I'm on a roll.
Since I had a comparison setup in place, I thought I'd take a look at the recently acquried Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN E and see how it compared against a Sony 16mm f/2.8 E-mount lens. The two lenses share a somewhat fast aperture, are nearly the same focal length, and sell for similar prices. Could the performance be similar too?
The comparison setup didn't change.
My observations include the obvious. Either the 16mm Sony is really awful or the Sigma 19mm is absolutely brilliant. Differences between the two lenses should be clear. To me, the Sigma is the superior optic from wide open and across the entire field.
Since I had a comparison setup in place, I thought I'd take a look at the recently acquried Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN E and see how it compared against a Sony 16mm f/2.8 E-mount lens. The two lenses share a somewhat fast aperture, are nearly the same focal length, and sell for similar prices. Could the performance be similar too?
The comparison setup didn't change.
- Sony A6000 camera, ISO100, "A" mode, "standard" image style settings, shot in RAW format
- Big sturdy Manfrotto tripod
- Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN E shot at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8
- Sony 16mm f/2.8 E-mount shot at f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8
- RAW images converted to jpg at 100percent quality using Sony's software - no image adjustments were made at the time of conversion
- 600x600pixel segments were taken out of each file - no adjustments to the image were made during the cut/paste process
My observations include the obvious. Either the 16mm Sony is really awful or the Sigma 19mm is absolutely brilliant. Differences between the two lenses should be clear. To me, the Sigma is the superior optic from wide open and across the entire field.
No comments:
Post a Comment