p.11 #1 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
I have checked quite a few samples for both 20 G and 24 GM and I think they are more similar than different (obviously besides the FL difference). GM seems to have more bokeh as it is a faster lens and slightly longer FL, but I think rendering of both lenses is very similar. What exactly in the rendering quality makes 24 GM such a popular lens on this forum? Is this because 24mm is a more general purpose FL than 20mm?
p.11 #2 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I have checked quite a few samples for both 20 G and 24 GM and I think they are more similar than different (obviously besides the FL difference). GM seems to have more bokeh as it is a faster lens and slightly longer FL, but I think rendering of both lenses is very similar. What exactly in the rendering quality makes 24 GM such a popular lens on this forum? Is this because 24mm is a more general purpose FL than 20mm?
Rendering aside there is no question that the market for a 24mm lens is going to be much greater than that of a 20mm.
p.11 #3 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I have checked quite a few samples for both 20 G and 24 GM and I think they are more similar than different (obviously besides the FL difference). GM seems to have more bokeh as it is a faster lens and slightly longer FL, but I think rendering of both lenses is very similar. What exactly in the rendering quality makes 24 GM such a popular lens on this forum? Is this because 24mm is a more general purpose FL than 20mm?
The 24 GM has a touch more contrast than the 20 G. They are both very sharp from wide open.
IMO there is no better value than the 20 G in the Sony line - a GM in G clothing
p.11 #5 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
I too have the CV 31 3.5 and I'm really interested in the rumored 16mm 1.8 aperture lens. I currently don't really miss much between 21 and my 28 of my 28-200. However I am in need of something wider and will perform well wide open for astro.
Justin Stone wrote:
However good the 20 1.8 is, I’m waiting on the rumored 16 1.8 GM. Have a CV 21 3.5 already covering this focal length. And the 24 1.4 GM.
p.11 #6 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Justin Stone wrote:
However good the 20 1.8 is, I’m waiting on the rumored 16 1.8 GM. Have a CV 21 3.5 already covering this focal length. And the 24 1.4 GM.
I've been shooting with the Loxia 21 again. It's interesting that my recent copy has lower FC when compared to my copy from many years ago. It's puzzling as FC should remain constant since it's a design characteristic.
p.11 #7 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've been shooting with the Loxia 21 again. It's interesting that my recent copy has lower FC when compared to my copy from many years ago. It's puzzling as FC should remain constant since it's a design characteristic.
Is the decreased FC consistent with this loxia copy across bodies?
p.11 #8 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Is the decreased FC consistent with this loxia copy across bodies?
It seems to be the case since I see same behavior on my Sony A7R IV and A7R II bodies. -- I'm not complaining!!
At infinity, I can focus at the hard stop and get optimal center, mid-zone and extreme corner with this copy. This is something I can't not do before where the optimal center was a tad before infinity.
There is still FC but it's minimal. Both my previous and current copies were well centered (free of tilt/swing at the mount)
This is great because I no longer have to stop the lens down for DOF to mask FC. Perhaps I'm not alone and there are other copies behaving this way. Anyone?
p.11 #9 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
It seems to be the case since I see same behavior on my Sony A7R IV and A7R II bodies. -- I'm not complaining!!
At infinity, I can focus at the hard stop and get optimal center, mid-zone and extreme corner with this copy. This is something I can't not do before where the optimal center was a tad before infinity.
There is still FC but it's minimal. Both my previous and current copies were well centered (free of tilt/swing at the mount)
This is great because I no longer have to stop the lens down for DOF to mask FC. Perhaps I'm not alone and there are other copies behaving this way. Anyone?...Show more →
My copy was always fine from centre to corner focussed in the middle from, I think, f4...and it's pretty old now. I was a bit puzzled at your findings but as I wasn't reviewing it didn't bother checking. Assumed it was sample variation. I guess small differences in spacing could lead to an FC different without any tilt or decentering.
p.11 #10 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
It seems to be the case since I see same behavior on my Sony A7R IV and A7R II bodies. -- I'm not complaining!!
At infinity, I can focus at the hard stop and get optimal center, mid-zone and extreme corner with this copy. This is something I can't not do before where the optimal center was a tad before infinity.
There is still FC but it's minimal. Both my previous and current copies were well centered (free of tilt/swing at the mount)
This is great because I no longer have to stop the lens down for DOF to mask FC. Perhaps I'm not alone and there are other copies behaving this way. Anyone?...Show more →
Interesting. I owned it twice, and it’s my second favorite wide. I checked and both mine were perfectly centered on 42mp but I didn’t check for FC, though I never noticed any. Then again, I nearly never shoot at infinite and 2.8, so it would have been masked.
I didn’t realize FC would/could be copy dependent. Weird.
p.11 #11 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I didn’t realize FC would/could be copy dependent. Weird.
This reminds me of Roger Cicala's article on sample variation and there was a section on "minimally adjustable lenses" and it showed the "other" Zeiss 21mm distagon (ZE/ZF/ZK) lens and how adjusting the front element spacing allows trading off perfect center sharpness for great across-frame sharpness.
Looks like decreased field curvature but can't 100% from just the graphs.
The fun part is doing this adjustment lets you choose what type of lens you want. You can have razor sharp in the center with soft corners or you can let the center be a little softer and the corners much sharper. It’s a great example of adjustment being a trade-off, even for relatively simple adjustments.
p.11 #14 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Hallo all, just got my copy yesterday from one of the colleagues around here.
This purchase was meant as an experiment to see if it can replace my 16-35GM zoom which lives happily in my cabinet and does not see too much action really.
As I normally tend to be shooting telephoto, including landscapes, my daily outdoor lens is the 100-400GM. Once in a while, though, there comes a scene which begs for wide angle capture and this is where I would be reaching for that lens.
I can live with limited versatility of the 20mm prime, but the weight, volume and cost savings make up for it by a lot.
I did a little non-scientific benchmark test of the two lenses and happily discovered the prime being sharper than the zoom, in particular the corners wide open. I was actually quite surprised to see that the 20mmf1.8 is sharper in the corners at f1.8 than the 16-35GM at 2.8.
Prime on the left, zoom on the right, center crop
Corner crop, again prime on the left, zoom on the right.
Looks like I would be selling my zoom shortly.
Finally, I would like to thank you al here for sharing your experiences with this lens, which made my buying decision so much easier.
p.11 #15 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
This lens was my first foray into ultrawide (having only shot 24 mm at the widest before), and it's such a wonderful little lens! The build quality, features, optical performance are all really endearing.
Long time ago now, but I did get a chance to check on the ghosting of the g20 versus Tamron 17-28 which you and I differed on how close they were earlier in this thread. Here is a tripod test, both at f8, ISO100, 2 second delay on an a7r3. Medium contrast tone curve in LR Classic with -81 highlights and identical WB. No lens corrections or anything turned on. The G20 is appreciably worse. I did a couple other test, and the Tamron was ahead.
The g20 has more prominent ghosting and more ghost/blobs generally, and if you look at the focus point (the tree in the middle of the frame), you'll notice the g20 has a bit less contrast due to veiling flare. You'll also notice the g20 has a large bubble like flare coming from the sunstar, from about 3 till 7 o'clock. That just expands as you stopped down.
I didn't bring them out to do astro comparative test, but I do know the g20 gets odd reflections/ghosts with a bright moon I've never gotten with the Tamron 17-28 or GM 24.
Edit: and for the record, I switched to the Sony G 20 because of the extra speed for astro and the smaller size.
p.11 #17 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
I did a quick comparison between the Sony 20mm and Tokina 20mm. A nightscene to show the difference in astigmatism (no stars unfortunately).
The two lenses seem to be very similar in terms of performance, if anything the Tokina is slightly better.
Was hoping the Sony would be better. Maybe my copy is not the best? Considering the price difference to the Tokina lens I'm not sure whether to keep the Sony.
p.11 #19 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
keepcoding wrote:
I did a quick comparison between the Sony 20mm and Tokina 20mm. A nightscene to show the difference in astigmatism (no stars unfortunately).
The two lenses seem to be very similar in terms of performance, if anything the Tokina is slightly better.
Was hoping the Sony would be better. Maybe my copy is not the best? Considering the price difference to the Tokina lens I'm not sure whether to keep the Sony.
Looking at your posted images I think the Sony is better myself. Resolves more detail. Tokina is more mushy.
Long time ago now, but I did get a chance to check on the ghosting of the g20 versus Tamron 17-28 which you and I differed on how close they were earlier in this thread. Here is a tripod test, both at f8, ISO100, 2 second delay on an a7r3. Medium contrast tone curve in LR Classic with -81 highlights and identical WB. No lens corrections or anything turned on. The G20 is appreciably worse. I did a couple other test, and the Tamron was ahead.
The g20 has more prominent ghosting and more ghost/blobs generally, and if you look at the focus point (the tree in the middle of the frame), you'll notice the g20 has a bit less contrast due to veiling flare. You'll also notice the g20 has a large bubble like flare coming from the sunstar, from about 3 till 7 o'clock. That just expands as you stopped down.
I didn't bring them out to do astro comparative test, but I do know the g20 gets odd reflections/ghosts with a bright moon I've never gotten with the Tamron 17-28 or GM 24.
Edit: and for the record, I switched to the Sony G 20 because of the extra speed for astro and the smaller size....Show more →
How sure are you the two images represent the same scenario. It seems the image with the g20 has more of the sun exposed from the tree which would have an affect on the flare. Really does not take much difference in the sun positioning to have a dramatic affect on flare.
Hard to test apples to apples unless you are in a studio where nothing moves.
