167 thoughts on “Guide to Ultra Wideangle lenses for the Sony A7/A9/A1 Series”

1. If you were to include Loxia 21mm in the list, would someone choose it?

   Reply

   1. It is already covered in the 21-35mm lenses article and in fact two of us chose it already 🙂
      Bastian

      Reply

      1. I saw the other article later. Thanks for the reply and for the effort. Really useful articles

         Reply

2. Hallo Phillip,Hallo Jannik,Hallo Bastian.
   I like your site. All this reviews from older lens is great.
   IF You need a Lensbaby Fisheye for your Fisheye review,i would
   give it to you for the time you need for the testings.
   best regards
   Klaus

   Reply

3. As one terribly anal and miserly photog, I would love to spend some serious money on a superwide but can’t choose from this dizzying selection of glass. Will stick with my ‘wavy’ Samyang 14mm until the perfect superwide comes along – yeah, right!

   Great and clearly useable information – thanks for the hours you spend bringing such valuable insight to us all.

   Reply

4. “At f/5.6 the center is sharp but corners and also midframe region suffer from huge field curvature because of the thick filter stack in front of the A7-series’ sensors.”

   Could You please explain this more in detail.

   Reply

   1. Please have a look at my 28mm 2.0 Ultron Review, I have explained this in great detail there: http://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-voigtlander-ultron-28mm-2-0/

      Reply

5. Thanks for the excellent write-up. Just letting you know that the link to the 21-35mm guide isn’t working. 🙂

   Reply

   1. Thank for the feedback and the heads up, corrected!

      Reply

6. Another heads up for the Tokina RMC 17/3.5.
   I’m pleasantly surprised at it’s usability. Far better than I expected. (I’m using it on an Infrared converted A7)

   Reply

   1. Thank you for your comment!
      Maybe you like to share a link to some of your Infrared work with this lens?

      Reply

      1. Hi Bastian,
         IR A7 away at Kolari Vision for the existing IR filter (standard 2mm thick 830nm), to be swapped for one of their new “Thin” 850nm, Anti-reflection coated filters.
         Anyway, I only got the Tokina shortly before sending the A7 off, so I have only had a brief time to test it, during which it impressed me.
         It should perform even better with the Kolari “thin filter” mod, for better corner performance, plus their new anti reflection coating, making “hot spots” and other infrared flare issues, far less of a problem.
         Be glad to share, when I have some proper results.

         *[For your interest, my existing IR A7 Album on Flickr is here:
         https://www.flickr.com/photos/27297062@N02/albums/72157670965595765
         Plus some testing of the lenses I’ve tried, in this thread on Fred Miranda Alt. Gear Forum: (From page 2 is with the A7) http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1376190
         I mainly use OM Zuiko lenses from 21mm-100mm (the early SC versions are best for IR), and occasionally the FE 24-70/4, though without the AR coated IR filter, that does have a diffuse hot spot issue.]
         * As this is not really of relevance to this thread, feel free to delete. ;o)

         Reply

   2. I used this lens in the past with Kodak HEI infrared films and it delivered good results, Also on Fuji Velvia it did quite well above f5,6. The older RMC version is much better than the 17mm ATX AF version with an aspherical lens. The Tokina performed also better than the Tamron SP 17mm f3,5 SP.

      Reply

7. Nice review guys!

   Any news on when Voigtlander will release the e-mount f5.6/12? Would you do a comparison review of it against f5.6/10?

   Thanks.

   Reply

   1. It should be released in september as far as I know.
      In case I get a review sample I will of course compare it to the 10mm 5.6.

      Reply

8. Thanks guys for this much appreciated article.

   I own the Tokina MF 17mm F3.5 for Canon FD with my Sony Alpha 7ii. Always stop down to min. f8 I am much fascinated about details and sharpness compared to the results in the past with my Canon A1 on film.

   However, I would like to know if and how I can use the LR profile linked in your article above. Are there more LR lens profiles available for Canon FD lenses?

   Reply

   1. It is the only one I made, sorry!
      Bastian

      Reply

      1. Hi Bastian,
         I am going to buy one Tokina 17/3.5. Unfortunately, the link for LR correction is deleted from your Dropbox. could you please do me a favor and upload it again?

         thank you very much 🙂
         Greetings,
         Salar

         Reply

   2. Hi Thomas,
      Interesting I have a Canon A1 and recently I also bought an a7ii and I owned few nice FD lenses. Based on your comment I bought the Tokina 17/3.5 and it is on the way to me!
      I am also trying to find the LR correction for it but unfortunately, the Bastian’s link above is not working on Dropbox anymore :(.
      would be happy to know if you got something …
      Greetings,
      Salar

      Reply

      1. As soon as I found it on my HDD I will send you a new link 😉

         Reply

9. Hi,

   Can you suggest how to use Voigtlander Super Wide-Heliar 15mm f/4.5 Aspherical on Canon body.
   Any availability of a specific adapter to use this lens on canon 70D.

   Regards,
   Virendra

   Reply

   1. There is no way to use it on a Canon without irrepably damagin the camera.

      Reply

10. hello guys, I love this article so much. I’m looking for wide angle lens on tight budget.

    Voigtlander 5.6/12 M39
    Samyang 2.8/14
    Tokina 3.5/17 SL
    Canon FD 4/17
    Canon (n)FD 2.8/20

    what lenses would you recommend for me?

    FYI, I’m gonna use it for landscape using Graduated filter

    thank you

    Reply

    1. You need pretty big filters and a lens specific adapter for the 14mm 2.8 Samyang.
       You also need the filter adapter for the 12mm 5.6 M39 (which is quite rare), so you might want to settle for one of the others. If you intend to shoot directly into the sun when using filters also don’t buy the Tokina 17mm 3.5 because it is very prone to flare.

       Reply

       1. I already think about the filter, samyang 14mm have samyang special filter holder for the lens, you can ebay it and also they use 165 filter systems.
          Thank you for the advice

          Reply

    2. I think the Canon FD 2.8/20 is your best choice here because you can use filters without a hassle and apart from the flare resistance it is a very good lens for landscapes.

       Reply

       1. hi phillip how about canon fd 17mm f4?
          I have SEL 28mm f2 so I think canon 20mm don’t give much different.

          Reply

          1. I think the 4/17 is weaker but still okay at f/11

             Reply

             1. how about Konica Minolta AF17-35mm F2.8-4
                have you tried it? what is your opinion about this lens?

             2. Haven’t tried it, have no opinion, sorry!

          2. I wouldn’t buy the minolta 17-35 f2.8-f4 it’s the Same optics as the older Tamron 17-35 f2.8-f4. not recommended for digital.

             Reply

11. Hello Phillip and Bastian,

    Thank you for this article, and your site.

    I’m looking for a wide angle lens, less than 20 mm, to photograph landscapes, with the possibility of using slot-in filter system, and less than ~ 600 €.

    So I think my best option is the Tokina 3.5/17 SL, but I’ve also read good things about the Carl Zeiss Contax T* 18mm f4. I like also the Voigtlander 5.6/12 M39.

    I already have the Carl Zeiss Contax 24mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.8 and i am very happy with them.

    Could you tell me which one will work best in my Sony A7R?

    Thank you very much in advance.

    Reply

    1. I did unfortuntaley not yet get the chance to lay my hands on the Contax T* 18mm 4.0 but I would guess it will be the best of the bunch on the A7r.
       The M39 12mm 5.6 is not a very good idea on the A7r, the Sensor is least suited to rangefinder wide angle lenses.
       The Tokina has some problems with flare the Contax might not encounter due to the T* coating.
       You might also appreciate having the same color rendition in all lenses (I do), which could also stir towards the Contax.
       In case you buy one please share your experiences with it here!

       Reply

       1. Thank you very much Bastian, you’ve helped me a lot.

          I think I’ll buy the Contax T* 18mm f4. I will share my experience with you.

          Your site is a source of inspiration!

          Reply

12. Regarding legacy wide angles problems on A7 ?

    The front-end filter solution or put glasses on the lenses 🙂
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453834/0

    Reply

    1. Quite an interesting approach, RF correction lenses, the centerfilter of the 21st century 🙂

       Reply

13. Hi Phillip/Bastian,
    I like your reviews on lenses, and I really want to get Voigtlander 21mm but the problem is I would like to use Lee filters with this lens, the problem is with lens hood, is there any way I can use Lee filters with this lens
    Thank you

    JAROSLAV

    Reply
14. Pingback: Beginners Guide to using Manual Lenses on the Sony a7 - phillipreeve.net

15. have you guys heard of the 15mm irix?

    Reply

    1. To big to be used on E-mount cameras and flare issues like a lens from the 70s (well, actually the Irix is much worse compared to most legacy lenses…).

       Reply

       1. me bad just realized that you did answer my question.
          thanks so much

          Reply

16. what an awesome review, thank you so much for taking the time to educate us.
    i cant wait to see your reviews on the latest voigtlander lens
    and i seen some wide angle lens called irix 15 2.8 that claim to be awesome as well what are your thoughts on that.
    or the new batis.

    Reply

17. Hi, for the tokina lens that shown in your affiliate link, does that include the e mount or i have to buy it separately?
    And if so, do you have any information where to buy the mount?

    Reply

    1. You need an adapter for it. Which adapter you need depends on the mount of the lens, it came in different mounts.

       Reply

18. Thank you guys so much for this great write up. I have been thinking about getting the 15mm voigtlander. Do you know if there is a big difference between the emount version and the m version? I keep seeing m-mount versions used for a much lower price. Also I see that the current emount is version III. Do you know if this means they have updated the coatings? If I was to get the m mount version I could use it with a close-focus adapter (there are many cheaper third party adapters now). I have seen some images taken with the adapters and the added bokeh ability seems appealing for portraits. Phillip, do you have any opinion on the use of these adapters? Thank you!

    Reply

    1. The optics are the same between the III-version of the M-mount lens and the E-mount lens. The older I and II version is a different design and won’t work as well on the a7 series.

       There is no reason not to use the M-mount version on a helicoid adapter and if you can live without EXIF information the M-mount version is a good choice.

       Reply
19. Pingback: Tokina Firin 20mm F2 FE Review: A good deal? - phillipreeve.net
20. Pingback: User-Guide to wide-angle lenses for Sony a7 a7ii a7rii - phillipreeve.net
21. Pingback: Review: Samyang 14mm 2.8 MF DSLR on Sony A7 cameras

22. toring apart between 16-35mm 2.8, loxia 21mm 2.8 or 18mm batis 2.8 ?

    Reply

23. How about the Sony 12-24mm G?
    and the Sony 16-35mm GM?

    Reply

    1. Update is in the works. Both are very very sharp lenses. Flare resistance, bulk and price seems to be the only disadvantage compared to the better primes.

       Reply

24. Hallo Bastian,

    Have you tried the Tokina 17/3.5 on an A7?
    When I scaledown the images I took with this lens to 12Mp, they are not that bad, roughly comparable to your result on a Nikon D700 but, at 24Mp I think it’s quite a bit worse, worse than my Minolta MD 20/2.8.

    Reply

    1. I also prefer my Minolta 20 mm 2.8 to my Vivitar 17mm 3.5 (Tokina formulation)… but I use it on the A6000.
       For some reason, the Minolta MD 20mm 2.8 performed very badly when compared to Canon 20mm FD 2.8 by P. Reeve.

       Reply

       1. My 20mm shows the same problems as in Phillip’s test.

          Reply

    2. Don’t expect comparison to Minolta. While most Sony lenses are based on Minolta designs improved over time, the site started as an opus to old lenses to only regret later and tell us reader that exactly what was stated they didn’t need is what they ultimately choose: the latest, most expensive Sony lenses. It has almost became a Sony lenses “religion” in the latest reviews and I will not buy even one and don’t like their plain, modern aseptic look at all and wonder how excellent reviewers changed their minds 18” degrees in less than 10 years.

       Reply

       1. I decided to unpublish two of your more agressive posts. If you disagree with us that is fine. But you can do so politely or not at all on this blog.

          My priorities have certainly changed in recent years. But I would disagree that my views have changed 180°. Back when I was a poor student price/performance was super important. But I never put much emphasis on lens „look“ I always judged lenses by their performance and was very conscious that I accepted a number of compromises. Now I have more money and I make fewer compromises.

          That doesn‘t mean that you can‘t take very fine images with legacy lenses or that I would change most of my recommendations in older articles. But you will have to deal with strong flare, lower contrast, no EXIF and a little lower sharpness. No deal for many images, but a dealbreaker for some.

          And while it is probably true that some older A-mount Sonys are based on Miinolta designs that isn‘t true for modern E-mount lenses.

          Reply

25. Copy&Paste error on the 2.8/16-35 GM? “Vignetting at 12 mm …”

    Reply

    1. Thanks for pointing it out. Somehow it didn’t save my edit.

       Reply

26. Hi Bastian. As you mentioned replacing the Samyang 14/2.8, I would say the newer 14/2.4 is a big step up. It continues the awesome coma correction and has very low distortion. The build quality of my sample is very nice. That said, it is really quite expensive and I don’t have experience with the Irix 15.

    Reply

27. Thanks guys, for the enthusiastic, dedicated articles you write. Very enjoyable and informative.

    Reply

28. Thanks, for the reviews.
    The comment on the Sony FE 2.8/16-35 GM contains a typo.
    “Vignetting at 12 mm is …”
    Which should read “Vignetting at 16 mm is…”

    Reply

    1. fixed, thanks.

       Reply

29. Have you had any experience of the ultra-wide angle lens SIGMA 14mm, F/1.8 DG HSM Art for Sony E? I’m new to this website, that I must admit I didn’t know: so, please, accept my compliments for your excellent in-depth reviews.

    Reply

    1. Thank you very much!
       Considering there is the great Laowa 15mm 2.0 for Sony FE I would not bother with the huge Sigma 14mm 1.8.

       Reply

30. No love for Contax 18 f4?

    Reply

    1. It is too expensive to make the list. Although I have to agree if you are looking for a prime with exactly 18mm it is probably the next best option to the Batis (and Milvus, and old ZF/ZE).

       Reply

31. Hi guys,
    Thanks for the great list!
    I just switched from Nikon (D5200) to Sony A7s (found one new for <900$!) and I am considering 2 options for wide lenses:

    Keep my Tokina 11-16 (usable 15-16 in FF) using an adaptor.
    Sell the Tokina 11-16 and acquire a Laowa 2.0/15

    What do you think is the most sensible choice? I mostly use wide lenses for astro and architecture

    Thank you!

    Reply

    1. Sell the Tokina, get the Laowa.
       I was once using the Tokina on the D700 (also full frame with 12mp) and while there won’t be completely black corners at 15-16mm the performance is really really bad in that area.

       PS: Laowa 15mm 2.0 on Sony A7s is an amazing combination for astrophotography!

       Reply

32. Ok thank you for the advice! I loved the Tokina (apart from the horrible green flare), so it’s going to be kind of heartbreaking! Still considering buying a cheap electronic-less adapter to give
    it a shot, as I need one for vintage Nikon FF lenses anyway. In your opinion, adaptor and sensor size consideration aside, is the overall performance of the Laowa superior to the Tokina’s?
    Thank you again

    Reply

    1. Yes I do.
       While not perfect the Laowa is much better in handling lens flare. This is also the reason I tend to mostly avoid Tokina lenses nowadays.
       With the 2/15 on the A7s compared to the 2.8/11-16 on the D5200 you will gain several stops.
       You will be amazed how much better quality your astrophotography shots will have.
       I was already amazed when going from D800 + 14-24mm 2.8 to A7s + 14-24mm 2.8.

       Reply

       1. Thanks a lot, you helped me more than the zillion pages I was browsing about this. Great website by the way!

          Reply

          1. Happy we could help 🙂

             Reply

33. Great info – have you done something similar for fisheye lenses? I’m hearing good things about the Canon. I’m looking for full-on fisheye, not rectilinear.

    Reply

    1. We were thinking about doing that but we probably haven’t tried enough ourselves to write such a guide on these.

       Reply

    2. You mean the Canon fisheye zoom that switches between circular and full frame? I had it once, seemed very good. But I haven’t used it on Sony.

       Reply

34. Hey guys,
    I am absolutely addicted to your website. I bought a Sony A7II without knowing its true potential. Thanks to your blog I‘m constantly researching which vintage lense to buy next. Of the various sources on manual lenses your website is simply the best source.

    I try to buy them through affiliate links if possible, but if there are only international eBay.com-links I seem to miss German eBay.de-offers. (iOS and Android, through new tab and in eBay-App). I am currently bidding on an offer I couldn’t find through your link ( Tokina 17 mm 3.5)

    Is there a workaround? I can supply Screenshots if needed.

    Kind regards and please keep up your great work!

    Karsten

    Reply

    1. Dear Karsten,
       thanks for the kind words and your support!
       You can use any of our ebay.de affiliate links (in our FE guide there should be plenty) if you make any purchase, it will still work even if the link is for another article.

       Reply

       1. Hi Bastian,
          of course! Sometimes the solution is so obvious….I’ll keep using your affiliate links.
          But since I’m no expert on manual lenses I currently still stick to the more affordable ones. Your different guides definitely help a lot on making the first steps in this market: If I want an ultra-wide-angle lense you have the guide.
          Kind regards
          Karsten

          Reply

35. Get me your contact information and the next time in Europe I can let you borrow my AIS Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 ultra wide lens.

    Reply

    1. Dear Dan,
       I am always interested in having a look at exotic lenses like the 13mm f/5.6 and would gladly take your offer 🙂
       I will send you my contact data via your E-mail.

       Reply

    2. Dan, Please don’t forget to bring your 300mm f2.0 AIS
       as well so we can compare it with mine.

       Reply

36. A very exhaustive and informative coverage of ultra wide angle territory, kudos!

    I was wondering if any of the Zeiss Distagon 15mm f/2.8 versions – classic or Milvus – was considered as a viable adapted manual focus ultra wide lens, or if price, size & weight – or image quality – ruled it out as a candidate?

    From reviews I have read, the distagon has: extraordinary build & handling Zeiss is known for in both its versions, manual aperture ring for Nikon mount, filter thread for traditional filters, relatively easy corrected symmetric barrel distortion, virtually no chromatic aberrations, average to good flare resistance, excellent coma resistance, nice 18-point sunstars, excellent resolution, contrast & color accuracy, and an overall performance that should handily edge out the Laowa and Voigtländer 15mm contenders. All this, of course, with the exception of the inconvenient weight at 820gr and 880gr, classic and Milvus versions respectively.

    The real question is of course if the performance is negatively impacted by adapters on E-mount, and if ZE or ZF mounts are better or worse in this respect.

    Cheers!

    Reply

    1. Mostly due to price, size and weight issues, yes.
       Although some stores were selling the Classic for rather tempting prices after the transition to Milvus…

       Reply

37. Indeed. That’s precisely why I am considering the classic distagon again, lol: it now sells for roughly US$1000 less than the Milvus, and as a bonus I avoid the rubberized focus ring, which I personally don’t like.

    Have any of the team adapted Milvus lenses for F-mount on E-mount? Zeiss recommends Novoflex adapters, but I have no reports as to real loss of corner performance, sensor reflections, light leaks, etc.

    I would be prepared to reach deeper in my pocket for the 15mm distagon if image quality remains more or less intact with adapters.

    I have not been able to find any direct image comparisons of Zeiss Milvus or classic lenses on E-mount vs native CaNikon, would be an interesting topic I think. Much like considering the Voigtländer or Zeiss rangefinder lenses as an interesting imaging resource for Sony E+mount via Techart adapter, for example.

    Cheers!

    Reply

38. WOW
    Such an informative website you guys made…!
    I have a question though….
    About a year back I switched from Nikon to Sony apsc and now upgraded to Sony full frame. I was just wondering if anybody here used an apsc fisheye on fullframe and how were the results.
    My targets are cheap third party lenses like 7artiSan 7mm f2.5 E mount or the Samyang 8mm fisheye for APSC e mount. I want to have a look how the manually cropped ones differ from inbuilt APSC mode. (that option is shooting my A7ii body in APSC mode which crops the photo automatically to roughly 10MP area centrally)

    here have read negative things about using adapters on fisheye/ultrawide lenses. As I am searching for cheap options ,therefore these two lenses I googled for and found very good considering ‘ bang for bucks’ .But other lens ideas are also welcomed unless pricey.

    Thanks in advance

    Reply

    1. None of us is a regular fisheye shooter.
       With ultrawides (including Fisheyes) an adapter with very exact length is recommended, those are usually a bit more pricey.
       With the Samyang 12mm 2.8 I had quite positive experience, it is rather well corrected for a Fisheye lens and rather affordable.
       It is not as compact as you might want though.

       Reply

    2. I see Bastian has already replied, but I should put in a +1 doe the Samyang 12mm fisheye too. The projection is more useful than many non-circular fisheyes, it’s sharp enough and has good contrast. And cheap. And for something you use as little as a fisheye, Samyang build in adequate.

       But were you thinking of using an APS fisheye to get a circular fisheye on FF? I think most non-circular fisheyes on APS have just a slightly too large image circle to get a perfect circle on FF.

       Reply

39. Bastian, I own the Tokina (rebranded as Vivitar). I wanted to download your LR profile, but the link is dead?

    Reply

    1. Try this one.

       Reply

40. Great article guys! Well worth the ten minutes. I’m in the market for a replacement of my older voigtlander but may also be considering a fisheye lens as that could work with the jobs I mostly undertake. Did you guys ever get around to write a post about FE lenses for Sony a7 series?

    Reply

    1. Guide for FE lenses for A7 series

       Reply

41. What about the Voigtlander 21mm f1.8 Ultron?

    Reply

    1. 1. We haven’t reviewed it.
       2. Because of field curvature issues a bad idea to use in on Sony cameras (no PCX filter available because of big filter diameter).

       Reply

42. Great list guys!
    As a happy owner of Sony 12-24G I’d suggest 2 ‘corrections’:
    1) yes, it has the usual uwa distortion at 12mm (3,8% according to photozone), but at 14mm it’s already the same level as Laowa 15/2 (close to 1%) and since it changes from barrel to pincussion after that, it’s about 0 arround 15mm and the rest is < 2%, so all in all quite good for such extreme wide angle zoom. Also it's worth noting, as it's native Sony lens, the distortion is corrected when shooting for example interiors even at 12mm, so you're not distracted by it when composing.
    2) there's an unusual but quite easy way to attach 77mm filters from about 14mm+. Not sure if there's any desing intention behind it or a pure coincidence, but I'd definitely rate it as 'half' filter support, could be the one feature for many 'also landscape' photographers that just want to use ND or even astro filter from time to time.
    https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1503152/0?year=2017

    Also I'd not limit the list to 20mm – 22 might be more logical threshold as 'still less than 24mm', namely 21mm is still uwa for many people. Even if there's some overlap with other lists.

    Reply

43. It feels so good to read your reviews and those beautiful pictures you take. Also, while buying a lens, your precise conclusion helps a lot. Although, I don’t have most of these lenses you’ve mentioned I tried some lenses and I think you should make your reviews on them.
    I come from Nikon world with many modern lenses and also some of the best AI-S/AI series lenses. I tried the following lenses and some of them amazed me:
    1. Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D – This lens sells for $1350 from Nikon or avg $550 in eBay, I used mostly for wildlife. Last week, used this lens for portraits on A7SII in rain and the performance is mind blowing. The pictures are very sharp (I can’t even apply some sharpness in LR) and the character is similar to those $2000+ lenses. There is no coma, no flares (comes with collapsible hood) and very easy to focus (I feel this is the best big lens I used in MF – because it has reachable focus ring and very easy to navigate unlike zoom lenses).

    2. Nikon 15mm f/3.5 AIS – Specialty of this lens is no distortion at 15mm and very sharp even wide open. Lens looks like a fish eye lens, but it is not. The design and the build quality is similar to 13mm f/5.6 (which is known as Nikon’s holy grail – recently sold for $52k in eBay). It’s surprising that this lens sells in eBay for around $800 in good condition (I was lucky to get a mint condition couple of years back). Based on my experience with this lens, I think no other lens can perform to this level at 15mm.

    3. Macro – I have 3 Nikon macro lenses with aperture ring (55mm f/2.8 AIS, AF 60mm f/2.8D and AF 105mm f/2.8D). Although I liked how these performed on Sony, realized that these lenses don’t go as much closer like they do on Nikon. Among the 3 lenses, 60mm was the best in macro, with almost no coma. Next was 55mm.

    Reply

    1. Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 is very hard to focus manually

       Reply

44. Hi, thank you for a great job! Will you add any Sigma lenses?

    Reply

    1. I will consider that for the next update.

       Reply

       1. The 14mm Sigma Art is indeed very heavy, but it’s pretty wonderful. I have it rented at the moment and feel like it’s beating the CV and Laowa 15s.

          Reply

45. That’s a great article. Could you please add the Tamron 17-28 here?

    Reply

    1. Yeah, it would be interesting to hear if any of you swapped the Sony16-35 f4 for the Tamron 17-28. Or does the zoom range deter all of you?

       The Tamron feels like a better choice for me: I don’t really know what I want, but want to be able to shoot landscape, architecture and dabble a bit in astro as well. Not sure what else, since I’m new to UWAs.

       Reply

       1. Phillip is still happy with the 16-35mm 4.0 but he is not really into astrophotography.
          Jannik is currently using the Sigma 14-24mm 2.8.
          Juriaan, David and me are not using any ultra wide angle zoom as we prefer much faster primes at the often lacking long end of the zooms.
          So we often use a slower UWA prime (or a faster it we are looking at some astrophotograpy) with a fast wide angle prime (24-35mm f/1.2-f/1.4) that also allows for some better subject separation.

          Reply

46. You have one of the best – if not the best – review sites for Sony users on the web. Quite curious why you haven’t given the 16-35/2.8 GM a full review yet. Yes, there are many other reviews available, but always good to be able to compare across the same standard.

    Looking forward to your review of the Sigma 14-24/2.8…

    Reply

    1. Because none of us has enough personal interest in that lens to buy it.
       But it looks like a reader may provide a review sample this month.

       Reply

       1. Would you be interested in testing the Sigma 14-24 2.8 DN with the Haida rear ND filter set ?

          Reply

          1. Jannik just bought one a week ago 🙂

             Reply

             1. Awesome! If he hasn’t got any rear filters and would like to test the Haida set, let me know!

47. I would be interested in a review of the Sigma 14-24 f2.8 e-mount or the 12-24 f4 ef mount with MC11.

    on another note-
    I’d like to get an ultrawide but I’d also want to be able to stay with NISI 100mm filters. I’d love to be able to use filters but would also like a faster lens for astrophotography.

    It seems other than the laowa 10-18 you can’t go below 16mm without also getting a specialized filter kit which dramatically increases price.

    If something has to be given up, what would you recommend to give up?

    Reply

    1. Give up zooms and use primes instead, solves all your problems.
       E.g: Laowa 15mm f/2 + Sony FE 24mm 1.4 GM or Loxia 21mm 2.8

       Reply

48. $$$$ more and space in the camera bag are other things to give up that I didn’t consider 🙂

    It would be a pretty sweet setup though.

    I’m just griping, I want my cake and be able to eat it too. I’m not a pro and it would be hard for me to justify that level of purchase.

    Reply

49. Hi, what about recent Samyang 18mm/f2.8?

    Proh ‘inspired’ by Batis but more budget friendly..

    Reply

    1. We will consider it in the next update.

       Reply

50. Nisi 100mm filters will neither fit on 12-24 nor on 14-24 zooms. Sigma 2.8/14-24 DG DN is exceptionally good ultra-wide zoom. Some early users say the best zoom you can get for astro and landscape application and on par with best e-mount primes. If you need filters you can use either Gel filters for the rear filter slot or have to use the more costly 150mm front filters. Haida has announced a so far unique round filter system for this Sigma zoom. But still 150 and therefore it cannot cheap. I guess holder, combined CPL+ND will cost around 300Euros or more.

    Reply

51. I just finished my summer-long search for the best UW for me.. I started with a Panasonic 47MP S1R body and chose the Sigma 14-24/2.8 Art (native-L-mount).. When I moved to the a7R4 a few weeks ago, I bought the E-mount version of the Sigma, and its results were even better than on the S1R…but I wanted one that had screw-on filters.. After testing several candidates, I chose today the Batis 18/2.8.. It is excellent overall, and I’m very pleased with its light weight, not-large size, and its use of 77mm filters.

    Reply

    1. I think you’ll be very happy. I am a big fan. I think some people expect magic; but it’s optically excellent (I get the impression that for some pairs of copies it’s a bit better, and for some a bit worse, than the superb Sigma) but is easy to use and travel with. It’ll take a lot for me to part with mine.

       Reply

52. Dear Phillip and team
    Thank you for hosting this really informative and useful website.
    I love reading your reviews – always so balanced and fair.
    I have a dilema and was hoping you can help
    I have a sony Aiii and I am want to buy an ultra wide angle lens.
    My experience till now have been with 24mm at the widest
    I am looking at the Voigtlander 10mm with 5.6 and the 15mm with 4. The 15mm in my mind is the safe choice with the relative ease of composing a pic but the possibility of a 10mm excites me too. My questions are –
    1. Is it advisable to buy the 10mm and get used to it and during that time also use it if needed in APSC format (A7iii allows you to) when the effective focal length will be 15mm. In that case could I enjoy best of both worlds?
    2. How much of difference will the 5.6 stop of 10mm be a hindrance compared to the 4 of 15mm in the verstality of the lenses to take good images
    Thank you for your help
    Best wishes

    Reply

    1. If this is your first ultra wide lens better get the 15mm or maybe try to get one of the few remaining 12mm 5.6.

       Reply

       1. Thank you BastianK for your reply
          Is it inadvisable to use the 10mm in APSC format to get 15mm equivalent if I am struggling to frame a shot in 10mm, especially in the initial part of the learning curve? Will it effect image quality?

          Reply

          1. There is no need to set the A7 to the APSC mode. Just crop the picture as you want.
             Only be aware if you store in raw+jpg mode, jpg is only in saved in fine. If you don’t need raw, store in jpg extra fine.

             You also can put the 10mm Voigtländer on a real APSC camera. I have both, a A7II and a NEX6, a 10mm Voigtländer and a 10-18mm APSC lens. I put the Voigtländer to the NEX6 and compared it to the 10-18mm lens at 10mm. A 200% crop at my 4k monitor showed no difference in sharpness. The only difference is a slight chromatic aberration visible at the Voigtländer .

             Reply

53. Hi,

    which of these lenses would you recommend specifically for interior photography? for me it is important that it has little distortion/small need for software corrections and focal length between 18 and 20mm. Although I have no need for autofocus, the candidates at the moment are 16-35 f4 or 18 2.8 batis.

    Thanks

    Reply

    1. Batis 18mm 2.8 has pretty complex moustache distortion, not sure auto correction will always do a good enough job here.
       Both lenses need lots of software correction for distortion though.
       I also wouldn’t want to have those fuzzy sunstars of the 16-35mm 4.0 for indoor photography, those look very unprofessional to me.
       Maybe have a look at 16-35mm 2.8 GM or the Sigma 14-24mm 2.8 Art DG DN, unfortnately both lenses I don’t have much personal experience with.
       All the zooms have high distortion at the ends of the zoom range, but some have very little between 20 and 24.

       Reply

       1. Thank you so much for the response, I found a good deal for a Tokina 20 f2 without AF could tah be a good choice?

          Reply

          1. Also has moustache distortion and I don’t know how well the flare resistance will work indoors with strong light sources.
             Furthermore, real estate indoor photography (if I got it right and that is what you want to do) may be one of the fields where I would prefer a zoom lens.
             Rooms are usually tight and you have no option of taking a few steps back, on the other hand you will usually use a tripod, so good performance at wider apertures is not all that important.

             Reply

54. Thank you Phillip and team for another great article. Here are two more possibilities for review:

    Tokina 11-16/2.8. Made for APS-C (Canon in my case), but fills the frame on my A7R2/MC-11 at 15 and 16mm.

    Canon EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6, usable 14-18mm with an apparently easy modification to the back of the lens so it fits into an MC-11.

    Reply

    1. I think both might be decent options for upgraders who already have those lenses but together with an adapter they aren‘t really cheap anymore and rather cumbersome in operation even if performance would be very good.

       Reply

    2. I’ve owned the Tamron 10-24 APS-C A-Mount lens, fun on APS-C, but while it covered the FF sensor from 12mm onwards it was really mushy outside the center.

       The Konica Minolta 17-35 2,8 would make more sense IMO since it’s FF glass. Prices are all over the place for that lens, I picked mine up for 100€ (+ 20€ for the lens hood, how are people always losing their hoods?). It’s a good and cheap option if you have the LA-EA4 adapter and 2,8 at 17mm isn’t bad.

       If you don’t really “need” anything wider than 24mm (which is probably most people), dealing with a big honking SLR lens once in a while isn’t so bad.

       Reply

55. Samyang Rokinon 18mm f/2.8 AF anyone ?

    Reply

    1. I bought one and tested for a couple of days, then returned it because I didn’t like the cheap plastic feel and looks of the lens. The lens hood was also very soft and wobbly. I wasn’t impressed with image quality either (maybe just my copy). Too bad because on paper it looked like the perfect lens for me.

       Reply

56. GM 16-35
    Can anybody give information about manual focus? Linear coupling? Easy to focus in magnification-mode? Better options … only primes? Thanks for sharing your experience!

    Reply

57. Hello, first of all I wanted to thank you for the site, that although I have been following it for a long time, it is the first time I write and it is a kind of essential guide for me, that I am an amateur and eventual photographer, I enjoy it very much. I also wanted to tell you about a video I just saw of a Sony G 20mm F1.8 lens that will be released soon un march.

    Let’s see when we can have the opportunity to see your review of it.

    if you are interested, I leave the link of the video, (it is in Spanish).

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=Krxz4BR3Mg4

    Reply

58. One note which might be of interest for owners of older VC ultra-wides for M39 (have no experience with the newer one): their (comparatively) poor performance on A7 may be at least partly due to the unscrewed rear element (or other misalignments caused by assembly issues or abuse during lifetime). The point is, they appear to be quite sensitive to that.

    I’ve had 15/f4.5 which was ok on original A7 (i.e. huge color-cast/vignetting and okish sharpness from f8, fully consistent with internet report), but then I’ve acquired another copy with A7RII and it was *much* *much* better than mine. Not only the colour-casts/vignetting improved with BS sensor, but it was actually sharper WO throughout the frame than my old copy at any aperture.

    I inspected, therefore, my old lens, and found that the rear element unscrewed itself a bit: not to extent to hear the elements rattling, but I could make perhaps 1/4 of the turn with my bare fingers without applying any force to tighten it. Doing so dramatically improved performance (both copies became comparable).

    I don’t have VC 15 anymore, but I did repeat same trick with heliar 12/5.6 and 21/4 skopar both of which I still have, and it also improved their performance quite a bit (although they both were not quite as loose as 15 and the effect was smaller). I now consider both to be usable wide open on A7rII (with some caveats), and definitively the sharpness is sufficient when stopped down just a bit (mostly this improves CA, however). The message is: if your copy looks plain ugly, check it yourself (i.e. try to tighten the rear tightening ring a bit), or better have it serviced: those are very nice lenses, but may be just in need of an overhaul.

    Reply

59. One thing which often escape scrutiny is there are 2 versions of the Minolta MD 17mm f 4. The second one being a sharp improvement on the first one. The 2nd one I own is way better than the Tokina 17mm 3.5 (I own the vivitar version) and really excellent. While I prefer the angle and compacity of the 20 mm, the 17 mm is at another level in terms of performance.

    Reply

60. I’m curious what your source/experience is with the Tokina AT-X 17mm f3.5 being worse than the SL. From what I’ve seen, this versus the SL and the Tamron is almost up to sample variation, but the AT-X version has better vignetting performance.

    Reply

    1. Think it was the Photozone (now opticallimits) review of the AT-X 17mm.
       Could be sample variation too though.

       Reply

       1. Hi Bastian,
          well I had the Tokina SL 17mm Pentax K and the ATX, version with aspherical element when I switched to Nikon FM2 in 1996: The SL was quite a bit better in all optical aspects -and IR- + one of the few useable UV-photography ultra wide angles ! I never found one for Nikon ;-( . It was much cheaper after trying one roll of Velvia I bought a second hand ultra compact Nikkor AIS 20mm f3.5 which hold up well on film. On a Nikon D700 it worked great as for a D750 and even reasonably well on a demanding D800 and IR-D200. Was ideal for close ups and shots into the sun, little ghosting and flaring and nice sunstars (14) 7 blades. It was better than the 20mm f2.8. I sold it 5 years ago and still regret it. If you want a wide angle vintage lens that is totally sharp at 24M try a Konica 21mm f4 at f8 or an Olympus 21 f3,5 these might be the very best / compact vintage options. (this was on Nikon sensors with a thinner sensor filter stack.

          Reply

61. I actually think that, optically, the Nikon 20mm 1.8 is preferable over the Sony 20mm 1.8 (with a good adapter) because the Nikon has much much nicer sunstars, excellent contrast and micro-contrast (though not as good as the loxia).

    Though, build quality and handling is another issue, which is why I got the monster adapter for AF and in camera aperture control.

    If I could go back in time though, I think I would’ve invested in the loxia 21mm and stuck with the tokina 20mm f2 for low light and astrophotography. 😂

    Reply

62. Hi Team!!!:)
    I have only one question for you now. With having so many lenses, and changing them all the time – how you avoid situation when you changed lens, make some picture, come home and see there is a spot of dust on every picture you took???

    So how you avoid dust coming onto your sensor when so much changing lens? I can not understand, this issue is really bad for me! Did you had a post on this already? I would really appreciate any hints!

    Reply

    1. Carrying a blower and holding the camera upside down then changing lenses helps.

       Reply

63. Also, das ist schon ganz schön und gut und auch mit viel Liebe gemacht , aber ohne Zeiss Linsen halt doch ein wenig unvollständig ???

    Reply

    1. Welche fallen denn in den hier betrachteten Brennweitenbereich?
       Das riesige 15mm 2.8 und das mittelmäßige 18mm 3.5?
       Wer will die denn bitte freiwillig an einer spiegellosen Kamera verwenden?

       Reply

    2. Manche Leute (z.B. ich) haben immer auf ein Zeiss Loxia 15mm gehofft, das ganz sicher ein würdiger Kandidat für diese Liste gewesen wäre. Aber daraus ist nie etwas geworden. Schade. Beschwerden darüber bitte an Zeiss ;–).

       Reply

       1. Nicht nur du, aber glücklicherweise passt das Laowa 15mm 2.0 was Größe, Gehäusegestaltung und Sonnensterne (spätere Seriennummern) angeht ganz gut 🙂

          Reply

64. Thank you for updating this guide! Such overviews listing all lenses of a certain type together with short assessements are very useful, they complement your in-depth reviews nicely.

    Reply

65. Hi Bastian

    Thank you for the the updated UWA list. I think UWA lenses from the old days won`t deliver on high resolving sonsors of modern fullframe mirrorless cameras.

    So in my opinion you have to buy a modern lens, fitted with special glass and aspheric surfaces. Otherwise you will will get only soft edges, low contrast and lots of frustration because of ruined images.

    Oldshool lenses may deliver good results with character, but not in the range up to 20mm. I was able to test many old UWA lenses, as the Tokina 17mm, the Vivitar 17mm, the Tamron 17mm, the (very rare) Sigma 2,8/18mm (with floating elements), but none of them was able to deliver decent images.

    So maybe I will upgrade with a 14mm Laowa, but at the moment I am quite happy with my Zeiss ZM 18mm.

    BTW I sold my Leica Elmarit M 2,8/21mm pre asph, because it showed too much field curvature on my Sony.

    Best regards, Christian

    Reply

    1. I have used the Tokina 17mm 3.5 RMC SL in my Nikon D800 days and already at that time there were a lot of compromises to deal with.
       Aspherical elements simply had the biggest impact in the ultra wide angle realm.

       Reply

66. Thank you for the update. How about the Sigma 20mm f2 DG DN C, any thoughts?

    Reply

    1. Ah must have overlooked that one!

       Reply

       1. I just realized prime lenses in this list stops at 18mm and the Sigma 2/20 is listed in the 20-28mm article. I got confused by all the zooms 🙂

          Reply

          1. Gotta list those zooms somewhere 😅

             Reply

67. Hi, have you compared the best of the best in corner sharpness : Sigma 14-24, Loxia 21, Sony 20, 16-35 PZ with a leica 21mm and leica WATE 16-18-21 with adapter AND the kolari vision thin filter ?

    I remember seeing a review a few years back which showed that the W-A-T-E was at least as sharp as the Loxia but with less warping in the corners, even perfectly rectiliniar, which impressed me greatly.

    But that was on an a7r II and i couldn’t find how it compares on the newer 61 MP sensor.

    Would appreciate your info

    Roland

    Reply

    1. Bought a WATE last year, was all but impressive. Didn’t take a Loxia 21mm, already the VM 21mm 3.5 was much better. That was on a 24mp sensor.
       The WATE is not best of the best, not even close. Mtf are also not that great, so this doesn’t come as a big surprise. Distortion is also strong.

       I may add: I really wish it would have performed better.

       Reply

       1. Back in 2013, the WATE was the only non-SLR UWA lens that worked well on Sony A7 series – so at that time, it would still consider it as “the best”. At 21mm, also the CV ultron 21/1.8 was pretty good. https://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:ultra-wide-angle-m-mount-lenses-on-sony-a7r&Itemid=2
          Of course it could not compete anymore with modern designs optimized to be used with Sony’s filter stack.

          Reply

68. First of all congratulations for your webiste. I really like it. I am an amateur photographer who just bought a sony A7 III camera. Till now I had a z50 camera with his camera lenses’ kit. I am searching advice on what lenses to buy in order to shoot very small rooms (10-15 square meters) and bathrooms (2 to 5 square meters). I have a friend who owns a small b & b and he asked me to shoot his rooms.

    Reply

    1. Tamron 17-28mm 2.8, a used Sony 12-24mm 4.0 G or the Sigma 16-28mm 2.8 are the lenses I would have a closer look at.

       Reply

       1. I have the Tamron but I notice some distortions. At a professional level for architectural photography, and for regular use, are there any interesting options on the market? Thanks a lot!

          Reply

          1. For all the ultra wide angle zoom lenses you need the electronic corrections. Are you talking about the uncorrected distortion or is there some distortion left after the correction?

             Reply

69. I just wish to thank you for all the work that went into this. I look forward to your L-mount version.

    🙂

    Reply

70. Phil / Bastian the 10mm Laowa 2.8 is missing. Thanks for this guide, amazing resource.

    Reply

    1. Yup, I would be interested in a review of this one too… I saw that it’s supposedly offered in two aperture blade configurations too.

       Reply

71. I believe one of the most significant lens developments of late is the Sigma 15mm F1.4 DG DN Diagonal Fisheye lens, which I would urge you folks to review. For the purpose of architectural photography, it has the potential after software defishing to provide the maximum FOV with superb sharpness, minimal distortion, light falloff and aberrations as well as the best light gathering, superior to any other diagonal fisheye lenses that are available. Thus far it has not been properly reviewed vis-a-vis architectural subjects, and I think you could offer the best review. Comparing the results after processing to rectilinear ultra-wide lenses would be very interesting.

    Reply

    1. BTW using an electronic level at the tripod clamp to predetermine proper leveling of the camera is more accurate than relying on in-camera tools which typically have considerable ‘slack’.

       Reply

    2. The quality of any fisheye lens drops so significantly when defishing it, I would never recommend or use that for any application, let alone buy a fisheye lens with the mere intention to defish it. Any similarly wide rectilinear lens will offer magnitudes better image quality.

       Reply

       1. I surmise you are not using the best processing technique for defishing. If you are interested in how to do it correctly in ACR, I will write a step-by-step process. It’s not a simple slider nor readily apparent how to do it based on the standard pallets (i.e. “optics > distortion”, so there’s a ‘trick’ to it. It can also be done easily in DxO software, but ACR is the most versatile for this and I believe it can provide an AOV wider than any rectilinear-corrected lens if Generative Fill is used later in PS to fill in blank areas that are left at the top & bottom – although the extreme perspective distortion (radial stretching) can be corrected only to a limited degree in DxO Viewpoint. I think you’d be surprised how good the quality can be, particularly when starting with a super-high-res RAW file (the higher the better).

          Reply

72. Hi and thank you for all the work, really impressive and helpful.
    I switched from Sony A7R3 to A7R5 and was wondering how the Voigtlander lenses perfom with such a resolution ?
    I was disappointed by the sharpness of my summilux 35 and 50 on the A7R5 and bought a Sony 35 mm 1.4 GM: sharpness is much better. My Sony Zeiss16-35 mm f/4 doesn’t perform very well (edges and corners) on this camera…
    Maybe this sensor requires to use only the best lenses from Sony (or other manufacturers).
    What do you think ?

    Reply

    1. Have a look at this article.
       The problem is not the resolution, but the differences in filter stack.

       Long story short: using M-mount (wide angle) lenses on an unmodified Sony camera is not a particularly great idea.
       And those Leica lenses are not that great to begin with: they are not even remotely as good as their price tags suggest.
       Any E-mount Voigtländer lens (except for the 35mm 1.4 Classic and the 50mm 1.5 Classic) will perform better than any Leica M lens on a Sony camera.

       The Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm 4.0 also isn’t exactly a great lens and in this case that might be more obvious on a higher resolution camera. The newer lenses will surely perform better here.

       Reply

73. For shooting architecture, the necessity of cropping after correcting converging verticals is substantially diminished due to Photoshop’s Generative Fill, which I find astonishingly accurately can fill in triangular areas that were lost to the correction. Finally, the Volume Deformation correction feature in DxO’s Viewpoint software alleviates some of the radial stretching without adding noticeable rectilinear distortion.

    Thus, it is more efficient to use a high quality WA zoom lens for most work, thus avoiding extra time to shoot and process images taken with a shift or TS lens. There is still a place for those lenses given the advantage of composing the final image in camera (and also focus distribution w/ Tilt).

    Reply