I've currently got a canon 14mm f2.8 LII running through an adapter, but it's heavy and AF is a bit of a mess. I'd like to sell it, and get a sony native lens, but am spoiled for choice. The main use is building interiors, think dimly lit churches, etc. Any opinions on the three Sony options? I don't think I need the added width of the 12-24, but then I get distracted in the choice of "lightweight and slightly wider and faster" versus "zoom"
The Sony 14mm is astonishingly lightweight to carry. It also has the advantage of using significantly smaller and lighter 100mm filters. Whereas every other comparable lens requires 150mm. There's a distinct difference between 14 and 16mm. So if you're used to the 14mm FoV, you may feel constricted at 16mm. The upside with the 16-35 is using simple round filters if that matters to you. For grad filters you'll still need at least 100mm square though.
jeffbuzz wrote:
The Sony 14mm is astonishingly lightweight to carry. It also has the advantage of using significantly smaller and lighter 100mm filters where every other comparable lens requires 150mm.
Good to know. The Canon is like 650g by itself, and the sigma adapter adds another 100 at least
amacks wrote:
I've currently got a canon 14mm f2.8 LII running through an adapter, but it's heavy and AF is a bit of a mess. I'd like to sell it, and get a sony native lens, but am spoiled for choice. The main use is building interiors, think dimly lit churches, etc. Any opinions on the three Sony options? I don't think I need the added width of the 12-24, but then I get distracted in the choice of "lightweight and slightly wider and faster" versus "zoom"
Aaron
The Sony 14mm f/1.8 is the lightest of the group you list. It's very reasonably sized and lightweight given the speed.
My spouse has the Samyang 14-24 f/2.8 and it is really small, light (<500g), very sharp, and takes screw-in filters. You may want to add that to the list of prospects. It's not manufactured by Sony, but is native to E-mount.
I have used the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 Ultra-Wide Heliar in churches and dark buildings in Europe - it's slow, but small, and good technique and a little luck can get the shot. Again, not Sony, but it comes native E-mount. Here's a link to a shot of the Notre Dame before it burned down with my adapted Voigtlander: https://flickr.com/photos/68498746@N08/32444277682/in/album-72157680659980846
scrappydog wrote:
My spouse has the Samyang 14-24 f/2.8 and it is really small, light (<500g), very sharp, and takes screw-in filters. You may want to add that to the list of prospects. It's not manufactured by Sony, but is native to E-mount.
How is the autofocus on that? I'm always a bit leery about AF with the smaller brands
Are you thinking of 12-24mm f4 or 12-24mm f2.8? On the wide end, 14mm is noticeably wider than 16mm and 12mm is even more noticeably wider than 14mm.
There is also the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8, if you want a fast wide angle zoom, at a cheaper price than the Sony 12-24mm f2.8.
On the long end, I have found a 16-35mm lens to be a more convenient single walk around lens than a 14-24mm. But you need to decide if you care about switching lenses and if you value 14mm on the wide end or 35mm on the long end more.
As for aperture, how often do you find yourself at a high ISO with the Canon 14mm f2.8? The Sony 14mm f1.8 will gain you about 1 stop of ISO and the Sigma 14mm f1.4 would gain you about 2 stops of ISO. Personally, I would only go with a fast 14mm prime if you see yourself using it often wide open. Otherwise, an f2.8 zoom is much more convenient.
For context on the wide end, I have used:
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, Nikon 16-35mm f4, Canon 17mm f4 TS, Sony 14-24mm f4, Sigma 14mm f1.4, Sigma 20mm f1.4
amacks wrote:
Good to know. The Canon is like 650g by itself, and the sigma adapter adds another 100 at least
You'd be down ~300g with the Sony 14mm. While not in your original list, if size and weight are critical factors, you might consider the 16mm f/1.8 G (304g) or 16-25mm f/2.8 G (409g) lenses. The 16mm G lens would be less than half the weight of your current setup.
Using a 15/17mm prime turned out to be more hassle than it was worth. I’d take just a few frames, then realize I needed something tighter like a 24 or 35mm, swap lenses, and soon enough have to switch back for wider shots. The constant back-and-forth made shooting frustrating. Because of that, I’ve come to believe the widest focal length in a kit is better handled by a zoom, which saves a lot of time and effort in the field.
amacks wrote:
My spouse has the Samyang 14-24 f/2.8 and it is really small, light (<500g), very sharp, and takes screw-in filters. You may want to add that to the list of prospects. It's not manufactured by Sony, but is native to E-mount.
How is the autofocus on that? I'm always a bit leery about AF with the smaller brands
A
The AF seems fine. It's fast and accurate on the A1.
If you are interested in the Samyang 14-24, below is a link to DNG corner tests taken with the lens. The tests were shot with the A1 on a stable tripod, fluid head, manually focused, IS = off, white balance = Daylight. I also used a Silence Corner Atoll so I could tilt the lens at 45 degree angles. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2rpHgRcQlxrTzHPCs93aQ-oX9XqZqIM/view?usp=drive_link
Also, if you decide to get it, make sure you get the profile from Samyang. The lens has a fair amount of vignetting and distortion. The profile cleans those issues up pretty nicely.
If you prioritize super wide I would go with 12-24/2.8 GM. If you prioritize weight I would go with 16-35/4.The 14mm prime is a specialist tool in my opinion, best suited to night photography.
And if you prioritize value, still want 14mm and f/2.8, and don't mind losing 12mm, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 is worth a look. The weight would be somewhere between the weight of your current setup (including the adapter) and the Sony 12-24/2.8 GM. It's an excellent lens as well.
I don't know there's a simple answer. It might depend on your locations and usual approaches, and what other lenses you have. I prefer zooms over primes. I've had a 17-28 and 28-200 and almost all of the time on my usual trips, I seldom get to the 17-28. When traveling somewhat recently in Europe, I found myself using the 17-28 quite a bit more in some places and finding a few times that I might have wanted wider and also that 28mm was limiting on the long end. By myself, lens swapping and/or a prime might be less an issue than when traveling with others.
Looking to our group "day excursions" off a river cruise, the 16-35 might almost be a suitable outside walk-around but the 12-24 might be a better cathedral interior. Neither is likely to be my only lens. I've added the 20-70/4 to be a general "urban" walk-around for less swapping around at 28mm and even more recently a 14/4 for times something wider is needed and stitching isn't ideal. That could be times with moving subject matter, like sunset surf, moving tourists and cars in urban areas, etc. and might be suited to interiors when not pressed for time or doing a lot of moving and varying subjects.
I honestly hadn't noticed the 16-35 f4 existed. The rest of my travel kit is 24-70 f2.8 and probably the 90mm macro for some sprcific technical work... maybe the 50mm f1.8 if i have space
If you haven't found yourself needing anything but a 14mm....you can't go wrong with the 14mm 1.8. I have one and it would be perfect for your uses. However, if you've found f/2.8 is fast enough, and would prefer some flexibility, then the Sigma 14-24 would be worth looking into.
