Guide to Ultra Wideangle lenses for the Sony A7 Series V1.3

super wide angle ultra uwa swa

We summarize our experience with all the native E-mount and a few (manual) legacy lenses in the 9-20mm bracket to give you a compact and independent resource for choosing the right super- to ultra-wide-angle lens for your Sony A7 cameras. In this summary we also included some adapted lenses we think are worth mentioning.

We also have a guide to 21-35mm lenses as well as a guide to 35mm lenses, 50mm lenses and portrait lenses.

We have no association with any lens manufacturer apart from occasionally loaning a lens for a review. Before any short introduction we tell you how long we have used a lens and if we have borrowed it from a manufacturer. But in most cases we have bought the lenses new from retail stores or on on the used market. 

If we have left any question unanswered please leave a comment and we will do our best to answer it.

Last update: November 2020

If you purchase the lens through one of thee affiliate-links in this article we get a small compensation with no additional cost to you. 

Laowa 5.6/9 FF-RL

Status: Sample loaned by the manufacturer reviewed by Bastian who replaced his Voigtlander 10mm 5.6 with this lens

  • super compact and the widest rectilinear lens available
  • contrast and resolution are surprisingly good from wide open
  • flare resistance slightly worse than the wide Voigtlander primes, very nice sunstars thanks to 5 straight aperture blades
  • complex distortion and high vignetting (profile for LR available)
  • Widest rectilinear lens available in a very compact package and with surprisingly good image quality

373g + adapter | $799 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from manufacturer’s homepage | B&H | | (affiliate links)

laowa 9mm 5.6 ultra wide w-dreamer uwa hyper wide heliar 10mm distortion zero-d
Leica M10 | Laowa 9mm 5.6 | f/5.6

Laowa 4.5-5.6/10-18 FE C-Dreamer

Status: Sample loaned by the manufacturer reviewed by Bastian

  • super compact (similar in size to Zeiss Loxia 21mm 2.8) and even slightly wider than the 10mm Voigtlander
  • contrast and resolution are never great, needs stopping down to f/8 to f/11 for okay corner sharpness
  • flare resistance worse than the wide Voigtlander primes, very nice sunstars thanks to 5 straight aperture blades
  • complex distortion and high vignetting, hard to correct because of missing electronic contacs
  • Widest rectilinear (zoom) lens available in a very compact package, but takes some work in post for good results

499g | $849 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from manfucaturer’s homepage | B&H | (affiliate links)

laowa 10-18mm zoom c-dreamer 4.5-5.6 ultra wide 42mp a7 a7rII a7rIII review sharpness

Voigtlander 5.6/10 E

Status: Sample loaned by the manufacturer reviewed by Bastian, who bought a new copy from retail aferwards. He sold that copy in anticipation of Laowa 10-18mm, that unfortunately fall behind expectations, so he bought a second used copy. Sold that second copy after release of the much better Laowa 9mm 5.6. Used by David for a while, then sold.


  • At f/5.6 most of the frame is pretty sharp, only the extreme corners are somewhat soft. Contrast is always high.
  • You have to use f/11 for best across frame sharpness, the corners never reach very good values.
  • Almost no distortion, quite good flare resistance, beautiful 10-stroke sunstars.
  • Small and lightweight.
  • Second widest rectilinear lens there is in a small package. Downsides are huge vignetting throughout the aperture range and maximum aperture of only f/5.6.

375g | $1300 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from ebay | buy from | B&H (affiliate links)

voigtlander hyper wide heliar 10mm 5.6 stuttgart sony e a7 distortion stuttgart mercedes benz museum

Laowa 4.5/11

Status: Sample loaned by the manufacturer reviewed by Bastian

  • Overall optical performance is similar to the Voigtlander 12mm 5.6 at shared apertures and slightly better than Voigtlander 10mm 5.6
  • No electronic contacts, so no Exif data
  • Small and lightweight,
  • Features a standard 62mm filter thread but the non removable hood spoils the filter holder party
  • Interesting and cheaper alternative to the 10mm 5.6 and 12mm 5.6 Voigtlander lenses, but optically not as good as the 9mm 5.6

254g | $699 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from manufacturer’s homepage (affiliate link)

laowa 11mm 4.5 zero-d distortion zero ultra wide w-dreamer uwa hyper wide heliar 10mm distortion zero-d
Sony A7III | Laowa 11mm 4.5 | f/8.0

Laowa 2.8/12

Status: Prototype loaned by manufacturer reviewed by Bastian

Caution: what is written below might only be true for the prototype and I experienced bad corner performance with some adapters.

  • At f/2.8 center as well as midframe region is very sharp, corners suffer a bit from field curvature. Coma performance wide open not bad, a little worse than Samyang 14mm.
  • From f/8 onwards across frame sharpness was very good on the A7rII.
  • Almost no distortion, ok flare resistance, ok vignetting.
  • Average size and weight, decently priced.
  • An UWA lens almost without real flaws. Can be combined with the Magic Shift Converter to create a 17mm 4.0 Shift lens

640g + adapter | $949 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from manufacturer | | | B&H (affiliate links)

sony a7 a7rii a7rm2 laowa venus optics zero distortion wide angle 12mm 2.8 fast coma bokeh mercedes museum stuttgart

Sony FE 2.8/12-24 GM

Status: not reviewed by anyone in the team but some reliable information is available

  • First reports attest it exceptional quality across the zoom range
  • Flare resistance seems to have been improved over the Sony FE 12-24mm 4.0 G
  • 12mm, a maximum aperture of f/2.8 and good coma correction makes it a great choice for astrophotography, too
  • It seems to be hard to find a flaw with this lens, except for its price and that it needs 150mm square filters

847g | $2998 cameralabs review 

buy from | | B&H | ebay (affiliate links)

Sony FE 4/12-24 G

Status: not reviewed by anyone in the team but reliable information is available

  • Excellent sharpness in the center from wide open at any focal length.
  • Class leading across the frame sharpness by f/5.6. It is sharper than the Voigtlander primes and close to the Batis 18 and Loxia 21 in this regard.
  • Strong distortion at the wide end which is still significant at the longer end.
  • Vignetting at 12 mm is strong and doesn’t go away. At longer focal lengths vignetting is still significant.
  • Flare can be an issue in demanding scenarios, the only real weakness of this lens.
  • You can’t use normal filters with it.
  • Average size with good build quality.
  • An exceptional lens. This is one of the rare cases where a zoom outperforms many primes. If you can live with the lack of a filter thread and accept a little worse flare resistance then it is a very attractive lens.

565g | $1698 | MTF | photozone review | compared to other lenses

buy from | buy from | B&H (affiliate links)

Voigtlander 5.6/12 III E

Status: bought by and sold by Jannik

  • At f/5.6 most of the frame is pretty sharp, only the extreme corners are never as sharp as the center. Contrast is always quite high.
  • You have to use f/8 for best sharpness across most of the frame, the extreme corners still gain a little contrast at f/11
  • Almost no distortion, quite good flare resistance, beautiful 10-stroke sunstars, heavy vignetting
  • Small and lightweight, decently priced.
  • No significant sample variation reported (In contrast to the 4.5/15)
  • Much better performance on Sony E-Mount cameras than the M-Mount version II
  • Not as fast as the 15mm, not as wide as the 10mm and maybe therefore it has already been discontinued

283g | $899 | review | aperture seriessample images

buy from | buy from | buy from (affiliate links)

Voigtlander 5.6/12 M39

Status: reviewed and bought by Bastian


  • 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.
  • When focusing at the center of the frame you need f/11 to f/16 for best across frame sharpness and the corners are still merely okay.
  • Almost no distortion, fair flare resistance, not so well defined but okay sunstars, very high vignetting even stopped down.
  • Very very small and very lightweight, decently priced on the used market.
  • If you only shoot this wide from time to time and stopped down anyways it might be a good choice, as this lens will always fit in your bag.

175g + adapter | ~$450 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from ebay | Sony E-mount adapters (affiliate links)

castle mannheim a7s 12mm 5.6 voigtländer ultra wide heliar

Samyang 2.8/14

Status: Bought and sold by Bastian, replaced with Laowa 15mm 2.0, bought and sold by Jannik, David had a good copy which he sold when switching to Sony, and tried to get another one but gave up after three tries.

Jannik: Despite of it’s ridiculous distortion, this lens performs very good (especially for astrophotography) when you find a good copy. Something in this lens dissolves over time, therefore the performance has to be checked continously.

  • Already at f/2.8 the sharpness across frame near infinity can be very good but mind a little field curvature. The contrast improves when stopping down to f/4.0. Coma correction wide open is also very good which makes this a great lens for astrophotography.
  • Tremendous wavy distortion, I have yet to come across a profile which corrects this perfectly (PTLens won’t, all Lightroom profiles I tested – or created myself – won’t either). Huge vignetting wide open, rather bad flare resistance, 6 bladed aperture.
  • Ok size and weight, decently priced.
  • My biggest concern with this lens is the questionable build quality and the quality assurance problems. Out of 6 lenses I mounted on my camera 4 were badly decentered (of which 3 were new from different dealers). Focus scale is often totally misaligned. Front group is often a bit wobbly.
  • Good lens for landscape and especially astrophotography in case you find a good sample.

570g (E-mount version) | $300 | Reviewsample images

buy from ebay | buy from amazon | B&H (affiliate links)

samyang 14mm 2.8 walimex rokinon falcon

Sigma Art 2.8/14-24 DG DN

Status: bought by Jannik, still in use

  • Already at f/2.8 the sharpness across frame is very good at all focal lengths
  • Very low coma at 14mm, still low coma at 24mm
  • High vignetting at 14mm and f/2.8 (~ 2.8 EV), still comparable to most of the competition
  • Very good flare resistance for an ultra wide angle zoom with bulbous front element
  • If the GM 12-24mm 2.8 is too expensive or you simply don’t need the 12mm angle of view this is a really great alternative and you won’t feel like giving anything up in terms of optical qualities

795g | $1399 | lenstip review

buy from | | B&H | (affiliate links)

Nikon AF-S 2.8/14-24G

Status: bought by Bastian to replace Samyang 14mm 2.8, sold because not fun to use on A7 cameras because of size and weight

  • Already at f/2.8 the sharpness across frame is very good at the wide end. At 24mm not nearly as good compared to 14mm, needs to be stopped down to f/8.0 for best performance here.
  • One of the best performing ultra wide angle lenses for astrophotography, low coma and very low vignetting in comparison to the competition (less than 2 EV at 14mm and 2.8).
  • Quite a bit wavy distortion you want to correct for architectural shots, mediocre to bad flare resistance (watch out for the sun outside the frame), 9 bladed aperture.
  • Very big and very heavy, decently priced on the used market.
  • Handling isn’t the greatest on the A7 cameras: you have to get an adapter to change the aperture and there is a slight slack in the focusing ring when changing the direction of rotation but size and weight are definetly the/my main concerns here.
  • Not recommended to Sony users anymore due to existence of aforementioned Sigma Art 14-24mm 2.8 DG DN lens

1000g + adapter | ~$1300 (used) | reviewsample images

buy from | | B&H | Nikon-G adapters (affiliate links)

nikon af-s 14-24mm 2.8g antelope canyon

Laowa 2.0/15

Status: Sample loaned by the manufacturer reviewed by Bastian, who bought one for himself after that. Still often in use for astrophotography.

  • Already sharp across frame at f/2.0 without relevant field curvature.
  • From f/4 onwards really great across frame sharpness on the A7rII.
  • Almost no distortion, ok to good flare resistance, ok vignetting, great minimum focus distance. Coma performance not as good as Samyang 14mm 2.8 but a stop faster ans usable at f/2.0.
  • Rather small for what it is, the all metal construction adds some weight, decently priced.
  • Great allround UWA lens for astrophotography, architecture and dramatic close up shots.

520g | $849 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from manufacturer | | B&H | (affiliate links)

laowa 15mm 2.0 fe venus optics review coma astro astrophotography milkyway milky way
Sony A7s | Laowa 15mm 2.0 Zero-D | f/2.0

Voigtlander 4.5/15 E

Status: sample loaned by manufacturer reviewed by Bastian. Bought by Juriaan, still in use.

voigtlander 15mm 4.5

  • Already at f/4.5 the center as well as midframe region is looking very good. Corners are ok, coma correction is pretty decent.
  • You have to use f/11 for the corners to look best.
  • Almost no distortion, decent flare resistance, very nice 10-stroke sunstars, but very high vignetting even stopped down.
  • Very small and lightweight, decently priced.
  • In case f/4.5 is fast enough and you can get by with the high vignetting very nicely balanced lens for the A7 cameras.

298g | $800 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from ebay | | B&H | (affiliate links)

sony a7s milaneo voigtlander 15mm 4.5 e super wide heliar milaneo blue hour

Laowa 15mm 4.5 Zero-D Shift

Status: sample loaned by manufacturer reviewed by Bastian

  • surprisingly good corners, even shifted, but some midzone dip, best across frame performance between f/8.0 and f/11
  • very little distortion, okay flare resistance, very nice sunstars
  • 250g lighter than the Canon TS-E 17mm 4.0L and a bit smaller, but doesn’t tilt
  • Widest tilt/shift lens available and a great choice for architecture photography in tight places

595g (EF Version) | $1199 | full Review | aperture series 

buy from manufacturer’s homepage (affiliate link)

laowa 15mm 4. 5 shift tilt ts-e pc-e comparison review venus optics wide angle ultra wide angle sharpness uwa resolution contrast 42mp 61mp a7riv a7rii a7riii
Sony A7rII | Laowa 15mm 4.5 Shift | f/11 | shifted up

Sony FE 2.8/16-35 GM

Status: Not reviewed by anyone in the team but reliable information is available.

  • Excellent sharpness in the center from wide open at any focal length.
  • Very good across the frame sharpness across most of the zoom range, slightly less so at 35 mm.
  • Pronounced distortion at the ends, average vignetting.
  • Flare is well controlled.
  • Weakly defined 22-pointed sunstars
  • It takes expensive 82 mm filters.
  • Above average size with very good build quality.
  • Pretty strong copy to copy variation at 35 mm.
  • An exceptional lens. It outperforms the already very good 4/16-35 while only weighting 165g more. The only downside is the very significant price tag.

680g | $2198 | MTF | TDP review | vs FE 4/16-35

buy from | | B&H (affiliate links)

Sony FE 4/16-35 ZA OSSSEL1635z-4

Status: Phillip reviewed a loaner from Sony and bought his own copy more than a year ago. He uses it regularly. Bought and sold by Jannik. Bought and sold by David after quite a lot of use.

Jannik: You can’t go wrong with this lens , especially at the wide end. Performs is best at 20mm, but is also very good at 16mm. Keep the field curvature in mind and focus carefully.

  • At f/4 the center is excellent across the zoom range, for best corners I would stop down at least to f/5.6, better f/8 where they are quite good.
  • Pronounced distortion at the ends, average vignetting and annoying ghosting for some scenes but fine most of the time.
  • This is neither a light nor a small lens but it isn’t huge either. Build quality is good.
  • A very versatile lens: It covers a very wide focal range with good optical quality and thanks to the stabilizer even on the A7 one can shoot before sunrise without a tripod. The price is significant but justified.

518g | $1348 | full review |  sample images

buy from | | B&H photo (affiliate links)


Tamron 2.8/17-28 Di III RXD

Status: sample loaned by manufacturer reviewed by Bastian and Jannik

  • Very good image quality at 17mm slightly worse at 28mm (coma and sharpness)
  • Nice minimum focus distance, especially at the wide end
  • Flare is well controlled
  • High distortion and slight color cast in the corners at the wide end
  • Average vignetting, CA correction and bokeh
  • Takes standard 67 mm filters
  • Very compact for what it is, okay build quality
  • The lightest ultra wide angle zoom for Sony-E despite being an f/2.8 lens
  • A very good choice if you don’t mind the restricted zoom range and need an f/2.8 lens

420g | $899 | Review | Sample Images

buy from | | B&H (affiliate links)

Tokina 3.5/17 SL

Status: used by Bastian in the past on Nikon DSLRs.

tokina 17mm rmc sl

  • At f/3.5 the center is quite good, midframe and corners are ok, also quite contrasty.
  • You need to stop down to f/11 to f/16 for ok to good corners
  • Wavy distortion (you can find a LR profile created by myself for correction here), as typical for Tokina disastrous flare resistance and 6-bladed aperture
  • Very small, lightweight and quite cheap.
  • This is one of the few legacy UWA that does not cost a fortune and at the same time doesn’t totally suck. Across frame sharpness stopped down is definitely usable and a standard 67mm filter thread is very nice to have on a lens this wide, but watch out for flares.
  • The lens is rather rare and comes in different mounts (Nikon-F, Canon FD, a few more), don’t fall for the newer AT-X AF version which is optically worse.
  • The Samyang 18mm 2.8 AF will be the better choice for most people on a budget these days

305g + adapter | ~$170 | sample image

buy from ebay (affiliate link)

tokina 17mm sl rmc 3.5

Canon FD 4/17

Status: used by Jannik for a short time in the past


  • At f/4 the center is quite good but…
  • … I’d recommend to stop down to f/11 for usable sharpness across the frame albeit it never gets tack sharp
  • Very low distortion (the biggest quality of this lens, especially in the film era), bad flare resistance and 6-bladed aperture
  • Medium size, not too heavy but a tad more expensive than the Tokina 3.5/17 due to the collector’s value
  • UWA lenses developed very fast during the last decades. The age of these 17mm legacy lenses shows clearly when they are compared to modern options. Nevertheless, they are pretty usable if you give the files some love in postprocessing (removal of CA’s and sharpening).
  • The Samyang 18mm 2.8 AF will be the better choice for most people on a budget these days

360g + adapter | $200 | buy from ebay | Sony E-mount adapters  (affiliate links)


Canon TS-E 4/17 L

Status: bought by Bastian, still in use; Used by David since sold.

  • center and midframe are always good, corners and especially shifted corners need f/8 to f/11
  • very little distortion, okay flare resistance, nice sunstars stopped down thanks to 8 aperture blades
  • Quite big but very lightweight and also very expensive
  • The Laowa 15mm 4.5 Shift is a slightly better performer – at least on Sony cameras – so if you don’t need Tilt also have a look at that one

830g + adapter | $1500 (used) | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from | | B&H | | (affiliate links)

Zeiss Batis 2.8/18

Status: sample loaned by manufacturer reviewed by Bastian. Owned and in correct use by David

zeiss batis 18mm 2.8

  • At f/2.8 good to very good across frame performance even in the extreme corners. Coma correction pretty good as well (a tiny bit worse in comparison to the 21mm Loxia but visibly less vignetting).
  • f/4.0: corners are now very good too, so stopping down further will only increase depth of field.
  • Wavy distortion you want to correct for architecture shots, ok to good flare resistance, 9 rounded aperture blades.
  • Quite big but very lightweight and also very expensive.
  • High performance modern wideangle lens which is also very good for astrophotography but comes at a price.

330g | $1500 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from ebay | | B&H | (affiliate links)

carl zeiss batis 18mm 2.8 sony a7s astro astrophotography astroscape coma milkyway milky way star stars

Samyang FE 2.8/18 AF

Status: our review sample was severely decentered but reliable information is available

  • Good center performance, never great in the corners
  • Very high vignetting, even stopped down
  • Very compact and also lightweight
  • As always with Samyang lenses, make sure you did not get a decentered copy (like we did here) within the return period
  • Lightest and cheapest ultra wide AF prime, recommended to those that don’t need maximum image quality  

145g | $299 | opticallimits review 

buy from | | B&H | (affiliate links)

Nikon AF-S 3.5-5.6/18-35G

Status: bought by Bastian and used for some time on Nikon DSLRs until 20mm 1.8G hit the shelves.

  • Pretty good resolution already wide open, best at it’s short end.
  • Peak performance is around f/8.0 for all focal lenghts, vignetting is quite good from f/5.6 onwards (less than 1 EV).
  • Quite a bit non wavy barrel distortion at the wide end, much less barrel distortion at the 35mm end.
  • Very lightweight and therefore well balanced on A7 cameras.
  • Due to being an AF-S G lens the handling isn’t the greatest on the A7 cameras: you have to get an adapter to change the aperture and there is a slight slack in the focusing ring when changing the direction of rotation.
  • The main reason I included this lens here: the flare resistance at the wide end is just stellar. At 18mm it is almost impossible to catch flares or ghosts and it even takes 77mm screw-in or 100mm square filters and is also comparably cheap.
  • Don’t lay your hands on the older AF-D version, it is not even nearly as good!

385g | $650 | review | review

buy from ebay | buy from amazon | B&H | Nikon-G adapters (affiliate links)

stuttgart weinberg rotenberg kapelle nikon af-s 18-35mm 3.5-4.5

Sony FE 1.8/20 G

Status: not reviewed by anyone in the team but some reliable information is available

  • Good from f/1.8, great across the whole frame stopped down to f/5.6
  • Good coma correction
  • Nice bokeh for a wide angle lens
  • Very good CA correction
  • Very compact and also lightweight
  • GM-like build (declickable aperture ring, focus hold button, AF/MF switch)
  • A great wide angle choice for a wide range of applications

373g | $898 | cameralabs review

buy from | | B&H | (affiliate links)

Nikon AF-S 1.8/20G

Status: bought (on release day 🙂 ) and reviewed by Bastian, ended up selling it to fund smaller Loxia 21mm 2.8 with even better sunstars.

As this lens incorporates a floating elements design the adapter can have a huge influence on the corner performance.

nikon 20mm 1.8g metabones

  • At f/1.8 the whole frame can be pretty sharp with the right adapter. A little coma in the corners. Bokeh isn’t too bad either. No visible field curvature. Pretty strong vignetting.
  • Peak performance is around f/4.0, vignetting is much less pronounced. You can stop down for more depth of field or nicer sunstars.
  • A little wavy distortion, quite good flare resistance, great minimum focus distance.
  • With adapter about the same length as Batis 18mm but a little thinner and a bit heavier.
  • Due to being an AF-S G lens the handling isn’t the greatest on the A7 cameras: you have to get an adapter to change the aperture and there is a slight slack in the focusing ring when changing the direction of rotation. If you can get by with this great value for the money.
  • Not recommended to Sony users anymore due to existence of aforementioned Sony 20mm 1.8 G lens

355g | $800 | full Review | aperture seriessample images

buy from | | B&H | Nikon-G adapters (affiliate links)

Viltrox 1.8/20 PFU RBMH

Status: not reviewed by anyone in the team but reliable information is available

  • Decent sharpness at f/1.8, much better from f/2.8
  • High coma, so not a good choice for astrophotography at wider apertures
  • Nice bokeh for a wide angle lens
  • High vignetting, mediocre flare resistance
  • Too heavy and not so great optics, therefore hard to recommend

775g | $399 | lenstip Review

buy from | | B&H (affiliate links)

Tokina Firin 2/20

Status: Bought and reviewed by Phillip but returned after 30 days.

  • Excellent center and good across the frame sharpness from f/2
  • Generally excellent sharpness stopped down but I noticed a midframe drop and some field curvature on my copy.
  • A moderate degree of mustache distortion.
  • 18-pointed sunstars with pretty average definition from f/11.
  • Below average flare resistance. For me this is the achilles heel of this lens.
  • Medium size and weight. Very good price/performance ratio.
  • A very sharp lens for a very attractive price. A great choice for astro but for landscape photography I found the weak flare resistance a serious issue and quality control seems to have some issues too.
  • There is now also an AF version of this lens available which is a little lighter but shares the same optics.

490g | $699 | full review | aperture series | sample images

buy from | (affiliate links)

Tamron 2.8/20 Di III OSD M1:2

Status: not reviewed by anyone in the team but reliable information is available

  • Very good sharpness at infinity, but distortion is so high that correction will steal away some resolution in the corners
  • Very good flare resistance
  • Slow autofocus and bad manual focus implementation
  • Lightweight but not exactly small
  • Maximum magnification of 1:2, but at these distances only good image quality close to the center of the frame
  • A lens that can give good results but is not very pleasant to use, maybe consider having a closer look at the Tamron 2.8/17-28

221g | $299 | cameralabs review

buy from | | B&H | (affiliate links)

Canon (n)FD 2.8/20

Status: Used a lot by Phillip then sold to fund the FE 4/16-35. Owned and sold by Jannik.

Jannik: A cheap and capable wide angle option. Contrast, flare resistance and wide open performance are not up to modern standards but at typical landscape settings, this lens delivers.

  • At f/2.8 the center of the image is sharp but quite strong vignetting, busy bokeh, strong coma and soft corners limit the usefulness of this aperture.
  • From f/5.6 it is good across the frame, very good at f/8 and for the very good corner performance you should stop down to f/11
  • Some mustache distortion and average to bad flare resistance.
  • Medium size and weight. Good price/performance ratio.
  • All in all a capable landscape lens with some limitations for a decent price.
  • These days the aforementioned Tamron 20mm 2.8 will be a better choice for most

305g + adapter | $160 | full review | aperture series | sample images

buy from | | Sony E-mount adapters (affiliate links)


Editor’s Choices

All of us have used many lenses and we all have bought and sold some of them for whatever reason. Nevertheless there are a few lenses that simply stick, so we decided to let each of us pick one of the aforementioned lenses and tell you why we like it and/or keep using it.

Bastian’s Choice: Laowa 9mm 5.6

laowa 9mm 5.6 ultra wide w-dreamer uwa hyper wide heliar 10mm distortion zero-d
Leica M10 | Laowa 9mm 5.6 | f/5.6

I have been using the Voigtlander 10mm 5.6 and reviewed the Laowa 10-18mm 4.5-5.6, but both lenses had one flaw too much and I wasn’t really happy with them.
Luckily the Laowa 9mm 5.6 now offers the combination of image quality and size that I was looking for.

Phillip’s Choice: Sony FE 4/16-35 ZA OSS

I always say that I am not much of a super-wideangle user and the only lens below 21mm I currently own is the FE 4/16-35 but when I have it attached to the camera it actually happens quite often that I end up using it at it’s wide end.


Jannik’s Choice: Sigma Art 14-24mm 2.8 DG DN

The Sigma 2.8/14-24 replaced my former favorite, the Sony FE 1.4/24 GM. The Sigma was on par with the Sony at shared apertures and pulled even off a bit in the extreme corners stopped down. My main subject also changed from portrait photography to nature photography again so that I decided to go for the flexibility instead of the speed.  I didn’t own a UWA lens for a long time because I simply didn’t like the most of the available options and the options that I liked were too expensive. The Sigma filled a gap for me with its fair pricing, very good image quality and versatility. It’s much smaller than its DSLR counterparts and I almost always have it in my backpack. Keep in mind its field curvature to squeeze the most out of it.

David’s Choice: Zeiss Batis Distagon T* 18mm f2.8

This is the only ultra wide that David currently uses, though he says he may get something wider soon. But the beauty of it is that it’s outstandingly good across the field at every aperture, and is extremely light so easy to take along on trips. The new Sony 12-24 f2.8 is likely even better, but not a travel friendly lens. The Sigma 14-24 is probably as good too, but also not small. The 18 is not too wide for general wide use. If you need even wider it’s simple to do a 2 or 3 image panorama and get improved image quality at the cost of some hassle, whereas if you get a wider lens, you need to crop to get tighter, which costs you image quality.

Juriaan’s Choice: Voigtlander 15mm 4.5 SWH E

For its compact size my favorite is the Voigtlander 15mm 4.5 SWH E. It still finds it’s way into my bag regularly, and during long hikes in the mountains it often is the only lens I carry.
The Voigtlander is sharp enough and with great sunstars and therefore I like it for city scapes and architecture as well.

Sony a7S | Voigtländer 4.5/15 | f/11

David’s C hook

Closing Remarks

Yes, we didn’t include a bunch of interesting lenses. There are a few reasons for that:

  1. We have reviewed many lenses but there are far more lenses we haven’t reviewed yet and we prefer to know what we are talking about. So with time the list will grow, but have some patience with us 🙂
  2. We did not want to mix up rectilinear and fisheye lenses (we might do another article covering only fisheye lenses).

Articles like this require many hours of work. If you found it helpful, you can support us by:

  • Using one of our affiliate links if you buy a lens (or anything else).
  • If you own an interesting and/or exotic lens and you would borrow it to us for a review just leave a note.
  • It also helps a lot if you share this article on social media and with your friends.

Thanks! Jannik, Bastian, David, Juriaan and Phillip

Other Articles

The following two tabs change content below.

The Team

The team, that are four gearheads: Bastian, Jannik and Phillip from Germany as well as David from Australia. All like to use manual lenses and have a passion for the outdoors. None the less they are specialized in different areas so they can provide you with a wider perspective.

132 thoughts on “Guide to Ultra Wideangle lenses for the Sony A7 Series V1.3”

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. “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.

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

  5. 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)

      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:
        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)
        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)

  6. 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?


  7. 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?

      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 🙂

    1. 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 …

  8. 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.


  9. 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

    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.

      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

    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.

  10. 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.

    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!

      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!

  11. 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


    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…).

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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!

    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.

  15. 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.

    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.

    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.

      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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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…”

  18. 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.

    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).

  19. 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!

    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!

  20. 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

    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.

  21. 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.

    1. 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.

  22. 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 I seem to miss German (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!


    1. Dear Karsten,
      thanks for the kind words and your support!
      You can use any of our 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.

      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

  23. 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.

    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.

  24. 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.


    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…

  25. 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.


  26. 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

    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.

    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.

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

  28. 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?

    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).

  29. 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.

    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.

  30. 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.

      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.

    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.

      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.

  31. 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…

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

  32. 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?

  33. $$$$ 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

    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.

  36. 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

      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?

        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 .

  37. 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.


    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.

        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.

  38. 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  39. 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!

  40. 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).

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *