Hi, love the video amazing review!! Im planning to get a wide lens for landscape and astro. Which one do you recommend this lens or Sigma 14mm 1.4? Watched many videos and reviews on the 2 lenses, still cant decide which one is better. Would the 2/3 stop of light make a huge difference? Because i know the 600 gram less would make a huge difference, especially since I'm traveling a lot
I have both, and ultimately they each have their own strengths and trade-offs. As I’ve reviewed them both, you can download samples from each off my website and let that help guide your decision. If you’re travelling then you’d probably enjoy the Sony’s more compact nature.
I think that would be a medium to dark Bortle 3, albeit that's directly overhead as there are light domes on the horizons. Thanks for watching, I hope the review helps with your decision.
Such an interesting video, thank you. I own the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G lens (that you have reviewed as well) with an A7R V. Is this 14mm f/1.8 GM lens worth the upgrade in terms of image quality, better ability to fill the pixels in with a 61M sensor, etc. or is just a matter of FOV preference?
The only reason to consider a different focal length like 14mm is 100% because of the field of view. If you’re finding yourself unable to get the shot because 20mm is too narrow then start looking at 14mm. If that’s not the case, then you don’t need wider. Better to save the money and buy a plane ticket to the Atacama or something, that’s what’ll really get you better photos 😉
Great work on this review. Thank you for sharing. I have a question though; why is the astigmatism so prevalent in the tracked shots while being almost non-existent in the untracked ones? I would expect to see the "fighter jets" in the untracked shots aswell. Albeit with more noise and perhaps slightly dimmer with fewer stars of course due to the shorter exposure time. I downloaded your RAWs from both the Sony 14mm and the Sigma 14mm and in the untracked shots they look almost identical in terms of astigmatism. However, in the tracked shots the Sigma look vastly better with almost no astigmatism. Why does tracking the Sony turn the stars into "fighter jets"? I'd appreciate your input on this as i am currently trying to decide which of the two i should buy. Thank you.
It’s a byproduct of apparent sky movement in the untracked images, coupled with the differences in exposure time. The stars essentially blur by spreading out over a larger area of pixels than they otherwise would. Saggital astigmatism tends to manifest at a lower intensity than tangential, and thus it doesn’t show up nearly as well in an untracked image due to any given pixel receiving much less signal. The ends of the tangential astigmatism will experience the same effect. Essentially you’re getting much less light over all and the stars are blurring a bit and that combination masks the worst of the aberrations. The Sigma lens generally has less astigmatism for most star magnitudes until you get to low magnitude (brighter) stars in the corners and then the astigmatism goes a bit more extreme. Overall each lens has its optimal use cases so it depends on your individual situation.
Many thanks for doing these reviews and providing samples, particularly with the A7rv which appears to no longer have the star eater filter (yah!). I'm in the midst of looking at a 35mm, and am looking at the GM. Any thoughts?
It’s probably the best you can get. I have Sigma’s f/1.2 and even in the centre wide open the stars experience aberrations. It’s possibly an alignment issue though. I wouldn’t hesitate to get the 35mm GM personally
Great video! I have been calling the astigmatism coma for years cheers on the education. You mentioned the Sigma 14mm 1.4 which seems to perform better overall at the cost of heft, any thoughts on reviewing that? I am also interested in 135mm E-mount lenses, particularly the GM vs Rokinon/Samy for andromeda any thoughts?
I’m actually in the middle of editing a similar video for the Sigma 14 mm F1 .4. I’ll also be putting one out for the 135 mm GM, and while I’d like to compare it to the Samyang lens I’m not sure that I necessarily want to buy the Sammie lens, lol. I’m open to being proven wrong, but when it comes to more expensive optics from large reputable manufacturers being bested by optics that are half the price from manufacturers with an iffy quality control track record… well, I’m skeptical. That being said, if I can find one for the right price I’ll definitely test it. 135 mm is a bit wide for Andromeda though, at least if you want to fill the frame.
@@FerventAstronomy Seems like lots of reviews of the Samy suggest it is comparable to the GM for sharpness and it is often highly recommended. Agree that 135 isn't ideal for Andy alone, I've shot it at 600mm to fill the frame however I am oping to get a composition with a lot of foreground.
I definitely don’t want to yuck anyone’s yum, so you shoot that galaxy at 135mm if that’s what’s you’re going for! Goodness knows composition is a tough thing to bring into deep sky photography so I’d love to see the results whenever you do :) Regarding reviews of the Samyang lens, pffffff… yeah. One of the reasons I started doing these the way that I have is because I’ve found reviews out there lacking in general. There’s always confounding factors. Either the equipment is provided by the manufacturer which guarantees that it’s cherry picked (goes for every company), or the testing methods aren’t ideal, or the reviewer has obvious pathways for motivated reasoning. To me, there’s not a lot of face validity to a big manufacturer with a ton of R&D behind them being upended by a budget manufacturer for half the price. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not, but I think a lot of people really *want* it to be true and that colours things. I’m a Sammy lens owner myself, I use whatever available tools do the job. But I’ve seen the same phenomenon play out over and over: “this Viltrox lens is just as good as X lens” or “this new Sigma lens is near perfect even in the corners” and somehow anyone who experiences anything different just has “a bad copy.” Ultimately I just want people to be out under the sky taking photos, and hopefully giving them this kind of information gets them to do that 😄
Why are you calling it an old lens? Wikipedia data "List_of_Sony_E-mount_lenses" says that Sony brought that lens to market in 2021 - that's not old. That's still a baby.
Based on your reviews of 14mm lenses, I’m going to pull the trigger on the new Sigma 14/1.4. I thank you for these very in-depth reviews, although my bank account hates you for starving… Having said that, unfortunately you DO buy f/1.8 to shoot at f/2.8, because if you want well corrected images, the sad reality is that you have to stop down the lens. If you buy an f/2.8 lens, you know it’s not corrected until at least f/4. This is the sad reality of things, and probably the reason why APO telescopes cost so much more than equivalent general purposes lenses of similar focal length and aperture. I had CFF make me a 105/6 and have given Florian an inordinate amount of money for a not particularly fast, single purpose, fairly heavy piece of equipment. It also came with a few spacer tubes and field flattener, to add to the cost… And that is another piece of sad reality. After all, physics is physics, and, as you said, we still don’t have magic optics or opticians
Hi, love the video amazing review!! Im planning to get a wide lens for landscape and astro. Which one do you recommend this lens or Sigma 14mm 1.4? Watched many videos and reviews on the 2 lenses, still cant decide which one is better. Would the 2/3 stop of light make a huge difference? Because i know the 600 gram less would make a huge difference, especially since I'm traveling a lot
I have both, and ultimately they each have their own strengths and trade-offs. As I’ve reviewed them both, you can download samples from each off my website and let that help guide your decision. If you’re travelling then you’d probably enjoy the Sony’s more compact nature.
Great review. I’m considering buying this. May I ask what Bortle sky you shot under?
I think that would be a medium to dark Bortle 3, albeit that's directly overhead as there are light domes on the horizons. Thanks for watching, I hope the review helps with your decision.
@ it did, thank you. I’m going to buy it.
How’s it compare to sigma 14 1.4 at the corner part?sigma better?(1.8/1.4f)
Well you’re in luck, I have a review of the Sigma as well!
Such an interesting video, thank you. I own the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G lens (that you have reviewed as well) with an A7R V. Is this 14mm f/1.8 GM lens worth the upgrade in terms of image quality, better ability to fill the pixels in with a 61M sensor, etc. or is just a matter of FOV preference?
The only reason to consider a different focal length like 14mm is 100% because of the field of view. If you’re finding yourself unable to get the shot because 20mm is too narrow then start looking at 14mm. If that’s not the case, then you don’t need wider. Better to save the money and buy a plane ticket to the Atacama or something, that’s what’ll really get you better photos 😉
Great work on this review. Thank you for sharing.
I have a question though; why is the astigmatism so prevalent in the tracked shots while being almost non-existent in the untracked ones? I would expect to see the "fighter jets" in the untracked shots aswell. Albeit with more noise and perhaps slightly dimmer with fewer stars of course due to the shorter exposure time.
I downloaded your RAWs from both the Sony 14mm and the Sigma 14mm and in the untracked shots they look almost identical in terms of astigmatism. However, in the tracked shots the Sigma look vastly better with almost no astigmatism. Why does tracking the Sony turn the stars into "fighter jets"?
I'd appreciate your input on this as i am currently trying to decide which of the two i should buy. Thank you.
It’s a byproduct of apparent sky movement in the untracked images, coupled with the differences in exposure time. The stars essentially blur by spreading out over a larger area of pixels than they otherwise would. Saggital astigmatism tends to manifest at a lower intensity than tangential, and thus it doesn’t show up nearly as well in an untracked image due to any given pixel receiving much less signal. The ends of the tangential astigmatism will experience the same effect. Essentially you’re getting much less light over all and the stars are blurring a bit and that combination masks the worst of the aberrations.
The Sigma lens generally has less astigmatism for most star magnitudes until you get to low magnitude (brighter) stars in the corners and then the astigmatism goes a bit more extreme. Overall each lens has its optimal use cases so it depends on your individual situation.
Many thanks for doing these reviews and providing samples, particularly with the A7rv which appears to no longer have the star eater filter (yah!). I'm in the midst of looking at a 35mm, and am looking at the GM. Any thoughts?
It’s probably the best you can get. I have Sigma’s f/1.2 and even in the centre wide open the stars experience aberrations. It’s possibly an alignment issue though. I wouldn’t hesitate to get the 35mm GM personally
Great video! I have been calling the astigmatism coma for years cheers on the education. You mentioned the Sigma 14mm 1.4 which seems to perform better overall at the cost of heft, any thoughts on reviewing that? I am also interested in 135mm E-mount lenses, particularly the GM vs Rokinon/Samy for andromeda any thoughts?
I’m actually in the middle of editing a similar video for the Sigma 14 mm F1 .4. I’ll also be putting one out for the 135 mm GM, and while I’d like to compare it to the Samyang lens I’m not sure that I necessarily want to buy the Sammie lens, lol. I’m open to being proven wrong, but when it comes to more expensive optics from large reputable manufacturers being bested by optics that are half the price from manufacturers with an iffy quality control track record… well, I’m skeptical. That being said, if I can find one for the right price I’ll definitely test it. 135 mm is a bit wide for Andromeda though, at least if you want to fill the frame.
@@FerventAstronomy Seems like lots of reviews of the Samy suggest it is comparable to the GM for sharpness and it is often highly recommended. Agree that 135 isn't ideal for Andy alone, I've shot it at 600mm to fill the frame however I am oping to get a composition with a lot of foreground.
I definitely don’t want to yuck anyone’s yum, so you shoot that galaxy at 135mm if that’s what’s you’re going for! Goodness knows composition is a tough thing to bring into deep sky photography so I’d love to see the results whenever you do :)
Regarding reviews of the Samyang lens, pffffff… yeah. One of the reasons I started doing these the way that I have is because I’ve found reviews out there lacking in general. There’s always confounding factors. Either the equipment is provided by the manufacturer which guarantees that it’s cherry picked (goes for every company), or the testing methods aren’t ideal, or the reviewer has obvious pathways for motivated reasoning. To me, there’s not a lot of face validity to a big manufacturer with a ton of R&D behind them being upended by a budget manufacturer for half the price. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not, but I think a lot of people really *want* it to be true and that colours things.
I’m a Sammy lens owner myself, I use whatever available tools do the job. But I’ve seen the same phenomenon play out over and over: “this Viltrox lens is just as good as X lens” or “this new Sigma lens is near perfect even in the corners” and somehow anyone who experiences anything different just has “a bad copy.”
Ultimately I just want people to be out under the sky taking photos, and hopefully giving them this kind of information gets them to do that 😄
Thank you for the video.
Thanks for watching!
Please try ttartisan 11mm 2.8 ❤
If I come across one I can try it
Why are you calling it an old lens? Wikipedia data "List_of_Sony_E-mount_lenses" says that Sony brought that lens to market in 2021 - that's not old. That's still a baby.
Mostly just referencing the fact that my review is late to the party because it’s been out for three years 😉
Based on your reviews of 14mm lenses, I’m going to pull the trigger on the new Sigma 14/1.4.
I thank you for these very in-depth reviews, although my bank account hates you for starving…
Having said that, unfortunately you DO buy f/1.8 to shoot at f/2.8, because if you want well corrected images, the sad reality is that you have to stop down the lens.
If you buy an f/2.8 lens, you know it’s not corrected until at least f/4.
This is the sad reality of things, and probably the reason why APO telescopes cost so much more than equivalent general purposes lenses of similar focal length and aperture.
I had CFF make me a 105/6 and have given Florian an inordinate amount of money for a not particularly fast, single purpose, fairly heavy piece of equipment.
It also came with a few spacer tubes and field flattener, to add to the cost…
And that is another piece of sad reality.
After all, physics is physics, and, as you said, we still don’t have magic optics or opticians
Cheers, glad that it was helpful!