Looking for a simple super wide solution

[Martin Ocando]

I don't really shoot super wide much, and for most purposes the 20mm side of my 20-70mm is more than sufficient, but I want to have wider options but not spending too much. Speed wise f/4 is also enough, although I might shoot the occasional astro, is way too unfrequent to justify a lens for only that so the 16mm f/1.8 while very nice, is not in my budget right now.

So, long story shot, I've been looking into many FF options, but a lens I wasn't expected appeared on a youtube video and the reviewer mentioned that while is for the APS-C format, and shows a prominent vignette on the 10mm side, it almost disappears at 12mm. I can find this lens at around $400 on eBay.

Have anyone had experience on this one?

Any other options you can recommend?

 

[Impulses]

To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't get a 14mm prime, or that you should get the Sigma 16-28mm. Maybe your experience tells you the 14mm would be fine, and the price difference is large. On the other hand, if you've accepted the step up from an initial budget of $400 and would seriously consider spending $989 for the Sigma 16-28mm, then I'd have to think long and hard about spending a little more ($1198, which is 21% more) for the Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ.

Ouch. I didn't realize it was that pricey. A used Tamron 17-28/2.8 for $500 looks like a steal.

My overall sense from all the reviews and reports I've read--and I have not made a close study of it--is that the big differentiator between the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 and the Sony 16-35mm f/4 G PZ is corner sharpness / resolution, with the Sony being substantially better. How important that is depends on how you want to use the lens. I have lenses for uses where I almost don't care about corner performance (75mm f/2) and others where I do.

For my own use, I went with the least-expensive zoom among what seemed to me the credible options, a used Sony / Zeiss FE 16-35mm f/4 Vario-Tessar. It's fine for me and my needs.

And I think I made the right choice of that lens for about $400 versus my main alternative considered, a new Samyang 18mm f/2.8 for $299, based on the zoom-versus-prime issue (and also getting 16mm, 20mm, and 22mm, versus only 18mm). But I'm sure there are better options for those willing to spend more.

The 17-28 held up remarkably well against the original 16-35 GM, and the GM II wasn't lauded as a big jump...

MTF Tests of the Tamron 17-28mm and 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD Lenses

Tamron has a nice set of three f/2.8 zooms for Sony E mount cameras. Today I'm putting out MTF results for the 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD and the 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD. They offer a reasonably priced alternative to Sony-branded lenses, and Tamron has been making good products lately. I'll admit...

www.lensrentals.com

I'm not sure there would be a significant difference vs the 16-35/4 G PZ once you're at f5.6-8, that tends to be a great equalizer.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4 ...

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8 ....

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

IMO you may not be sufficiently considering zoom versus prime. If your next-widest lens is 20mm, then the gap is vast between 14mm and 20mm. Compared with 20mm, at 14mm the field of view has more than twice the area, and is 43% wider and 43% taller.

14mm the viewing angle is 114 degrees, 20mm is 94 degrees, that is not 43% wider. It is about 22%.

You can't use degrees like that; projected that way, they aren't linear. We're talking about field of view. Let's use as an example a FF camera and a camera-to-subject distance of 10 ft. A 20mm lens gives a field of view of 18.0 x 12.0 ft; a 14mm lens gives a field of view of 25.7 x 17.1 ft. As I previously indicated, 25.7 is 43% wider than 18.0 (and same for the height).

So a 10mm will be twice as wide as a 20mm lens?

Yes, in terms of the width in feet (or meters) of the field of view at any given distance.

So 90 degrees is not twice as wide as 45 degrees?

You're confusing two critically-different meanings of "wide". Around a circle, 90 degrees is twice as wide as 45 degrees. But if you project those angles onto a plane at a fixed distance from the center of the circle, then 90 degrees is a lot wider in terms of distance along the plane.

Just seen images inside a room one at 28mm and one at 10mm. The 10mm image was about twice the width as the 28mm one

Only if you think 2.8x is about the same as 2.0x. It's 2.8x as wide, if the lenses are in fact 28mm and 10mm.

18mm horizontal is 90 degrees, 44mm is about 45 degrees.

Close--to get 45 degrees long the long axis requires a hair closer to a 43mm lens (about 43.46mm).

According to your figures a 36mm should be 45 degrees, but it is not.

No, you're still misunderstanding.

The basic point is that what matters to composing a photograph is the linear width (and height) of the field of view. As the angle of view gets larger, degree for degree the field of view expands more. Think of it this way: whatever is the field of view at a given distance for a lens that provides a 90 degree horizontal field of view, a (theoretical, at least for non-fisheyes) lens that provides an 180 degree angle of view does not produce a field of view that is twice as wide, but one that is infinitely wide.

To illustrate:

 

[RaysJ]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4 ...

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8 ....

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

IMO you may not be sufficiently considering zoom versus prime. If your next-widest lens is 20mm, then the gap is vast between 14mm and 20mm. Compared with 20mm, at 14mm the field of view has more than twice the area, and is 43% wider and 43% taller.

14mm the viewing angle is 114 degrees, 20mm is 94 degrees, that is not 43% wider. It is about 22%.

You can't use degrees like that; projected that way, they aren't linear. We're talking about field of view. Let's use as an example a FF camera and a camera-to-subject distance of 10 ft. A 20mm lens gives a field of view of 18.0 x 12.0 ft; a 14mm lens gives a field of view of 25.7 x 17.1 ft. As I previously indicated, 25.7 is 43% wider than 18.0 (and same for the height).

So a 10mm will be twice as wide as a 20mm lens?

Yes, in terms of the width in feet (or meters) of the field of view at any given distance.

So 90 degrees is not twice as wide as 45 degrees?

You're confusing two critically-different meanings of "wide". Around a circle, 90 degrees is twice as wide as 45 degrees. But if you project those angles onto a plane at a fixed distance from the center of the circle, then 90 degrees is a lot wider in terms of distance along the plane.

Just seen images inside a room one at 28mm and one at 10mm. The 10mm image was about twice the width as the 28mm one

Only if you think 2.8x is about the same as 2.0x. It's 2.8x as wide, if the lenses are in fact 28mm and 10mm.

18mm horizontal is 90 degrees, 44mm is about 45 degrees.

Close--to get 45 degrees long the long axis requires a hair closer to a 43mm lens (about 43.46mm).

According to your figures a 36mm should be 45 degrees, but it is not.

No, you're still misunderstanding.

The basic point is that what matters to composing a photograph is the linear width (and height) of the field of view. As the angle of view gets larger, degree for degree the field of view expands more. Think of it this way: whatever is the field of view at a given distance for a lens that provides a 90 degree horizontal field of view, a (theoretical, at least for non-fisheyes) lens that provides an 180 degree angle of view does not produce a field of view that is twice as wide, but one that is infinitely wide.

To illustrate:

Just done it on my camera and zoom lens, 2 40mm images side by side are wider than one at 20mm. Same with 35 and 70.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4 ...

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8 ....

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

IMO you may not be sufficiently considering zoom versus prime. If your next-widest lens is 20mm, then the gap is vast between 14mm and 20mm. Compared with 20mm, at 14mm the field of view has more than twice the area, and is 43% wider and 43% taller.

14mm the viewing angle is 114 degrees, 20mm is 94 degrees, that is not 43% wider. It is about 22%.

You can't use degrees like that; projected that way, they aren't linear. We're talking about field of view. Let's use as an example a FF camera and a camera-to-subject distance of 10 ft. A 20mm lens gives a field of view of 18.0 x 12.0 ft; a 14mm lens gives a field of view of 25.7 x 17.1 ft. As I previously indicated, 25.7 is 43% wider than 18.0 (and same for the height).

So a 10mm will be twice as wide as a 20mm lens?

Yes, in terms of the width in feet (or meters) of the field of view at any given distance.

So 90 degrees is not twice as wide as 45 degrees?

You're confusing two critically-different meanings of "wide". Around a circle, 90 degrees is twice as wide as 45 degrees. But if you project those angles onto a plane at a fixed distance from the center of the circle, then 90 degrees is a lot wider in terms of distance along the plane.

Just seen images inside a room one at 28mm and one at 10mm. The 10mm image was about twice the width as the 28mm one

Only if you think 2.8x is about the same as 2.0x. It's 2.8x as wide, if the lenses are in fact 28mm and 10mm.

18mm horizontal is 90 degrees, 44mm is about 45 degrees.

Close--to get 45 degrees long the long axis requires a hair closer to a 43mm lens (about 43.46mm).

According to your figures a 36mm should be 45 degrees, but it is not.

No, you're still misunderstanding.

The basic point is that what matters to composing a photograph is the linear width (and height) of the field of view. As the angle of view gets larger, degree for degree the field of view expands more. Think of it this way: whatever is the field of view at a given distance for a lens that provides a 90 degree horizontal field of view, a (theoretical, at least for non-fisheyes) lens that provides an 180 degree angle of view does not produce a field of view that is twice as wide, but one that is infinitely wide.

To illustrate:

Just done it on my camera and zoom lens, 2 40mm images side by side are wider than one at 20mm. Same with 35 and 70.

Why don't you try measuring (print it if that helps) my little drawing above? It's to scale, maybe not perfect, but very close. Do you find the angles to be as marked? Do you find the relative distances as indicated? If so, does that not demonstrate the correctness of my assertions?

There are a variety of issues with lenses' actual focal lengths being not quite their nominal focal lengths, and with corrections of geometric distortions (like barrel and pincushion) producing effective focal lengths that differ substantially from the actual focal lengths. Also, what you get with e.g. two 40mm shots differs substantially depending on whether you pivot the camera or shift the camera or what.

But on FF, if none of those is an issue, then e.g. at 10 ft, a 40mm lens gives a field of view 9 ft wide and a 20mm lens gives a field of view 18 ft wide.

I'm very confident about the correctness of what I've posted here. I suspect your grasp of geometry and trigonometry is not strong. Believe, don't believe, whatever.

 

[RaysJ]

Due to recent tips from fellow forum members, the stakes are now like this:

1. Laowa 14mm f/4 ...

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8 ....

Let's see how things roll out in the next few days.

IMO you may not be sufficiently considering zoom versus prime. If your next-widest lens is 20mm, then the gap is vast between 14mm and 20mm. Compared with 20mm, at 14mm the field of view has more than twice the area, and is 43% wider and 43% taller.

14mm the viewing angle is 114 degrees, 20mm is 94 degrees, that is not 43% wider. It is about 22%.

You can't use degrees like that; projected that way, they aren't linear. We're talking about field of view. Let's use as an example a FF camera and a camera-to-subject distance of 10 ft. A 20mm lens gives a field of view of 18.0 x 12.0 ft; a 14mm lens gives a field of view of 25.7 x 17.1 ft. As I previously indicated, 25.7 is 43% wider than 18.0 (and same for the height).

So a 10mm will be twice as wide as a 20mm lens?

Yes, in terms of the width in feet (or meters) of the field of view at any given distance.

So 90 degrees is not twice as wide as 45 degrees?

You're confusing two critically-different meanings of "wide". Around a circle, 90 degrees is twice as wide as 45 degrees. But if you project those angles onto a plane at a fixed distance from the center of the circle, then 90 degrees is a lot wider in terms of distance along the plane.

Just seen images inside a room one at 28mm and one at 10mm. The 10mm image was about twice the width as the 28mm one

Only if you think 2.8x is about the same as 2.0x. It's 2.8x as wide, if the lenses are in fact 28mm and 10mm.

18mm horizontal is 90 degrees, 44mm is about 45 degrees.

Close--to get 45 degrees long the long axis requires a hair closer to a 43mm lens (about 43.46mm).

According to your figures a 36mm should be 45 degrees, but it is not.

No, you're still misunderstanding.

The basic point is that what matters to composing a photograph is the linear width (and height) of the field of view. As the angle of view gets larger, degree for degree the field of view expands more. Think of it this way: whatever is the field of view at a given distance for a lens that provides a 90 degree horizontal field of view, a (theoretical, at least for non-fisheyes) lens that provides an 180 degree angle of view does not produce a field of view that is twice as wide, but one that is infinitely wide.

To illustrate:

Just done it on my camera and zoom lens, 2 40mm images side by side are wider than one at 20mm. Same with 35 and 70.

Why don't you try measuring (print it if that helps) my little drawing above? It's to scale, maybe not perfect, but very close. Do you find the angles to be as marked? Do you find the relative distances as indicated? If so, does that not demonstrate the correctness of my assertions?

There are a variety of issues with lenses' actual focal lengths being not quite their nominal focal lengths, and with corrections of geometric distortions (like barrel and pincushion) producing effective focal lengths that differ substantially from the actual focal lengths. Also, what you get with e.g. two 40mm shots differs substantially depending on whether you pivot the camera or shift the camera or what.

But on FF, if none of those is an issue, then e.g. at 10 ft, a 40mm lens gives a field of view 9 ft wide and a 20mm lens gives a field of view 18 ft wide.

I'm very confident about the correctness of what I've posted here. I suspect your grasp of geometry and trigonometry is not strong. Believe, don't believe, whatever.

In your diagram, if the 45 degrees, started along the same line as the 90 degree line, then the other side would be halfway between the 2 90 degree lines?

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

Timely thread Martin.


Waaaay too bulbous + prone to flare I read before purchasing

On my partially dead R2 picked up bargain (£140 +postage) month earlier.

Picked up £52 + postage this 15-30 Sigma, it's PK and Nikon mount have aperture ring.
F/11 reportedly sharpest edge to center.

I would kept it, however I just can't seem to keep this 15-30 Sigma handheld steady even at 1/800 with Electronic silent shutter, breathing technique, arms tucked in. I even had it in Ef mount (£64 + postage). I'm fine with plastic not so fantastic cosina/tokina/vivitar 19-35 picked up £30 Ef mount.

It's just I'm more doddering these days. Definitely require lighter smaller uwa lens also maybe OIS in lens.
I don't want to crop. I like getting the composition as I like in camera : for me an adapted uwa zoom upto £170. Maybe that Sony 16-35/4 with autofocus not working, manual focus working at a bargain.

I shall keep looking.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[David Ortega]

Good Option sony 10-18 on ebay $400 you find it. No SO sharp but its good,

 

[Martin Ocando]

Good Option sony 10-18 on ebay $400 you find it. No SO sharp but its good,

Might be quite a challenge for a 61MP sensor, though, so I prefer to look into FF options instead.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

1/25 handheld steady I was able with IS switched on this 615g Canon Ef 16-35/4 photographing through A7r2 evf.

Frankly my dear I'm impressed.

Around £310 - £370 + Ef to E mount adapter. Was on my £30 Fotodiox adapter.

Was in a store.

Reckon I will pick up one Ef 16-35/4 with autofocus not working bargain.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[jhunna]

Good Option sony 10-18 on ebay $400 you find it. No SO sharp but its good,

Might be quite a challenge for a 61MP sensor, though, so I prefer to look into FF options instead.

Went through this a year or so ago. I have the newere 1020G, and I use it on the a7cr for 26MP apsc shots. It is more than enough to soothe the occasional need for UW. Granted I can shoot this at FF and get the full 61MP, but you need to shoot slowly or use tripods to make sure you don't introduce vignetting.

Get the 10-18, if its occasional Wide angle, and shoot it in apsc mode. Otherwise I would spend a few more dollars and get the older 1224G 1635/4 etc...

I find that 20mm is more than enough for wide shots unless I want to make a statement shot (like showing the full stadium or a huge mountainscape). In those cases 26MP is enough...

Good luck and if I can answer specific questions let me know.

 

[Martin Ocando]

Good Option sony 10-18 on ebay $400 you find it. No SO sharp but its good,

Might be quite a challenge for a 61MP sensor, though, so I prefer to look into FF options instead.

Went through this a year or so ago. I have the newere 1020G, and I use it on the a7cr for 26MP apsc shots. It is more than enough to soothe the occasional need for UW. Granted I can shoot this at FF and get the full 61MP, but you need to shoot slowly or use tripods to make sure you don't introduce vignetting.

Get the 10-18, if its occasional Wide angle, and shoot it in apsc mode. Otherwise I would spend a few more dollars and get the older 1224G 1635/4 etc...

I find that 20mm is more than enough for wide shots unless I want to make a statement shot (like showing the full stadium or a huge mountainscape). In those cases 26MP is enough...

Good luck and if I can answer specific questions let me know.

Thanks for the tips. I'm still considering my options.

 

[Impulses]

Good Option sony 10-18 on ebay $400 you find it. No SO sharp but its good,

Might be quite a challenge for a 61MP sensor, though, so I prefer to look into FF options instead.

Went through this a year or so ago. I have the newere 1020G, and I use it on the a7cr for 26MP apsc shots. It is more than enough to soothe the occasional need for UW. Granted I can shoot this at FF and get the full 61MP, but you need to shoot slowly or use tripods to make sure you don't introduce vignetting.

Get the 10-18, if its occasional Wide angle, and shoot it in apsc mode. Otherwise I would spend a few more dollars and get the older 1224G 1635/4 etc...

I find that 20mm is more than enough for wide shots unless I want to make a statement shot (like showing the full stadium or a huge mountainscape). In those cases 26MP is enough...

Good luck and if I can answer specific questions let me know.

He already has the 20-70 G though, I don't understand the point of going with an APS-C zoom to get 15-19mm when a FF prime can accomplish the same at a lower price, smaller size, and without losing a bunch of the sensor advantage he's paid for at 15mm (can always crop for anything in between).

Used Sony 10-18 are going for $400-500, the Laowa 15/5 is $400, I'm an advocate of UWA zooms over primes in general because framing at this end is tricky, but if we're talking specifically about occasional use I think that favors the small prime even more TBH. The Sony zoom is 2.5" long and 225g, the Laowa prime is 1.4" & 138g.

The prime has a better MFD and max magnification, better sunstars, and can create 15mm 61MP shots... I'd only go for a zoom in this instance if he's going for a FF zoom to use as a walkabout option or wants the speed of an f2.8, etc.

Review: Laowa 15mm 5.0 Cookie - Tiny and Useful

The Laowa 15mm 5.0 is the latest addition to Laowa's compact "Cookie" line. Usually such small lenses spot several

phillipreeve.net

 

[jhunna]

Good Option sony 10-18 on ebay $400 you find it. No SO sharp but its good,

Might be quite a challenge for a 61MP sensor, though, so I prefer to look into FF options instead.

Went through this a year or so ago. I have the newere 1020G, and I use it on the a7cr for 26MP apsc shots. It is more than enough to soothe the occasional need for UW. Granted I can shoot this at FF and get the full 61MP, but you need to shoot slowly or use tripods to make sure you don't introduce vignetting.

Get the 10-18, if its occasional Wide angle, and shoot it in apsc mode. Otherwise I would spend a few more dollars and get the older 1224G 1635/4 etc...

I find that 20mm is more than enough for wide shots unless I want to make a statement shot (like showing the full stadium or a huge mountainscape). In those cases 26MP is enough...

Good luck and if I can answer specific questions let me know.

He already has the 20-70 G though, I don't understand the point of going with an APS-C zoom to get 15-19mm when a FF prime can accomplish the same at a lower price, smaller size, and without losing a bunch of the sensor advantage he's paid for at 15mm (can always crop for anything in between).

The 1018 and 1020 apsc zooms are special because they cover a lot of the sensor. As he mentioned at 12-13mm the entire sensor is covered by this glass giving you a value 12mm which is wider and brighter than the 15/5.

Also with the a7r4 he has pixelshift which can give him 104MP file when shot in apsc mode, or even more when shoot as a FF. Lastly having used this on the a7cr I really don't miss the 61MP vs the 26MP when shooting wide occasionally.

Lastly, I did recommend the older 1224G and 1635FE as they may be more compatible to how he shoots\budget. But if I remember correctly the 1020G is sharper than these two FF options.

Used Sony 10-18 are going for $400-500, the Laowa 15/5 is $400, I'm an advocate of UWA zooms over primes in general because framing at this end is tricky, but if we're talking specifically about occasional use I think that favors the small prime even more TBH. The Sony zoom is 2.5" long and 225g, the Laowa prime is 1.4" & 138g.

The prime has a better MFD and max magnification, better sunstars, and can create 15mm 61MP shots... I'd only go for a zoom in this instance if he's going for a FF zoom to use as a walkabout option or wants the speed of an f2.8, etc.

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-laowa-15mm-5-0-cookie-tiny-and-useful/