Sony Looking for advice on wide angle lenses

I would take note you are probably not going to want a lot of close-ups of people with anything shorter than about 24mm, due to distortion particularly of people's faces. The closer you are, the worse the effect. I like the Tamrons, and the 20-40 is from what I've read a bit of an unrecognized performer especially for travel, but I would not raise expectations too high for shooting people (or selfies) at 20mm. I think you will have to experience it to decide for yourself, though. A lot of 'content creators' love the Sony 20 G for instance, so maybe it is just me.
 
Whatever you decide to do, I really think if you sell the 28-75 you'll end up posting in one of those "photographic item you sold and bought again" threads! :p The Tamron trinity of 2.8 zooms is a top-drawer set, if I didn't already have the focal range covered the 28-75 would be on my short list.

Remember, back in the day (in my best old-man's voice), 28mm was about as wide as anyone had. Maybe not as convenient, but absolutely serviceable.
 
rayvonn said:
Spoke to an old time professional photographer (he really was an old man) who told me 50mm used to be considered wide (??)
Click to expand...
I'm nearly 76 y.o., and my widest lens in the early 1960s was a Leitz Hektor 28mm for my M2. When I changed to Olympus in the early 1970s, my widest prime was an f/3.5 28mm. I still have it ...
 
rayvonn said:
Spoke to an old time professional photographer (he really was an old man) who told me 50mm used to be considered wide (??)
Click to expand...
I don't dispute that 28mm and 35mm should be enough to almost everyone. Out of 13 years of photography I only ever owned a ultra wide angle lens and I didn't used it much.

The cases where I was thinking it would be quite difficult for 28mm:
*Eastern European apartments are about 7 by 7 meters and 2.5 meters tall, the kitchens are usually 3 by 7 meters (from what I remember).
*The Turda Gorge has a 1 meter wide path through a 10 meter wide canyon carved by a river. It has caves where villagers used to hide when the town was attacked.
*The Salt Mines are under a hill with tunnels about 2.5 meters tall and wide and a shaft that goes down to the 3rd largest salt mine cavern in Europe. The owners of the mine even managed to put a large vertical carousel inside. At the bottom of the cavern there's a salt lake from the excess water from mining. There are boats that you can rent to paddle through the lake.
*Turda does have 2 old churches, one is 300 years old and the other 200 years old. The rest are 100 year old or less, not much interesting architecture in those.

Upon reflection I think I will go with the Samy AF 18mm f 2.8 because it's the cheapest option, doesn't have the crazy barrel distortion of Tamy 20mm f 2.8, it's very small, light and easy to carry, and I can still fit my Sev7n filter system on it (just need to get a 58mm adapter for it, the ones I have is 67mm).
 
davidzvi said:
For the past 20 or so years I've "something" in the 14-18mm range. Be it a true wide or a fisheye I could "de-fish" like the old Nikon 10.5 and Samyang 7.5. I like having something in that range.
Click to expand...
I've never been a fisheye guy. I had a Samyang 7.5 for M-4/3 when they were popular on the forum, but never really got into it more than a novelty. Wide angle is a whole different story, they get used a lot for many different subjects.

I bought the Samyang 24/1.8 for a single purpose, I need fast and wide-ish when shooting the drag races at night. The 24 give an almost perfect FOV for the distance when I'm next to the cars at the start line. Other than that it probably won't see much use, which is one reason I didn't want to spend $1300 on the Sony version! :eek:
 
So I have the Sony FE 28mm f 2 for a few months and I am quite happy with it, but I think I want to change it. But first, the reasons I like it:

*28mm is such a comfortable focal length for me. I have owned a few 24mm equiv focal length lenses but the 28mm has been my most common and used wide angle focal length for 15 years. I still can't "see" the 24mm focal length when I think of a composition compared to 28mm.
*The f 2 aperture has been very useful and helpful in low light, especially indoors to keep the ISO under 12.800 or the shutter speed above 1/8th.
*The small size and weight makes it very easy and comfortable to handhold at arm's length for selfies with my dog (not for social media, it's not my thing, but for myself since I live alone I have no other ways of having pictures of me and her).
*The autofocus is pretty fast and reliable, though I don't trust it for action it's good enough for personal use.
*Rendition, I love the images coming out of it. They are beautifully imperfect. A lot like my Sony FE 85mm f 1.8 but a lot better then the Sony FE 50mm f 1.8. It's sharp but not clinical, it has CA but it's low enough to ad to the image a character and look.

The downsides, for me:
*Minimum Focus Distance is not great. It's just enough for arms length selfies but when my dog is in my lap or if I want to a close up of her (usually being cute or asleep) I hit that MFD pretty consistently and annoyingly without getting the composition I'm happy with. It's one of the 2 reasons why I want and will change the lens.
*Close up focus for flowers. Same issue as above, I just can't get close enough to get the composition I want. My Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 G2 does better and I always pick it for those kinds of shots but there are times when I don't have it with me.

I am debating between the Tamron 20mm f 2.8 Di III OSD Macro and 24mm version. It would let me get closer for the flowers and close-ups. It's a bit wider so it's easier to frame for selfies with room to crop and distort if I have a wonkey perspective or level, plus weather resistance and 67mm filter thread is pretty much the same size and weight.
I'm not a fan of the distortion on the 20mm and it's going to be more difficult to shoot close up with such a close MFD. Unfortunately I haven't shot all that much wider then 24mm so I can't think how an image would look at that focal length. The 20mm would be quite a complementary lens to my Tamron 28-75mm while the 24mm would be more of a alternative if my reach is covered by another lens.

The reason I am still not considering the Tamron 17-28mm f 2.8 as a choice is the size, getting close (to my dog) with a lens that big (same problem with my Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8) is very distracting and annoying for her (and I can't blame her).

I have debated if I should keep the Sony and get the Taunton, luckily the Tamron is 200 £ used like new condition so it's not a fortune, but then the Sony would basically live in my house for indoor low light usage only.

As a side note, only in the last 2 years have I been able to have more then a couple of lenses and never been much of a prime shooter, I struggle to find the lens that fits my needs and wishes best. Especially because I value versatility the most on my needs so I carry less with me. I even have the urge to sell a lens if I don't use it often enough but I tell myself that even though I don't use it daily doesn't mean it's not worth hanging on to.
I am finding myself having a 2 lens combo for the last few months as my go to:
*Sony FE 28mm f 2 and Sony FE 85mm f 1.8 (my preferred street photography and quick go out setup)
*Sony FE 28mm f 2 and Tamron 70-180mm f 2.8 (my maybe wildlife but maybe wide angle too a bit)
*Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 and Tamron 70-180mm f 2.8 (my expect the unexpected setup)
*Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 and Tamron 150-500mm f 5-6.7 (my doggy walk setup)
 
I picked up a Tamron 20mm f2.8 which a friend was selling as he had bought a Zeiss 21mm. He said make me an offer so I offered him £100, he said ok :) . I have had it for around 3 months now and although it is not used all that much it has been a very good addition and is very sharp with a little fringing in strong backlighting ( easily corrected ) . The recent truck shot was taken with it.It is light, weather sealed and focuses close, AF is just so-so but I don't shoot sport so it's fast enough for me.
The reason it doesn't get more use is because I have the Zeiss 16-35 f4.0 but this is a heavy lens and I find it difficult to hold at arms length.
Must hit the gym ;)
 
Harry Cutts said:
I picked up a Tamron 20mm f2.8 which a friend was selling as he had bought a Zeiss 21mm. He said make me an offer so I offered him £100, he said ok :) . I have had it for around 3 months now and although it is not used all that much it has been a very good addition and is very sharp with a little fringing in strong backlighting ( easily corrected ) . The recent truck shot was taken with it.It is light, weather sealed and focuses close, AF is just so-so but I don't shoot sport so it's fast enough for me.
The reason it doesn't get more use is because I have the Zeiss 16-35 f4.0 but this is a heavy lens and I find it difficult to hold at arms length.
Must hit the gym ;)
Click to expand...
I understand the feeling. I am slowly building up the desire to own all 3 OSD lenses because they are so versatile in close up and IQ. 20mm for very large flowers, 24 for the smaller flowers and 35 as a walk around close up. Easy to swap between each other depending on where I go.
But I'm in no rush to buy all 3 of them, at the moment the Tamy 28-75mm G2 is a stand in until I find "more room" for them.

For wide zoom I would be more tempted in a complementary option like 12-24 mmof 14-24mm but Tamy doesn't make those ... yet. :p
 

Similar threads

Pauhana
Micro 4/3 Wide angle Lawoa or ?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Pauhana
Pauhana
AndyH44
    • Informative
Fuji New Firmware! Improved AF-S with wide angle lenses!
Replies
0
Views
765
AndyH44
AndyH44
AlwaysOnAuto
Looking for some printer help
Replies
13
Views
372
Charzes44
Charzes44
Back
Top