Beni wrote: billsnature wrote:
Anyone compared this to 16-35 GM at 18mm? The classic expensive zoom vs cheap fixed show down. I would be especially interested in coma distortion in corners for astro.
Or the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 OSS.
I have the SZ 16-35mm f/4 lens to compare with. The 16-35mm f/4 to me exhibits better center sharpness/weaker corners and has the ability to maintain good contrast in backlit scenarios. It's been my go-to lens for wide angle work the last couple of months and I have no desire to switch to the Tamron 17-28mm 2.8, since I like having the extended zoom range.
The 18mm 2.8 seems less sharp, but sharpness is more uniform throughout the entire frame and corners look better to my eye. Contrast and saturation are lower, but I'm noticing most the Samyang glass I've used has a very neutral output, so I'm wondering if it's by design, though it's fairly easy to punch up images in post. I've also seen some CA in bright scenes, but nothing that can't be fixed. Flair is well controlled. Handling is great due to lighter weight utilizing the same fast STM motor as the 45mm. High contrast scenarios are the 18mm's biggest weakness, where it becomes harder to recover highlights.
I'd rate the 18mm around an 8/10, just be aware of it's weakness and the 45mm is like a 9/10 due to better optical performance and similar handling as a point of reference.
Overall, if someone needs a lens for specialized subjects like astrophotography, there are better lenses in the Sony lens line-up. The Samyang is more budget oriented, while providing decent performance in a small package.
Sep 18, 2019 at 02:41 PM
Previous versions of Jonathan F's message #14984853 « Samyang AF 18/2.8 FE officially announced »
