My search for a full frame ultra-wide angle lens for my Sony A7R
Having upgraded just under a year ago to a full frame SonyA7R I was still using on the odd occasion my Sigma 10-20 f3.5 APS-C lens. As
this lens was intended for use on cropped sensor (APS-C) cameras it meant that
using it via my LAE-A4 adapter was always going to give me limited coverage. I
could only really go as wide as about 15mm before the lens gave huge black
borders around the entire image. See example here.
I had to live with this which was fine but for some reason this lens also
heavily vignetted even throughout the usable range of this lens on a full frame
camera (15mm – 20mm).
With me getting more and more interior work I needed to make
an upgrade to a true full frame ultra-wide angle lens. There were several
options for me but the main question was do I stay native or go with an
off-brand solution with the addition of an adapter. That is the beauty of
Sony’s mirrorless A7 series cameras – pretty much any lens can be adapted to the
increasingly popular system.
I did a lot of research into the lenses available on the
market that would meet my needs. I read tonnes of reviews and watched loads
Youtube videos weighing up the benefits of each. In the end my final selection
came down to the native Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 (e-mount), Canon 17-40mm f4,
Canon 16-35mm f4L IS and the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8.
Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4
Sharpness across the entire image was a huge deciding factor
for me when making my choice and the Sony offering (from the image examples
I’ve seen at various settings) proves to be an excellent piece of glass in this
regard. However one review by Tony
Northrup suggests that this lens can be fairly soft throughout the image when
zoomed in at 35mm. This lens is the most expensive out of the four so I’d
expect top quality images from edge to edge at all focal lengths and settings. Check
out the video comparing this lens to the Canon 16-35mm f4 IS here. Interestingly Ken
Rockwell describes this lens as “the only sane choice” for an ultra-wide for
Sony mirrorless cameras. Check out Ken’s review here. The filter thread
diameter for this lens is 72mm which put me off quite a bit since I own several
77mm filters and yes I suppose I could have used a step down adapter to convert
my 77mm filters to 72mm but at the risk of vignetting at the wider focal
lengths.
Canon 17-40mm f4
This was initially my first choice out of the bunch mainly
due to the fact that this is Canon’s cheapest ‘L’ lens and least expensive on
my list. This lens is held in high regard throughout the landscape and interior
photography world but after watching some review videos and checking out some
images shot with this lens the quality just simply wasn’t there for me. The
corners of the images unless at aperture ranges between f8 and f16 can be very
soft and in fact you lose a lot of detail. One major benefit of this lens is
that it’s the lightest out of the four in my list. Check out this video
comparing this lens to the Canon 16-35 f4 IS USM here.
Tamron 15-30mm f2.8
As the owner of a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens and always
being impressed by the sharpness that lens gives (as all good macro lenses
should) I thought I would also check out what ultra-wide lenses Tamron had to
offer. The 15-30mm f2.8 is fairly new to the market having only been released
early last year. I found some great reviews of this lens and the images were
sharp throughout the frame. It also boasts the widest focal length out of all
the lenses in my list. I could also get a Sony A-mount variation of the lens
and adapt it to my A7R via LAE-A4 adapter like I currently do with all my
A-mount lenses. These are all good factors but there’s a ‘but’. This lens
doesn’t come in cheap at around the same price as the Sony Zeiss I’d be better
off going for the native Zeiss. In addition to the cost this lens is also by
far the largest and heaviest in my list weighing in at 1.1kgs. Also the issue
of not having filter threads at the front of the lens due to the front element
protruding akin to a fisheye lens put me off this otherwise top quality piece
of kit. It’s worth noting that there is an adapter on the market to allow
filters to be added to this lens, however, this is an additional cost along
with extra filters. Matt Granger
gives a good review of this lens as he pits it against the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8.
Check out the video here.
Canon 16-35mm f4L IS USM
And finally on to the lens that I eventually ended up
purchasing. Throughout all reviews this lens seemed to be the sharpest. I’ve
asked several people on forums what their thoughts were when combining this
lens with an A7 series camera and I was told every time that I wouldn’t regret
it. This lens seemed to tick all the right boxes – it was sharp throughout,
wasn’t the most expensive, has a 77mm filter diameter and also didn’t weigh a
tonne like the Tamron. The added bonus was the IS (Image Stabilisation).
Although for the majority of the time this lens would primarily be used while
my camera was mounted on a tripod it was still a nice feature to have given
that my A7R has no image stabilisation built in. I’ve heard that it can be
possible to hand hold the camera with this lens and possibly achieve a shutter
speed up to around 1 second with good results. Interestingly this lens tested
sharper than the more expensive Canon 16-35 f2.8. This is likely down to the
f2.8 version being a much older lens. It would have been nice for the extra
stop of light but at the cost of sharpness and a much higher price tag that
lens was ruled out straightaway. DigitalRev have a decent video comparing all
three Canon ultra-wides. Check it out here.
Next came the decision for which Canon EF to Sony FE adapter
I was going to use. There seem to be loads of these on the market but the main
ones that I’d heard people using were the Metabones IV and Commlite adapters.
The Metabones adapter straightaway was too overpriced for me at around £350. So
I looked at the Commlite as it’s priced very reasonably at around £55. Most
people were using the Metabones so I did a little searching to see if I could
find some videos or reviews where someone compared the two and there’s a few
out there and the Commlite compares very well with the Metabones. Auto focus on
the Commlite matches the Metabones on lots of lenses which is the main criteria
really. Build quality is not as good on the Commlite but I suppose that’s what
you get when you pay a fraction of the cost. Check out a good comparison here. For me though I
guess speed of auto focus won’t be much of an issue as this lens will mainly be
used for interior photography with the odd landscape or architectural usage so
I will always have time to compose my shot and be willing to wait the extra
split second for auto focus to be confirmed.
Initial thoughts on
the Lens/Adapter combination
After owning this combo for around 2 weeks with little use
as yet I must say that I am quite disappointed with the focus on my A7R from my
initial testing. Focus is very slow and frequently does not give focus confirmation
at all. I haven’t had a lot of time recently to look at the files to check for
sharpness etc. but I am hoping that the images that this lens will produce over
time will live up to its reputation even if I have to use it with manual focus
only.
No comments:
Post a Comment