SEL20 with fisheye converter vs SEL16 with wide angle converter ?

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by Amamba, Nov 24, 2014.

  1. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    So, as of recently I have SEL16 + VCL-ECU1 wide-angle converter and it's working fine for me.

    SEL16 is smaller than any other lens I have, but 16mm is a bit too wide for general purpose / walkaround lens.

    Apparently SEL20 can also use Sony UWA and Fisheye converters.

    So, the question is.. will SEL20 + fisheye (12mm equivalent) be the same as SEL16+UWA (12mm equivalent) ?

    Or will SEL20+fisheye still have more distortion ?

    I was trying to find some examples on Flickr but wasn't too successful.

    If they are the same at 12mm, then it may make sense for me to get SEL20 as it's a better walkaround FL. Although I can make 16mm work too.
  2. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Never owned the 16mm, but I can tell you the 20mm is great.

    Not really an answer to your query, hopefully someone has a more direct answer.
  3. ztryfe

    ztryfe TalkEmount Veteran

    Aug 19, 2014

    I have the 16mm and the UWA adapter. From what I understand, Uwa is a 0.75x adapter, the 20mm plus UWA would be 15 mm, I've thinking on this, at some point I'll pick up the 20 but keep the UWA, that way I would have the general purpose 20 mm (30mm in 35mm lingo) and still have a wide angle (15mm) via the adapter.

    I would not compare the effect of the fish eye vs the is a, while the fish eye will get you to the 12mm, the distortion makes it a speciality lens.

    I hear some folks "defish" shots with good results, but I know not much on that.

    Let us know which way you go, I'm interested in the 20 plus adapters.
  4. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    Well, I also have 16mm+UWA adapter, and there's not a significant amount of distortion outside of edges / corners.

    But here's what I am trying to figure out:

    The 16mm is not as "awful" as the reviews would let me believe. Well, maybe it is for a landscape shooter. But as I started with portraits & kind of drifted into landscapes, I am not as sensitive about the edge / corner sharpness. The center sharpness is good, and I actually like the portraits it produces a bit more than my Sigma 19mm - Sigma had definitely much more consistent sharness across the frame, but a bit too surgically impersonal and with cold-ish colors.

    The small size makes 16 a very pocketable lens, but 16 mm is too limiting for a general purpose lens. I could make it work as a walkaround but with some effort.

    So 20mm which is slimmer, has supposedly better IQ, and still accepts the adapters, looks very interesting.

    However, my primary goal for getting the 16+UWA combo was to replace my (very good but huge) Sigma 12-24 which I used almost exclusively at/near 12mm.


    16 mm x .75 UWA = 12mm.

    20 mm x .62 fisheye adapter = 12.4mm

    So, the big question is - will 12.4 mm with fisheye adapter on 20mm result in more distortion than 12mm with UWA adapter on 16mm ?

    I just finally found some examples and unfortunately the answer seems to be "yes" - 20+fisheye is more distorted than 16+UWA even thought the latter provides a slightly wider FOV.
  5. 986ster

    986ster TalkEmount Regular

    Jan 15, 2013
    I have the 20 & UWA and have used it a handful of times for UWA shots. I previously had the 16mm and find the 20 + UWA to be as good if not better than the 16mm.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    There's a lot of perceptual difference between 15 and 12mm. More so, imho, than 18 to 15.