I have the 16-35 GM and still for me is the only lens that can really do a lot and also pretty well. I would have loved to go wider with a 12-24 G or even the Sigma 14-24 but the lack of standard or 100mm filters has put me off. In fact I ended up with the CV12 which takes 100mm filters and a CV21/3.5 for when I want to limit weight in landscape photography.
Thinking now to trade the sunstars and colors of CV 21/3.5 with the speed and AF of the 20G...
fplstudio wrote:
I have the 16-35 GM and still for me is the only lens that can really do a lot and also pretty well. I would have loved to go wider with a 12-24 G or even the Sigma 14-24 but the lack of standard or 100mm filters has put me off. In fact I ended up with the CV12 which takes 100mm filters and a CV21/3.5 for when I want to limit weight in landscape photography.
Thinking now to trade the sunstars and colors of CV 21/3.5 with the speed and AF of the 20G...
Trade the CV 21/3.5 for the 20/1.8G? Keep them both like I have!
Has anyone gone from the Loxia 21mm to this lens? I'm in the market for a ~20mm wide angle mostly for landscape/cityscape, with some interest in venturing into astro but it is not a priority. Comparing used Loxias to the new Sony 20mm is making the decision very difficult. I've read through this entire thread, and I'm still not sure which is a better fit for me. Thoughts?
Ben DDS wrote:
Has anyone gone from the Loxia 21mm to this lens? I'm in the market for a ~20mm wide angle mostly for landscape/cityscape, with some interest in venturing into astro but it is not a priority. Comparing used Loxias to the new Sony 20mm is making the decision very difficult. I've read through this entire thread, and I'm still not sure which is a better fit for me. Thoughts?
I would love to see a clear-cut test of these two lenses for astrophotography.
Ben DDS wrote:
Has anyone gone from the Loxia 21mm to this lens? I'm in the market for a ~20mm wide angle mostly for landscape/cityscape, with some interest in venturing into astro but it is not a priority. Comparing used Loxias to the new Sony 20mm is making the decision very difficult. I've read through this entire thread, and I'm still not sure which is a better fit for me. Thoughts?
I own the 21/3.5 CV, 21/2.8 Lox and 20/1.8G and have not directly compared them.
The 20G has been great to have for low light and when I want a slightly lighter bag than the Lox. The CV is for when weight AND size are a premium (hiking/climbing).
My feel is that the IQ stopped down 21Lox > 20G > 21CV, but they are all pretty close. Have not had enough sun to really test the 20G's flare/ghosting all that much.
Not sure which one I will take on the next vacation.
jhinkey wrote:
I own the 21/3.5 CV, 21/2.8 Lox and 20/1.8G and have not directly compared them.
The 20G has been great to have for low light and when I want a slightly lighter bag than the Lox. The CV is for when weight AND size are a premium (hiking/climbing).
My feel is that the IQ stopped down 21Lox > 20G > 21CV, but they are all pretty close. Have not had enough sun to really test the 20G's flare/ghosting all that much.
Not sure which one I will take on the next vacation.
Thanks for your input. I mostly want a lens I can comfortably take on a walk through the woods or on a hiking trip. I am willing to add some weight if the IQ is worth it. Such a hard decision at this focal length!
jhinkey wrote:
Trade the CV 21/3.5 for the 20/1.8G? Keep them both like I have!
Not sure I would see myself using much the CV 21/3.5 when having the 20 G. I have been using a lot the little voigtlander with exceptional results but I need faster aperture for astro and walkaround and have also suffered the lack of weather sealing On the CV part. Indeed the size/weight gap is not marginal.
I plan to put the 20G into my landscape kit CV12, 20/1.8 G, CV 40/1.2, CV 65/2 macro & 100-400 GM And into my general photography kit 20/1.8 G, 35/1.4 Art, 55/1.8 ZA, 85/1.8 FE & 135/1.8 Art
I've been thinking of buying a 20mm f1.8 G, but seeing how many used ones are for sale already, I'm starting to wonder if all the initial glowing reviews were accurate?
I did end up buying the 20mm 1.8G and I really like it. I had been watching ebay for used copies and up until about 1.5-2 weeks ago, I had only seen 2 used ones I think. One went for $860 (with a B&W UV filter) and the other $750. Those prices were to close to new for me so I bought from Adorama. I'm far from a pro level photographer but I'm really liking the lens. Stars in the corners seem to be very sharp.
p.9 #10 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
I guess I'll know in a few days... I decided to take advantage of the trade-in promotion with 25% discount that Sony Canada is running right now, and ordered a new one.
p.9 #11 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
molson wrote:
I guess I'll know in a few days... I decided to take advantage of the trade-in promotion with 25% discount that Sony Canada is running right now, and ordered a new one.
It's on my list...I've been thinking of the Batis 18mm as well. I'll be interested to hear your experience with the 20G.
p.9 #14 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Ben DDS wrote:
Thanks for your input. I mostly want a lens I can comfortably take on a walk through the woods or on a hiking trip. I am willing to add some weight if the IQ is worth it. Such a hard decision at this focal length!
Hey Ben - same situation here. I guess it depends on two things: can you afford two 20mm lenses and do you need 1.8 or faster aperture. Personally I would love to get a fast 20 and a slower one for hikes. Reality is that I won't "need" two, so will probably get a fast 20 which is a better allrounder for me. Will carry a few extra grams, will save some money on the other side. Good luck with your choice.
p.9 #15 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Very interesting results when comparing the FE 20/1.8 G to the FE 24/1.4 GM.
For the price difference, I was expecting the GM to perform better at infinity distance but it's not the case, especially at wider apertures.
From testing the FE 24/1.4 GM's corners + mid-field against other lenses, I knew that astigmatism was an issue but starting at f/2.8, this wasn't an issue for the FE 20/1.8 G,. At f/4 and smaller apertures, it performed noticeably better than the GM across the entire image field.
As a matter of fact, at f/4 and smaller apertures, there 20/1.8's performs at Loxia 21/2.8 level in regards to resolution and contrast but without any field curvature and with better CA correction.
The Sigma 14-24/2.8 competed neck and neck with the Sony 20/1.8 G with perhaps only slight better corners at f/5.6 but it could not keep up with the amazing FE 20/1.8 center resolution at larger apertures.
I highly recommend the FE 20/1.8 G prime! ...Show more →
I just picked up a 24/1.4 - and I'm not reading this review until now. My first reaction was perhaps I should have gone for the 20/1.8 - cheaper, lighter and better perf?! - but I am not not really a landscape or astro photographer, I shoot much more travel, street, portraits, etc so I'm thinking that the 24/1.4 is wide enough, does have f/1.4 advantage and less distortion when photogaphing people/faces.
Fred - I believe you used to be a big GM 24/1.4 fan - do you still own it? Has the 20/1.8 replaced it?
My idea was really to have the 24/1.4 and 55/1.8 as a small travel kit, either with one camera, or each one mounted of different cameras.
p.9 #16 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
I have the 24mm f1.4 and the 20mm f1.8.
The 24mm has better bokeh and rendering, certainly for environmental portraits. The 20mm has fine rendering, but not the beautiful rendering of the 24mm.
The 20mm is sharper into the corners for landscapes by f4 than the 24mm is, but the 24mm is sharp enough for any practical use that I can imagine. (On an A7RIV.)
The 20mm has virtually no chromatic aberration. The 24mm has some, but not excessive amounts of chromatic aberration (much less than the 25mm Batis has).
The 20mm seems significantly smaller and lighter than the 24mm, although when you compare the specs, they're not vastly different.
I am very happy that I have the luxury to have them both. Which I prefer varies on use and mood. For me the biggest differences are: (1) focal length, one is wider obviously, and (2) size weight.
Be happy with the 24mm if it's wide enough for you and satisfied in the knowledge that it's probably the overall best 24mm f1.4 ever made.
p.9 #17 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
patotts wrote:
I just picked up a 24/1.4 - and I'm not reading this review until now. My first reaction was perhaps I should have gone for the 20/1.8 - cheaper, lighter and better perf?! - but I am not not really a landscape or astro photographer, I shoot much more travel, street, portraits, etc so I'm thinking that the 24/1.4 is wide enough, does have f/1.4 advantage and less distortion when photogaphing people/faces.
Fred - I believe you used to be a big GM 24/1.4 fan - do you still own it? Has the 20/1.8 replaced it?
My idea was really to have the 24/1.4 and 55/1.8 as a small travel kit, either with one camera, or each one mounted of different cameras.
I'd say both great lenses and it really depends if you prefer the 20mm or 24mm FL. The Sony 20/1.8 G seems even wider than 20mm in comparison to my other lenses so it's something to keep in mind.
I can see a difference in color rendering between the two as well and favor the GM for that. Rendering is close but you will see more blur with the faster and longer lens. I tend to prefer the GM rendering as well.
At infinity, the 20/1.8 G becomes amazing at around f/4 and even surpasses the 24 GM with less astigmatism which translates to sharper/crispier corners.
p.9 #18 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
If I was doing mostly landscapes or astro, I think I would return the 24/1.4 and go with the 20/1.8, however, given my shooting envelope for travel (some city and landscapes), available light, environmental portraits, some street/documentary, I think I'll stick with the 24 and perhaps add the 20/1.8 if the need arises.
p.9 #19 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
patotts wrote:
If I was doing mostly landscapes or astro, I think I would return the 24/1.4 and go with the 20/1.8, however, given my shooting envelope for travel (some city and landscapes), available light, environmental portraits, some street/documentary, I think I'll stick with the 24 and perhaps add the 20/1.8 if the need arises.
Thanks for the input FMfam! :-)
Good choice I think! The GM 24 files are special (FOV aside). The 20mm is super sharp (which for most people equates to "better"), but I don't find the images special beyond that.
p.9 #20 · Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G Versus Other Lenses
Ben DDS wrote:
Thanks for your input. I mostly want a lens I can comfortably take on a walk through the woods or on a hiking trip. I am willing to add some weight if the IQ is worth it. Such a hard decision at this focal length!
The LOXIA 21 f/2.8 is a fantastic lens. Sharp in the corners and renders beautifully. Very good micro contrast and beautiful sunstars. I just love to use this lens and the manual focus and aperture. There are some negative points about this lens for me. I sometimes turn the aperture ring without noticing and it can sometimes show purple corners in the photos which is ok easy to correct.
Would I recommend it: YES. Have I thought about exchanging it for the new Sony 20 f/1.8: YES but there are some reasons why I haven't. I love MF and to use the lens. It's build quality is amazing and based on Fred's tests it's sharper than the Sony 20 f/1.8. earlier I had the Sony 20 f/2.8 for a-mount and loved it, but the LOXIA is way better. It's heavy for it's size but lovely compact on the camera and balances great with an a7 Body.
