Jonas B wrote:
Thank you for all the images j4nu!
I agree with Infocus2014 (you guys have strange names); the images look good. Now I checked them in Camera Raw so some compensation were added by the converter. Still, the branches against the sky were clean and the corners looked good and I even saw an eyelash there!
Thanks but they are not mine - I'm just a messenger (psst, they just published Otus ML raws on the same site) ...
These guys are pretty through and they measured 20G to be a tiny bit longer than 20mm...
Thanks for posting these I had not expected Lenstip to have a review up so quickly.
If you care about the corners it doesn't look like an upgrade over the 16-35 GM II at f2.8 for coma (astro), and never catches up to the zoom for corner sharpness. It is sharper in center and matches the zoom mid frame if stopped down and has less flare than the zoom as expected. So, I guess how you feel about the 16 G will depend on your desire for sharp corners and if you will use it stopped down or wide open. While it has reduced the likelihood of me buying the 14 GM, I'm not sure I am buying this just for astro and I don't see it as an improvement for landscape. YMMV
billsnature wrote:
Thanks for posting these I had not expected Lenstip to have a review up so quickly.
If you care about the corners it doesn't look like an upgrade over the 16-35 GM II at f2.8 for coma (astro), and never catches up to the zoom for corner sharpness. It is sharper in center and matches the zoom mid frame if stopped down and has less flare than the zoom as expected. So, I guess how you feel about the 16 G will depend on your desire for sharp corners and if you will use it stopped down or wide open. While it has reduced the likelihood of me buying the 14 GM, I'm not sure I am buying this just for astro and I don't see it as an improvement for landscape. YMMV...Show more →
The way I see it, if someone doesn’t need faster than f/2.8 then they should get a zoom.
The wide zooms available for EF mount are astoundingly good in 2025 for one.
Zooms lead to less lens swapping, which is an annoyance and can lead to missed shots
aCuria wrote:
The way I see it, if someone doesn’t need faster than f/2.8 then they should get a zoom.
The wide zooms available for EF mount are astoundingly good in 2025 for one.
Zooms lead to less lens swapping, which is an annoyance and can lead to missed shots
I think people do want f/1.8, but they want good f/1.8. For now, this one seems to have more compromises compared to other f/1.8 lens, which can reduces its usefulness at f/1.8.
tctmp wrote:
I think people do want f/1.8, but they want good f/1.8. For now, this one seems to have more compromises compared to other f/1.8 lens, which can reduces its usefulness at f/1.8.
You are right.
However, the Viltrox 16/1.8 is popular, and the Sony 16/1.8G easily beats it in center and corner sharpness up close and at infinity. ?si=J5_QpOFG5etYhLmY
The 16/1.8G is also half the cost of the 14/1.8GM, has better controlled flare and can accept front filters. The 14GM is also soft on the edges.
I think Sony has a winner here, the 16GM has less compromises than the alternatives at 16mm or wider.
Maybe the exception is the Sigma 14mm F1.4 DG DN, but this weighs as much as a 70-200/2.8
However, the Viltrox 16/1.8 is popular, and the Sony 16/1.8G easily beats it in center and corner sharpness up close and at infinity. ?si=J5_QpOFG5etYhLmY
The 16/1.8G is also half the cost of the 14/1.8GM, has better controlled flare and can accept front filters. The 14GM is also soft on the edges.
I think Sony has a winner here, the 16GM has less compromises than the alternatives at 16mm or wider.
Maybe the exception is the Sigma 14mm F1.4 DG DN, but this weighs as much as a 70-200/2.8
The 14mm is not twice as expensive as the new 16mm F1.8 G
In Germany the new 16mm G is 999€ and the 14mm GM can be bought for 1289€
My copy of the 14mm GM certainly doesn‘t have soft edges or problems with lens flare either
"I think Sony has a winner here, the 16GM has less compromises than the alternatives at 16mm or wider."
I agree. But. Here, I'm sticking with the Sigma 17/4.0. Sure, it's not quite as wide and more than 2 stops slower. But. It coughs up sharp, contrasty images, focuses really close, the AF works well. For the occassional wide shot, it's fully adequate. Faint praise, you may think, but it gets the job done. Just as well as the Sony would the vast majority of the time. (They are both fisheye lenses masquerading as rectilinear, and produce far better images than they have any logical right to.)
MRK2019 wrote:
The 14mm is not twice as expensive as the new 16mm F1.8 G
In Germany the new 16mm G is 999€ and the 14mm GM can be bought for 1289€
My copy of the 14mm GM certainly doesn‘t have soft edges or problems with lens flare either
Try shooting some newspaper straight on, focus at the center of the image, you will find that the text on the edges is considerably softer with the 14GM due to field curvature. If you focus directly on the edges then it would be sharp
Im pretty sure because I tested copies of the 14GM personally.
"I think Sony has a winner here, the 16GM has less compromises than the alternatives at 16mm or wider."
I agree. But. Here, I'm sticking with the Sigma 17/4.0. Sure, it's not quite as wide and more than 2 stops slower. But. It coughs up sharp, contrasty images, focuses really close, the AF works well. For the occassional wide shot, it's fully adequate. Faint praise, you may think, but it gets the job done. Just as well as the Sony would the vast majority of the time. (They are both fisheye lenses masquerading as rectilinear, and produce far better images than they have any logical right to.)
Personally primes f/2.8 and slower is not my cup of tea.
Back in the day I did shoot with a 17/3.5 and 28-75 on two bodies. However I eventually switched to a 16-35/2.8 + 70-200 and the 17/3.5 ended up as a white elephant.
On important shoots I did carry the 17/3.5 around but it was more of a backup lens in case the 16-35 broke.
aCuria wrote:
Try shooting some newspaper straight on, focus at the center of the image, you will find that the text on the edges is considerably softer with the 14GM due to field curvature. If you focus directly on the edges then it would be sharp
Im pretty sure because I tested copies of the 14GM personally.
With all due respect, if you really wanted to test this lens (14mm GM) properly, then the last thing to do would be to focus at close distance on a newspaper! This lens is ideal for architecture and landscape photography and because of field curvature not so great for near distance unless the subject in focus is in the middle.
But if you would prefer to write off this lens because of poor and unsuitable testing methods, then that‘s your loss.
Price and features look good for the money being a first party lens.
I enjoy my 20mm and for what I shoot don't see a benefit of going to a 16mm Been thinking of selling my 20mm, its excellent, just don't use it much for my style.
To me it looks like 16G has even more extreme field curvature (due to its compactness probably), so the corners should be ok when shooting stars but e.g. the shot inside the church shows DoF issues wide open.
I downloaded his RAWs and there's one or two that show quite strong corners @f1.8, but at a distance.
MRK2019 wrote:
With all due respect, if you really wanted to test this lens (14mm GM) properly, then the last thing to do would be to focus at close distance on a newspaper! This lens is ideal for architecture and landscape photography and because of field curvature not so great for near distance unless the subject in focus is in the middle.
But if you would prefer to write off this lens because of poor and unsuitable testing methods, then that‘s your loss.
I agree completely that short range tests (like newspapers) for a wide-angle lens are not appropriate. I wish one of the testers would have done a proper at infinity corner sharpness testing done using the same method Fred uses for decentering, or do some astro shots to show coma performance and corner sharpness at infinity. The lenstip site would make one question the corners and coma of both the 14GM and the 16G, but those are both close range tests.
MRK2019 wrote:
With all due respect, if you really wanted to test this lens (14mm GM) properly, then the last thing to do would be to focus at close distance on a newspaper! This lens is ideal for architecture and landscape photography and because of field curvature not so great for near distance unless the subject in focus is in the middle.
But if you would prefer to write off this lens because of poor and unsuitable testing methods, then that‘s your loss.
Tell that to the reviewers.
The 16G reviewers are reporting soft corners from their own close up chart tests.
Quite clearly the softness is because of field curvature… which is the same as the 14GM because when they focus using the corner focus points it’s sharp
Whether it’s suitable or not depends on your use case for the lens. I was looking for a lens for hybrid video shooting, so the subjects are not necessarily far away!
Regarding the architecture use case, I think the 12-24GM is more suitable because you don’t need the f/1.8 for architecture shots, and the 12-24 is wider when you need it to be
I'm quite happy with my Viltrox 16mm f1.8. Sharp corner to corner. And I can use my 77mm filters on the front of the lens.
Yes it's a little heavier and larger than the new Sony. But it does me well.
This is an exciting release for me. Thinking about getting this instead of the 16-25 as a travel wide and just using crop mode or the a6700 for 24mm ish. It’s a bit wider than the Viltrox too from the reviews I’ve seen. I’m willing to pay more for a smaller native lens since it works better with Sony’s digital stabilizer when shooting video and Sonys AF motors hunt far less and track subjects much better.
Michel85 wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Crap this video has me wanting to sell my 14 and 20...... i hate selling lenes
...
