ONLY 9mm!? The Sony 16-25mm f/2.8 G Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 кві 2024
- Only a 9mm focal range on the latest Sony 16-25mm f/2.8 G lens!? Why so little? Let's expand the conversation and discuss the idea of "FOV" and how it impacts this lens!
Check out @cameraconspiracies channel and show some love, the dude is hilarious!
My video about this lens on the Alpha Universe channel • FE 16-25mm F2.8 G Lens...
Affiliate Links
Sony 16-25mm f/2.8G Lens bhpho.to/49EskyL
Sony A7CR amzn.to/3Q69ERu
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @miguelquilesjr
Follow Miguel Quiles!
Instagram: / miguelquilesjr
Facebook: / miguelquilesphotography
Twitter: / miguelquilesjr
Web: www.miguelquiles.com
Join the community
/ improveyourphotography
Sony Portrait Shooters! Share your images for a chance to be featured by hashtagging @sonyportraits!
DISCLAIMER: While I am a Sony ambassador, I did not receive any money or product in exchange for this video. The opinions expressed are my own and haven't been reviewed/approved by anyone else and may not express the feelings and opinions of Sony.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn a small commission from qualifying purchases. Thank you for supporting my channel!
If you plot a chart showing the Angle of View in degrees on one axis, and Focal Length in mm on the other you'll get a very strong exponential curve, perfectly demonstrating what Miguel said. 8 degrees on the wide end (from 130 to 122 degrees) represents 2mm of focal length (from 10 to 12mm). 8 degrees on the long end (from 12 to 4 degrees) is approximately 380mm of focal length (from ~220 to 600mm). Miguel already said all of that. Now, if you take that same chart and change both axes to be logarithmic, that strong exponential curve becomes almost linear, and that's an easily perceived way to show this impact in one graphic. It demonstrates how 10-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and 200-600mm each cover approximately the same perceived change in field of view. This 16-25mm range is about half of the 24-70 FOV range. All of this is loosely based on the Weber-Fechner laws and how humans perceive the intensity of some stimuli logarithmically. The way we perceive sound is another example. I've got this chart if anybody is interested in seeing it.
Well said!!
If we have to explain this much about a lense..it doesn't make sense to get it...the justification alone is crazy...
@JohannasJPhotography If you are someone who NEEDS a wide angle lens, architectural photographers for example,, then these explanations are really important.
@@RumoHasIt of the great architectural photographs of the past. What will this lens enhance to today’s photos with everything being said. Absolutely nothing.
Not to mention, you’re getting 11 aperture blades, and incredibly sharp zoom lens. In fact, one of the sharpest zoom lenses that’s been produced. Better stabilization which really matters if you want to do video work with the ZVE1😊 or any camera that has the new dynamic active stabilization. 16 mm I’m thinking is gonna be the sweet spot. A lot of people are gonna say just pick up the 20 mil F1.8, which is absolutely a must have lens I believe. But if you wanna shoot and Vlog, it’s not gonna be wide enough. looks like a damn good lens to me. I love the portability and small form factor. Thanks for sharing Miguel. Voice dictated.
Amazing breakdown of this in a very cohesive way. I understand it already and know it's not the same but this is good to avoid misinformation. I like Kasey, he's a funny dude with great content and sometimes raises unique questions untapped by other youtubers that hit pro level, despite him being extremely casual.
Thanks bro! I totally agree with you, he's a funny guy and I enjoy his stuff.
I mean I get it I guess but I'd still prefer to just use a prime. It definitely seems more oriented towards video shooters. Kasey's channel is probably my favorite of all time. Comic relief and camera oriented trash talk lol
I go back and forth these days with my love of primes and zoom lenses. The latest crop of zoom lenses from Sony are getting dangerously close to the quality you can expect from a prime lens, which has made it more interesting for me. Agree with you 100% about Kasey's channel. I'll take as much comic relief as I can get these days 😂
9 mm at wide end makes more difference than 9 mm on long end, which have to do with angular field of view increase in each of those, and actual difference between 16 and 25 mil is substantial as the result, usually less range on zoom lens means it will be lighter, and have less distortion as well.
Very true! Most photographers that I talk to don't understand this unfortunately, which is why I figured I'd make a quick video to address it. :)
It is certainly an interesting lens. Sony is getting into these out of the box lenses now they have their full lineup. I wish they would make a proper fisheye lens as I still have my 16mm f2.8 fisheye A-Mount. As for this lens I think I like my 12-24 f2.8 GM lens for now.
This be good for group or landscape.
And video! I'm picking one up just for that.
Technically you‘re totally right, but imo you shouldn‘t compare absolute numbers but ratios, because if you use absolute numbers it‘s exactly the opposite effect of focal length: On the telephoto side each degree means a gigantic change of focal length. If you calculate the ratios from the angles of view (107 degrees at 16mm and 82 degrees at 25mm) you get a ratio of about 1.3. If you use this with your example of 70mm (34 degrees) you would end up with a 70-93mm (34-26 degrees) lens, that would be the perfect equivalent to 16-25 on the telephoto side (In absoulute terms it‘s still 23mm instead of 9mm difference). I rounded the values a lot, but I hope you get the point
I totally get the point and agree! That is another way of expressing the same ideas, though I think someone who is new to photography won't truly understand that its a bigger deal to add 9mm on the wide angle versus the telephoto end. Most people would probably turn off the video if I started doing a lot of math, so hopefully people are encouraged to go out and learn more about it. :)
I feel like the most useful metric to understand the range of view is to know how much magnification range a zoom lens has. 25-50 deg = 2x, 10-30 deg = 3x. This to me tells me how much of a range a lens is giving me. The metric you are using in the video of difference in degrees, taking one away from the other has the same issue as the 9mm argument, but at the longer end, it's just been turned on it's head :p
I suppose there are multiple ways to represent this mathematically. I hate math, so to me showing it in terms of degrees has more impact. Showing it in terms of magnification makes the numbers a little easier to wrap the mind around too. The statement still holds though that its a bigger deal to add 9mm on the wide end of a lens compared to adding that same amount on the telephoto side. Most newer photographers have no idea this is even a thing.
@@MiguelQuilesJr magnification works on both ends which is why it's my go-to for zoom versatility (and I love maths :p)
@@puppet_master You would have been the guy I sat next to throughout college lol Math makes my brain hurt but in this situation it really helps to understand things better.
The field of view is important for wide angle lenses. But, for telephoto, it’s more about magnification. I have a 15-30mm, which gives me an impressive field of view, but only a 2x magnification (which means nothing when I want scope). My 150-450mm clocks in 3x magnification- and I’m not looking for field of view at all, only “biggification”
It’s a much more complex issue than people make out.
Facts.
You can spin it whatever way but the lens zooms in only 9mm, some of the half price competition zooms in 12mm
Those lenses don't have the same quality of optics, lens features, build quality, or lens motor speed. As with most things in life, it's a give and take. If those things aren't important for you then that's why those other options exist. For me, I'd rather buy the best I can get once so I don't have to buy again in the future when my needs change. Resale vale on first party lenses is also higher.
9mm is a huge difference
That's what he said 😂 Totally agree with you, on the wide end it's a huge difference. On the tele end, not so much.
@@MiguelQuilesJrha!
I think this is the wrong assessment. A 16-25mm lens replaces 3 prime lenses (16, 20, 25). A 7-275mm lens would actually replace 5-6 primes (70-75-85, 100, 135, 200, 300+/-). At wide angle, three primes such as a Viltrox AF 16mm f/1.8, Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G and Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 GM would offer over a stop more light gathering capability as well as superior optics. And yes, the price of those three lenses would be more, but if you go with used for the Sony gear from reputable vendors like KEH or MPB, not much more and the value of faster, better optics cannot be made up with this new lens by Sony.
There's a key thing that you're missing with this though. I can tell you without a doubt that the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 doesn't have superior optics/performance compared to this lens. Outside of the wider aperture, you lose out on linear motors and the ability to keep up with the high frame rates of some of the newer Sony bodies. Also, those 3 lenses alone would require me to take a much larger bag with me, and have to hotswap them when needed. That takes time away from taking photos. With the high ISO performance of most modern Alpha cameras, I don't think the added stop of light makes that big of a difference, but that of course is debatable. I'm not saying its the best choice, but it offers a specific value that would require the purchase of more than one lens.
@@MiguelQuilesJr I agree that three lenses would require more space in a camera bag and that the Viltrox (of those lenses I suggested) would not support the faster frame rates, but I have done a fare amount of testing (resolution, CA and contrast) of the lenses I use and I was very surprised how well the Viltrox did - even better than (my copy) of the FE 14mm f/1.8 GM - so much so that I sold my 14mm GM, and kept the Viltrox - so I stand by my comments about the optical qualities of those primes. I use a Sony A7R V, so frame rates are not that important to me, but resolving power is.
I was reminded of the weight of the Viltrox. It's 550 grams alone! Not only would you need a bigger bag for these lenses but the weight for a full day of shooting is significant. I love my primes but my shoulders and back love the 16-25G.
You definitely have a point about the weight. I am getting old (72) and weight matters. I often leave the 24mm GM at home, take the 16mm and 20mm (which combined weigh about a pound more than the 16-25mm lens. But then I add the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2, which weighs less than the Sony GM and that makes for a robust and faster (for the wide end) 3 lens kit, pretty close enough to the 2 lens kit you might be carrying. But I also can completely see where you’re coming from. I like the additional speed at the wide end for astrophotography, and a stop of light or more makes a big difference for that work.😊
For some types of photography, we just have to suck up the back and shoulder pain to get the images we need. Astro is a great example of that. While I love my primes of any weight, I'm a big fan of what Sony has been doing lately with their zoom lenses. Comparing these to what was available even a decade ago, some of these could easily outperform prime lenses from that generation. We're quite spoiled these days :)
IMO the decision of Sony is very Smart, you can't buy a 16-35 GM II ? ok let's buy a 16-25 G, it's almost the same FOV as the Sigma 16-28 and the Tamron 17-28 for just more bucks.
Before the people would buy Sigma or Tamron, now they will probably buy the G one !
I think you're right! Hadn't considered the Fov differences with that 16-35. For the difference in price it's a legit option.
This is the nerdiest of nerdiest camera videos EVER lol 😂😂..for video this makes sense...this or the other one they just released..for photo not so much..I'd rather have the full range 16-35 or 24-70..but that's just me..
If money is no object and you don't mind the extra size/weight, the new GMII lenses (24-70 and 16-35) are beastly.
@@MiguelQuilesJr you are correct but I don't own either..still got the og 16-35( I can't reason myself to upgrade) and I have the sigma 24-70. My edc is actually the A7rii and I use the sony 28. The set up slows me down, the camera is small compared to the newer Sonys.
The lens nobody asked for. Just get the 20mm f1.8 prime for better IQ and low light performance and be done with it. 9mm zoom…. 😂😂😂
20mm 1.8 is a fine lens, but they serve different purposes. It's like comparing a mini van to a sports car 😅
@@MiguelQuilesJr How so?
Check out the field of view differences between 16mm and 20mm. The extra stop of light can easily be made up for via shutter speed or ISO, and you'd have a lens with more versatility. These latest batch of zoom lenses are getting really close to the sharpness you'd get from a prime lens.
I owned the 20… amazing lens but it was always too short or two long. Sold it last year, and I’ve just pre-ordered this 16-25.
I still own the 20mm f/1.8 and am getting ready to list it for sale. Its barely been used since I bought it 4 years ago. Once I sell that this 16-25G will be mine! :)