Sigma 16mm or 30mm?

[refusenik]

I'm pretty keen on getting another prime to add to my SEL50 f1.8 and am looking at the Sigma f1.4 primes - I've discounted the 56mm for obvious reason but am torn between the 16mm and 30mm.

The 30mm is more of a "standard" lens I guess and would be good as a general walk around lens for street photography, but the 16mm seems to offer more flexibility for landscape and indoor shooting.

Does anyone here have both and if so which you find you use the most?

 

[Martin_99]

Personally I see 30mm too narrow (and close to 50mm) and 16mm too wide as everyday lens.

I would suggest lens in range 20-25mm, such as Zeiss 24f1.8, Viltrox 23f1.4 or maybe new Samyang FE 24f1.8 (no reviews yet).

But everybody have different needs, so such choice of focal length is primarily up to you at the end of the day. If you have some zoom eg. kitlens, try to use it only at one FL for a day or two. You will see if it suit your needs.

 

[Bender79ita]

Depends on what the lens is mostly gonna be used for. The 16 is a large lens to carry around waiting for the perfect occasion to use it (that's why I sold it), but the 30 will be too tight for group shots indoors if that's what you want to use it for.

23-24 might be a sweeter spot, or you could just go for a f2.8 zoom and be done with it.

I suppose it depends what your "roadmap" for lenses is like, the Sony 28 f2 might be a consideration if you plan to switch to FF, etc.

 

[refusenik]

Personally I see 30mm too narrow (and close to 50mm) and 16mm too wide as everyday lens.

I would suggest lens in range 20-25mm, such as Zeiss 24f1.8, Viltrox 23f1.4 or maybe new Samyang FE 24f1.8 (no reviews yet).

But everybody have different needs, so such choice of focal length is primarily up to you at the end of the day. If you have some zoom eg. kitlens, try to use it only at one FL for a day or two. You will see if it suit your needs.

I guess the sensible thing to do would be to extract the focal length from the EXIF data of all my photos, plug them into a spreadsheet and do a count of photos per focal length.

The Samyang FE 24 interests me because of the infinity focus option for astro photos, but on an APS-C body it's less useful for that, but if it's sharp and reasonably priced, it'll be a contender. The Sony Zeiss 24mm is very expensive.

 

[refusenik]

Depends on what the lens is mostly gonna be used for. The 16 is a large lens to carry around waiting for the perfect occasion to use it (that's why I sold it), but the 30 will be too tight for group shots indoors if that's what you want to use it for.

23-24 might be a sweeter spot, or you could just go for a f2.8 zoom and be done with it.

I suppose it depends what your "roadmap" for lenses is like, the Sony 28 f2 might be a consideration if you plan to switch to FF, etc.

Good point about the 16 being large, a 2.8 zoom (the Tamron 17-70 or Sony 16-55 I guess) would also be large but obviously offers much more flexibility, but is very expensive. By all accounts the Sony 16-55 is as sharp as the Sigma trio primes, just a shame it lacks OSS.

I've no plans to switch to FF as I like the compactness of the Sony APS-C cameras and lenses and can live with the relative lack of ergonomics with the A6x00 bodies.

 

[Bender79ita]

Good point about the 16 being large, a 2.8 zoom (the Tamron 17-70 or Sony 16-55 I guess) would also be large but obviously offers much more flexibility, but is very expensive. By all accounts the Sony 16-55 is as sharp as the Sigma trio primes, just a shame it lacks OSS.

I've no plans to switch to FF as I like the compactness of the Sony APS-C cameras and lenses and can live with the relative lack of ergonomics with the A6x00 bodies.

The Tamron is not only expensive, but it's also huge. I was let down by the lack of OSS on the 16-55, otherwise I would have went with that.

If you can deal with indoors situations with a flash bounce (in or off camera) you might not even need a f1.4 lens, after all what are the chances in a group shot that everybody is lined up perfectly on the plane of focus? f1.4 isn't great to use for landscapes either, because of chromatic aberrations.

The 16 f1.4 is particularly good to use inside clubs, cramped spaces with very low light and people moving where you need all the light you can get even at the expense of having everybody in focus. I can imagine an event photographer using it alot.

I have never had a Viltrox 23 so I wouldn't really know if it's a lens worth recommending or not but it does seem to tick many boxes for you. Next stop might be 12 (love that one), so you could go 12 - 23 - 50, sounds like a nice alternative primes setup opposed to the usual Sigmas.

 

[math guy]

I have all three Sigmas and the Viltrox 23.

If I had to choose only one of the 16, 23, and 30, it would definitely be the 23. Obviously that's a personal preference, but I find the 21-24mm range to be the most useful on APS-C. Great for indoors, and perfect for the type of landscapes I shoot most.

I do like the 16, especially for video (since I don't have a wide zoom like the 10-18). So you might go that direction if you intend to use it for video. I was also really glad I had it last week on a hike where I came across a waterfall but had no room to back up - anything less than the 16 and I wouldn't have been able to fit it.

I have the 30 and really like it, too; but I find it gets little use just because the 23 is a more useful focal length for me. Sometimes 30mm it just right, so I'm not planning to get rid of it. But if I had to choose just one, I'd go with something wider.

 

[refusenik]

The Viltrox 23mm looks good, I've used a Viltrox adapter for Nikon F lenses on my NEX-6 and it works well and is well-made, it even includes a tripod mount adaptor.

I've recently seen news of a new Samyang 24mm 1.4 AF lens, it's an FE lens though so I wonder if that'd be a good bet? My understanding is that a full-frame lens on a crop-frame sensor results in less good optical resolution though whether it'd be noticeable is another matter? I've no plans to migrate or upgrade to FF.

 

[Martin_99]

The Viltrox 23mm looks good, I've used a Viltrox adapter for Nikon F lenses on my NEX-6 and it works well and is well-made, it even includes a tripod mount adaptor.

It's a budget chinese lens, very good for the price.

I've recently seen news of a new Samyang 24mm 1.4 AF lens, it's an FE lens though so I wonder if that'd be a good bet? My understanding is that a full-frame lens on a crop-frame sensor results in less good optical resolution though whether it'd be noticeable is another matter? I've no plans to migrate or upgrade to FF.

It's Samyang 24mm f1.8 lens. Wait for the reviews which should be available in next days or weeks.

When FE lens is used, you basically crop the outer part of the image and magnify the center. So you will get the image without edge/corner flaws, but weaker lenses will show eg. the not so good sharpness after this "magnification".

You can see this huge article about testing on A7RIV, which have more pixel density than Sony apsc cameras (app. 26Mpx in crop mode). So FF lenses which succed in this test are good (from sharpness perspective) also for apsc cameras.

Sony Alpha Blog : Which Lenses to maximise the potential of your Sony A7RIV/ A7RV / A1 / A7IV…?

This article assesses approximately 300 full-frame lenses tested on the Sony A7RV, focusing on their sharpness and performance. Divided into seven parts, it discusses lens categories, optimal condi…

sonyalpha.blog

 

[wb2trf]

I own a set of primes across this range acquired over the years: The Rok 12mm f2, the Sigma 16mm 1.4, the Samyang 21mm 1.4, the Sony Zeiss 24mm 1.8, the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and 2.8.

I think it depends entirely on what you like to shoot. Both the Sigmas you mention are very sharp lenses. I use the 30mm almost exclusively for shooting informal "portraits" when the space I'm in is too tight for my preferred 50mm. I don't think it is an intrinsically interesting focal length, but maybe that naturalness is its virtue. I keep the old 2.8 for travel because it is sharp and very compact and I don't need the 1.4 for that.

The 16mm is my main landscape lens. I use it a lot. I do wish it were smaller, but it's virtues are strong so I carry it.

The Rok 12mm is MF, but almost no focusing required. It is a specialty lens in my landscape shooting. Excellent when needed.

The Rok 21mm is every bit as sharp as the Sig 16mm and much smaller, but MF. I prefer 16mm as a focal length, so it has no real use after the 16mm arrived. The 24mm is a nice lens but gets little use from me. With respect to both of these I tested and found that I could crop the 16mm to their image size with essentially no loss of IQ.

 

[mcraige]

Amateur here, and I have both the 16 and 30. I bought the 30 first, since that's what I had for my a77-II. I find that I use the 16 the most, taking pictures of cars and motorcycles. With the 30 I had to back up too far.

As a side note, I used to carry the 30, the 16-50/2.8, and a 50-150/2.8 in my bag with my a77-II, so I laugh anytime I hear someone talk about the 16 being too big/heavy.

 

[paul wassermann]

To my way of thinking and how I shoot...no contest. The 16mm is an amazing quality prime and tolerates a good deal of cropping. Critically sharp wide open so perfect for low light/ interior situations.