billsnature wrote: j4nu wrote: billsnature wrote:
Is the actual focal length 16mm? The 20 G is actually 19mm is this lens really 16 or is it closer to 15 or 17mm. Is the FOV of this lens wider, narrower or the same as the 16-35 GM II at 16mm?
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
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.
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
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.
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 is because of field curvature same as the 14G 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 l
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
Mar 02, 2025 at 06:52 PM
Previous versions of aCuria's message #16764641 « Sony FE 16mm f/1.8 G Lens (Sony E) »
