NelsonARowe Loc: North Georgia USA

I have an A6000 and want to take better landscape pictures. I have been looking at the 16mm Sony prime lens. My question is this: will I actually be getting the same field of view and focal distance as I would get using an a mount 16mm lens on a full frame camera like the Sony A7 models or a Canon dale setup? I know that when you compare e mount lenses with full frame lenses you have a 1.5 crop factor so that makes me think I would be actually getting the same field of view and focal point as a 24mm normal dale setup. Is this wrong or am I not understanding this whole crop factor thing wrong. I hope this is not a stupid question and I apologize if it is but I would appreciate any feedback from all you guys and girls out there. I also have a Olympus E500 that doesn’t have as good a sensor as the A6000 but it does have a 14-45 zoom and maybe I would be better off using that for my landscape photography. Any Olympus guys out there have an opinion on that !

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Apache...APS-C?

NelsonARowe Loc: North Georgia USA

Yes apsc. Sorry the spelling checker on my phone has a way of changing things and if you don’t pay attention this is what happens.

NelsonARowe Loc: North Georgia USA

And that’s supposed to be a Canon dslr. Wow I feel really foolish 😳. I will proofread better next time.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

A 16mm on APSC will have the same FOV as a 24mm on full frame. FYI, there are BOTH full frame and APSC lenses in Sony E-mount !

..

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Interesting misspelling.

NelsonARowe Loc: North Georgia USA

I have been looking at the 16mm e mount Sony lens for use as a landscape lens. The problem I seem to be having is if that equals a 24mm full frame then it’s not really a wide lens is it. I need a lens that will give me a wide view with a apsc camera and even the more expensive Sony 10-18 will still only gives me a 15-27. I have looked at the Rikonon 12mm that comes in an e mount but there again I am in the 18mm range. Any suggestions? Or do I need to trade in the camera. I have seen an adapter that you can use on the Sony 16mm, has anyone had any experience with going that route. I don’t want the fisheye effect either. Am I asking the impossible? I would like to have a 14mm with a low fstop like a 1.4 or possibly a 2ish. Have I backed myself into a corner 🙄.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Sigma makes the 14mm f1.8 full frame lens - but you will not like the weight or the price ! You will also need the Sigma mount converter for Canon mount lens as Sigma does not make it in Sony e-mount.

It is quite easy with Sony cameras to use a longer focal length lens and use the in camera "sweep pano" mode for wide angle imaging - and the results are technically better.

..

repleo Loc: Boston

A 16mm on the A6000 will have the equivalent field of view as a 24 mm on a Full Frame sensor. I think anything wider than that would be considered a 'super wide' lens.

If you are looking to take better landscape pictures a wider lens is not necessarily the answer.
Read this https://kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
Also : https://www.bestofthetetons.com/2017/04/24/telephoto-lenses-for-landscapes/
And last paragraph here: https://alphauniverse.com/stories/gary-hart-on-going-wide/

You don't say what you are using right now, but a better lens rather than a wider lens might help. A number of reviews suggest that the Sony 16mm prime is not any better than the 16-55 kit. The Sony Zeiss 24mm 1.8 is an outstanding landscape lens on the A6000. If you ever need wider than that try doing a pano. Beware of the 'getting it all in' syndrome. The wider the shot, the more you reduce the interesting features in your frame and include more 'space' that you have to crop out or fill with overdone skies or impossibly smooth water etc.

The Sony 18-105 F4.0 G is a great all round lens for the A6000 and wide enough for any landscape use. I have the Rokinon 12mm, but really only use it for Milky Way shots because its wide angle and F2 aperture allows you to take a longer exposures at lower ISO. You can get a lot of keystoning with it and it has pretty heavy vignetting. If you do decide to go wide, check out http://briansmith.com/aps-e-mount-lenses-for-sony-mirrorless-cameras/ There are some interesting third party lenses for the A6000 out there now.

If you went with the A6000 for its compactness and lightness, I would stay with the APS-C lenses unless you are convinced that you will go FF in the near future. The FF lenses are a lot heavier and pricier and take a lot of the fun out of the A6000.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

On a APS-C camera, any 16mm lens will give the same view that a 24mm lens gives on a FF camera. That effect is caused by the sensor, not by the lens.

I believe that 10mm on APS-C .... Which gives same view as 15mm on FF .... is about as wide as a 'rectilinear' lens is going to go. That's not "backing into corner" - it's just the way the physics works.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Funny! Those darn spelling checkers!

repleo Loc: Boston

Actually Apache is a lot easier to say than APS-C. Maybe we should adopt it.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Because you mention Sony, Canon and Olympus... be aware of the differences:

Full frame are same 24x36mm image area on Sony and Canon (also Nikon, Pentax and Leica).

APS-C differs....

It's roughly 15x23.5mm on Sony, Nikon, Pentax and Fuji. 1.5X lens multiplication factor... hence a 16 mm will "act like" a 24mm would on full frame.

Canon uses slightly smaller APS-C sensors.... roughly 14.5x22mm. 1.6X lens multiplication factor... hence that same 16mm will "act like" a 26mm would on full frame.

Not sure if they are still making any, but Sigma has used a third variation on APS-C... slightly smaller than Canon at roughly 14x21mm and giving a 1.7X lens multiplication factor. On those, the 16mm will act like a 27mm lens would on full frame.

Some older Canon models and both current and older Leica models use APS-H size sensors... roughly 20x29mm that's larger than APS-C, but smaller than FF. This results in a 1.3X lens multiplication factor... hence the 16mm lens will "act like" a 21mm lens would on FF. Sigma has made cameras using a very slightly different dimension APS-H sensor, giving a 1.35X multiplication factor.

Olympus doesn't use any APS-C, APS-H or FF. They and Panasonic use smaller 4/3 ("four/third") and m4/3 ("micro four/third") both of which are approx. 13x17mm, making for a 2X lens multiplication factor. On their cameras, that 16mm lens will "act like" a 32mm lens would on full frame.

Regarding lens aperture: Wide angle... and ESPECIALLY ultrawides such as are needed for wide angle of view on APS-C cameras... generally do not have or need particularly large apertures. For one, short focal lengths are much easier to hand hold steady than powerful telephotos. For most people, it's no problem hand holding a 16mm lens at 1/30 shutter speed for example. In comparison, I'd never recommend using 1/30 shutter speed with a 300mm lens.... especially if it doesn't have image stabilization and when it's being used on APS-C where it is even more susceptible to shake... With no stabilization and a 300mm that's "acting like 450mm or 480mm", to have any hope of hand holding it you'd probably need at least 1/500. BIG difference.

There are some situations where a larger aperture is helpful... such as night photography when you want all the light the lens can gather to help brighten an optical viewfinder. That may not be necessary with an electronic viewfinder that brightens itself with exposure simulation. But, large aperture ultrawides often compromise on sharpness in the corners and/or have more issues with distortions and/or have a protruding, convex front element that preclude using standard filters on them.

That said, Tokina makes an AT-X Pro 11-20mm f/2.8 DX (crop/APS-C) lens that's pretty darned good. Unfortunately, I don't think they offer it in Sony E-mount. Most other ultrawide zooms for APS-C are f.3.5, f/4 or f/4.5 at most.... and are smaller, lighter, sharper, and cheaper as a result. But I don't see any of those for E-mount APS-C. (Canon and Nikon both have ultrawides that go to 10mm f/4.5 and even have images stabilization, for $300 or less.)

Maybe there are others elsewhere, but at B&H's website I only see one ultrawide zoom offerd for E-mount APS-C: Sony E 10-18mm f/4 OSS Lens for about $750. There are a few primes, though none with autofocus go as wide as 10mm. The widest avail. is a Zeiss 12mm f/2.8 that's rather pricey. If you're open to manually focused lenses, there are 12mm Samyang/Rokinon for E-mount/APS-C (same lens... you also may see it selling under the Bower brand name). Super wide lenses such as these naturally have very deep depth of field, making manual focus fairly easy to do. The Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 12mm are f/2 lenses, too... so a stop faster than the fastest zooms.

I don't know much about them, but am aware there are adapters that allow other system lenses to be used on Sony. I've heard those work pretty well, though of course they add some cost. If possible, that might make the affordable Canon or Nikon ultrawides mentioned above possibilities. In addition, Canon also has a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens that's excellent (about $600 new). Nikon also offers 10-24mm and 12-24mm lenses, though they are rather pricey (about $900 and $1100 respectively). Or you may be able to adapt third party lenses in Canon or Nikon mount, such as the Tokina 11-20mm mentioned above.

Hope this helps!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I would have a few reservations about Apache lenses...,

but their bead work, pottery and other craft work are world renowned. http://apache-tribe.weebly.com/arts-and-craft.html