I want to get a super wide angle for my Sony A7R4. My current widest lens is the Sony 24/2.8G. Reading through all the reviews, the Batis is dearer but better, although it is a bit bulky. I have never owned a Samyang lens so a bit wary of using an unknown brand.
Does anyone have experience of either lens, or another candidate, which would help me decide?
I would hope that the Batis has less variation. I tried a couple of copies of the Samyang. The second one was much better aligned than the first, but still had some unevenness. It also has the problem where the sides of images have a blue shift.
I found it better optically than the SLR ultra wides I tried before it including the A-mount 20mm F2.8 which I tried several copies of and Sony's Ultra Wide Converter for the FE 2/28. It was also better than the Samyang 12mm F2 for APS-C mirrorless, which I had previously and is fairly well regarded.
However the Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 RXD was better at the same field of view and goes even wider. I didn't see a reason to keep the Samyang after getting the Tamron zoom.
The 17-28 is pretty good throughout its range. The Tamron 20mm prime is a little better than the 17-28.
The Batis 2.8/18 is one of my favorites. Optically it is one of the best in category. The unusual ergonomics of the smooth, flared barrel can be tricky when changing lenses. It's handy that it accepts a standard 77mm filter.
While I have not used the Samyang 18, I have used the 14mm AF lens for RF mount. It worked well given the price but was an optical compromise in every regard. Distortion, vignetting and resolution are all lacking compared to the Batis and even some zooms. The Tamron 17-28 shows less and simpler distortion compared to the Samyang 18mm according to several online tests.
So I'd recommend the Batis 18 or the Tamron 17-28 over the Samyang.
I've never shot the Batis or the Samyang. But have you considered the Sony 20G? It is faster, has better controls, keeps up with 30FPS on the A1, and slots in between the prices of the two lenses you are considering. And with a 94 degree FOV, it is closer to 19mm and just a hair less wide than the Batis (99 degrees) and Samyang (100 degrees). There are a lot of great prime + zoom and multi-prime pairings of the 20G you can make. Personally, I love adding the 20G to my Tamron 28-200 zoom as a travel kit.
Newenglandrocks wrote:
I've never shot the Batis or the Samyang. But have you considered the Sony 20G? It is faster, has better controls, keeps up with 30FPS on the A1, and slots in between the prices of the two lenses you are considering. And with a 94 degree FOV, it is closer to 19mm and just a hair less wide than the Batis (99 degrees) and Samyang (100 degrees). There are a lot of great prime + zoom and multi-prime pairings of the 20G you can make. Personally, I love adding the 20G to my Tamron 28-200 zoom as a travel kit.
Another vote for the Sony 20/1.8 G. I love mine and I loved my excellent Batis 18/2.8 too. The colors of the Batis are a little punchier, but the 20 G is faster, smaller, does 30 fps, has better AF, and is sharper across the frame… barely. I switched for the faster fps, better AF, and the speed. But some of the best images that I ever took were from the Batis 18.
I know that you’ve heard it before, but the Sony 20/1.8 G really is a GM in G clothing (and with G pricing).
Why not the 14GM? I’ve hardly touched my Batis 18 since I got the GM, since I find the extra width is often very useful, and on an A7R4 you have a lot of room for cropping if you want a narrower shot. I’m also of the impression that the GM has a little more pop than the Batis (obviously not an apples to apples comparison given the different focal lengths).
MrTMan wrote:
Why not the 14GM? I’ve hardly touched my Batis 18 since I got the GM, since I find the extra width is often very useful, and on an A7R4 you have a lot of room for cropping if you want a narrower shot. I’m also of the impression that the GM has a little more pop than the Batis (obviously not an apples to apples comparison given the different focal lengths).
+1 from me
I used have the Batis, and it was very good.
But the GM14 is not *that* much heavier or larger, and it is so good that cropped to 18 (and resized if you like) it's every bit as good. So you can use it as a kind of ultra light ultra small 14-21 f1.8-2.5 fast ultra wide "zoom"
smpetty wrote:
Another vote for the Sony 20/1.8 G. I love mine and I loved my excellent Batis 18/2.8 too. The colors of the Batis are a little punchier, but the 20 G is faster, smaller, does 30 fps, has better AF, and is sharper across the frame… barely. I switched for the faster fps, better AF, and the speed. But some of the best images that I ever took were from the Batis 18.
Thanks. I was wondering about the 20G but thought it might not be that much wider than the 24G I already own. Did you notice much difference between the 20G and the Batis 18 in field of view?
Also thought about the 14GM but that is considerably larger and heavier again. A different proposition.
rob_ww wrote:
Thanks. I was wondering about the 20G but thought it might not be that much wider than the 24G I already own. Did you notice much difference between the 20G and the Batis 18 in field of view?
Also thought about the 14GM but that is considerably larger and heavier again. A different proposition.
Thanks. That is very useful. Looking at the lines (rather than actual pictures) I would say 35, 24, 18 is roughly equivalent steps. 20mm is somewhat in-between 18 and 24 and not a big enough step in either direction to really make a difference. 14mm is a step too far, unless cropping. 16mm might be sensible, but I do not know of any well regarded lenses at that focal length.
Of course, that's in theory rather than considering actual photographic situations.
There's the Cosina Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 Super Wide Heliar. It is not as light or compact as the Samyang. While mine is well-aligned, it has more optical issues than the Samyang.
If this is your 1st step into Ultra Wide then with the 24mm I think the 18mm Batis is a good choice. If UW really grabs you then a 14 or 15mm works well to complement the 18mm. If you try wide field astro at some point the 18mm is a great lens, as is the 14mm GM.
rob_ww wrote:
Thanks. That is very useful. Looking at the lines (rather than actual pictures) I would say 35, 24, 18 is roughly equivalent steps. 20mm is somewhat in-between 18 and 24 and not a big enough step in either direction to really make a difference. 14mm is a step too far, unless cropping. 16mm might be sensible, but I do not know of any well regarded lenses at that focal length.
Of course, that's in theory rather than considering actual photographic situations.
As a fan on prime lenses I would say that having a wider lens and using cropping to achieve your wanted focal length is a no-go. One creative advantage of a prime lens is that you learn to see photographic opportunities and motifs in certain focal length. If one tries to 'save and eat the cake at the same time' by having wider lens and crop to different focal lengths, imo, it kind of muddles this advantage.
For me the final contenders would be Sony 20/1.8 G and Zeiss Batis 2.8/18. Sony is technically better lens (better AF) while the Batis has better contrast and colors. Both are cream of the top and relevant options, for example the highly critical Lloyd Chambers said that the Batis is, when it was released, the best super wide angle lens ever made for full frame cameras. You can't go wrong with either one.
As for budget options, I would skip the Samyang (technically and optically worse), but if you want to find a pretty good budget option, I would look at the Tamron 2.8/20.
Kalainen wrote:
As a fan on prime lenses I would say that having a wider lens and using cropping to achieve your wanted focal length is a no-go. One creative advantage of a prime lens is that you learn to see photographic opportunities and motifs in certain focal length. If one tries to 'save and eat the cake at the same time' by having wider lens and crop to different focal lengths, imo, it kind of muddles this advantage.
I 100% agree with you, but view UWA with the 14GM as an exception. I find it's just so incredibly useful to have this lens as, effectively, a 14-21 zoom. For 25mm & up I'm totally with you.
Newenglandrocks wrote:
I've never shot the Batis or the Samyang. But have you considered the Sony 20G? It is faster, has better controls, keeps up with 30FPS on the A1, and slots in between the prices of the two lenses you are considering. And with a 94 degree FOV, it is closer to 19mm and just a hair less wide than the Batis (99 degrees) and Samyang (100 degrees). There are a lot of great prime + zoom and multi-prime pairings of the 20G you can make. Personally, I love adding the 20G to my Tamron 28-200 zoom as a travel kit.
All the Batis lenses shoot at full speed 20 fps on my a9M2 so I don't know why they would not work with the a1. The Batis lenses all use linear AF motors. The OP specifically said he's using an a7RM4 so 10 fps is the most he'd need to worry about. I do on occasion use tracking bursts with UWA lenses but that's mostly for panning situations with slow shutter speeds which precludes getting anything close to 10 or 20 or 30fps.
The 15 FPS limitation of third party and older Sony E-mount lenses is for AF-C tracking during bursts. Often people are not aware that lenses have locked focus during a burst. Subjects don't necessarily change distances. The camera doesn't give any warning about it.
The Sony 20 1.8 G is so good. Clean and crisp to the edges. WA with background blur really makes the subject pop. Priced right too. One of my favorite creative lenses.
Thank you all so much. So many helpful answers and suggestions. I am a new Sony user and new to this forum -- this is the first question I have posted and the response has been great.
The question seems to have narrowed to 20G versus Batis 18. Price / size /weight all similar. My first reaction is: does the difference in field of view matter in real world pics?
If the 20G is effectively equivalent, it is one very nice lens, and the extra 1.5 stops would be useful too.
rob_ww wrote:
Thanks. That is very useful. Looking at the lines (rather than actual pictures) I would say 35, 24, 18 is roughly equivalent steps. 20mm is somewhat in-between 18 and 24 and not a big enough step in either direction to really make a difference. 14mm is a step too far, unless cropping. 16mm might be sensible, but I do not know of any well regarded lenses at that focal length.
Of course, that's in theory rather than considering actual photographic situations.
I just picked up the 24GM and own the 20G and 14GM. I shot about 200 shots with the 24GM over the weekend and it feels like a noticeably different focal length than the 20G. I like the 24GM FOV better for street photography and it works better for environmental portraits. The 20G seems better for architecture and for larger vistas. I personally struggle with the 14GM outside of astro landscapes - shooting with it feels very different than the two narrower lenses.
