I'm in the position where I own both these lenses as well. I purchased the 16mm shortly after acquiring the A5100 and it looked very similar to the kit lens in terms of build quality. I used mine a lot and to be fair got decent results from it all be it as you point out the edge detail was poor. I then purchased the add on fisheye adapter and the wide rectilinear adapter for this lens and these have made the lens more usable. I have since purchased the 20mm and it's clear this is a vastly better lens particularly in terms of edge detail. Both my wide and fisheye adapters work perfectly on the 20mm and I've taken many nice shots, mainly architectural with the 20mm and it's adapters. I also purchased the e mount sigma 19mm f2.8. Anybody considering this wide focal length should absolutely buy the Sigma. It is vastly sharper than either of the Sony lenses. In fact my only use for my 16mm and 20mm Sonys is when I add one of the adapters, I rarely use them as standalone lenses now that I have the 19mm Sigma. My advice is don't buy the 16mm unless you intend to add at least the fisheye adapter to make some use of its ultra wide capability. The 20mm is nice but the Sigma 19mm beats it hands down.
I got my 16mm for $12.50 in almost new condition. I love that lens for video. Get super close with it for an interview with a shotgun make and it's awesome!
Thanks for this video. I ordered a 20 mm last night and feel much better about it now that I've seen your video. Other comparisons online didn't show the corners for the 20mm which are much sharper than my 16-50 zoom. Thanks again!!!
I have both lenses the 16mm and 20mm. Also I have bought both adapters wide angle and fish eye. I was a compact camera user and when I bought the first mirrorless APS-C camera Sony NEX-3 in 2011 with the kit lens SEL16F28 I was amazed by the quality of photos. If you compare the 16mm sony lens with the lenses of average compact cameras made before 2010 the lens is fantastic. But if you compare it with lenses of dSLR cameras after 2011 the lens is one of the worst. For me the sony nex 3 camera with the 16mm lens was just a small and light compact camera on steroids. Amazing dynamic range, good sharpness of photos above f/5.6, great low ISO noise at f/2.8 . I was very pleased. When I bought two year afterwards the sharp 50mm f/1.8 I realized the difference of sharpness and bokeh. The 16mm lens is great when you don't do photo processing and choose the camera color settings. I was using the photos on Instagram and facebook only and I was amazed by the quality of the 16mm pancake lens.
The 20mm was just made to fix the problems of 16mm pancake. But Sony doesn't admit that. The 20mm has three aspherical elements and two elements more. It costs 350 euros but I found it after waiting and watching for a year at 250 euros in Amazon. Not a cheap pancake lens. Pancake lenses are inherently inferior than common lenses. The small size and weight restricts the construction of a sharp pancake lens at a normal price. This is the same story with canon, pentax and olympus pancake lenses. The 20mm isn't not only sharper but has drastically less barel distortion and vignetting. Personally I like the extreme barel distortion and vignetting of 16mm. The color fringing is above average for both but it is not noticeable if the photos are used on social networks only. The wide angle lens adapter isn't soft and worth it's money. The fish eye adapter is soft at the edges. However the fisheye adapter is fantastic with panoramic photos. Sony cameras have a very efficient panoramic function
I was interested in a 16-ish mm lens for the a6300. I'm curious about the quality difference between the 16 mm (no adapter) vs the 20 mm (with adapter). Is the image on the 20 mm still better than 16mm? is there any loss in f-stops with the adapter. thnx
Borin Leka Simply avoid the Sony SEL16F28 16mm f/2.8. It is a very soft lens with strong vignetting at f/2.8 and serious barrel distortion. The distortion and vignetting can be fixed with Lightroom though. The softness can't be fixed easily. The latest Sony mirrorless cameras automatically reduce at a great degree the problems of the 16mm pancake lens on the jpg files. So for an ignorant amateur photographer the results will be decent. However if you shoot raw all the problems of the 16mm are so obvious. The Sony 20mm f/2.8 simply replaced the problematic 16mm. Pancake or retractable lenses are useful with mirrorless cameras. They make the cameras even smaller. However both types have inherently disadvantages. Another lens you should avoid is the convenient retractable stabilized power-zoom kit lens 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6. At 16mm is unacceptable. But again the internal correction of Sony mirrorless cameras corrects low contrast, geometric distortion, image noise, chromatic aberration, vignetting on jpeg files and that is enough for most photographers. However the raw files uncover all the problems. The Sony 20mm f/2.8 costs nearly the double of the Sony 16mm f/2.8. It has good sharpness and minimum barrel distortion and vignetting at f/2.8. This can be viewed in raw files. I really hope that Sony will produce an e-mount FE full frame pancake or retractable lens for its a7 series. Nearly all FE lens are so big and the Sony full frame a7 series looses its small size advantage.
As always, a great job and practical applications. It would have been wonderful to compare the 16-50 kit lens which is a natural default - maybe a quickie followup video?
Nice review. I saw your earlier review of the 16mm and you were very bullish about it then. How do you think it works with 4k video. bit confused coz although I want image quality but I need the extra width of the 16mm for cityscapes. Any suggestions! thanks!
What is your budget? I have several lenses that cover this range but IMHO, I think a better buy at this point is the Sony 10-18mm F4 - bit.ly/Sony10-18mm But if you just want a smaller pancake, the 20mm is just a more superior lens. For casual stuff, the 16mm works just fine, but if predictable IQ is more your goal, the 20mm is the way to go. Even consider picking up the fisheye converter - bit.ly/SonyFisheye-Black - which would help broaden your angle of view to the same FoV as the 16mm.
I was interested in a 16-ish mm lens for the a6300. I'm curious about the quality difference between the 16 mm (no adapter) vs the 20 mm (with adapter). Is the image on the 20 mm still better than 16mm? is there any loss in f-stops with the adapter. thnx
Great review of the lenses. I have the 16mm and I agree that it doesn't take very sharp images. I would like some sharp images so would you recommend I purchase the 20 mm? I do have the converter that converts from 16 mm to 12 mm. I'm wondering if I can use that on the 20 mm. Also, are these lens server difference purposes?
Thanks! I was interested in the 16mm but I can't have those smudges in my stuff. I just started doing real estate. Question: what would you do and why? For real estate: buy the 20mm f2.8 or buy the wide angle converter for your 28mm f2? The 28mm lense + WA converter gives me a focal length of 21mm. Have you tested those yet or could give me an insight??
The 20mm is super small, light and more affordable. Really sharp lens. But since you are on an FE mount, I'd probably just opt for the 28mm with WA converter. Just makes more sense because you could always use the FE lenses on the APSC bodies if you decided to pick up an A6300.
there are variations of the 16mm that some are sharper then others. mine is not as bad but i only have one so cant test i have the 16mm silver with fisheyes converter , if anyone is interested ... half-price and they are as new.
Total n00b here, looking for a grab-n-go camera. Compared to a Rx100iii or kit lenses on a5100 and a6000, and to iphone/sony xperia phones, how are these for zooms and for photo IQ at night? Only reason I'm looking for a camera is better dark photos and better zoom quality than smartphones. I also want a phone that is grab and go.
I have the 16 and 20mm as well as now having the 1018. I haven't used the 16mm much since getting the 1018 but after watching your video I put it on the A6000 and took a few test shots with it. Mine's quite usable at F8 so you appear to have been a bit unlucky with yours. The 1018 is a lot better but I keep the 16mm to use with the fish eye adapter. The 20mm is my main walk around lens and is much sharper than the 16mm. Also, for me, a better focal length.
Question I'm new to the Sony ecosystem, don't have a kit lens, currently using it with a couple of manual lenses, plan to buy the sigma 30mm 1.4 as my first sony e lens, Im learning video and do little of photography on side, do I need to have a kit lens? I bought just the body and I don't own a zoom lens any tips?
+LKFX Quality Media Well, I own the Sigma 30mm F1.4 and it's fantastic. The autofocus, at least from what I can tell, is only slightly less fast then native Sony lenses. The 16-50mm kit lens is a great all-around light portable lens. But if you are looking for something with a little more capability, I would suggest the 18-105mm power zoom lens. Especially if you primarily plan to do video.
Mr.Music Studio I did my research I'm going to get the kit lens, the sigma 30mm 1.4 and 12mm f2 from rokinon, a good zoom lens that is good in low light is over 1000, I'll go for the kit lens and eventually the 18-105
The a6300 and the a6500 have fantastic low light ISO performance. F/4 is not what it used to be. On these cameras, is no problem at all. You may not get uber shallow DoF, but that's a trade off I'm ok with in certain situations.
The Photo/Video Show Yeah for video is not going to be ideal while I just have the a6000 but the plan is once I get all lenses I want, sell the a6000 and get a 6300, in the mean time, aim for tons of lights 💡 in low light situations
I know my comment is a bit late but it's for those still thinking about buying this lens in 2023 and beyond. I recently picked up this lens in 2023 just for handheld vlogging. And I would recommend using this lens only for vlogging especially for the A6000/ZVE series. Continuous auto focus reliability is poor and it's best to use manual focus. For RUclips videos, quality is good for vlogging but questionable for photos. There is some corner blurring on the left side for my lens. But the whole purpose of this lens isn't for its image quality and it maintains good sharpness in the center which is the most important when vlogging handheld. Also its extremely light and affordable. I was using the Sigma 16mm f1.4 and Sony Zeiss 16-70mm for handheld vlogs and the Sony 16mm f2.8 is a night and day difference. So if youre getting into vlogging and want to run some trial lens for awhile, this is definitely one I would recommend before progressing to higher quality ones. Practice practice practice with affordable setups before progressing to more expensive one!
Help required please. I'm looking for a a6000 and a wide angle lens to keep in a kayak when out on trips to replace a canon g15. What lens should I get for the best image quality and portability. I already have a 7d mkII and a Tokina 11-16 and would like to get close to that image quality in a smaller size. Thanks
Jeremy Gaskell Cheers I have 7d mk2 also, but love the a6000 with a Minolta 50mm 1.7 at the moment. I think the overall image quality of the 7d is slightly better. In fact I'm pretty sure. For what it is though the a6000 is incredible.
Rob Woolf yea I bought a x-700 Minolta film cam with like 6 lenses for under $100 and I'm in love with the 50 1.7 and the Tokina 80-200. Although some "mint" eBay Minoltas that cost me a lot have been hazed or fungusy.
Yes you can. Any 49mm filter will fit and I have used a 4 stop ND filter on my 16mm without any issues! I know my comment is a bit late but some of us still watch these videos in 2023!
That is bad enough to make you think that, why would they release a lens like that out for sale....guess you have heard others complaining about it, so it's not like you got a defective lens?
Sony a6xxx are very good cameras. But ... there aren't many really good lenses for them. 35mm and 50mm from Sony, 30mm Sigma. That's almost everything. Set lens 16-55 is small, that's good. But the optical properties are tragic. These are the reasons I am considering leaving Sony. I'm sad, sony a6xxx is great for traveling, but bad set lens knocks it down.
I own a6000 along with sigma 30 1.4. And i somehow agree with you. Especially if we compare them to Canon's range of lenses. What did you end up getting/switching to?
Very correct reivew. I have this 16 mm 2.8 and for sure this is a shit lens. The kit lens which came with my a6300 ie 16-50 is much better than this at 16mm f3.5 Nice and unbiased review.
yes, the auto focus is okay but not as fast as the 18-105. With the wide angle adapter it is even slower but I just used it for 5 hours at a live event and since it keeps almost everything in focus at that wide of an angle it worked great. I'll upload some test shots within the next few days.
Yeah. But it's not a total loss. I've used it many times in lots of videos. You just gotta find the most appropriate place to squeeze it in. But it certainly ain't winning any awards :)
The Photo/Video Show Honestly no one should not expect pro results on a wide angle with a lens that compact also.. around 20mm to about almost 50mm Pancake lenses work really well. Take a look at Canons 24mm and 40mm pancakes, those despite being dirt cheap are sharp as a tack. But at wide angles its hard for any lenses even my Canon 10-22mm USM lens has crap corners. Now the Rokinon 14mm I bought has nicer corners in comparison, but its front element is huge and it can not use filters. So there is the trade off. I am sure Sony could make a extremely nice 16mm UWA lens, but then everyone would bitch about it being bigger then the camera body.. :-D Cheers.. Joe
I've heard there are good and bad copies of this lens! Mine is completely useless. It's like there's Vaseline smeared inside. About a dime sized area in the center will be kinda sharp no matter where I focus it, so I picked center focus and framed someone in the middle. It gave me the most terrible bokeh you could imagine 😂😆😂 I give up on this lens.
The Photo/Video Show I agree, bought mine used for $120. You saved my ego with this video though, I was going nuts trying to find out what was happening. Thank you!
Thanks for your response and for the video. I was joking but, being realistic, the 16 mm is no better than the kit lens 16-50mm OSS and the 20mm doesn't have OSS. However, if I was forced to choose one of them I would choose the 20mm. It's a nice walk around for street photography (not video).
Luis Alvoeiro Quaresma I think the 20mm is decent for it's size and the larger aperture. But you're right, I can't see much more IQ between it and the kit lens.
+Rangelvlogs I hope you get a good copy. Sometimes the 16mm can be hit or miss. I had a copy of it and it was pretty bad. But they are not all like that.
I'm in the position where I own both these lenses as well. I purchased the 16mm shortly after acquiring the A5100 and it looked very similar to the kit lens in terms of build quality. I used mine a lot and to be fair got decent results from it all be it as you point out the edge detail was poor. I then purchased the add on fisheye adapter and the wide rectilinear adapter for this lens and these have made the lens more usable. I have since purchased the 20mm and it's clear this is a vastly better lens particularly in terms of edge detail. Both my wide and fisheye adapters work perfectly on the 20mm and I've taken many nice shots, mainly architectural with the 20mm and it's adapters. I also purchased the e mount sigma 19mm f2.8. Anybody considering this wide focal length should absolutely buy the Sigma. It is vastly sharper than either of the Sony lenses. In fact my only use for my 16mm and 20mm Sonys is when I add one of the adapters, I rarely use them as standalone lenses now that I have the 19mm Sigma. My advice is don't buy the 16mm unless you intend to add at least the fisheye adapter to make some use of its ultra wide capability. The 20mm is nice but the Sigma 19mm beats it hands down.
I got my 16mm for $12.50 in almost new condition. I love that lens for video. Get super close with it for an interview with a shotgun make and it's awesome!
Mic* sorry auto correct
Thanks for this video. I ordered a 20 mm last night and feel much better about it now that I've seen your video. Other comparisons online didn't show the corners for the 20mm which are much sharper than my 16-50 zoom. Thanks again!!!
I have both lenses the 16mm and 20mm. Also I have bought both adapters wide angle and fish eye. I was a compact camera user and when I bought the first mirrorless APS-C camera Sony NEX-3 in 2011 with the kit lens SEL16F28 I was amazed by the quality of photos. If you compare the 16mm sony lens with the lenses of average compact cameras made before 2010 the lens is fantastic. But if you compare it with lenses of dSLR cameras after 2011 the lens is one of the worst. For me the sony nex 3 camera with the 16mm lens was just a small and light compact camera on steroids. Amazing dynamic range, good sharpness of photos above f/5.6, great low ISO noise at f/2.8 . I was very pleased. When I bought two year afterwards the sharp 50mm f/1.8 I realized the difference of sharpness and bokeh. The 16mm lens is great when you don't do photo processing and choose the camera color settings. I was using the photos on Instagram and facebook only and I was amazed by the quality of the 16mm pancake lens.
The 20mm was just made to fix the problems of 16mm pancake. But Sony doesn't admit that. The 20mm has three aspherical elements and two elements more. It costs 350 euros but I found it after waiting and watching for a year at 250 euros in Amazon. Not a cheap pancake lens. Pancake lenses are inherently inferior than common lenses. The small size and weight restricts the construction of a sharp pancake lens at a normal price. This is the same story with canon, pentax and olympus pancake lenses.
The 20mm isn't not only sharper but has drastically less barel distortion and vignetting. Personally I like the extreme barel distortion and vignetting of 16mm.
The color fringing is above average for both but it is not noticeable if the photos are used on social networks only. The wide angle lens adapter isn't soft and worth it's money. The fish eye adapter is soft at the edges. However the fisheye adapter is fantastic with panoramic photos. Sony cameras have a very efficient panoramic function
I was interested in a 16-ish mm lens for the a6300. I'm curious about the quality difference between the 16 mm (no adapter) vs the 20 mm (with adapter). Is the image on the 20 mm still better than 16mm? is there any loss in f-stops with the adapter. thnx
Borin Leka Simply avoid the Sony SEL16F28 16mm f/2.8. It is a very soft lens with strong vignetting at f/2.8 and serious barrel distortion. The distortion and vignetting can be fixed with Lightroom though. The softness can't be fixed easily. The latest Sony mirrorless cameras automatically reduce at a great degree the problems of the 16mm pancake lens on the jpg files. So for an ignorant amateur photographer the results will be decent. However if you shoot raw all the problems of the 16mm are so obvious.
The Sony 20mm f/2.8 simply replaced the problematic 16mm.
Pancake or retractable lenses are useful with mirrorless cameras. They make the cameras even smaller. However both types have inherently disadvantages.
Another lens you should avoid is the convenient retractable stabilized power-zoom kit lens 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6. At 16mm is unacceptable. But again the internal correction of Sony mirrorless cameras corrects low contrast, geometric distortion, image noise, chromatic aberration, vignetting on jpeg files and that is enough for most photographers. However the raw files uncover all the problems.
The Sony 20mm f/2.8 costs nearly the double of the Sony 16mm f/2.8. It has good sharpness and minimum barrel distortion and vignetting at f/2.8. This can be viewed in raw files.
I really hope that Sony will produce an e-mount FE full frame pancake or retractable lens for its a7 series. Nearly all FE lens are so big and the Sony full frame a7 series looses its small size advantage.
I’m a new beginner & I want to know if the video quality is better than the 18-55 mm that came with my Sony NEX 7?
So for astrophotography, I'm assuming I should go with the cleaner 20mm (with the fisheye)
As always, a great job and practical applications. It would have been wonderful to compare the 16-50 kit lens which is a natural default - maybe a quickie followup video?
this might be a bad comparison but is the 1018 good?
How is this 16mm for video? Is it better than the f/3.5 kit lens for video only in areas with slightly less light using a flycam?
Nice review. I saw your earlier review of the 16mm and you were very bullish about it then. How do you think it works with 4k video. bit confused coz although I want image quality but I need the extra width of the 16mm for cityscapes. Any suggestions! thanks!
What is your budget? I have several lenses that cover this range but IMHO, I think a better buy at this point is the Sony 10-18mm F4 - bit.ly/Sony10-18mm
But if you just want a smaller pancake, the 20mm is just a more superior lens. For casual stuff, the 16mm works just fine, but if predictable IQ is more your goal, the 20mm is the way to go. Even consider picking up the fisheye converter - bit.ly/SonyFisheye-Black - which would help broaden your angle of view to the same FoV as the 16mm.
Thanks for the inputs! Am in bit of a tight budget at the moment. will probably save up for the 10-18 and get it sometime down the line. thank you!
I was interested in a 16-ish mm lens for the a6300. I'm curious about the quality difference between the 16 mm (no adapter) vs the 20 mm (with adapter). Is the image on the 20 mm still better than 16mm? is there any loss in f-stops with the adapter. thnx
Great review of the lenses. I have the 16mm and I agree that it doesn't take very sharp images. I would like some sharp images so would you recommend I purchase the 20 mm? I do have the converter that converts from 16 mm to 12 mm. I'm wondering if I can use that on the 20 mm. Also, are these lens server difference purposes?
If improved image quality is your main concern, the 20mm is a hugh step up IMHO. And yes, the converter will work omg both lenses.
Thank you.
Thanks! I was interested in the 16mm but I can't have those smudges in my stuff. I just started doing real estate.
Question: what would you do and why?
For real estate: buy the 20mm f2.8 or buy the wide angle converter for your 28mm f2? The 28mm lense + WA converter gives me a focal length of 21mm. Have you tested those yet or could give me an insight??
i have a sony a7sii emount. FYI
The 20mm is super small, light and more affordable. Really sharp lens. But since you are on an FE mount, I'd probably just opt for the 28mm with WA converter. Just makes more sense because you could always use the FE lenses on the APSC bodies if you decided to pick up an A6300.
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your help. Ordering the WA converter since Best Buy doesn't have it in store. Thanks mate!
You did not remember to show what both lens looks like without the fisheye converter!
there are variations of the 16mm that some are sharper then others.
mine is not as bad but i only have one so cant test
i have the 16mm silver with fisheyes converter , if anyone is interested ... half-price
and they are as new.
did i have this SONY wide conversion lens x0.7 VCL-HG0758 to sony 16mm or 20mm
Will look into an upgrade in the future.
Total n00b here, looking for a grab-n-go camera. Compared to a Rx100iii or kit lenses on a5100 and a6000, and to iphone/sony xperia phones, how are these for zooms and for photo IQ at night? Only reason I'm looking for a camera is better dark photos and better zoom quality than smartphones. I also want a phone that is grab and go.
Both would be better than any phone. These cameras have larger sensors.
I have the 16 and 20mm as well as now having the 1018. I haven't used the 16mm much since getting the 1018 but after watching your video I put it on the A6000 and took a few test shots with it. Mine's quite usable at F8 so you appear to have been a bit unlucky with yours. The 1018 is a lot better but I keep the 16mm to use with the fish eye adapter. The 20mm is my main walk around lens and is much sharper than the 16mm. Also, for me, a better focal length.
Question I'm new to the Sony ecosystem, don't have a kit lens, currently using it with a couple of manual lenses, plan to buy the sigma 30mm 1.4 as my first sony e lens, Im learning video and do little of photography on side, do I need to have a kit lens? I bought just the body and I don't own a zoom lens any tips?
+LKFX Quality Media Well, I own the Sigma 30mm F1.4 and it's fantastic. The autofocus, at least from what I can tell, is only slightly less fast then native Sony lenses. The 16-50mm kit lens is a great all-around light portable lens. But if you are looking for something with a little more capability, I would suggest the 18-105mm power zoom lens. Especially if you primarily plan to do video.
Mr.Music Studio I did my research I'm going to get the kit lens, the sigma 30mm 1.4 and 12mm f2 from rokinon, a good zoom lens that is good in low light is over 1000, I'll go for the kit lens and eventually the 18-105
The a6300 and the a6500 have fantastic low light ISO performance. F/4 is not what it used to be. On these cameras, is no problem at all. You may not get uber shallow DoF, but that's a trade off I'm ok with in certain situations.
The Photo/Video Show Yeah for video is not going to be ideal while I just have the a6000 but the plan is once I get all lenses I want, sell the a6000 and get a 6300, in the mean time, aim for tons of lights 💡 in low light situations
For pure vlogging, would the 16mm suffice?
I know my comment is a bit late but it's for those still thinking about buying this lens in 2023 and beyond. I recently picked up this lens in 2023 just for handheld vlogging. And I would recommend using this lens only for vlogging especially for the A6000/ZVE series. Continuous auto focus reliability is poor and it's best to use manual focus. For RUclips videos, quality is good for vlogging but questionable for photos. There is some corner blurring on the left side for my lens. But the whole purpose of this lens isn't for its image quality and it maintains good sharpness in the center which is the most important when vlogging handheld. Also its extremely light and affordable. I was using the Sigma 16mm f1.4 and Sony Zeiss 16-70mm for handheld vlogs and the Sony 16mm f2.8 is a night and day difference. So if youre getting into vlogging and want to run some trial lens for awhile, this is definitely one I would recommend before progressing to higher quality ones. Practice practice practice with affordable setups before progressing to more expensive one!
Help required please. I'm looking for a a6000 and a wide angle lens to keep in a kayak when out on trips to replace a canon g15. What lens should I get for the best image quality and portability. I already have a 7d mkII and a Tokina 11-16 and would like to get close to that image quality in a smaller size. Thanks
reggiewsks a6000 and its lenses aren't weather proofed at all. Please be careful
Jeremy Gaskell Thanks, yes I was aware. Air tight food box and two dry bags.
Rob Woolf good stuff. Friends of mine say the 20mm in his video is tack sharp but I haven't shot it. Have fun out there man!
Jeremy Gaskell Cheers I have 7d mk2 also, but love the a6000 with a Minolta 50mm 1.7 at the moment. I think the overall image quality of the 7d is slightly better. In fact I'm pretty sure. For what it is though the a6000 is incredible.
Rob Woolf yea I bought a x-700 Minolta film cam with like 6 lenses for under $100 and I'm in love with the 50 1.7 and the Tokina 80-200. Although some "mint" eBay Minoltas that cost me a lot have been hazed or fungusy.
Perfect conclusion for me.
For my ronin-m i need a wide angle, what do you recommend? I really need a autofocus lens
I'd get the 20mm.
Ok thank you!! Just one little question, does the Autofocus make noise?
+Thijs Huisman No. most of Sony's lenses are extremely quiet.
great job ad usual on your review!!
I have the 16 mm based on reviews I would get the Sigma 19 2.8
The reasoning is solid if you need that focal range. I haven't tested the Sigma yet but I plan to.
check out the Sigma for e mount price wise very reasonable and excellent performance for the price esp the new 30 1.4
You're right. All the E-mount Sigma are better, including de 19mm. None have OSS anyway.
No no Oss but very sharp lenses for the price
It was very helpful vid. Thanks:) now i should decide what to buy between 16mm and 20mm
Glad to help! GL choosing! :)
Really helpful - thankyou!
Why do some ppl hate their earlobes?
Can you add an ND filter to these type of lenses?
Yes you can. Any 49mm filter will fit and I have used a 4 stop ND filter on my 16mm without any issues! I know my comment is a bit late but some of us still watch these videos in 2023!
That is bad enough to make you think that, why would they release a lens like that out for sale....guess you have heard others complaining about it, so it's not like you got a defective lens?
I think the QA was pretty bad on this lens. I've heard some have different degrees of this issue. So some copies are better/worse than others.
Thanks for the vid. = help.
interesting, thanks
vs 19 mm sigma art ?
Will do :)
Sony a6xxx are very good cameras. But ... there aren't many really good lenses for them. 35mm and 50mm from Sony, 30mm Sigma. That's almost everything. Set lens 16-55 is small, that's good. But the optical properties are tragic. These are the reasons I am considering leaving Sony. I'm sad, sony a6xxx is great for traveling, but bad set lens knocks it down.
I own a6000 along with sigma 30 1.4. And i somehow agree with you. Especially if we compare them to Canon's range of lenses.
What did you end up getting/switching to?
Very correct reivew. I have this 16 mm 2.8 and for sure this is a shit lens. The kit lens which came with my a6300 ie 16-50 is much better than this at 16mm f3.5
Nice and unbiased review.
i want the 16 just for a gimbal.
PeglegMedia
Did you get the lens? I want that same lens (16mm) to use it with my a6500 on my steadycam.
yes, the auto focus is okay but not as fast as the 18-105. With the wide angle adapter it is even slower but I just used it for 5 hours at a live event and since it keeps almost everything in focus at that wide of an angle it worked great. I'll upload some test shots within the next few days.
Cool
Word!
2024, you're saving $200 bucks getting the 16mm...
Dude bro i 👲have the same result
Ouch that 16mm is pretty bad..
Yeah. But it's not a total loss. I've used it many times in lots of videos. You just gotta find the most appropriate place to squeeze it in. But it certainly ain't winning any awards :)
The Photo/Video Show Honestly no one should not expect pro results on a wide angle with a lens that compact also.. around 20mm to about almost 50mm Pancake lenses work really well. Take a look at Canons 24mm and 40mm pancakes, those despite being dirt cheap are sharp as a tack. But at wide angles its hard for any lenses even my Canon 10-22mm USM lens has crap corners. Now the Rokinon 14mm I bought has nicer corners in comparison, but its front element is huge and it can not use filters. So there is the trade off. I am sure Sony could make a extremely nice 16mm UWA lens, but then everyone would bitch about it being bigger then the camera body.. :-D Cheers.. Joe
I've heard there are good and bad copies of this lens! Mine is completely useless. It's like there's Vaseline smeared inside. About a dime sized area in the center will be kinda sharp no matter where I focus it, so I picked center focus and framed someone in the middle. It gave me the most terrible bokeh you could imagine 😂😆😂 I give up on this lens.
Yeah, my copy isn't great either. But for the price I paid, it's a fun knock around lens. I'd never use it for any paid gigs though :/
The Photo/Video Show I agree, bought mine used for $120. You saved my ego with this video though, I was going nuts trying to find out what was happening. Thank you!
Jeremy Gaskell No problem! Glad it helped!
coroio me salvou
just buy the sigma19mm it's cheaper and has a higher resolution than the overpriced Sony lenses.
Sadly it sucks in video mode -_-
None.
That's unrealistic. Different people have different needs.
Thanks for your response and for the video. I was joking but, being realistic, the 16 mm is no better than the kit lens 16-50mm OSS and the 20mm doesn't have OSS. However, if I was forced to choose one of them I would choose the 20mm. It's a nice walk around for street photography (not video).
Luis Alvoeiro Quaresma I think the 20mm is decent for it's size and the larger aperture. But you're right, I can't see much more IQ between it and the kit lens.
Is the 20mm good for vlogging?
It’s OK I suppose. It can get a little tight because of the crop factor. It effectively makes it a 35 mm.
The Photo/Video Show I got the 16mm for vlogging I was using the 16-50 kit lens and hated it!!
+Rangelvlogs I hope you get a good copy. Sometimes the 16mm can be hit or miss. I had a copy of it and it was pretty bad. But they are not all like that.
The Photo/Video Show anything is better than the 16-50 kit lens? I'm a canon photographer but I use Sony for video only
well you were right the 16mm SUCKS it wont even focus in video mode