Jump to content

Sony 16-25 G

Guest

By Guest
in Photography Gear and Technique

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • The title was changed to Sony 16-25 G
dentrock Reef Shark

dentrock

Posted
Posted

For those whose brains don't immediately conflate published focal lengths with FOV, it's 107 to 82 degrees. I had to dig far into the Sony website to find this...

While of interest to some, M43 and APS-C shooters will chuckle at reviewers touting this lens as "compact".

I'll stick with my Sony 10-20 APS-C shot in crop mode on my A7CR, using a 140 dome. 109 degrees...

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, dentrock said:

For those whose brains don't immediately conflate published focal lengths with FOV, it's 107 to 82 degrees. I had to dig far into the Sony website to find this...

While of interest to some, M43 and APS-C shooters will chuckle at reviewers touting this lens as "compact".

I'll stick with my Sony 10-20 APS-C shot in crop mode on my A7CR, using a 140 dome. 109 degrees...

The fov difference is minimal betwern 15.2 and 16 (sony aspc crop is 1.52)

and ot course very different performance between apsc crop and full frame from a sensor point of view

sony apsc at low ISO is quite respectable at high ISO is basically an MFT performance level

in terms of weight is 100 grans more than the PL8-18 that has however superior zoom range

7 cm radius dome is small for an APSC rectilinear lens I would like to see some pool shots but based on my experience you will be lagging far far behind any MFT APSC and full frame optics in 180mm dome with lenses that focus close as trade off for smaller size

dentrock Reef Shark

dentrock

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Interceptor121 said:

The fov difference is minimal betwern 15.2 and 16 (sony aspc crop is 1.52)

and ot course very different performance between apsc crop and full frame from a sensor point of view

sony apsc at low ISO is quite respectable at high ISO is basically an MFT performance level

in terms of weight is 100 grans more than the PL8-18 that has however superior zoom range

7 cm radius dome is small for an APSC rectilinear lens I would like to see some pool shots but based on my experience you will be lagging far far behind any MFT APSC and full frame optics in 180mm dome with lenses that focus close as trade off for smaller size

Couple of other points re Sony 10-20: internal zoom and focus (no extending); minimum focus is around 17cm AF (closer than advertised for some reason); PZ (must be short for painful zoom!) means you can actually zoom it with latest Sony FF bodies (not sure about 6700), although it's clunky. So don't need expensive zoom gear.

 

For my work (mainly small boat and survey work), a rig the size of the 180 port is a no-no and will get smashed. Not to mention I need to be able to tuck it under my arm and write on a slate.

 

I shoot almost everything at ISO 100.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, dentrock said:

Couple of other points re Sony 10-20: internal zoom and focus (no extending); minimum focus is around 17cm AF (closer than advertised for some reason); PZ (must be short for painful zoom!) means you can actually zoom it with latest Sony FF bodies (not sure about 6700), although it's clunky. So don't need expensive zoom gear.

 

For my work (mainly small boat and survey work), a rig the size of the 180 port is a no-no and will get smashed. Not to mention I need to be able to tuck it under my arm and write on a slate.

 

I shoot almost everything at ISO 100.

The lens MOD is 20 from the sensor plane

Take out 18mm flange distance and another 40-50mm for the entrance pupil you get a ideal radius of

200-45-18=137mm

This lens is likely to perform much worse with domes than the full frame 16-25G

You use is you are happy but that is not going to be the paramount of optical quality which is the camp where I sit

dentrock Reef Shark

dentrock

Posted
Posted

121, it's great that you are guarding the paramount of optical quality! Thanks! (Someone has to do it...)

 

This subject has been covered ad nauseam in previous threads (and on the old site), so I'll be brief:

 

1. EP for Sony 10-20 is 45mm from lens flange

2. With APS-C Nauticam NA6400 housing, using N85 to N120 34.7mm adapter and N120 140 dome, distance from sensor to dome is approx 129mm.

3. 140 dome is 70mm radius so if you allow say 1 x radius from the dome, you have 199mm. As you say, published MFD for 10-20 is 20cm (200mm) so in practice that means you can focus to approx 70mm from the dome.

4. As I stated, my copy focuses to about 17-18cm for some reason, and I can focus to about 50mm from the dome underwater. Good enough for me, and who wants to squish a subject against their dome anyway?

5. With my newly acquired FF A7RC, distance to dome is approx the same, using a 25 mm N100 to N120 adapter, as the sensor to housing flange distance is longer in the Nauticam A7RC compared to the A6400 housing, by approx 15mm.

 

The above satisfies the useful MFD requirements for a WA lens behind the 140 dome, at least for the Nauticam system.

Lenses with MFDs >20cm may work behind the 140 dome, but the resulting underwater MFD is too long to be of interest. This has become a problem (if you want to stick with a small dome) with zooms where the MFD is fine at one end, but too long at the other. The Sigma 18-50 is a perfect example.

 

Regarding the other important parameter (alignment of dome optical centre with lens EP), my measurements using these two setups put the alignment at +3mm for the A6400 rig and -2mm for the A7RC rig, which is as expected. (Minus means the port is to far out by that amount, which can't be fixed and is inconsequential anyway).

 

Now 121, you may not like these conclusions but frankly I'm done arguing about them, and anyway I am reporting my real world experiences, which may not be 'paramount' to some.

 

I'm not suggesting a FF Sony dude rushes out to buy the APS-C 10-20 mm lens, but it's a great option for Sony APS-C shooters. As I already own the lens, I see no reason to replace it with the Tamron 17-28, or in fact the new Sony 16-25, which both require the larger (180) dome.

 

Frankly, given the limited zoom range of these latter two lenses, I would prefer to use a decent closer-focusing wide prime, such as the Sigma 17 or new Laowa 10, if I want to use the full 60 megapixels... or the 20-70 if I could be bothered with the 180 dome (not at the moment).

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dentrock said:

121, it's great that you are guarding the paramount of optical quality! Thanks! (Someone has to do it...)

 

This subject has been covered ad nauseam in previous threads (and on the old site), so I'll be brief:

 

1. EP for Sony 10-20 is 45mm from lens flange

2. With APS-C Nauticam NA6400 housing, using N85 to N120 34.7mm adapter and N120 140 dome, distance from sensor to dome is approx 129mm.

3. 140 dome is 70mm radius so if you allow say 1 x radius from the dome, you have 199mm. As you say, published MFD for 10-20 is 20cm (200mm) so in practice that means you can focus to approx 70mm from the dome.

4. As I stated, my copy focuses to about 17-18cm for some reason, and I can focus to about 50mm from the dome underwater. Good enough for me, and who wants to squish a subject against their dome anyway?

5. With my newly acquired FF A7RC, distance to dome is approx the same, using a 25 mm N100 to N120 adapter, as the sensor to housing flange distance is longer in the Nauticam A7RC compared to the A6400 housing, by approx 15mm.

 

The above satisfies the useful MFD requirements for a WA lens behind the 140 dome, at least for the Nauticam system.

Lenses with MFDs >20cm may work behind the 140 dome, but the resulting underwater MFD is too long to be of interest. This has become a problem (if you want to stick with a small dome) with zooms where the MFD is fine at one end, but too long at the other. The Sigma 18-50 is a perfect example.

 

Regarding the other important parameter (alignment of dome optical centre with lens EP), my measurements using these two setups put the alignment at +3mm for the A6400 rig and -2mm for the A7RC rig, which is as expected. (Minus means the port is to far out by that amount, which can't be fixed and is inconsequential anyway).

 

Now 121, you may not like these conclusions but frankly I'm done arguing about them, and anyway I am reporting my real world experiences, which may not be 'paramount' to some.

 

I'm not suggesting a FF Sony dude rushes out to buy the APS-C 10-20 mm lens, but it's a great option for Sony APS-C shooters. As I already own the lens, I see no reason to replace it with the Tamron 17-28, or in fact the new Sony 16-25, which both require the larger (180) dome.

 

Frankly, given the limited zoom range of these latter two lenses, I would prefer to use a decent closer-focusing wide prime, such as the Sigma 17 or new Laowa 10, if I want to use the full 60 megapixels... or the 20-70 if I could be bothered with the 180 dome (not at the moment).

You can put any lens behind a small dome 

the issue is that the dead zone where the lens doesn’t focus also eats away the total range where the range does focus which means overall resolution loss

i can see the train of thought of many a7cr users that want to use apsc lenses to make a saving but my point of view is that you make a better saving buying an APSC camera and if you invest in proper ports actually beat the optical quality of a7cr and apsc lens with smaller ports

due to the small radius and incorrect distance you will be forced to small f numbers also on apsc crop which will then create a further IQ issue

i shoot rectilinear lenses at f/8 - f/11 on full frame

 

PS the entrance pupil of the PZ 10-20 is likely to be only 5-6mm from the housing you should attach the dome directly in otherwise you have pincushion distortion and you are loosing field of view. 35.5mm of the adapter are really going to be unhealthy

Edited by Interceptor121
Architeuthis Dolphin

Architeuthis

Posted
Posted (edited)

It would be interesting to see how the new Sony 16-25mm G behind 180 dome performs compared to the Tamron 17-28mm (it is difficult to image that the Sony, in real life, would perform significantly better than the very well performing Tamron; just a slightly different zoom range (unfortunately, the zoom ranges of both lenses is limited))...

 

 

For me, personally, the new Sony 16-25mm G does not have high priority, as I currently have more than plenty of lens choice for WA photos with my Sony A7R5:

 

adapted Canon 8-15mm fisheye (140mm dome), Tamron 17-28mm overlapping with Sony 20-70mm (170mm dome) and Sony 28-60mm (WACP-C).

On our recent trip to Providencia Island (Columbia) I left the Tamron 17-28mm at home, for weight/lugagge reasons...

 

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

It would be interesting to see how the new Sony 16-25mm G behind 180 dome performs compared to the Tamron 17-28mm (it is difficult to image that the Sony, in real life, would perform significantly better than the very well performing Tamron; just a slightly different zoom range (unfortunately, the zoom ranges of both lenses is limited))...

 

 

For me, personally, the new Sony 16-25mm G does not have high priority, as I currently have more than plenty of lens choice for WA photos with my Sony A7R5:

 

adapted Canon 8-15mm fisheye (140mm dome), Tamron 17-28mm overlapping with Sony 20-70mm (170mm dome) and Sony 28-60mm (WACP-C).

On our recent trip to Providencia Island (Columbia) I left the Tamron 17-28mm at home, for weight/lugagge reasons...

 

Wolfgang

You need to have something that you want to shoot with rectilinear lens and requires wide field of view to use the Tamron or the 16-35

From horizontal field of view the difference between the tamron and the wacp is not large. In fact the 16-35 is practically alternative.

The question is do you need rectilinear and do you want to pack your wide angle port

I am going to Grenada soon (wrecks) and I will pack both the fisheye and the 17-28 and 16-35 but not the WWL-1

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

Did you test the Tamron 17-50mm f/4 yet, Massimo?

 

The zoom range would be great, but the reviews say it is, optically, a less than average lens (se e.g. here: https://opticallimits.com/sony/tamron-17-50mm-f-4-di-iii-vxd-review/)...

 

Wolfgang

No I was put off by the review. 

There are not many uses cases between 17-50mm for me

Although I have a 16-35mm I don't shoot much at 35mm and 50mm is still fairly short

Frankly even the 24-70mm is too short. 24mm is ok but to do close up 100mm would be better unfortunately there are no lenses that fit that use case.

17-28mm is good for wrecks, divers and sharks and is my default lens even compared to the 16-35GMII I quite like the idea of dedicated lenses for underwater use. With canon 8-15 sony 28060 and tamron 1728 I get just that.

The only lens that is used in both cases is the 24-70GMII however the use case is really very rare nothing to worry about

dentrock Reef Shark

dentrock

Posted
Posted
On 4/20/2024 at 5:39 PM, Interceptor121 said:

PS the entrance pupil of the PZ 10-20 is likely to be only 5-6mm from the housing you should attach the dome directly in otherwise you have pincushion distortion and you are loosing field of view. 35.5mm of the adapter are really going to be unhealthy

45 EP - 28 (lens flange to housing flange distance) does not give 5-6 !

 

Check your maths...

 

45-28=17 required extension.

 

But I am using 25mm adapter (not 35.5) with A7CR which naturally provides 25mm extension.. 

 

25-17 = 8mm excess extension..

 

But the height of 140 port is 63-64mm with radius of 70mm,  so difference is 6-7 which is a required extension.

 

So 8 minus 6-7 gives a mis-alignment of approx 1-2mm excess extension. Pretty darn good.

 

If as you say in the other post, radius is 69mm, alignment is close to perfect!

 

Or in practical terms, no extension required, for this lens, this port and 25mm adapter.....

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I read from the focal plane 

25mm adapter (very expensive item)

would be just a tad long 

Now from your own numbers you would be 133mm from the sensor plane the lens focuses at 200mm you are 67mm off

with a radius of 69 you have only 140mm of working range. This set up wont focus on the dome and wont be sharp in the distance with near targets even at f/22 which defeats the objective of a small set up

but then of course this is your personal take on this you can do what you like 

its a case of ‘the lens works’ aka produces some sort of image 

dentrock Reef Shark

dentrock

Posted
Posted

 

17 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

read from the focal plane 

25mm adapter (very expensive item)

would be just a tad long 

Now from your own numbers you would be 133mm from the sensor plane the lens focuses at 200mm you are 67mm off

with a radius of 69 you have only 140mm of working range. This set up wont focus on the dome and wont be sharp in the distance with near targets even at f/22 which defeats the objective of a small set up

but then of course this is your personal take on this you can do what you like 

its a case of ‘the lens works’ aka produces some sort of image 

As I already said, lens focuses from about 50mm in front of dome, which is fine for CFWA. Infinity focus no probs too.

Enough of your nonsense.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, dentrock said:

 

As I already said, lens focuses from about 50mm in front of dome, which is fine for CFWA. Infinity focus no probs too.

Enough of your nonsense.

It is data a dome infinity is 3x the radius the lens only works at very close range and many wide angle lenses are particularly poor at close range 

 

Try some close up shots with something in the distance and see it for yourself 

obviously the level of quality required depends on the operator 

Edited by Interceptor121
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Thanks for your support

    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo
    Logo Logo

     

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.