Sony Alpha Blog tests a lot of lenses, but regardless of all the effort, I don't see it as a very good source of information. Working with a book shelf doesn't strike me as a very systematic or advanced method and most of sample pictures tell me that lenses are tested in a rush. I see people referring to this site a lot, but maybe it's just because he tests everything and you can always find something from there.
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 think along those lines myself.
I have the Batis 18 and it is a terrific lens. My needs are for the sharpness, contrast and colors -- not speed or tiny size. Also, I like light weight, and although the Batis 18 is a little "portly" it is very light and manageable on the Sony a7R4-size bodies.
My go-to three similar to your trio: Batis 18, Loxia 25, Loxia 35 (or CV 40/1.2).
Thanks all. I was hoping to hear a few opinions on whether the difference between 18mm and 20mm FOV matters in any real circumstances, before this thread sinks below the horizon. So if you do have any comments to add in this regard, or any other comments, they would be most welcome.
The FOV difference was noticeable to me. Every time I used the 20mm I felt like I needed to take two steps back. Of course at these focal lengths and infinity focus you really have to take about 100 steps back to effectively change the FOV. The 18mm just fits my uses more comfortably. I also don't often do astro shots where the 20 f/1.8 clearly has an advantage.
A lot depends on what you shoot. For me its landscapes. In that genera, once you get the hang of it and see UWA compositionally with your eyes it gets very addictive. I started wide at 21mm, went then to Leica WATE 16-18-21mm, then changed to CV 12mm + 14-24 Sigma Art and now I'm wanting to add the 9mm Laowa!
I would not make the max f-stop into a big deal. Why people need fast ultra-wides is generally beyond me, unless you are heavily into astrophotography. I also think that 18mm is a better spacing than a 20mm if you already have a 24mm.
Just a quick update. While investigating the Batis 18 I became aware there is also a Batis 25, another focal length where I need to invest. So I decided to order a Batis 25 and see for myself how well the Batis lenses perform. I ordered a pre-owned one from Park Cameras in London. "Like New" at a good price, with a return period if not satisfied.
If the Batis 25 makes an impression the Batis 18 will be next. If not, next step is to try the Sammy 18.
Will post an update in a couple of weeks. Thanks again!
Here is my update. I loved the pictures from the Batis 25mm so decided to keep it and trade-in my Sony 24/2.8 G. I posted a bit more about it in another thread on this forum. Have not posted any pictures yet -- I still need to work out how you do that
Given the positive experience with the Batis 25mm I decided to order the Batis 18mm, again "Like New" from Park Cameras in London. They are selling a range of Batis lenses with significant price reductions for both new and used. Not sure why they are having a clearance. Maybe just built up too much stock and need to keep it moving. It is very tempting to order more of them but I must behave.
It was very difficult to resist the 20G which is universally admired, but I felt I wanted a wider FOV so going for the B18 works better and does not seem to involve any practical IQ compromise. The Samyang 18 is very tempting too, especially its smaller form factor, but overall I felt the Batis would be a better choice -- subject to inspecting and testing my unit when it arrives, of course.
Thanks. I agree, insofar as a zoom range would be useful for 'training' but I know I will never carry anything too heavy and/or bulky like these zooms.
rob_ww wrote:
Thanks. I agree, insofar as a zoom range would be useful for 'training' but I know I will never carry anything too heavy and/or bulky like these zooms.
I am in sort of the same boat in that I like to travel with small, light lenses. I have the Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sony 24/1.4, and Batis 40/2 on the wide end. In the past, I had the Zony 16-35/4 and I have rented the GM 16-35/2.8 and the Batis 18. All are good lenses. I have toyed with swapping out the Tamron for the Batis 18. They are both f2.8 which I much prefer to the f4 zooms and they are both light and of reasonable size. However, the Batis uses 77 mm filters and all my other travel lenses use 67 mm so that is a big drawback for me. For now, I consider the Tamron 17-28/2.8 zoom is the best compromise for me.
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.
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.
Hmm I guess we all have different ways of viewing scenes. Personally I view and compose in my head and then select the FL to suit. This is often suggested by experienced landscape photographers - leave your camera in the bag until you have studied the scene.
Obviously this doesn't work (as well) if walking around with a single FL lens but then I never do that, always having 2-3 lenses to choose from. I never feel 'muddled' and a scene can sometimes offer numerous shots from different perspectives/FLs.
If it's for landscape that is even more pertinent, for travel it's often spur of the moment unless planning for a specific time/light.
------
The SY isn't comparable to the Batis and if buying one lens that will form the basis of your kit then it should be the Batis or Sony 14mm (IMHO). If you're not sure and want to cover all bases then the Sony 16-35/4 PZ is perfect unless you need faster (mostly at these FLs I don't).
I have the SY 18mm. Almost never use it but it is a very good landscape lens. Basically a backup lens for me since it is so light, tiny and didn't cost a lot. I find I'm always shooting wider (15-16mm) or narrower (21-24mm) but that's just me !
rob_ww wrote:
Thanks. I agree, insofar as a zoom range would be useful for 'training' but I know I will never carry anything too heavy and/or bulky like these zooms.
The Sony 16-35/4 PZ is far far from a 'training lens', it's a top notch G lens
I did not mean to belittle the lens, rather the photographer. I need to train myself better in seeing very wide angle perspectives and compositions. A zoom would help in that respect.
Take your point about weight equivalence too. I imagine I would use a very wide angle lens for interior shots in particular, and f2.8 or wider would be helpful.
I had both the Batis 18, the Samyang 18 and the 16-35GM at the same time and used them on a A7RIII.
Now I am using the 12-24GM and 14GM.
There is no doubt that the Batis is optically superior to the Samyang. Even at f5.6 and f8 it still has a small advantage. Wide open the difference is very noticeable. The Samyang is still attractive as a package considering price, size and weight, it just cannot hang with the Batis in image quality terms. Nor did I expect it to, it was fine for me. Sold both and got the 16-35GM as I needed a zoom more then.
The 12-24GM and 14GM are just astonishingly good, totally love the 14GM. Of course those are much more expensive. If you can get a good copy of the Samyang 18mm it is a decent lens stopped down.
I bought the Samyang 18mm primarily for street shooting with my A7RIII. The size and weight is perfect. Outstanding resolution, etc. isn't important to me for this kind of work. It just hangs at chest level and I shoot with the wireless shutter release. I have occasionally used it for landscapes and I've been quite happily surprised with the results. With a bit of Topaz Gigapixel, 40 X 30 prints are tack sharp.
