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?

 

[Martin Ocando]

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

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

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

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

If you really want f2.8 for <$600, that's how I'd go. But, if f4 is equally acceptable, the Sony 16-35/4's reviews are hard to ignore.

Well, in Optical Limits (formerly photozone.de), a review site I've been using for quite a while the reviews are similar:

photozone.de

Carl-Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm f/4 ZA OSS ( Sony SEL1635Z ) Review - OpticalLimits

During the introduction of the NEX system, Sony followed a rather erratic strategy regarding the introduction of new lenses. It seems as if they have learned quite a bit in the process because they are much more focused when it comes to the new FE mount. Following high-end standard- and...

opticallimits.com

Ratings at 6.5 for the Tamron vs 7.0 for the Zeiss. And currently being in the same price range, I think is a no brainer. Unless I'm not seeing something obvious.

 

[Martin Ocando]

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. That makes a massive difference in composition. Yes, you can crop, but doing so from the wider lens at a minimum (to say nothing of the probably-modest quality loss) makes it more difficult to compose carefully and effectively. If what you really need is 17mm or 18mm, then a 14mm lens plus cropping may not work well for you.

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.

Decisions, decisions!

Oh, I'm not considering spending $989 for the Sigma, I just saw a good deal for a used one at $680 sourced from Japan, although recent posts have recommended the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for around $500, which might be a better option.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

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?

I recommend a free copy of Microsoft ICE and the (free) 24mm setting on your existing 20-70. That easy process gives you far greater width (or height) with much less bloat and superior detail right out to the corners.




Beacon Rock






Tartu




Superwide Distortion 14-24mm f 2.8




Latourell Falls 6 over 6

 

[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. That makes a massive difference in composition. Yes, you can crop, but doing so from the wider lens at a minimum (to say nothing of the probably-modest quality loss) makes it more difficult to compose carefully and effectively. If what you really need is 17mm or 18mm, then a 14mm lens plus cropping may not work well for you.

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.

Decisions, decisions!

Oh, I'm not considering spending $989 for the Sigma, I just saw a good deal for a used one at $680 sourced from Japan, although recent posts have recommended the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for around $500, which might be a better option.

I'm guestimating that you could find a good-condition used Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ for around $750 - $800. If that's right, then it's a similar issue: Sigma 16-28 for $680 or Sony 16-35 for $750 - $800. Or the Tamron; is 17mm enough wider than 20mm?

I think at this point I'm out of ideas. We all see needs, wants, and value a bit differently. You had some thoughts coming in, and people have pointed out a bunch of options. Don't let analysis paralysis get in the way of your enjoying photograph. Good luck!

 

[Impulses]

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

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

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

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

If you really want f2.8 for <$600, that's how I'd go. But, if f4 is equally acceptable, the Sony 16-35/4's reviews are hard to ignore.

Well, in Optical Limits (formerly photozone.de), a review site I've been using for quite a while the reviews are similar:

photozone.de

https://opticallimits.com/sony/carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-16-35mm-f-4-za-oss-sony-sel1635z-review/

Ratings at 6.5 for the Tamron vs 7.0 for the Zeiss. And currently being in the same price range, I think is a no brainer. Unless I'm not seeing something obvious.

 

[ahaslett]

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. That makes a massive difference in composition. Yes, you can crop, but doing so from the wider lens at a minimum (to say nothing of the probably-modest quality loss) makes it more difficult to compose carefully and effectively. If what you really need is 17mm or 18mm, then a 14mm lens plus cropping may not work well for you.

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.

Decisions, decisions!

Oh, I'm not considering spending $989 for the Sigma, I just saw a good deal for a used one at $680 sourced from Japan, although recent posts have recommended the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for around $500, which might be a better option.

I have Tamron 17-28/2.8 G1, 28-75/2.8 G1, 20-70/4 G, CV 15/4.5 and really wide stuff is the Olympus 8/1.8 fisheye.

The 17-28/2.8 has exceptional centre sharpness but you have to stop down a long way before the edges match the centre. I used to find that hard, but now I’m used to it. Tamrons have short MfD, so a sharp centre and f2.8 opens up some interesting options. The 17-28mm is quite light for its shooting envelope. Like most UWA lenses, it has a bit of veiling glare in strong backlight, but less than the 20-70mm G.

Also Tamrons do sunstars if you stop them down a bit.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[Martin Ocando]

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. That makes a massive difference in composition. Yes, you can crop, but doing so from the wider lens at a minimum (to say nothing of the probably-modest quality loss) makes it more difficult to compose carefully and effectively. If what you really need is 17mm or 18mm, then a 14mm lens plus cropping may not work well for you.

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.

Decisions, decisions!

Oh, I'm not considering spending $989 for the Sigma, I just saw a good deal for a used one at $680 sourced from Japan, although recent posts have recommended the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for around $500, which might be a better option.

I'm guestimating that you could find a good-condition used Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ for around $750 - $800.

I'm not seeing any PZ below $850

If that's right, then it's a similar issue: Sigma 16-28 for $680 or Sony 16-35 for $750 - $800. Or the Tamron;

Between Sigma and Sony there is not much of a difference (price wise), but remember that this will be a "less-used" lens, so I don't want to spend too much.

is 17mm enough wider than 20mm?

Maybe, or maybe not. But the f/2.8 aperture calls my attention since I can use it for astro as well.

I think at this point I'm out of ideas. We all see needs, wants, and value a bit differently. You had some thoughts coming in, and people have pointed out a bunch of options. Don't let analysis paralysis get in the way of your enjoying photograph. Good luck!

All your ideas are valid, and appreciate the time to challenge my logic. I think I made my mind, so when I get my money for everything I sold on mpb, hopefully tomorrow, I'll make my decision and proceed.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Martin Ocando]

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. That makes a massive difference in composition. Yes, you can crop, but doing so from the wider lens at a minimum (to say nothing of the probably-modest quality loss) makes it more difficult to compose carefully and effectively. If what you really need is 17mm or 18mm, then a 14mm lens plus cropping may not work well for you.

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.

Decisions, decisions!

Oh, I'm not considering spending $989 for the Sigma, I just saw a good deal for a used one at $680 sourced from Japan, although recent posts have recommended the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for around $500, which might be a better option.

I'm guestimating that you could find a good-condition used Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ for around $750 - $800. If that's right, then it's a similar issue: Sigma 16-28 for $680 or Sony 16-35 for $750 - $800. Or the Tamron; is 17mm enough wider than 20mm?

16mm 107 deg

17mm 104 deg

20mm 94 deg

I think at this point I'm out of ideas. We all see needs, wants, and value a bit differently. You had some thoughts coming in, and people have pointed out a bunch of options. Don't let analysis paralysis get in the way of your enjoying photograph. Good luck!

 

[Impulses]

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. That makes a massive difference in composition. Yes, you can crop, but doing so from the wider lens at a minimum (to say nothing of the probably-modest quality loss) makes it more difficult to compose carefully and effectively. If what you really need is 17mm or 18mm, then a 14mm lens plus cropping may not work well for you.

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.

Decisions, decisions!

Oh, I'm not considering spending $989 for the Sigma, I just saw a good deal for a used one at $680 sourced from Japan, although recent posts have recommended the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 for around $500, which might be a better option.

I'm guestimating that you could find a good-condition used Sony 16-35mm f/4 PZ for around $750 - $800.

I'm not seeing any PZ below $850

If that's right, then it's a similar issue: Sigma 16-28 for $680 or Sony 16-35 for $750 - $800. Or the Tamron;

Between Sigma and Sony there is not much of a difference (price wise), but remember that this will be a "less-used" lens, so I don't want to spend too much.

is 17mm enough wider than 20mm?

Maybe, or maybe not. But the f/2.8 aperture calls my attention since I can use it for astro as well.

I think at this point I'm out of ideas. We all see needs, wants, and value a bit differently. You had some thoughts coming in, and people have pointed out a bunch of options. Don't let analysis paralysis get in the way of your enjoying photograph. Good luck!

All your ideas are valid, and appreciate the time to challenge my logic. I think I made my mind, so when I get my money for everything I sold on mpb, hopefully tomorrow, I'll make my decision and proceed.

Thanks for the help.

 

[RaysJ]

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

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

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

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

If you really want f2.8 for <$600, that's how I'd go. But, if f4 is equally acceptable, the Sony 16-35/4's reviews are hard to ignore.

Well, in Optical Limits (formerly photozone.de), a review site I've been using for quite a while the reviews are similar:

photozone.de

https://opticallimits.com/sony/carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-16-35mm-f-4-za-oss-sony-sel1635z-review/

Ratings at 6.5 for the Tamron vs 7.0 for the Zeiss. And currently being in the same price range, I think is a no brainer. Unless I'm not seeing something obvious.

There are 2 Sony 16-35 f/4 lenses, the Zeiss is older, heavier, not so sharp, plenty on the used market. The newer Sony, is better, lighter but more expensive. I will not be buying the Zeiss version.

https://opticallimits.com/sony/sony-fe-pz-16-35mm-f-4-g-review/

"Overall, the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G represents a significant update over the old Zeiss "predecessor" while keeping a relatively sane price level. Therefore - highly recommended!"

Check carefully on these wide angle lenses, if you are using ND filters, even with without filters some have strong vignetting. No point in buying a 14mm lens if you have crop off the corners.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

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.

Good point.

Compared with 20mm, at 14mm the field of view has more than twice the area, and is 43% wider and 43% taller. That makes a massive difference in composition. Yes, you can crop, but doing so from the wider lens at a minimum (to say nothing of the probably-modest quality loss) makes it more difficult to compose carefully and effectively. If what you really need is 17mm or 18mm, then a 14mm lens plus cropping may not work well for you.

14mm, 18mm and 24mm primes work well.

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.

Decisions, decisions!

 

[Jacques Cornell]

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

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

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

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

If you really want f2.8 for <$600, that's how I'd go. But, if f4 is equally acceptable, the Sony 16-35/4's reviews are hard to ignore.

Well, in Optical Limits (formerly photozone.de), a review site I've been using for quite a while the reviews are similar:

photozone.de

https://opticallimits.com/sony/carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-16-35mm-f-4-za-oss-sony-sel1635z-review/

Ratings at 6.5 for the Tamron vs 7.0 for the Zeiss. And currently being in the same price range, I think is a no brainer. Unless I'm not seeing something obvious.

There are 2 Sony 16-35 f/4 lenses, the Zeiss is older, heavier, not so sharp, plenty on the used market. The newer Sony, is better, lighter but more expensive. I will not be buying the Zeiss version.

https://opticallimits.com/sony/sony-fe-pz-16-35mm-f-4-g-review/

"Overall, the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G represents a significant update over the old Zeiss "predecessor" while keeping a relatively sane price level. Therefore - highly recommended!"

Check carefully on these wide angle lenses, if you are using ND filters, even with without filters some have strong vignetting. No point in buying a 14mm lens if you have crop off the corners.

I don't have that issue with my Samyang AF 14mm f2.8 FE. I process with DxO PhotoLab, which is very good - possibly the best - at lens corrections.

 

[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%.



l agree it maybe too wide. I would not use it for landscapes/seascapes, 16mm is fine, often too wide.

 

[RaysJ]

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

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

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

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

If you really want f2.8 for <$600, that's how I'd go. But, if f4 is equally acceptable, the Sony 16-35/4's reviews are hard to ignore.

Well, in Optical Limits (formerly photozone.de), a review site I've been using for quite a while the reviews are similar:

photozone.de

https://opticallimits.com/sony/carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-16-35mm-f-4-za-oss-sony-sel1635z-review/

Ratings at 6.5 for the Tamron vs 7.0 for the Zeiss. And currently being in the same price range, I think is a no brainer. Unless I'm not seeing something obvious.

There are 2 Sony 16-35 f/4 lenses, the Zeiss is older, heavier, not so sharp, plenty on the used market. The newer Sony, is better, lighter but more expensive. I will not be buying the Zeiss version.

https://opticallimits.com/sony/sony-fe-pz-16-35mm-f-4-g-review/

"Overall, the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G represents a significant update over the old Zeiss "predecessor" while keeping a relatively sane price level. Therefore - highly recommended!"

Check carefully on these wide angle lenses, if you are using ND filters, even with without filters some have strong vignetting. No point in buying a 14mm lens if you have crop off the corners.

I don't have that issue with my Samyang AF 14mm f2.8 FE. I process with DxO PhotoLab, which is very good - possibly the best - at lens corrections.

Do you use ND filters on it? I see Nisi have designed a special wide filter attachment and use 150mm wide filters.

The Samyang would not be suitable because of its bulbous nature, he wants to use his normal ND filters on it. This is the problem once you go wider than 16mm, either bulbous or strong vignetting. Many ND users use 82mm wide filters to reduce vignetting.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

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

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

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

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

If you really want f2.8 for <$600, that's how I'd go. But, if f4 is equally acceptable, the Sony 16-35/4's reviews are hard to ignore.

Well, in Optical Limits (formerly photozone.de), a review site I've been using for quite a while the reviews are similar:

photozone.de

https://opticallimits.com/sony/carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-16-35mm-f-4-za-oss-sony-sel1635z-review/

Ratings at 6.5 for the Tamron vs 7.0 for the Zeiss. And currently being in the same price range, I think is a no brainer. Unless I'm not seeing something obvious.

There are 2 Sony 16-35 f/4 lenses, the Zeiss is older, heavier, not so sharp, plenty on the used market. The newer Sony, is better, lighter but more expensive. I will not be buying the Zeiss version.

https://opticallimits.com/sony/sony-fe-pz-16-35mm-f-4-g-review/

"Overall, the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G represents a significant update over the old Zeiss "predecessor" while keeping a relatively sane price level. Therefore - highly recommended!"

Check carefully on these wide angle lenses, if you are using ND filters, even with without filters some have strong vignetting. No point in buying a 14mm lens if you have crop off the corners.

I don't have that issue with my Samyang AF 14mm f2.8 FE. I process with DxO PhotoLab, which is very good - possibly the best - at lens corrections.

Do you use ND filters on it?

No.

I see Nisi have designed a special wide filter attachment and use 150mm wide filters.

The Samyang would not be suitable because of its bulbous nature, he wants to use his normal ND filters on it. This is the problem once you go wider than 16mm, either bulbous or strong vignetting. Many ND users use 82mm wide filters to reduce vignetting.

Samyang's new 14-24mm f2.8 can take threaded filters.

 

[RaysJ]

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

1. Laowa 14mm f/4

+ Takes 52mm filters
+ Small and light
+ $330

- MF
- No WS

2. Sigma 16-28 f/2.8

+ Takes 72mm filters (Same as my other zooms)
+ Faster f/2.8 (Can do astro in a pinch)
+ A bit thinner than my 20-70
+ More useful range
+ Weather sealed

- $800 double the budget (I can get it cheaper from Japan, but I'm worried of tariffs)
- Not as wide

You can get a clean used Tamron 17-28/2.8 refurbished with 1-year warranty for about $500. I liked mine, but replaced it with a 20-40/2.8 for event candids.

It just makes so much sense to me the Sigma over any other 16-35. Only going to the Laowa in case I can't reach out to the extended budget.

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

Oh wow. That's right in the ballpark of my budget. God, so many options. I'm overwhelmed. If nothing better gets mentioned, I think that will be the one.

If you really want f2.8 for <$600, that's how I'd go. But, if f4 is equally acceptable, the Sony 16-35/4's reviews are hard to ignore.

Well, in Optical Limits (formerly photozone.de), a review site I've been using for quite a while the reviews are similar:

photozone.de

https://opticallimits.com/sony/carl-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-fe-16-35mm-f-4-za-oss-sony-sel1635z-review/

Ratings at 6.5 for the Tamron vs 7.0 for the Zeiss. And currently being in the same price range, I think is a no brainer. Unless I'm not seeing something obvious.

There are 2 Sony 16-35 f/4 lenses, the Zeiss is older, heavier, not so sharp, plenty on the used market. The newer Sony, is better, lighter but more expensive. I will not be buying the Zeiss version.

https://opticallimits.com/sony/sony-fe-pz-16-35mm-f-4-g-review/

"Overall, the Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f/4 G represents a significant update over the old Zeiss "predecessor" while keeping a relatively sane price level. Therefore - highly recommended!"

Check carefully on these wide angle lenses, if you are using ND filters, even with without filters some have strong vignetting. No point in buying a 14mm lens if you have crop off the corners.

I don't have that issue with my Samyang AF 14mm f2.8 FE. I process with DxO PhotoLab, which is very good - possibly the best - at lens corrections.

Do you use ND filters on it?

No.

I see Nisi have designed a special wide filter attachment and use 150mm wide filters.

The Samyang would not be suitable because of its bulbous nature, he wants to use his normal ND filters on it. This is the problem once you go wider than 16mm, either bulbous or strong vignetting. Many ND users use 82mm wide filters to reduce vignetting.

Samyang's new 14-24mm f2.8 can take threaded filters.

OK, l was not aware of the new lens, just come out, think it will be over the OPs budget.

l did manage to find one review: https://www.google.com/search?clien...ate=ive&vld=cid:dbdb709d,vid:fpSDQ9OX2_Q,st:0

Recommended with a few caveats.

 

[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).

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

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.

 

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

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, which ties up their degrees.

18mm horizontal is 90 degrees, 44mm is about 45 degrees. According to your figures a 36mm should be 45 degrees, but it is not.

 

[Jacques Cornell]

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.

Same here. Since I'm using UWA for architecture and landscape, I stop down anyway for DoF, so as long as it's sharp to the edges at f5.6, I'm happy. The Tamron 17-28 and 20-40 are, as is my Sony 28-60. It seems to me that sharp corners wide-open are primarily of interest to astro shooters, of which I'm not one.

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.

I like my Samyang 18/2.8 a lot, but I wouldn't mind if it were f4, not that I need it to be any smaller/lighter/cheaper than it already is. I always use it at f5.6 or f8 anyway - often on a tripod - and it's pretty sharp to the edges when used this way. Same with my Samyang 14/2.8.