p.1 #1 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
Hey all,
Heading to Banff soon and don't really have a great ultrawide. Well, I actually don't have an ultrawide at all! I typically shoot primes, besides my one tele zoom:
Sony 28mm 2.0
Sony 35mm 1.8
Zeiss 50mm 1.4
Sony 70-200 2.8 GM 1
These days, I normally take city trips and switch back and forth between my 28mm and my 50mm. I do mostly automotive/motorsports and portrait, and last time I traveled like this I had a "do-it-all" Tamron on my Nikon D5200.
But I'm worried that the 28mm 2.0 won't be wide enough to capture the bigger vistas. I'd also like to get more into astro in general, so I'm looking for a lens with decent coma control.
Those of you who like to shoot "big nature," do you find an ultrawide prime does the job? Or do you wish you had a zoom for more flexibility?
Also worth noting, I have an A7IV, so my ability to crop in post is a bit more limited (compared to an R model), though I do plan to upgrade to an A7RV in the near future.
Thanks for the input!
Edit: I forgot to mention, budget is a bit of a concern. Happy to buy used, but looking for something under $800 or so at that mark. So if the 16-35mm GM 2 was in budget, I'd go for that, but unfortunately that's not the case!
p.1 #2 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
Hm, there is a Sony G 16-25mm f/2.8 that fits your description and within your budget. And it is a great performer in addition to being lighter and smaller than the GM 16-35mm II lens. For landscape you don't need a fast lens, although a fast lens is desirable for astro. At f/2.8, it van do both just fine.
p.1 #3 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
I think the 16mm f/1.8 G is a great lens for your purposes. You like shooting primes, 16mm is nice and wide plus you get the f/1.8 for astro. It's small and lightweight and it's affordable especially used. I don't own the lens but Sony did send it to me to evaluate for a couple weeks and I found the image quality quite good, on par with their 20mm f/1.8 G I'd say. I only did a few astro shots with it but I found it worked great. You can do astro landscapes with f/2.8 lenses but it's not ideal if you want clean images and sharp stars. I'd say go for it!
ILCE-7RM5FE 16mm F1.8 G lens16mmf/2.010s2000 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5FE 16mm F1.8 G lens16mmf/1.815s3200 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5FE 16mm F1.8 G lens16mmf/1.815s2000 ISO0.0 EV
p.1 #4 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
For astro you need a wider lens that is sharp at f2.8 and faster than f2.8 is even better. I find 18mm about ideal for milky way landscapes, though 14 through 20mm also work, though 20 can often feel a bit cramped.
I personally used a Samyang 18/2.8, the AF version, for a bit and it did a credible job, not perfect, but made fully usable full-frame astro shots in a tiny, affordable package — it might be the perfect addition to your existing kit? The Sony 16/1.8 would be better, but at probably 4x the cost and size.
I have since acquired the new Tamron 12-20/2.8 zoom and that’s now my goto travel and landscape super wide, and about equal to the Samyang in astro performance. The Tamron zoom is not in your budget, but the Samyang definitely is, and in fact if you are interested in mine, PM me and I’ll make you a great deal since I don’t really need it anymore.
p.1 #5 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
I briefly had the 16 and enjoyed it for the purposes you were describing. I’ve also owned the 14 GM and own the 24 GM and owned the G 20 1/.8 and Batis 18/2.8 as well as UW 2.8 zooms for Sony E.
In general, it is very preferential what focal length you will enjoy most. I find the 20 to be best, but I actually prefer the GM 24 images for everything else so I kept that one. It is always nice to have a faster lens that is wider and you can crop slightly if needed. If I were you, I would go for the 16 or 20 G lenses. To me, the extra stop of light and smaller size are best.
p.1 #6 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
I currently have the Viltrox 16mm f1.8. Sony has its own version that has been reviewed as smaller, lighter and sharper.
But I like versatility and I'm looking at the well reviewed Tamron 16-30 f2.8 for landscapes, etc.
A pro friend has it with his Nikon Z9 and his astro and landscape photos are phenomenal.
p.1 #7 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
teletubby wrote:
But I'm worried that the 28mm 2.0 won't be wide enough to capture the bigger vistas.
I am in your shoes. Primarily a prime shooter. Instead of recommending a favorite ultra-wide, I want to play the devil's advocate here and ask: are you sure? Basically, why do you think there are "bigger vistas" that you're missing?
Looking at landscapes at FOVs wider than 20mm makes me cringe. Do you really like that look? The stretched skies? The suppression of the distant magnificance in favor of exagerrating the rock 5 feet away? The overwhelming amount of unrelated objects scattered all over, leaning towards the center, without any unifying idea? Are you 100% sure you're missing that? If yes, please ignore the rest of my post.
I asked myself these questions before buying the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II, arguably the best ultra-wide zoom out there. My answers convinced me to go with a cheaper 16-30mm option by Tamron. Having owned that for a month, I sold it because I couldn't produce a single keeper at wider than 20mm. Not one. I can't stand ultra-wide distrotions. The scope of photography which a 16mm lens can do without distortions is microscopic. Even putting distortions aside (which I am not willing), simply fitting what you see into a frame is not a photograph, the wider you go the more objects there are to coordinate in a composition. At 21mm I hit a complexity wall, and looking at the public galleries, so do most people.
Which means, for people like me a 20mm or a 24mm is a better option. I have hiked to plenty of magestic vistas out there, and not once I wished I had something wider than my 21mm Voigtlander.
p.1 #8 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
old-gregg wrote:
I am in your shoes. Primarily a prime shooter. Instead of recommending a favorite ultra-wide, I want to play the devil's advocate here and ask: are you sure? Basically, why do you think there are "bigger vistas" that you're missing?
Looking at landscapes at FOVs wider than 20mm makes me cringe. Do you really like that look? The stretched skies? The suppression of the distant magnificance in favor of exagerrating the rock 5 feet away? The overwhelming amount of unrelated objects scattered all over, leaning towards the center, without any unifying idea? Are you 100% sure you're missing that? If yes, please ignore the rest of my post.
I asked myself these questions before buying the 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II, arguably the best ultra-wide zoom out there. My answers convinced me to go with a cheaper 16-30mm option by Tamron. Having owned that for a month, I sold it because I couldn't produce a single keeper at wider than 20mm. Not one. I can't stand ultra-wide distrotions. The scope of photography which a 16mm lens can do without distortions is microscopic. Even putting distortions aside (which I am not willing), simply fitting what you see into a frame is not a photograph, the wider you go the more objects there are to coordinate in a composition. At 21mm I hit a complexity wall, and looking at the public galleries, so do most people.
Which means, for people like me a 20mm or a 24mm is a better option. I have hiked to plenty of magestic vistas out there, and not once I wished I had something wider than my 21mm Voigtlander.
I agree with this with this. The perspective on wider than 20 is often forced and somewhat of a particular look that I don’t usually enjoy and it’s hard to do well. Anything wider than 20 gets into that zone for my perspective.
p.1 #9 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
I've had the Tamron 17-28/2.8 since it came out and it's always been a good performer. I recently picked up the Sony 16/1.8 since it's a bit smaller as well as being faster for astro. I also have a "choppy" Voigtlander 15/4.5, which I figured I might finally part with for the 16mm (I still have all 3). Here is a size comparison:
I went to Banff last summer and took the Tamron 17-28, Sony 28-60, and Tamron 70-180 so that I'd have full zoom coverage (normally I'd bring a Voitlander 40/1.2 instead of the 28-60). Of my "keepers" (about 100 images), I used the 17-28 for about 40% of my images. 25% were taken at 17mm and 15% at 28mm with a few in between. If you want to see my images here's an album:
So I think it'd be a good focal length for you to have on the trip--I'd certainly have missed an ultrawide focal length! If you take the 28/2 also, you could probably be fine with the 16/1.8, just with more lens changes. Even with my three lenses, I got annoyed with the frequency that I felt like I wanted to swap lenses (made me buy the Tamron 25-200 for trips like this). There are a bunch of non-GM alternatives to a 16-35/2.8 that end at 25-30mm, which means fewer lens changes and you can skip the 28/2. Just something to think about. The f2.8 on those is still decent to play with astro images anyways.
p.1 #10 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
You have to be careful with ultra-wides in the Rockies...you can quickly turn that majestic peak into a small hill deep in the background. 21mm is the widest I go when photographing in the Rockies with most used focal lengths fall between 24mm and 50mm.
p.1 #11 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
teletubby wrote:
Hey all,
Heading to Banff soon and don't really have a great ultrawide. Well, I actually don't have an ultrawide at all! I typically shoot primes, besides my one tele zoom:
Sony 28mm 2.0
Sony 35mm 1.8
Zeiss 50mm 1.4
Sony 70-200 2.8 GM 1
These days, I normally take city trips and switch back and forth between my 28mm and my 50mm. I do mostly automotive/motorsports and portrait, and last time I traveled like this I had a "do-it-all" Tamron on my Nikon D5200.
But I'm worried that the 28mm 2.0 won't be wide enough to capture the bigger vistas. I'd also like to get more into astro in general, so I'm looking for a lens with decent coma control.
Those of you who like to shoot "big nature," do you find an ultrawide prime does the job? Or do you wish you had a zoom for more flexibility?
Also worth noting, I have an A7IV, so my ability to crop in post is a bit more limited (compared to an R model), though I do plan to upgrade to an A7RV in the near future.
Thanks for the input!
Edit: I forgot to mention, budget is a bit of a concern. Happy to buy used, but looking for something under $800 or so at that mark. So if the 16-35mm GM 2 was in budget, I'd go for that, but unfortunately that's not the case! ...Show more →
I shoot primes and zooms for both landscape and astro. I shoot the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN as my primary wide for landscape. It's also good for astro, with sharpness out to the extreme periphery and good stars across the frame. I presume you could get a clean used copy within your price range.
As noted above, it's good to have other lenses in the bag depending on the scene. My landscape kit is the Sigma 14-24, Voigtlander 35/2 APO, Voigtlander 65/2 APO, and Voigtlander 180/4 APO. I use all these lenses for astro too. If you shoot astro wider than 24mm, you will need a tracker unless you are doing a star trails shot.
p.1 #12 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I agree with this with this. The perspective on wider than 20 is often forced and somewhat of a particular look that I don’t usually enjoy and it’s hard to do well. Anything wider than 20 gets into that zone for my perspective.
So, my kit is nearly always 21/35/75 or 28/50.
TLDR - shoot long at Banff, buy a cheap Samyang 18 MF for stars and consider the 24GM used or the 28-200 new.
Piling on here. I do quite a lot of international travel and my travel kit for the last 5 years has been:
- high res body
- Tamron 28-200
- 35GM or i35
- 14GM or 20G
- one other prime, I.e. FE85 *if I am going into the mountains*
By coincidence, I was in Banff last summer for a few days as part of a Canadian Rockies rail tour.
I don't believe I ever got my 14 out. But man did I shoot a lot at 150-200. I am a Tamron super zoom junkie despite owning 5 GM lenses and looking to acquire another.
I only own the 14 for shooting architecture (mainly interiors), the Milky Way and very occasionally large urban spaces, i.e. Shibuya Crossing. I am also a prime guy, and ditched owning a WA zoom 6 years ago.
At your budget range, I haven't used the 16G but can highly recommended the incorrectly numbered 20G. It is really more like 18mm FOV according to many reports. Small, light and cheerful, although its OOF rendering isn't as good as the 14GM and not even in the same league as the 24GM. Personally, I really love the lovely draw of the 24GM and I would buy that used and take a bit of a hit on shooting the Milky Way in favor of the beautiful rendering in the daylight.
If you haven't done the Milky Way much, maybe pick up a used cheap Samyang 14 f/2.8 MF. See if you like doing it for around $150 or less before committing. I personally find shooting nightscapes alternatively frustrating and rewarding. It isn't for everyone.
I find shooting primes gets progressively harder the wider I go. 85 for me is super easy. 14 is quite challenging and the first couple of years I owned it, I was quite intimidated when using it for daytime work. Getting things straight, never mind finding a composition that wasn't the proverbial kitchen sink, was hard. I have since come to embrace it, but I recognize now when it should come out of the bag, and it isn't often.
With your budget, I would buy a Tamron 28-200 new and the Samyang 18 MF used. Together, they will weigh way less than your 70-200GM OG. You don't need f/2.8 or fast AF to shoot mountain peaks.
p.1 #13 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who offered their suggestions and experiences in this thread! What an awesome response, this is such a great community.
I've read through each and every comment, and though this lens wasn't mentioned, I think I found a solution for my trip: a friend of mine has a Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8, and after checking out that review on Dustin Abbot's site, it seems like that'll be a perfect fit.
By the way I really appreciate what everyone had to say about actually shooting tighter, it really eased my fears that I needed something SUPER wide like the 16mm. 20 will be plenty!
I'll probably also shoot the 70-200 based on what @Newenglandrocks was saying above! Hadn't thought about more reach being a positive for landscape, but I suppose for zoomed in / compression shots of rock detail it'll be really nifty.
p.1 #14 · Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 for landscape + some astro? Or go for a zoom?
In a similar boat heading into the Wind River Range Titcomb Basin in a couple of weeks for four days. A7rvi and trying to decide on lens selection. I have the Viltrox 14 f4 which weighs next to nothing, and the 25-200 by Tamron which is border line more than I want to take. I'm leaning toward the 24 1.4 GM and the 55 1.8 but wondering if I'll miss the longer end. Also have the Fuji x100vi that is tempting as an always on me camera. Trying to keep my pack under 35lbs with camera gear and tripod so struggle is real. Also have the 21 3.5 so that is tempting. Debating on picking up a used 28-60. Decisions decisions.
