1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Wide angle selection: SEL 16mm f 2.8 vs Sigma 19m f2.8

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by Manu-4Vendetta, Dec 7, 2013.

  1. Manu-4Vendetta

    Manu-4Vendetta TalkEmount Regular

    133
    Apr 7, 2013
    Dominican Republic
    Emmanuel Peña
    I need to confirm that the Sigma is better given the reviews I've read and examples. I think the SEL is not bad for the photos I've seen, but I think the Sigma is better.

    I will need a similar focal and balance seems to lean towards the Sigma.
     
  2. Hawon

    Hawon TalkEmount Regular

    141
    Feb 5, 2013
    Chicago, IL
    Hawon
    I for one kept sel over sigma. Smaller footprint and my copy gives me good pictures.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  3. Grisu_HDH

    Grisu_HDH TalkEmount Veteran

    397
    Dec 16, 2012
    Southern Germany
    Markus
    Sigmas IQ is better, but the SEL16 is multi flexible when buying wide angle converter and the fisheye converter...
    So still your choice.
    Perhaps choosind SEL16 and the Sigma 30?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    Also, don't forget the difference in focal length. 3mm might sound like ignorable, but it's quite much for a wide angle lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    I got Sigma and it's very good. I was intrigued by 16+WA converter but there's enough spilt opinion on it's performance that I decided to go a different route altogether. From what I read, the good copies of 16 are very sharp in the center 1/3rd of the frame when stopped down, with softer edges and mushy corners; at f2.8 the legs is fairly soft, by f8 the edges improve considerably but the corners are still soft. Again, this is what I read - not what I experienced. And there also seem to be a fair amount of sample variation.

    Now, these characteristics are not a problem for a portrait lens, but 16mm is a landscape / architecture lens and I would expect it to be sharp across the frame. Still may not be a bad lens if you get a quality copy, but I already had the 19 and decided to spend the money on LA-EA2 instead.

    The 19 is a nice lens, would be very good value at $200, and as a B&H $100 closeout deal it was a no brainer. It's perfectly usable at f2.8, sharp across the frame, not as sharp as 30/2.8 but very very close.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
     
  6. dmc

    dmc New to TalkEmount

    8
    Jun 29, 2013
    Will have to, respectfully, agree to disagree. I have both lenses and much prefer IQ of Sony 16 to Sigma 19. The Sony is a far superior lens IMHO.
     
  7. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    Both are not very good lenses, but technically, the Sigma is better. I too prefer the Sony because of its size and color rendering, though I hardly use it nowadays.

    Measured data can be seen here:
    Sigma 19
    Sony 16
     
    • Like Like x 1