Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)

Started 11 months ago | User reviews
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,453
Re: Sunstars any good?

Waldemar wrote:

nt

I thought you'd never ask.

-- hide signature --

Words are wind.

mick232 Senior Member • Posts: 1,040
Re: Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)

arneh wrote:

Plenty of sharpness for both lenses wide open in the center. But contrast and colors are clearly superior on the 20mm

The difference (low contrast) is so striking that I find it hard to believe. I would not expect (and have never seen) such a bad performance even from a low-end lens, let alone the 16-35 GM.

I once owned a defective Sigma 70-210/2.8 which had some oily residue on an internal element, and the results were similar. Very low contrast in certain lighting conditions, normal contrast in others.

Are you sure your copy is ok? Lens hood attached?

 mick232's gear list:mick232's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +19 more
joger
joger Veteran Member • Posts: 6,618
Re: Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)
1

mick232 wrote:

arneh wrote:

Plenty of sharpness for both lenses wide open in the center. But contrast and colors are clearly superior on the 20mm

The difference (low contrast) is so striking that I find it hard to believe. I would not expect (and have never seen) such a bad performance even from a low-end lens, let alone the 16-35 GM.

I once owned a defective Sigma 70-210/2.8 which had some oily residue on an internal element, and the results were similar. Very low contrast in certain lighting conditions, normal contrast in others.

Are you sure your copy is ok? Lens hood attached?

I have tested two copies of the GM 16..35 vs my G 12..24 and in the overlapping zoom range up towards 20 mm focal length the G 12..24 is easily on par with the GM 16..35 at the same aperture and stopped down to f/7.1 it easily outperformed them.

I am surprised about the perceived quality of the GM 16..35 - for me the stopped down performance at the wide en counts - I can see the reason for the OP to favor the G 20 f/1.8 - especially due to that aperture ring on top - which is additionally to the wide open performance the icing on the cream.

-- hide signature --

_____________________________________
A7R IV - one camera to rule them all
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Douglas Adams

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Sony a7R IV Sony FE 85mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM Sony FE 35mm F1.4 GM Sony FE 50mm F1.2 GM +12 more
OP arneh Regular Member • Posts: 162
Re: Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)

mick232 wrote:

arneh wrote:

Plenty of sharpness for both lenses wide open in the center. But contrast and colors are clearly superior on the 20mm

The difference (low contrast) is so striking that I find it hard to believe. I would not expect (and have never seen) such a bad performance even from a low-end lens, let alone the 16-35 GM.

I once owned a defective Sigma 70-210/2.8 which had some oily residue on an internal element, and the results were similar. Very low contrast in certain lighting conditions, normal contrast in others.

Are you sure your copy is ok? Lens hood attached?

Read my later posts in the thread.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63963685

TLDR; No way near as big difference in other tests. First test was very unfortunate. A clear filter I used on the 16-35 may have played a part.

 arneh's gear list:arneh's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R III Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG Macro Art +5 more
Dash29 Senior Member • Posts: 1,425
Re: Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)

Thanks for the review.

In my opinion it demonstrates that the only reason you'd purchase the 20mm lens, is that you wanted a smaller, single focal length kit.

PWPhotography Forum Pro • Posts: 10,818
Re: Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)
1

joger wrote:

mick232 wrote:

arneh wrote:

Plenty of sharpness for both lenses wide open in the center. But contrast and colors are clearly superior on the 20mm

The difference (low contrast) is so striking that I find it hard to believe. I would not expect (and have never seen) such a bad performance even from a low-end lens, let alone the 16-35 GM.

I once owned a defective Sigma 70-210/2.8 which had some oily residue on an internal element, and the results were similar. Very low contrast in certain lighting conditions, normal contrast in others.

Are you sure your copy is ok? Lens hood attached?

I have tested two copies of the GM 16..35 vs my G 12..24 and in the overlapping zoom range up towards 20 mm focal length the G 12..24 is easily on par with the GM 16..35 at the same aperture and stopped down to f/7.1 it easily outperformed them.

LOL, we all know your confirmation-bias tests In all creditable reviews, 16-35 GM is sharper than 12-24 G that is particularly weak at 24mm side.

TDP 16-35 GM vs 12-24 G @16mm

TDP 16-35 GM vs 12-24 G @24mm

Here is an owner who I believe is creditable.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1504846/6

He said,

I've been debating the need for keeping both the 16-35 GM and the 24-70 GM. I've pretty well established with testing that the 12-24 G is a keeper and will be my ultra-wide from 12mm - 16mm, the 16-35 GM tests slightly better than the 12-24 G from 16mm- 24mm (and has f/2.8 for Astro work), but what about the 24-35 focal length range versus the 24-70 GM? There is much debate given the MTF's and testing done by Roger and Fred about the variability of 35mm focal length on the 16-35 GM lens. So, I decided to do some infinity test to see how my copy of the 16-35 GM compares to the 24-70 GM at 24mm and 35mm. I also wanted to see how good my copy of the 24-70 GM is at 50mm so I tested it against my 50mm f/1.4 ZA lens. I found the results very interesting.

I am surprised about the perceived quality of the GM 16..35 - for me the stopped down performance at the wide en counts - I can see the reason for the OP to favor the G 20 f/1.8 - especially due to that aperture ring on top - which is additionally to the wide open performance the icing on the cream.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63971770

Again, here is my above full size samples of 16-35 GM @f2.8 wide open. Go check if you have not seen them. It's certainly sharper than your 12-24 G. Among 12/14-24mm zoom, Sony new FE 12-24/2.8 GM and Sigma FE 14-24/2.8 Art clearly beat 12-24 G in entire FL range, as a matter of fact, they are sharper at f2.8 than 12-24 G at f4.0, just as 16-35 GM @f2.8 beats 12-24 G @f4.0 as shown below.

16-35 GM at f2.8 vs 12-24 G at f4.0 @16mm

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +16 more
ukbassman Regular Member • Posts: 196
Re: Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)

I bet the zoom is way sharper than the prime at 16 and 35mm....

 ukbassman's gear list:ukbassman's gear list
Sony a7R II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS Sony FE 85mm F1.8 +2 more
PWPhotography Forum Pro • Posts: 10,818
Re: Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)
1

arneh wrote:

mick232 wrote:

arneh wrote:

Plenty of sharpness for both lenses wide open in the center. But contrast and colors are clearly superior on the 20mm

The difference (low contrast) is so striking that I find it hard to believe. I would not expect (and have never seen) such a bad performance even from a low-end lens, let alone the 16-35 GM.

I once owned a defective Sigma 70-210/2.8 which had some oily residue on an internal element, and the results were similar. Very low contrast in certain lighting conditions, normal contrast in others.

Are you sure your copy is ok? Lens hood attached?

Read my later posts in the thread.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63963685

TLDR; No way near as big difference in other tests. First test was very unfortunate. A clear filter I used on the 16-35 may have played a part.

Exactly.  I am sure Sony 20/1.8 G is sharper @f2.8 especially at edges.  But after stopping down a bit, the difference is not that much.  The same as I see with Voigtlander FE 21/1.4 Nokton that is also a very sharp lens.  Sharpness is not the key factor but characters (especially sunstar and micro-contrast in some degree) where I will use the prime.  But the 16-35 GM versatility cannot be denied in many occasions.

I have so many photos from 16-35 GM in my albums that shows it's very good in sharpness and contrast.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +16 more
Dash29 Senior Member • Posts: 1,425
Re: Sony 20mm F1.8 first experiences (compared to 16-35 GM)
1

ukbassman wrote:

I bet the zoom is way sharper than the prime at 16 and 35mm....

LOL

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads