Allie

I have a dilemma. Regarding purchasing a landscape lens for my Sony a6000 “travel camera”, am torn between Sigma 16mm 1.4 and Sony 35mm 1.8. Which would be more useful in low light situations, considering that the Sigma although faster is about 9 oz. heavier and does not have image stabilization, while the Sony is lighter and has the stabilization? Price is comparable. Thanks for your opinion.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Knowing who makes Sony lenses, that would be my choice. That fraction of an f-stop isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. You can always compensate for that stop difference with adjustment of your ISO.
--Bob

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

I agree with Bob.
I would say that in most situations the difference between 16mm and 35mm would be more significant to base your decision that the minimum aperture of each lens.

davesit Loc: Media, PA

The difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is about 2/3 f-stop. It might not sound like much, but if you are in a low light situation, the difference might determine if the camera could autofocus or not. Both lenses received excellent reviews, so image quality is probably not very different.

The big question is rather 16mm vs. 35mm. The angles of view are 2x. I suggest you think about what kind of landscape you'll be shooting and decide. I try to use a tripod for most landscape shots since sharpness is top priority, so VR is less of a factor for me for wide angle lenses.

BebuLamar

The difference in aperture is not significant. But the 35mm is a slightly longer than a normal lens while the 16mm is consider ultrawide angle. So your choice should be based on these and I imagine the 16mm is much more expensive.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Seems to me a 35mm lens on a crop camera is about "normal". Most prefer something wider for landscapes. A 16mm gives a FOV of a 24mm on a full frame. Is this where you want to be? Possibly. VR or IS or whatever is not too important at these focal lengths

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What no one has considered so far is actual light transmission measured in tStops vs aperture measured in fStops. It about the efficiency of light transmission. Two lenses with the same aperture of say f/1.4 may have different tStop measurements. Some f1.8 lenses will let in almost as much light as some f/1.4 lenses, and few lenses let in as much light as their widest aperture suggests. DXOMark's measurements highlight these differences.

As an example, my Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM lens has a tStop of 2, equal to it's maximum aperture, while a lens like the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 has a tStop of 2.1, meaning that although it is supposedly a faster lens and should let in 1/3 of a stop more light than the Canon, it actually lets in a bit less light than my lens. Of course light transmission is only one characteristic of a lens that you should be looking at, but if low light performance is paramount, it should not be disregarded.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Sony makes a 16mm f2.8 pancake lens. I agree that 35mm on a a6000 is a "normal" lens. I personally prefer at least a 24mm equivalent for landscape. You may wish to check out the Venus Optics Laowa 15mm Zero-D f2 or the Venus Optics Laowa 12mm f2.8 Zero-D. They offer near 0 distortion. FYI, I have no problem shooting the MilkyWay with f2.8 lenses.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

What kind of landscape shot are you wanting to take?

50mm lens on full frame (equiv. to 33.33mm on APS-C)...


20mm lens on full frame (equiv. to 13.33mm on APS-C)...


The 20mm lens shot was taken from slightly farther away and is cropped top and bottom for a more "panoramic" look.

The 50mm shot was taken from a little closer and is cropped a little on the sides for printing to 8x10.

In neither case did I need anywhere close to f/1.4 or f/1.8. In fact, the 20mm lens was shot at f/6.3 and the 50mm at f/9. Landscape shots are a lot more commonly stopped down, almost never shot with a wide open lens. In fact, the 20mm lens' max aperture is f/2.8 and the 50mm's is f/1.4. Not that it matters. I could have used f/4 or even f/5.6 lenses for both shots. "Slower" lenses are often smaller, lighter, less expensive AND sometimes even sharper across the entire image area.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Good points - the only time I find that I personally need a very fast wide/ultra wide lens shooting wide open or nearly so is at night such as shooting the Milky Way, but others may have different applications.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

With today's high ISO ratings, the difference just is not there anymore to justify the price.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Most landscape photographers tend towards a longer focal length lens in order to minimize perspective distortions and volume anamorphosis, the later being more severe with ultra-wide lenses and more difficult to correct for in post processing. Your choices are not difficult - the 35 is more of a "normal" lens than the 16.

You don't get a fast lens to shoot in dark settings even if it is something you can do. Most of the benefit comes from shifting the optimum aperture for sharpness fom F5.6-F8 down to F4 -F5.6. Shooting an F1.4 lens wide open often results in images that are less than optimum because the lens' faults are more visible (stopping down does help), and the shallow depth of field.

I consider ultra wide lenses extremely useful for certain situations, but if your goal is to "get it all in" when presented with a wide scene, the best results are usually achieved by stitching two or more images together. Using a very wide lens in landscape mode usually results in a lot of sky and foreground and tiny stuff in the distance, as well as huge and completely out of scale elements in the foreground. It is a special purpose lens and should not be used as an all purpose lens. But that's my personal opinion. You can do what you want. Old timers like myself used to use a motorized camera that had a lens that rotated about a vertical axis to take in a wider view. The digital/software solution is cleaner and easier.

JDG3

I have both these lens for my Sony A6400 and both are excellent. I agree with others here that the apertures of each is secondary to the focal lengths of each. Both when matched with the Sony camera have excellent low light capabilities.

I like to use the Sigma for urban or street photography, it is very sharp and gives a very good field of view for people shots and short distance shots of markets, buildings etc. across varying lighting situations. I really like this lens.

The Sony 35 mm is also excellent but is probably a little better suited for wider spaces. And being stabilized it is probably better suited for an all around general purpose lens and is a perfect match for the Sony A6000. Plus, it is lighter and smaller than the Sigma.

I do not own nor have any plans for a zoom lens for my Sony camera. I prefer prime lens and these are 2 of the best for the Sony A6xxx cameras in my opinion. I also have the Sony 50 mm which is also an excellent lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It seems that the real choice is between 16mm and 35mm. The difference in aperture is insignificant, except that the smaller the aperture, the higher the price and the greater the weight. Do you want a very wide angle lens or a not-so-wide angle lens?