I'm looking for a budget wideangle option for my A7rii.
At the moment I have a SEL2470. Back on APS-C I used to have a Samyang 12 f2 and liked the image quality and the compactness of it and also the small mfd that allowed quasi-macro shots. Did some astro with it, but it's just the occasional photo.
So I narrowed it down to Tamron 20mm 2.8 and Samyang 18mm 2.8. The Samyang is smaller, but has a poor mfd. It also lacks weather sealing. But the Tamron is quite a bit wider in girth and a bit heavier. The Tamron also has more distortion which is correctable but arguably will cost resolution. But it's said to be sharper. The Tamron seems more flare resistant, the Samyang is mostly a little cheaper.
And then there's of course the field of view, the Samyang being significantly wider and the Tamron is said to be more of a 21. Main use would be cityscapes, landscapes and the occasional astro. My 12mm Samyang on APS-C was sometimes a little wide for my taste, so the Tamron might be suited better. On the other hand I already have 24mm in my Zoom, so would there be a enough difference that I'd use the Tamron? But if I had the Tamron I could later exchange my 24-70 to the Tamron 28-200. Or I might get a Sony 24-105 later on...
So, you see I have lots of conflicting thoughts rampaging through my brain...
Has anyone used both of these lenses? Is the Tamron not wide enough to complement a 24xx zoom? Is one if them unusable for astro (coma?)? Or are there other options? Is the Tamron to big?
I am a big fan of the Samyang tiny series, but the 18mm didn't convince me at all.
Field curvature (at least on my copy) was off the charts, as a consequence the borders looked washed out when focused at infinity.
Maybe others had more luck with their SY 18mm, but I simply can't recommend this lens if you want good sharpness wide open (e.g. for nightscapes / Astro).
My review is available here.
I haven't tried the Tamron but have read mostly good things about it (apart from the strong distortion).
I have both. The Samyang has some coma wide open but the Tamron does not. The Tamron is considerable wider than a 24 mm. The 18/2.8 is better on full-frame than their 12/2 was on APS-C.
I like my Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX DG for indoor events. It has more coma but so does the Sony 20G. The Minolta/Sony A-mount 20mm F2.8 has more coma, but can be a decent landscape lens. I have a few SLR ultra wide zooms that are ok. A Sigma 12-24 is very wide.
Edit: the Tamron 17-28 is better than my copy of the Samyang. The Samyang is a bit wider than the zoom at close focus.
I'm a big fan of the Samyang 18mm 2.8 FE. In fact I didn't like it at first, but after AF fine tuning it using the USB dock, I was able to dial it in. Now it works great for me. I used the Sony 16-35mm f/4 FE as a base line for comparison and tuned the Samyang 18mm until I had a close match. It has better corners than other lenses I've owned including the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 SL-II, Sony 16-35mm f/4 FE, Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G and 16-35mm f/4 VR lenses. I also had a good copy of the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 FE, but sold it and kept the 18mm f/2.8 instead since performance was very close.
Adobe has profile corrections for the lens now, so field curvature isn't a big issue. Also amongst the Samyang f/2.8 small prime series, I found the 18mm to be a keeper, but didn't like the 24mm or 35mm f/2.8 lenses.
the small samyang's biggest appeal is the size. Optics are ok, not outstanding. I've had the 18 off and on for a while, and AF was my biggest concern... with the A7siii's low light ability, it's now a keeper.
Once I sell my 24GM I’m looking for a UWA prime and these two were some of my considerations. I’m hoping something new gets released by mid next year otherwise the Samyang might be the winner for me.
Yes, it's more expensive, but it's the more versatile and better lens which will make more sense in the long haul. Anyone who can think economically will choose the 17-28.
Dec 10, 2020 at 01:17 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
hasenbein wrote:
Yes, it's more expensive, but it's the more versatile and better lens which will make more sense in the long haul. Anyone who can think economically will choose the 17-28.
I think that is a bit of an overstatement. People put different value on different aspects of lenses. If someone values small size, the Tamron 20 f/2.8 is certainly smaller. If someone values the close focus capability of the 20 f/2.8, that is something the 17-28 will not match. Other may place little value in the flexibility of the 17-28 f/2.8. It is easy to imagine that for some people based on what they value and don't value that they would prefer the 20 f/2.8 over the 17-28 f/2.8 and for them it will be the right economic choice.
I've done a lot of work with the Samyang 18. While not perfect its a wonderful lens. I've sold plenty of photos taken on this lens. You can find them on the regular used for $240-280.
I've been using this lens with my underwater combo making it a tiny and light package. Having this and a 24-70 covers a ton.
The Tamron 20mm f2.8 is getting some really good reviews. If you are still undecided I would look at some on Youtube. And it's a semi macro lens as well!!
I've decided to purchase one of these lenses but can't decide between the 2. I'm aware of the weaknesses of each and can live with either lens I believe. It would be used to compliment the 24-105 on my A7rII. I like that the Tamron is on sale for $250 but reports say its' closer to 21mm and is that enough of a difference from 24 The Sam/Rok 18 is $300 and a nice, wide 18 but is that too much of a difference from 24? BTW, my budget is only $300 so I won't be convinced to get the 17-28 or Sony 20mm or something like them. I may do that eventually but want to start with a small, inexpensive prime.
The Sam/Rok 18 is $300 and a nice, wide 18 but is that too much of a difference from 24