Best (fast) lense for Sony Alpha 7III?

Hi everyone,

I am going to buy a Sony Alpha 7III soon and I am looking for a good wide angle lens. I also want to buy an Ikelite housing for this camera. Ideally I want to use this lense also for landscape and astrophotography, so it should be at least f2.8. I nailed it down to the following lenses:

1. Tamron 17-28 f2.8
2. Tamron 15-30 f2.8 (Ikelite supports only G1 without zoom)
3. Sigma 14-24 f2.8  (Ikelite doesnt support zoom)
4. Sigma (or Sony GM) 14 f1.8

Unfortunatly I can't find any underwater review to any of those lenses ( I found one for the Tamron 17-28 at UwP but I can't open the pdf file), so I am interested in how they perform in terms of sharpness in the corners, since this is an issue with rectilinear lenses..
Does any one has a recommendation or maybe some experience with one of those lenses?

Regards,

Eike

I have reviewed both the Tamron 17-28 F/2.8 and the Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 for Underwater Photography magazine issues#119 and #122.

The Tamron is far better than the Sony FE 16-35mm F/4 and about on par with the Sony FE 16-35mm F/2.8 GM. The Sony FE 14mm F/1.8 is a no brainer over the Sigma. 

If you sign-in with your E-mail and go to the back issues you will also find my reviews for the Sony A7 III and several Ikelite housings. You need the largest eight inch dome for best results with both lenses or a 230mm if you go with another housing brand. If you are buying all new equipment you may also want to consider the newly released A7 IV it is better in just about every way over the A7 III.

when you go to back issues enter my name Phil Rudin in the search engine and you can find the reviews more easily. 

Thank you for the fast answer!

I'd really like to read those reviews but I am already signed in for UwP and unfortunatly I can't open the pdf files.There comes always an error that the files are broken..

Does Ikelite support Sony lenses? I did not see any in their lens chart.

But good to hear, that the Tamron 17-28 performes well under water, since it is the most budget friendy option. I would love the Sony 14mm 1.8 for astro, but this almost breaks my bank. If it would perform as good underwater (and fits in an Ikelite housing) I would think of buying this lens.

Thats why I don't go for the A7 IV. So it looks like the Tamron 17-28 is a good compromise for all my needs.

Ikelite Sony A7R III, A7 III, A9 Underwater Housing, 200DL   $1,795.00

Sony FE 28mm F2                                                                       $449.99

I shoot the FE 50mm F1.8 as a solid midrange - mostly underwater portrait shots. Very fast focus!

What are you interested in shooting underwater?  The 17-28 performs well UW but has more limited application than some other lenses.  There have been other threads discussing the 14mm lenses, the summary is that for decent corner performance a 230mm dome is needed and Ikelite's biggest dome is an 8" (200mm).  A wide angle lens in a dome has problems bring the curved virtual image in a dome into focus, a larger dome as well as stopping down to f11-16 range on full frame is necessary.

Underwater I am interested in shooting reefscapes and pelagics. Because I also want to use the lens for landscape and astro I thought about a preferably wide focal length (at least 20mm). So right now I have to decide if want to spent that much money for the Sony 14mm or if the Tamron does the job. What kind of limited application has the lens?

Zeiss Batis 18 is absolutely fantastic for astro, I can confirm this (and reviews have also done this).

I sometimes use it UW with a 8.5 acrylic dome (+20mm extension) - love it for UW photo while freediving.

4 hours ago, hoffmaei said:

Underwater I am interested in shooting reefscapes and pelagics. Because I also want to use the lens for landscape and astro I thought about a preferably wide focal length (at least 20mm). So right now I have to decide if want to spent that much money for the Sony 14mm or if the Tamron does the job. What kind of limited application has the lens?

Most people gravitate towards a fisheye lens for reefscapes, you can get a lot closer and don't have to stop down quite so much to get sharp corners.  Fisheyes are also useful for big animals, however some like sharks may not get close enough for the fisheye and people then gravitate towards something like the Tamron lens you are talking about or a 16-35 lens.  Another typical application for a rectilinear lens is wrecks where you might want to keep straight lines straight.  You might find the 14mm a bit wide for pelagics if they don't come in close.   The rectilinears are also not as good with CFWA shots compared to a fisheye lens.

If you are doing reefscapes then you certainly want sharp corners, much less of an issue for pelagics with blue water in the corners.

If you wanted to use the 14mm for reefscapes you would probably want it in a 230mm dome,  some people complain about corner quality of 16-35 lenses (at 16mm) in 230mm domes and only find them good enough when used with the Sea & Sea correction lens.  Everyone's standards vary of course and it would depend on how much you were prepared to compromise to use a single lens for all purposes.  Here is an example of corner issues with a 17mm lens in a 170mm dome at f8.  It would be an improvemnet with an 8" (200mm) dome and also stopping down to f11 -13 will also improve things".  If you scroll to the bottom you will see a crop from a 17mm lens with a 200mm dome at f11. 

https://uwaterphoto.com/?p=839

The Tamron 17-28 will be perfect for my needs I guess. Together with the Sea&Sea Internal Correction lens the edges are sharp enough for me.

Thank you for your detailed information, this helped me a lot!