How much flatter is this one vs the 16mm 2.8?
931351
I returned an SEL16 and got an SEL20 instead. I would guess the SEL20 is 1 - 2mm thinner than the SEL16. When some people report the SEL20 is thicker, they are counting a removable plastic lens hood that comes included with that lens. this detailed review describes both lenses:http://kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_20mm_f_2_8id345.html
931352
As far as I can tell they are the same housing size. This one has upgraded optics compared to the 16mm.
931353
It is just a little bit thinner (a few mm) but that's not a big deal. The main difference is that the 20 mm lens is better optically.
931354
I returned an SEL16 and got an SEL20 instead. I would guess the SEL20 is 1 - 2mm thinner than the SEL16. When some people report the SEL20 is thicker, they are counting a removable plastic lens hood that comes included with that lens. this detailed review describes both lenses: http://kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_20mm_f_2_8id345.html
1354146
It depends on how close you're talking about. 17mm isn't extremely wide like say a 10mm but it should unless you're standing really close to them. With any focal length running in that range you're still apt to get the occasional focal distortion such as rounded edges. To me it's still maybe my favorite lens that I've ever owned.
1827617
These are two wonderful lens. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Lets start with the f/4 IS. You have great IS capable of shooting sharp images up to to four stops without a tripod. However, you will not be able to stop the action in low light because of the F/4 aperture. IS fixes the shakes from your hands, it has no effect of freezing action in low or dim light. You could raise your ISO, but then you have to worry about noise. The weight of the F/4 will be much more comfortable around your neck than the f/2.8 because it weighs almost half as much. The price of the f/4 is another factor. Its around $500.00 bucks cheaper. The f/2.8 IS is a beast that will produce fantastic images but you are going to pay a price for it. It's heavy and you need to have deep pockets. On the other hand if sports is your thing and creating fantastic images with great bokeh than why not splurg and get what you really want. Are you shooting indoor sports? You should probably consider the f/2.8. Either way you are going to spend some money and you might as well get the one that is going to fit your needs. To sum up if you are shooting indoor sports i would go with the 2.8. If not the f/4 will not dissappoint you.
182582
It is 2.8 at 50mm and 3.5 at 200.The scale is fairly linear - it is about f3.0 at 135mmSharpest at f4 and still quite sharp wide open.
1345652
The 24-70 f2.8 is a better lens for sure, and much more expensive. But this lens is VERY good, and will do a fine job for weddings.
2103069
Yes! I have both these lenses and i think it's so much better than the 35mm 1.8. Plus i use it with the Metabones SpeedBooster on my BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera and it's Killer!!!
524085
If you are buying the one in the photos then no!! Their should be a d after the 2.8 on the lens
1037323
I'm not sure if I understand your concern of DOF issue with 1.8, but you can always change your aperture to 8~9 and it will show details of your back-ground. But If I were you I would take a 18-200mm instead. covering wide to fairly good zoom unless you are planning to do dark inside building pics. That's just my 2 cents.
1820412
The 1.8 is similar in build quality to the kit lens--probably a slight bit below the XSI kit. If you're happy with the kit lens, you should be happy with the 1.8.There's a reason why 93% of the reviews here are 4 or 5 stars--this lens takes great pictures. For $80, what do you have to lose?
52211
This is the difference in the fixed lenses on the unit. 2.8mm gives you the widest view and is generally the most common, 12mm gives a zoomed in image. So if you are putting the cameras in a tight room go with the 2.8 if you want to see down a long hallway or view far away go with a higher one.
809688
The 56 mm is a sharper lens, especially stopped slightly down from its maximum f/1.2) but you are really buying the 56 mm for the gorgeous results when it is shot wide open - something that the 18-55 (while still an excellent lens) just cannot do.
323361
I don't have the 28mm 1.8 but borrowed it before my purchase of the 24mm 1.4. It's a very good lens that is much lighter and obviously cheaper than the 24 1.4. The advantage of the 24 is obviously the extra stop of light or so. The 24 also was somewhat sharper than the 28(to my eyes), especially stopped down equally. You can't go wrong with either. Just depends on your price point and needs.
208235
The SEL16F28 is not any wider angle than the stock 16-50 zoom lens, but there are a few differences. First off, the lowest f-stop on the stock 16-50 lens is 3.5 while this SEL16F28 goes to an f-stop of 2.8, which gives you a bit more control of your light. Another key difference is that if you want to use the ultra-wide angle or fish-eye attachments (both of which give a wider angle view) they connect to this SEL16F28 lens and not the stock zoom one. The biggest difference is that shooting with a prime, or non-zoom, lens is that it forces you to shoot differently and move yourself into position rather than relying on the zoom to get you there. All the Best, adam
678611
It depends of the use of the lenses, the 2.8 is much better and for small quantities of pictures you can handle the lenses, but for a continuos use the best option for this lenses is a monopod.
1789339
14mm f/2.8L is a "fish eye" type of lens...then, your choice...the glass is a masterpiece...I did never use 16-35mm f/2.8L II, but it is providing some zoom flexibility...
1199562
Looks about 8" at 16mm and 4" at 300mm. Loving the lens so far BTW had been using the Canon 18-200EFS and the Tamron is WAY faster focusing with my 60D.
766703
Decent, but not as good as the 14-24mm f/2.8 Having one stop better means the difference between ISO 6400 or ISO 12800. It could mean the difference between 1/15th of a second and 1/30th of a second. I think the purpose of this lens is more of landscape than a low light performer.