Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

I don't think the Viltrox 16mm F1.8 comes in Canon RF or EF mounts. I recall an older Tamron 17mm 2.8. I bought one from B&H but returned as it caused my EOS cameras to lock up. I own the RF 14-35 4L IS USM and that covers the range well enough for me. The difference between 16mm and 17 is significant, especially if your back is against the wall (or bushes). The diff from 34 to 35mm, not so much.

Mar 02, 2024 at 12:37 PM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

Of course it doesn't come for Canon. But iirc the OP also has a Sony system.

Mar 03, 2024 at 01:26 AM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Of course it doesn't come for Canon. But iirc the OP also has a Sony system.

You are correct. I have the Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8 in Sony FE mount, and I have the Canon RF 16mm f2.8. Not long ago I did a comparison (real-world) test with both of these lenses. Here's a link to the images I shot with both:

https://www.flickr.com/gp/195506119@N07/pha5T0X7bk

Mar 03, 2024 at 06:37 AM

Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

No and no, but I would care about any size difference. If you don’t have a 16, only a 17, you’ll never know whether the 16 is better for the shot. Each scene contains a myriad of photos, it is highly unlikely a difference of 1 mm could make any difference to getting a good shot. Unless astro shooting I’ve never seen the purpose of a fast >2.8 UWA anyway.

Mar 03, 2024 at 11:06 AM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

Robin Smith wrote:
No and no, but I would care about any size difference. If you don’t have a 16, only a 17, you’ll never know whether the 16 is better for the shot. Each scene contains a myriad of photos, it is highly unlikely a difference of 1 mm could make any difference to getting a good shot. Unless astro shooting I’ve never seen the purpose of a fast >2.8 UWA anyway.

The purpose of a fast UWA in my case is for indoor photography. When you are trying to capture shots inside old European churches and castles, a wider lens makes all the difference; there's only so much you can "step back" to capture a cramped indoor image.

Mar 03, 2024 at 01:23 PM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

I am of the same opinion. This was why I got the 24/1.4L almost 10 years ago; I don't whip it out too often, but when I need it, there is nothing else. Of course technology marches on, and if I had been starting fresh, the Viltrox 16/1.8 (as well as the Laowa 10/2.8) would've been at the top of my grocery list.

Mar 04, 2024 at 10:53 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

snegron7 wrote:
I'm not going to mention any particular lens because I'm looking for opinions regarding the differences/similarities of these two focal lengths. Also, the 1 stop aperture between both hypothetical lenses plays a part in this overall comparison.

Hypothetically, if both lenses are from the same manufacturer, same build quality, same AF performance, is there truly a major difference between 16mm and 17mm? Also, would one stop difference between the two really make a major difference?

I know there are several other factors to consider like IQ, weight, distortion corrections, etc. However, I'm trying to determine if there truly is a noticeable...Show more →

the way I’d respond to this is that the focal length difference between 16mm and 17mm is so small that it is unlikely to be the reason to choose one over the other.

E.g. — if the 17mm lens was otherwise the better choice I would almost certainly choose it over the 16mm lens. And if the 16mm lens were otherwise the better choice I would almost certainly choose it over the 17mm.

Bottom line: 16mm and 17mm focal lenghts aren’t all that different.

Mar 04, 2024 at 11:28 AM

Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

People seem to forget that you can increase your camera's ISO, that is what it is for

Mar 04, 2024 at 12:29 PM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

You can't increase ISO forever, and 3200/6400 is, more often than not, already pushing it, even with all the recent advances.

Besides, there are occasions where you have both to shoot with large apertures AND increase ISO to get any sort of usable pictures. -_-

Mar 04, 2024 at 02:35 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
You can't increase ISO forever, and 3200/6400 is, more often than not, already pushing it, even with all the recent advances.

Besides, there are occasions where you have both to shoot with large apertures AND increase ISO to get any sort of usable pictures. -_-

That’s true, but…

It is surprising how well modern cameras do work in very low light. I know frequently use a f/2.8 lens for night street photography in urban areas.

Using those super large apertures, while allowing more light to reach the sensor, also does have a sometimes-problematic effect I on DOF, as you know. If fact, even when I do use f/1.4 lenses for night street photography, I often prefer to raise the ISO and keep to apertures in the f/2.8 to f/4 range.

And, of course, those larger aperture lenses tend to be more expensive and larger/heavier.

That isn’t to say that larger apertures aren’t useful or even necessary sometimes, but the balancing act can be a bit tricky. There are trade-offs either way. (Yes, I have several such lenses!)

Mar 05, 2024 at 11:55 AM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

gdanmitchell wrote:
the way I’d respond to this is that the focal length difference between 16mm and 17mm is so small that it is unlikely to be the reason to choose one over the other.

E.g. — if the 17mm lens was otherwise the better choice I would almost certainly choose it over the 16mm lens. And if the 16mm lens were otherwise the better choice I would almost certainly choose it over the 17mm.

Bottom line: 16mm and 17mm focal lenghts aren’t all that different.

According to my (very limited) math skills, the difference between 16mm and 17mm is around 2' at 41'. It qill make a difference if I'm satading at the very back of a church and try to capture as much of the interior as possible. Thos two extra feet can quite a bit of detail.

Mar 05, 2024 at 09:26 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

snegron7 wrote:
According to my (very limited) math skills, the difference between 16mm and 17mm is around 2' at 41'. It qill make a difference if I'm satading at the very back of a church and try to capture as much of the interior as possible. Thos two extra feet can quite a bit of detail.

Having used such lenses a fair amount, in the real world there is a tension between “too wide” and “not wide enough,” and with such a small difference it can play either direction in my experience. It is true that there could e some rare situations in which 17mm isn’t quite wide enough and 16mm is, but the reality is that there are more in whicih both work well or neither will work.

In any case, if lens A was otherwise a significantly better fit for my needs (its optical performance, size, weight, construction, maximum aperture, etc.) than lens B, I would rank those things above the 1mm difference in focal length.

YMMV.

Mar 06, 2024 at 10:13 AM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

16/17 is not enough for many situations as many times especially like interior work you can't move a wall so even 12/14 might be the answer. Im a super wide type of shooter and walls and objects just won't move enough. I like to start my engine at 12mm than build out. But depends on what you are doing and comfortable with. Super wide are and can be tough to shoot for some folks.

Mar 06, 2024 at 10:38 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

GMPhotography wrote:
16/17 is not enough for many situations as many times especially like interior work you can't move a wall so even 12/14 might be the answer. Im a super wide type of shooter and walls and objects just won't move enough. I like to start my engine at 12mm than build out. But depends on what you are doing and comfortable with. Super wide are and can be tough to shoot for some folks.

Folks having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that a prime is sometimes too wide and sometimes not wide enough should take a look at some of the excellent wide angle zooms.

Mar 06, 2024 at 11:49 AM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

gdanmitchell wrote:
Folks having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that a prime is sometimes too wide and sometimes not wide enough should take a look at some of the excellent wide angle zooms.

Not the case in this post. The topic is about the differences between these two particular focal lengths.

Mar 06, 2024 at 01:25 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

snegron7 wrote:
Not the case in this post. The topic is about the differences between these two particular focal lengths.

Well…

I was responding to the point about the difference between the two focal lengths meaning that in some cases 17mm might be ever so slightly not wide enough. That’s a kind of a black hole that leads only to wider and wider lenses since 16mm might not be wide enough and 15mm might not be wide enough and 14mm…

As a person who uses both wide primes and wide zooms, this is a trade-off with wide primes that you can never avoid. There are situations in which a wider lens could be better and situations where a narrower lens could be better… and any time you choose a prime you commit to that.

So, two consequences:

1. If one is really concerned about not having exactly the right focal length of any anticipated shot then a prime is likely not the ideal choice. A zoom allows you to compose and crop in camera precisely, at least within its range.

2. In fact, if you choose a 17mm prime (or a 16mm prime, or a 20mm prime, or a 12mm prime) there will be times when you want something wider or something narrower… and you’ll just have to deal.

That takes us back to my original point. The difference in focal length is really, really small. It exists, but it doesn’t amount to that much. So if you are looking at two prime options where one is 16mm and the other is 17mm, of all the factors to consider when making your choice (optical quality, price, aperture, compatibility with your camera, build quality, cost), the focal length range should be pretty far down the list of decision points. It would be different if you were comparing, say, a 16mm lens to a 24mm lens.

Mar 06, 2024 at 02:07 PM

GMPhotography
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

If you do jump on a zoom than the Sigma 14-24 is really good and even at 14mm extremely good. It's bigger of course and not cheap but it does solve almost all wide angle situations. honestly its the only extreme zoom I would buy that starts at 14mm

Mar 06, 2024 at 02:28 PM

Jeff
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

Jeff wrote:
For astro, a 1-stop difference could be quite significant (or not). The 1mm, not so much, as many lenses are not exactly as advertised (slightly wider/narrower), let alone the fact that most people couldn't say one way or the other (without a test reference).

snegron7 wrote:
Very valid point! How do we determine if the lens is actually what the manufacturer advertises it to be? In other words, how do we determine if the lens is truly a 16mm or 17mm and not a 16.5, 17.5, etc.?

I mean, I could probably figure it out using an image of (identifiable) stars, but can't imagine ever doing so. I think many test sites will measure this, but haven't paid attention lately.

Mar 06, 2024 at 03:48 PM

snegron7
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

gdanmitchell wrote:
Well…

I was responding to the point about the difference between the two focal lengths meaning that in some cases 17mm might be ever so slightly not wide enough. That’s a kind of a black hole that leads only to wider and wider lenses since 16mm might not be wide enough and 15mm might not be wide enough and 14mm…

As a person who uses both wide primes and wide zooms, this is a trade-off with wide primes that you can never avoid. There are situations in which a wider lens could be better and situations where a narrower lens could be...Show more →

Agreed. The reason behind my somewhat vague original post was because of a somewhat complicated decision I have to make.

I currently shoot with two systems; Canon R6 and Sony A7c. I have an upcoming overseas trip and I'm debating which system to go with, and/or if I should buy another lens to replace my current set-up in either system.

My main goal to shoot mostly in cramped spaces (inside old churches, cathedrals, castles, etc.). Also, I plan to take some low light, indoors and night time shots of old town structures at night using available light. I'm trying to keep whichever outfit I go with either as light as possible or as compact as possible. While I would prefer both lightweight AND compact, I know it is impossible. I have to choose one or the other.

So, here are the details of the current two systems I own followed by the add on options I was considering:

1. Sony A7c, Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8, Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 and Tamron 28-200mm f2.8/5.6. Nice outfit, but the Viltrox 16mm f1.8 is big and heavy. The Tamron 28-200mm is not bad, but I would need it to capture some close up details of decorative cielings inside dimly lit churches. Not a very good option due to having the slow f5.6 aperture at 200mm. These three lenses combined with my A7c are far from being lightweight. I was debating whether to get a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 to replace my Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8, or get a Sigma 90mm f2.8 to replace my Tamron 28-200mm. Since I can only purchase one of those two lenses, I would be either missing out on the wide end or on the long end. Also, I'm not sure the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 will perform as well as my Viltrox 16mm f1.8 (vignetting, edge to edge sharpness, etc.).

2. Canon R6 with Canon RF 16mm f2.8, RF 28mm f2.8, RF 35mm f1.8, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM with EF/RF adapter. I was debating about getting an RF 14-35mm f4.0L to replace my smaller primes, but I really would benefit from the faster aperture of my tiny, inexpensive RF primes. Also, not to bash Canon, but the AF tracking on my Sony A7c is way better than that of my R6. Whatever I lock my AF point on my A7c stays locked on. However, with my R6, the AF point I select blends/jumps/scatters around and will not lock on to a subject as well as my A7c. For example, if I try locking on to a small decorative item in a room, the AF point of my R6 will jump around that spot and try to focus on the area around it. That same scenario with my A7c yields entirely different results. The AF spot I select with my A7c stays locked on that spot no matter how much I recompose or move my camera. I have tried multiple AF settings on my R6, but unfortunately it is not as reliable as my A7c. I have been debating the idea of selling my R6 and maybe getting an R6 II in the near future, but that's a topic for another post.

Selling one of my outfits to focus on just one system is not something I'd like to do. My A7c is for travel pics while my R6 is for backyard wildlife (with my Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L, EF 300mm f4.0L and EF 100mm f2.8L Macro).

Mar 06, 2024 at 04:08 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 16mm f1.8 vs 17mm f2.8?

snegron7 wrote:
My main goal to shoot mostly in cramped spaces (inside old churches, cathedrals, castles, etc.). Also, I plan to take some low light, indoors and night time shots of old town structures at night using available light. I'm trying to keep whichever outfit I go with either as light as possible or as compact as possible. While I would prefer both lightweight AND compact, I know it is impossible. I have to choose one or the other.

Without going into all of the specific details of brands and models and so forth, I’ll share my actual experience with the subject you intend to photograph.

When I travel I photograph many of the same subject you mention above, and I use available light exclusively, and I photograph at night. Because we travel light (carry-on only) and may be “on the road” for months at a time (last summer was 10 weeks in Southern Europe), I use my smaller APS-C system with a small set of primes for travel.

The widest lens I carry is a 14mm f/2.8 prime. (This is, of course, roughly equivalent to a 21mm full-frame system lens.) While no lens or set of lenses can cover every possible situation, and approaches to photography vary, I hardly ever encounter a subject that I cannot photograph with that lens. There might have been one or two, but I can’t recall them specifically at this point.

So from my perspective — again — the difference between 17mm and 16mm is almost besides the point here. (YMMV.) Far more important might be how that choice affects the rest of your decisions about the kit you carry and/or the size/weight of either lens for the purposes of travel.

Dan

Cordoba: Mosque-Cathedral

- - -

Heidelberg: Heiliggeistkirsche

- - -

London: Priory Church of Saint Bartholomew the Great

Edited on Mar 09, 2024 at 04:11 PM · View previous versions

Mar 07, 2024 at 10:23 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.