The Sony A73/A7R3/A7S3/A9 Thread
- Thread starter traveyb
- Start date
Caporegime
Either the Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 12-24/2.8 (bulb element) or Sony 16-35/2.8.
Sigma 20/1.4 (bulb)
Sigma 14/1.8 (bulb)
While they are undoubtedly good wide zooms, none of those lenses has image quality that approaches a 24mm GM prime. Also, you missed the Sony 12-24mm f4 which has a stellar reputation.
In terms of primes, the Zeiss Batis 18mm f/2.8 is a known performer. Also, Samyang have some new primes coming out which are meant to be good.
Last edited:
Soldato
What about the sony 12-24 F4?
I forgot to add, don't be afraid to go non-native for landscape lenses. Canon have a few very good (and usually significantly cheaper when used) wide prime/zoom lenses with VERY low distortion (11-24mm for example) and the autofocus is acceptably good with a Sigma MC-11 adapter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EYiWaf6oR4
Caporegime
Well, they all offer more than the 24GM.
Some go wider than 24GM, some are cheaper than the 24GM.
As for the Sony 12-24/F4. I always forget that, purely due to the fact that it is F4 and my mind just subconsciously forgets those lenses!
Soldato
Don't ignore the 12-24. Fantastic lens
For landscapes you spend 99% of your time at lower apertures so it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter unless you have a specific reason for needing f2.8 (which i guess you do for weddings/events etc).
Caporegime
I was thinking if one is looking at 24 GM, being 1.4m, which was the original question, you might want to stay on that level of speed.
If you are always stopping down then one can argue the 24GM wasn't really that important in the first place, both in aperture and sharpness.
Many people will buy the 24mm GM f1.4 for the superlative optics, not just for the 1.4 aperture. Clearly not all lenses are optically equal regardless of aperture, and GM's often (well, usually anyway) represent the very best optics you can buy.
Caporegime
Yes I know that, I have a 24GM too, but in one post you are making an argument for F/4 lenses, and now you are making an argument for 1.4 lenses.
We know that generally when a lens stopped down it is sharper so a 1/4 stopped to F4 is sharper than F/4 at F/4...
I am not sure what you are suggesting anymore...like all the lenses?
Last edited:
Raymond, this is not rocket science. My first reply was to your post saying that you do not think of lenses that are f4 or lower, to which I replied there are some awesome landscape lenses that are f4.
You then said that if someone was considering a 1.4 lens, then it's only for the aperture, to which I replied that this is now always the case as the expensive high aperture lenses often represent the best optics you can buy.
They were two separate statements that I replied to and one does not mutually exclude the other, considering the unique distinctions between some of the lenses that need to be judged on their own distinct merits... iike the non-GM 12-24mm f4 which is amazing at what it does and is a pretty unique lens in its class. Please apply some context and common sense to your posts.
Caporegime
Yes I know what you are saying, that they are all good and they have their own purposes.
Which just states the obvious and I don't think we need to do that. It's listing off the catalogue of what is out there, you need to put out some criteria at least to what you prefer at least.
For me, as I said, I tend to ignore all the F/4 lenses, even if they are good. Rightly or wrongly, I just don't pay attention to them. So if you are going to look at an alternative to the 24GM, and looking to lose some optical quality, then you might as well gain in focal range. Is the Batis 18/2.8 good? Sure, but I find that kind of prime redundant when there is a zoom covering the same focal range with the same aperture. You might as well get something that is more useful overall.
So, it goes back to the original question, what other wide angle primes like the 24GM would you recommend?
Last edited:
The primes vs zooms debate is as old as the hills... they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I see zooms as jack-of-most-trades and primes more as precision tools. I know people that only shoot with primes so that they have consistently amazing edge-to-edge image quality. Zooms can very rarely produce the same low distortion, edge-to-edge quality that many demanding landscapers hanker for, though of course they give focal length flexibility and are more versatile.
The Batis 18mm and Zeiss 25mm are both very well regarded for optical excellence. However, the Sigma 24mm Art f1.4 is half the price and a known performer. however if I had limited funds and needed one lens to cover most situations I could encounter I would definitely buy a zoom for the versatility... likely a Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 which is getting solid reviews.
Caporegime
I actually went for the Tamron 17-28/2.8 last week, adding to my 24GM.
Did think about returning it for the Sigma 12-24 but can’t take filters and it is £500 more.
Did think about returning it for the Sigma 12-24 but can’t take filters and it is £500 more.