Maximum Aperture
f/1.8
Lens Mount
Sony E
Lens Format Coverage
Full-Frame
Focus Type
Autofocus
Image Stabilization
No
Filter Size
67 mm (Front)
Dimensions (ø x L)
2.91 x 3" / 7.38 x 7.5 cm
Weight
10.7 oz / 304 g
Number of elements and min. close focus are 2 specs I cannot find.
EDIT: Found it
The 16mm F1.8 is comprised of 15 elements in 12 groups, with 2 aspherical lenses and 3 ED elements. Its aperture has 11 blades, which Sony says should provide smooth, circular bokeh. It can focus on subjects at as close as 0.15m (5.9") away.
Principal specifications
Lens type Prime lens
Max Format size 35mm FF
Focal length 16 mm
Image stabilization No
Lens mount Sony E, Sony FE
Aperture
Maximum aperture F1.8
Minimum aperture F22
Number of diaphragm blades 11
Optics
Elements 15
Groups 12
Special elements / coatings 2 asph, 3 ED, flourine coating
Focus
Minimum focus 0.13 m (5.12″
Maximum magnification 0.3×
Autofocus Yes
Motor type Linear Motor
Focus method Internal
Distance scale No
DoF scale No
Physical
Weight 304 g (0.67 lb)
Diameter 74 mm (2.91″
Length 75 mm (2.95″
Sealing Yes
Colour Black
Filter thread 67 mm
Hood supplied Yes
Tripod collar No
I’m a fan of the focal length, but went with the Sigma 17mm f/4.0 for size, optics and close focus. I’ve tried to search Flickr for f/2.0 and 16mm, but most search results were irrelevant. I like the idea of close, with a fast aperture.. but is this a useful combination? Do any of you have fast wide angle shots that you might share?
So pumped for this. I shoot underwater work and have to log some serious miles with some jobs. This lens, A7CR, and DLM ikelite housing. I now have my dream setup!
IndyFab wrote:
Might be a worthy Aurora & Milkyway lens
According to Peta Pixel not very good astro lens.
My impression is that the 16mm is overall a bit meh, but might be a good lens for those who really need the combination of small size, wide FOV and bright aperture (vloggers?). Most of us are better served either with 16-35mm zoom or 20/1.8.
I have the 20G, but if I decide I want 16mm, I’ll probably just sell it and buy the 16-25G or something similar - especially considering this 16mm (like the 16-25) is another compromised compact optic that relies on in-camera corrections.
The diminutive size is very impressive…that’s my favorite thing about the lens.
j4nu wrote:
I wonder if Viltrox is better optically, as the corners, at least wide open, on the new Sony are rather bad...
My copy of the Viltrox is satisfyingly sharp corner to corner at f/1.8. I love the size/weight of the new Sony, but will have to keep the Viltrox for the image quality.
ILCE-7RM5Viltrox 16mm F1.8 FE lens16mmf/1.81/8s100 ISO0.0 EV
Ross Martin wrote:
My copy of the Viltrox is satisfyingly sharp corner to corner at f/1.8. I love the size/weight of the new Sony, but will have to keep the Viltrox for the image quality.
Yeah, I've read that the Viltrox is stellar. I need to try it one day, though the Sony (I don't think I'd appreciate it being that small & light though) is also tempting ...
j4nu wrote:
Yeah, I've read that the Viltrox is stellar. I need to try it one day, though the Sony (I don't think I'd appreciate it being that small & light though) is also tempting ...
The Viltrox is bulky to the point I don’t always love to have it in the bag. The small, light Sony would be less obtrusive to pack. I may be interested to try one, and compare to the 16-35PZ for stopped-down landscape work.
Petapixel seems to indicate the lens may not be very good for Astro, but Nateinthewild's review on youtube based on actual field use seems to be very positive for Landscape-Astro photography. He even mentions this lens can potentially replace his FE 14mm GM and FE 20 F1.8 G with this new FE 16 F1.8 G for Astro.
It would make a fantastic compact lightweight UWA addition to my FE 20-70F4 for hiking in the North where I'm also chasing the Northern lights. It would mean I can leave the FE 20 F1.8 at home (removing redundant focal length) and have a wider lens in my bag.
I'm getting excited
I found that Nateinthewild review to be pretty shilly. I'd much rather just get a straight shot. There are definitely some nice images, which is what matters at the end of the day. The lenstip review is the most revealing, though. The short version is that the lens does make a lot of compromises to get to this size that are going to show up in astro images. The most damming issues though are the outright poor corner performance in full frame and the massive amounts of barrel distortion that will create elongation when it's corrected. I'm of two minds about this. 1) Tools like BlurXterminator can work magic on a lens like this (to a point) and 2) it might be worth that compromise for a lens that is always in your bag because it's so small. I shoot a ton of astro and kind of think that lens sharpness and aberration free perfection is a little overrated and too easy to obsess over. The stars can really disappear in an image that is too sharp. However, huge discrepancies between corner and center can make mosaics and panoramas a nightmare, but that probably isn't an issue with a 16mm lens. I'm on the fence about this one. It's kind of an old school lens in that you aren't going to want to shoot it wide open. There are tons of compromises. But it is light and compact and likely to be in my bag when I didn't expect to need a 16mm.
Looks like an interesting lens. I would say everything I would hope for in a 16mm. That said, I don't know if I have need for a 16mm, and if I do what doe it offer vs the 16-25? It might be interesting for astro.
