For $350, this is actually a pretty good lens. It all depends on what you need this lens for. For wedding photography -- yes. I used it at a wedding last weekend and i'm impressed.
Bought this used to go into my light kit/travel kit. Paired with the Tamron 28-200 and the Sony 50 f/1.8 (also bought used for cheap). My priority was light weight and value and I think I’m still getting very good quality with this setup. I have better (much more expensive and heavy) lenses at home for when I want/need them but this trio gives me 90% or more of the quality at 25% the weight and cost.
I am going the same route with my a7c for travel ( in the future!) I just bought the 28-200 and already own the 55 f1.8 so I am shopping for that small wide angle.
Did the Sony camera at 4:45 / 4:46 actually decide on itself to apply some correction suddenly? Certainly looks like the image gets a little bit stretched from one moment to the next.
Might be that the correction profile is different based on the focus distance, so after refocusing the camera updates the profile. Ridiculous behavior for videographers. Also you can see that it hunts for focus and this was the reason I returned my Tarmon 24/2.8 which had the same effects and especially on my A7ii the autofocus was horrendously slow and unreliable compared to the Tamron 28-75/2.8.
Had the lens and enjoyed the photography side for the creative almost macro abilities. But, I use 20mm for my videos and this lens has a huge amount of barrel distortion. I guess for photos your good but for videos, I really couldn’t use it. I’d like to get multiple uses of out a lens for more versatility and was just disappointed.
Thanks for the vid. Was looking at the Sony A6400, and wanted a nice small lense to carry on the motorbike. Wow, the price diff with the Sony 20mm 1.8 is astounding.. even now! :)
Presumably you could also adapt the Sigma 20/1.4, which I was impressed by when I played with one on a couple of occasions, just a teeny bit too little to buy it yet (I'm about one price cut away). One issue I have with f/2.8 wide primes is how close they are to 16-35 f/2.8 or f/4 zooms for the money you are spending. The macro was cool tho...
which 20mm lens should i go for sigma, tamron or sony. i love to take wide angle close shots in street, macro, landscape nature, i am also interested in night and astro photography. plz advice
Not Chris, but I have the Samyang & I compared it along with the video 🤓: - less native distortion, well corrected in camera. - worse bokeh, much worse close focusing distance - no LOCA (that I can see)! - I can't complain about focusing speed; it's not lightning fast, but the lack of macro capability certainly helps. - even lighter, sane barrel dimensions, a little cheaper. All in all I'm VERY happy with the Samyang. For its main purpose of outdoor panoramic shots I find it sensational. It's so light and tiny that you can always have it with you.
this locale is too scenic, picturesque, quaint, ... compared to the calibre of the lens being reviewed, it doesn't do justice to the "Eau Claire Distillery"
once again, the lens? meh. but the S1H video is delicious. seems you guys feel the same. too bad US Canada borders now closed. I was thinking of sneaking up there and stealing your S1H
One day a company (probably samyang) will give us a reasonably priced auto focusing 20mm f1.8 prime lens and they won’t charge extra for the letter “G”.
@@danc3693 when I sold cameras in the late 90s, the turn was already years in. Sigma made eh lenses and Tamron was crap. Sigma's cheapo stuff rivaled kit lenses. Their pro line was somewhere in between the kit lenses and pro lenses for Nikon and Canon. But Sigma really does rival Nikon and Canon's pro lenses. Sometimes they're even better for a good +30% less money.
art4kuwait which generation is your Sony a7? I would say that the samyangs got pretty good with autofocus, and a 16-20 mm prime is very useful, keeping the compactness of the mirrorless system. Check out christopher frosts review of the samyang 18mm 2.8, its wayy better than this lens, for sure.
I just don't get the photo of Jordan lying in the fetal position crying. It is kind of disturbing. Maybe it's time for a change of your banner photo? It really does not look professional.
What exactly do you expect from a 20mm $350 lens? For almost three times the price you can add 1 & 1/3 stops of light gathering and some improved optics-but most people don’t need anything faster than f/2.8 on a wide lens, and tbh, most people don’t need (or even recognize) “optical perfection” in their real life photos, i.e. not their “test” photos. Also, this lens clearly wasn’t made for astro, if that’s what you were trying to get at. There are too many lenses, primes esp. that sell at the $1,200 and up. It’s nice to have a wide option that’s more than good enough and purchasable by hobbyists and amateur photogs.
Idk I'll take it. Being a 20 after all, it's mostly going to be used above 4-5.6. And its especially acceptable given its tiny size. The only place it would matter is astro.