1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

UWA for A7: Sony FE, 3rd party, or adapted?

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by p00kienrayray, May 17, 2015.

  1. p00kienrayray

    p00kienrayray TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Jun 17, 2014
    Settling into the E mount world, and looking to leave the DSLR world behind. Just bought an A7 mk I, and about to acquire an A6000 via trade. One thing that I really want is an UWA lens for landscape/architecture/big group shots. For all three applications, I guess I really don't need AF, so I'm open to MF lenses.

    My options that I'm considering are:

    FE 16-35 f4: Expensive! Don't need the AF, but it is always nice to have, pretty compact for a UWA it looks like, and I don't know too much about the IQ.

    Samyang/Rokinon FE 14mm f2.8: Mixed reviews, heard it's a large lens and difficult to use? Can't use any filters. CHEAP! f2.8 is a nice option despite being real soft, makes for a great astro lens, which is something I've been wanting to try. CHEAP!

    Adapted lens: Now this is gonna open a lot of options since there are many adapters. Since I already have an FD adapter, I was thinking the FD 17mm f/4, which is: hard to come by for a copy in good condition, expensive for it's age. Haven't really explored much, but I'm open to other adapted lenses as long as they're easy to come by and reasonably priced. Still can't fathom how an FD 14mm L is still worth $1,500...
     
  2. Lisandra

    Lisandra TalkEmount Veteran

    216
    Jan 28, 2015
    I have the samyang, I know people tend to over-defend what gear they have, but mine is amazingly sharp even at f2.8. Its very even too (much more important to me). It does have some mustache distortion that shows up on some horizons, but theres profiles for that online that dont crop the image a whole lot. samples

    16643912659_291c85190f_b.

    16372962738_5722b62e4f_b.

    16359984242_b2f20c677a_b.

    16334925446_c49a022d1c_b.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    At this very moment I'm in the same boat, trying to get a wide-angle option for the A7 that is suitable for landscapes, meaning adequately sharp across the frame at apertures like f/8 or f/11. Recently I rejected the FE 16-35mm, not because of its price but because of its mediocre performance at 35mm, see my post Deciding between FE 16-35mm and FE 24-70mm. I'm now trying to get a wide-angle zoom that performs reasonably well over a range of say, 20mm to 35mm when stopped down to f/8 or f/11. I'm looking exclusively at A-mount zoom lenses in combination with an LA-EA3 adapter because these record the lens model and focal length in the EXIF enabling me to make a profile to correct for geometric distortion and chromatic aberration and have Lightroom apply it automatically.

    Two attempts failed so far. My Sigma 21-35mm 1:3.5-4.2 copy appears defective but despite that I could see that image quality has some potential. A cheaply acquired Sigma 18-35mm 1:3.5-4.5 is not even close to an acceptable performance and now I'm waiting for a Sigma EX DG 17-35mm 1:2.8-4 to arrive in the coming week; if necessary I will go after a Minolta 17-35mm 1:2.8-4 (non-G) of which I've seen some image samples that were quite OK. All this may fail miserably and then I have to keep using the Olympus OM Zuiko 24/2.8 and Minolta MD W.Rokkor 17/4 as wide-angle options; the latter is just about acceptable but not really great.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. p00kienrayray

    p00kienrayray TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Jun 17, 2014
    Lisandra, your pics have swayed me towards the Samyang. I have put one in the shopping cart @ B&H. How do you like the size in comparison to body? The distortion in your first pic leaves me concerned for architectural use, but I guess that's to be expected at that focal length.

    The trade for the A6000 did not go through, which means that I can still sell my 1D3 for cash and afford something more expensive, but don't know what options are in between the price range of the Samyang and FE16-35.

    addileman, having many options for adaptable lens is a blessing and a curse. You get lots of options, but finding and choosing is a challenge.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. p00kienrayray

    p00kienrayray TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Jun 17, 2014
    Just pulled the trigger on a used +9 condition Rokinon 14mm from B&H for $245. For that price, couldn't pass on it.
     
  6. Lisandra

    Lisandra TalkEmount Veteran

    216
    Jan 28, 2015
    it looks big on the photos but the lens itself is not that big once you hold it. It weights next to nothing too. You wont be sorry. I didnt correct the first one but I printed a corrected version and it looks great. Theres a bunch of profile for lightroom
     
  7. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    154
    Sep 1, 2011
    I know you've already ordered, but I'm sure others are wondering this same thing. I think both the Samyang 14 and Sony 16-35 are good choices. They're not so similar that you can't get both if you want!

    The Samyang is wider and faster. Better for astro. Easy on the wallet =)

    I have the Sony since it's is a better walk-around lens with the zoom flexibility (and AF). F4 is not too limiting on a FF sensor, and indeed a lot of your shots will be at F8-F11 to get everything in focus. Another advantage is the ability to take filters. I find the use of NDs is important for a lot of landscape shooting. Regarding performance at 35mm--I think it's more apparent if you're on a A7r body. Mine looks great at 35mm (A7). I don't make a living on my shots though, so I can afford to be less picky. I do far more pixel-peeping of other people's shots when making a purchase decision than I ever do in post-processing!

    Anyways, here are two examples of what the 16-35 can do at either ends of the range (and it can shots of things other than flowers too!). I love having a single lens that can cover me for both situations and everything in between:

    16mm f11
    16336255563_b40411d565_b.

    35mm f4
    16907754750_846c15a92e_b.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  8. p00kienrayray

    p00kienrayray TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Jun 17, 2014
    Thanks ggibson. Do you have both? I am still considering the 16-35 simply bc focus peaking is not as accurate as I would like it to be. However I need to decide how invested I would be in the A7. I love using 35 & wider focal lengths, even for portraits. I'd say besides the few sporting events I shoot, 90% of what I shoot is 35mm or wider.
     
  9. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    154
    Sep 1, 2011
    I don't have the Samyang 14mm myself, but I've read a lot of good things in reviews and comments and seen some great shots with it (like Lisandra's!). It has some wonky mustache distortion, but you can apply a lens profile to remove it quickly in post (probably a necessity if your scene has straight lines).

    I prefer AF lenses because I agree on the peaking issue--it's not quite good enough for critical sharpness. It's directionally helpful, but the "in focus" peaking zone is too wide even at the most minimal setting. I used to have the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 manual lens (for Nikon) that I used on my A7, but I found that manual focus was difficult to eyeball on it without taking the time to zoom in. I ended up selling the Voigtlander when I got my 16-35. The focal range is just perfect for most situations I think. Like you, the majority of my shots (about 70%) are around 35mm or wider.
     
  10. MAubrey

    MAubrey TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Sounds like you've already made your decision, but for what it's worth, the Canon FD 14mm f/2.8 doesn't really sell for $1500--or at least doesn't need to. Yes, that's what the Ebay buy it now listings say (and there are crazy people who are too impatient to wait and buy them), but any time one of these comes up for auction, it goes for about half that. Earlier this month one went for $765 on the auction. Still a lot of money, but far more reasonable.
     
  11. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    537
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    Had the Canon FD 20/2.8 which is a very good lens, and went for the 16-35. IQ is great. Great lens. Definitely a keeper. See...
    17538931756_e6b49033f3_h. The Twins by yannis marigo, sur Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 4
  12. p00kienrayray

    p00kienrayray TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Jun 17, 2014
    Got the Rokinon 14mm yesterday. Haven't had time to play with it, but here's a shot while I was parked in my car. Flare is pretty well controlled considering I was shooting towards the sun.
    f54b812082b15d9a7d9069903e1f9591.
    So far it's what I expected from it. 16-35 is still an option for its versatility.
     
  13. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    154
    Sep 1, 2011
    Enjoy and post many pictures =)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. p00kienrayray

    p00kienrayray TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Jun 17, 2014
    Lisandra, what profiles for this lens is out there? I did a search and only found a profile for the Nikon version of the Rokinon 14mm, which I assume is the same as the E-mount version. However the profile does minimal corrections to the severe mustache distortion effect in LR.
     
  15. p00kienrayray

    p00kienrayray TalkEmount Regular

    33
    Jun 17, 2014