![]() Although the Sigma is visibly larger, it is also worth pointing out that it is very lightweight for this type of lens. This makes sense though, as the Sony, which is classified as a pancake lens, has fewer optical elements and a slower maximum aperture of f/2.8. ![]() If size and weight are important to you, one of the first differences you’ll certainly notice is just how much smaller and lighter the Sony lens is in comparison to the Sigma. To know more about our ethics, you can visit our full disclosure page. ![]() If you buy something after clicking the link, we will receive a small commission. Within the article, there are affiliate links. We were not asked to write anything about these lenses, nor were we provided with any sort of compensation. *There is also a third 16mm prime for the E-mount, the Samyang Rokinon 16mm f/2 manual focus lens.Įthics statement: We were provided with a sample of the Sigma 16mm and bought the Sony 16mm for our personal use. Since we had both the Sigma and Sony in for testing at the same time, we decided to put them head-to-head to find out just what the differences are between them! The Sigma isn’t the first 16mm lens for Sony APS-C however.* In fact, one of the oldest primes for the system is the E 16mm f/2.8, an inexpensive pancake lens haunted by something of a mixed reputation. This is why the announcement of the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, with its 24mm equivalent field of view and fast maximum aperture, was such breath of fresh air for E-mount users. The Sony APS-C range has faced some neglect as of late due to much of Sony’s focus being funnelled into lens development for the extremely popular full-frame FE system.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |