Absolutely spot on about portability. I've dubbed these breezy lenses "Studio 55": I-series 17/4, 24/3.5, 45/2.8, 90/2.8 & aps-c 18-50/2.8, 56/1.4 -- all threaded for 55mm filters, and weighing 215 - 295g. Allowing a lighter attitude, as well as lightness of carriage.
This could be a good lens for handheld vlogging with the new ZV-E1. Especially considering the crop factor for the dynamic active mode stabilization. You need a really wide lens to compensate for the crop.
thank you very much for the illustrative review of both small format primes! Whereas I don't have any issues with the nifty-fifty, here my impressions and minus points about the 17 mm (translated by< google, pardon for any imprecise wordings therefore...): A short focal length, packed relatively compactly, is a good idea. Although the image quality is very good, except for the strong distortion in RAW (which costs image quality when corrected!), I have two points of criticism - the lens is actually much "too small" - measured against the 20 mm 2.0, its size would have been okay and would have fitted in very well with the series, at least with a speed of 2.8 IMPORTANT: that's why the classic B+W S-Pro filters (clear / UV) don't fit - the tube on which the lens hood is attached using a bayonet lock is narrower than the broader filter. Consequence: the filter protrudes slightly over the edge, the attachable bayonet hood no longer fits in! So I had to buy a new B+W Master Clear Filter for 40 E, which makes the following point even more important: - Measured by the mechanical aspects and the low "speed", I find the price too high, actually it should be at least 100 € cheaper I don't understand why Sigma (like many or actually all photo manufacturers unfortunately) doesn't ask the users beforehand about their wishes. In any case, I would have said that I find so much compactness for so little speed problematic. A bit bigger, but F 3.5 or 2.8 would have been great! I now use it as a second lens next to, for example, the Canon TS - E 17 mm shift lens - at least the focal length and perspective match So, dear company Sigma: set up a customer advisory board, then everything will be better
@@harveylouis445 No - excuse me for any misunderstanding: some older b+w filters were too thin, but the newer and others from Nisi etc. do fit quite well with their slimmer form factor around the thread: pls check it out - a great lens, a real gem;-)!
I have 2 of their slow lenses in the I series & the optics are special - also because of their MFD. The other f2 lenses in the series are larger with std mfd. This compact format works very well with the FP camera series & for the compact sony a7c. I prefer the 20mm fl - also for the R5. And for the wider range the 17-28 tamron. But it's amazing to see these compact lenses particularly for smaller bodies. It is also interesting to see the development of compact lenses with in built software correction.
I was eyeing this lens with some interest, but having just invested in FE 20-70 G, its become kind of moot for me, since the built-in ultrawide 20 will get that job done for me and not require packing anything extra (or shelling out another $600). Extreme landscapers or home interior applications may not think 20mm ultra wide enough, but its enough for me.
Your reviews are the best. I have an idea which is off topic, but I think would make interesting comparison. How do early productions lenses compare to recent versions. I just received my FE50/1.4 Ziess Planar which was made on 01/01/2023. Based on my experience so far it is fantastic. How dose it compare with a lens produced years ago? When I worked for Sony electronics, our motto was continuous improvement. My 35 and 24GM's seem to give equal results to the Ziess. It does still have the slight AF noise, but accuracy seems to be very good. Just an idea for something new.
I have the Sony A74 with the 24mm F1.4 GM which is a great lens, but I like the idea of any lens that I take when traveling, to be less than 1lb. (453 grams). I have the Sony ZV-E1 for travel video on order, so am looking for some lightweight travel lenses for it. I think this (or the Sony 20mm f1.8) the 40mm or 50mm f2.5 G and the 85mm f1.8 seem like a good setup.
Hello, Dustin: Would you prefer this or the Viltrox 20mm f2.8 paired with the Tamron 28-200 and Sony a7c for hiking/backpacking/travel-with an emphasis on landscapes and architecture? TIA
Interesting question. This Sigma is great optically, though the maximum aperture is a little slow. If that isn't a big deal for you, though, grab the Sigma.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks, Dustin. I think I will. The size, weight and maximum aperture are fine for my outdoor daylight use. And I am willing and able to treat myself to what looks like a beautifully designed and crafted instrument.
Two different priorities with those lenses (the 20mm isn't nearly as compact). I would probably lean towards the 20mm for the low light capabilities, but your needs might be completely different.
I feel it's a bit of a shame that having rounded aperture blades for more rounded bokeh balls / specular highlights stopped down has become such a de facto "norm" in recent years. A lens like this would really benefit from 5 straight blades for clearly defined sunstars. If one really needed round bokeh balls (unlikely to be a really important faczor at 17mm to begin with) one could still stick to F4. Nice sunstars can sometimes really elevate an image from good to great.
L-mount also has the Lumix 14-28mm f/3.5-5.6 at 350g, and the Lumix 18mm f/1.8 at 340g (both weather-sealed, but chunkier.) They're all expensive options, though.
How would you say this compares to the tamron 17-28 f/2.8? Obviously different lenses but if shot both at f4 would you say this is sharper? I never really jived with the 17-28 and am liking the size of this lens. Would be using it for landscapes while hiking and traveling
It's been so long since I've reviewed the Batis that I'm working mostly off memory. The Batis has a fair bit of distortion as well. IIRC, the center of the Batis is very sharp, but the corners are a bit softer. I would say the Sigma is probably sharper in the corners. The Batis colors are probably going to be slightly richer, as that is a strength for Zeiss. The Sigma is much smaller and obviously a bit wider, though at the cost of a smaller maximum aperture.
The Sigma 16mm f1.4 is a great wide angle astro lens for APS-C. For Sony FE you should check out the Sony 28mm F2, Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM, Samyang has a few really sharp and cheap lenses with f2.8 apertures that I've used and they're not bad either.
@@DustinAbbottTWIIn my opinion both RF16 2.8 and Sigma 17mm are GREAT for video, especially using a gimbal, for travel videos. A perfectionist doing photography only, probably would have other lenses as well, but these two are great for video gimbal work. Also, fitting a camera in your jacket pocket and walking around is nice.
All of the greatest universities in the World - and many of the not-so-great ones for that matter, have a thing called the Department of Polymer Science and Engineering. They make polymers that have far better resistance to corrosives than metals, less deformable than metals, stronger than metals, harder than metals, less brittle than metals, have less thermal expansion/contraction than metals, more durable than metals, and are far lighter than metals - to name a but few. And yet, you dismiss their work as “a tacked on plastic afterpiece”. This is despite the polymers used in lenses being, when required, less less plastic than metals. Instead, you champion a more corrodible, softer, deformable, alternative with terrible thermal properties, and which of course, is much heavier. Why?
My point is about consistency. If you want to be critical of metals, then why not critique the body of the lens? How about the brass mount? In the terms of the feel of the materials, the plastic lens hood is a poor match.
