huge.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

16mm lenses can use regular filters however.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have 16-35 PZ for 16mm 'normal' wide for outdoor landscapes. Sure I also can use 14 GM for the same purpose and I have a few.

It is hilarious to someone who grew up shooting 35mm film where a 24mm lens was a superwide that 16mm is just “normal wide” in this context.

To be clear I understand the post. I even can identify with wanting wider and wider lenses. But the language we use today is so crazy give past limitations on gear.