Which wide angle lens should I buy for my a900

[kuau]

This is my first post to this forum.
I am going to be buying a a900 and the 24-70 2.8 CZ lens to start.
I would also like to get the new 16-352.8cz lens but i am concerned about the reports of CA at wder anlges especially when doing landscapes.
Any thoughts about a fixed 21mm lens? Doe sony even offer one that works well with the a900?
Thanks
Steven

[David Kilpatrick]

Welcome Steven! Sony makes a very good 20mm f2.8 which is former Minolta glass rebadged. It is about as good as the 16-35mm, but costs a fraction of the price.

CA is really no issue. You just need the right raw converter, and Lightroom will do fine. CA is the result of the three primary channel colour being slightly different sizes of image, aka lateral colour aberration. The correction modules resize R, G amd B selectively under your control until they align. If all three images are dead sharp (as they are with the 16-35mm) you get a perfect end result. If they are soft, as with the 16-105mm SAL DT, you lose the CA but of course you never get the same crisp image at the edges.

David

[kuau]

Thanks David, so are you saying that the new 16-35mm cz lens is not having a problem with CA? or are you saying that it can easily be corrected in LR?
and you also like the 20mm 2.8 from sony.

Steven

[lattiboy]

I actually did a wee little writeup on the Sigma 15-30mm EX DG IF not too long ago:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =27&t=1853

It's around $350-400 used and performs exceptionally well on the A900. I'm quite positive the Zeiss is better in almost every regard, but it's worth checking out some less (like 4x less) expensive options before spending that cash on the 16-35mm.....

[Dr. Harout]

A welcome from me too, Steven.

[David Kilpatrick]

Thanks David, so are you saying that the new 16-35mm cz lens is not having a problem with CA? or are you saying that it can easily be corrected in LR?
and you also like the 20mm 2.8 from sony.

Steven

All three - it has no more problem with CA than any comparable lens, even the Nikon 14-24mm does show CA and benefits from a correction in LR/ACR. The Sony is more like the Canon 16-35mm MkII design in terms of distortion, corner sharpness and illumination but unlike the Canon it is sharp. If you shot JPEGs you might see CA in some conditions, just the same as you would with the 16-80mm CZ on APS-C.

I am using the 17-35mm f/2.8-4 KM D lens. It cost me almost nothing (one tenth of the price of a new CZ 16-35) and at f11 you can't tell them apart. I am also using the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. I have used this lens many times, and going back to my raw file archives, I see that the copy I had when using it with a Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c was extremely unsharp across one half of the entire frame. I got one for the Sony on test loan in November, and it turned out to by perfectly sharp corner to corner - no misalignment or decentering. I bought it because it's the best 12-24mm I have had apart from one I tested in Sigma SA/SD fit back in 2003 with the Sigma SD9 and a full frame Sigma film camera.

I second the possibility of the Sigma 15-30mm as an alternative to the 16-35mm, and I don't agree that it will necessarily be 'worse' than the CZ - but getting a good one is the challenge, as Sigma sample variability is greater than Sony CZ.

David