Sony 14mm vs 28-60?

[stuartv 32]

I just read @Phil Rudin's review in the latest UWPMag of the Sony 14mm lens, with a Zen 230mm dome, for WA.

Any thoughts on how the image quality from that would compare to using the same Sony camera with the Sony 28-60 lens and the WWL-1?

His article says the 14mm lens gives a 114 degree FOV. And the WWL-1 setup gives 130 degrees, I think. So, the kit lens and WWL-1 is wider?

What is one better at versus what the other is better at?

[waterpixel 66]

Not a direct answer to you but I have almost all of the sony wide angle combos possible (on A7III)

1.  28-60 + WWL-1
2. 15mm Sigma + dome (& extension)
3. 16-35 + dome (& extension)
4. 18mm (Batis) + dome (& extension)

The 1. has the highest corner to corner sharpness / Image quality of all of the above and it is the most well balanced and compact rig. I am extremely happy with it.

The 14mm would be nice if you shoot mostly inside of wrecks or if you want a very wide split shot but for any other aspects, I would go for 1. or 2. Maybe if I go in Maldives and want to take pictures of distant sharks then I will chose the 16-35 (or break the piggy bank for a WACP).

Edited September 8, 2021 by waterpixel

[j0rd1l0p3z 3]

hi @waterpixel,

Why will you pick the 16-35 for distant sharks? Isn't the 28-60 with WWL-1 giving a bit more zoom range? Or is there another reason?

thanks

 

jordi

[waterpixel 66]

2 hours ago, j0rd1l0p3z said:

hi @waterpixel,

Why will you pick the 16-35 for distant sharks? Isn't the 28-60 with WWL-1 giving a bit more zoom range? Or is there another reason?

thanks

 

jordi

The 28-60 with WWL 1 is wider at the longer end than the 16-35 (probably would be "similar" to a 21mm from a diagonal °) so the 16-35mm is the tightest of the two at 35mm. Also the WWL-1 has some barrel distortion, some may not like it for sharks (although not as strong as Fisheye).

When popping the WWL-1 off, the 28-60 would be suboptimal at the wider end (it sits behind a flat port, not a dome), you'd lose a lot of corner sharpness vs. a 16-35 + dome but I have not tried this. If it's shooting in the blue, I guess it wouldn't be too important.

Thank you for opening my eyes there

Alex

Edited September 8, 2021 by waterpixel
typo

[stuartv 32]

8 hours ago, waterpixel said:

Not a direct answer to you but I have almost all of the sony wide angle combos possible (on A7III)

1.  28-60 + WWL-1
2. 15mm Sigma + dome (& extension)
3. 16-35 + dome (& extension)
4. 18mm (Batis) + dome (& extension)

The 1. has the highest corner to corner sharpness / Image quality of all of the above and it is the most well balanced and compact rig. I am extremely happy with it.

The 14mm would be nice if you shoot mostly inside of wrecks or if you want a very wide split shot but for any other aspects, I would go for 1. or 2. Maybe if I go in Maldives and want to take pictures of distant sharks then I will chose the 16-35 (or break the piggy bank for a WACP).

 

Thank you for that.

Questions:

Why do you say the 14 might be nice inside of wrecks? If the WWL setup is wider, it seems like that would be preferred inside a wreck.

Otherwise, your post reinforces my feeling that the WWL setup is the way to go.

But, I would still like some thoughts on how the WWL setup compares to the Sony 14 + 230mm. Does the Sony 14 combo eliminate the corner weakness issue that comes with the Sigma 15mm (vs the WWL1)? I suspect not.

Regarding shooting sharks, that is my primary focus (ha ha!). I find that if the shark is too far away for the WWL1 combo, then it is also too far away for my strobes to properly illuminate.

If I'm shooting ambient (VERY rare), and I need a tighter frame, I will put the camera in APS-C crop mode. That is one of the things I love about shooting the a7rIV. I can do that and still get a 26MP image to work with. Or, more likely, I will not change the camera setting and will crop in post to the 26MP (or however many I want) image. Same result. Either way, I suspect it gives me a frame that is as tight or tighter than Full Frame through the 35mm lens and dome.

[stuartv 32]

2 hours ago, waterpixel said:

The 28-60 with WWL 1 is wider at the longer end than the 16-35 (probably would be "similar" to a 21mm from a diagonal °) so the 16-35mm is the tightest of the two at 35mm. Also the WWL-1 has some barrel distortion, some may not like it for sharks (although not as strong as Fisheye).

When popping the WWL-1 off, the 28-60 would be suboptimal at the wider end (it sits behind a flat port, not a dome), you'd lose a lot of corner sharpness vs. a 16-35 + dome but I have not tried this. If it's shooting in the blue, I guess it wouldn't be too important.

Thank you for opening my eyes there

Alex

 

Even if you're shooting in the blue, you're trying to get the subject to fill the frame as much as possible, right? And corner softness also means some softness at the middle edges, too, right? So, even in the blue it sounds like the 16-35 would be preferable to the 28-60 through a flat port. No?

[ChrisRoss 150]

10 hours ago, stuartv said:

 

Even if you're shooting in the blue, you're trying to get the subject to fill the frame as much as possible, right? And corner softness also means some softness at the middle edges, too, right? So, even in the blue it sounds like the 16-35 would be preferable to the 28-60 through a flat port. No?

It depends - the issues are being caused by different problems.  The 16-35 in the dome has poor corners if the camera is not stopped down enough to bring that part of the virtual image into focus.  Once it reaches acceptable sharpness it's good to the centre. 

For the zoom behind flat port you have progressive chromatic abberation and distortion that gets worse from the centre all the way to edges. So yes at the wider end of the lens it is quite possibly worse than a 16-35.

Plus the lenses are not directly comparable anyway - the 28-60 behind a flat port is effectively a 35 - 75 due to the magnification from the flat port. so that also means you need to shoot through more water and probably out of strobe range - but it depends on the size of subject you are shooting and how close they want to swim to you.  The range 28-maybe 40mm behind the flat port is probably going to be sub-optimal due to the abberations.  In full frame the shortest macro lens generally used is 50-60mm partly due to min focus distance concerns but image quality concerns are there as well.

[Phil Rudin 426]

In regard to the original question of Sony FE 14mm F/1.4 v. FE 26-60 plus WWL-1/1B the 28-60 would be the winner with WWL-1 and even better with WACP-1. The FE 14mm can also be used with WACP-2 which would provide the ultimate in image quality for underwater and for splits. 

Like most things photographic the final selection will factor-in cost, weight, system size and more.

Like Waterpixel has noted  and disregarding FF fisheyes I have used the 230mm dome port with a verity of FF lenses including several 24mm's, 20mm's, Batis 18 and Rokinon 18, FE 12-24 F/4 & F/2.8, FE 16-35 F/4 & F/2.8, Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 with Sea & Sea correction filter, Rokinon 14mm F/2.8 and a few more.

Of the fixed lenses I like the FE 14mm F/1.8 the best and of the zooms I like the Tamron 17-28 F/2.8.

I have also used the Sony FE 28-60, with WWL-1 and 1B, WACP-1 and several closeup lenses. I have also tested these lenses on cameras from A7C 24MP to A7R IV 61MP, I have also tested the A7R IV in APS-C mode, 26MP and A1 APS-C 21MP. The switch to APS-C is a single button push and extends the focal length of the lens by 1.5X's, so longer than the 16-35 at the 35mm end but with less resolution. 

Like many on this site I use my equipment above water as well as underwater so the 14mm F/1.4 was an investment I made with above water use in mind. The 28-60 is a lens that would never be my first, second or third choice above water. 

Also since I can't afford the WAPC-2 the 14mm is now my go to lens for splits with the 230mm dome port. 

I also would not spend the $2000.00 plus for the Sony FE 16-35mm F/2.8 because it is not a lens I would have a lot of use for above water. The Tamron 17-28mm F/2.8 is far better than the Sony FE 16-35mm F/4 and has the advantage of a 67mm filter thread size also used on the 28-75 and 70-180 zooms as well as several fixed tamron lenses.

I find the WWL-1B which I own very easy to travel with along with the 90mm macro. I own fisheye lenses including the Sony A 16mm F/2.8, Canon 8-16mm and have tested others but use them sparingly for my personal work.

Thanks for reading my review and I hope you continue to follow uwpmag.com.