Review on 📷 Sony SEL-20F28 E-Mount 20mm F2.8 Prime Fixed Lens: Unmatched Precision and Versatility by Audrey Ortiz

Wow, this lens is way better than the 16mm (SEL-16F28). I know because I had the 16mm but I sold it after getting this one. The 20mm lens is much sharper, better built and offers a good and versatile field of view. It also includes two adapters sold for 16mm (the wide-angle adapter I had for 16mm turns 20mm into 15mm; and the fisheye, which I don't have yet but am considering buying). In case anyone is interested, I have NEX-6 and A6000. I have most "budget" Sony E-mount lenses: 20mm with wide-angle adapter; 30mm macro lens (a good lens if you can get one for a good price), 35mm prime lens (one of my favorite lenses for its field of view and sharp, high-quality images); 50mm prime (good lens, especially for portraits with good bokeh) a 16-50mm PZ kit lens (which I take along with my 20mm lens when I want to travel light, but I always have still have some zoom on hand because it takes good shots but not great ones as you can see (tried the primes); manual zoom 55-210 (long range, good and clear shots, quite bulky but I bought it for only $150 so can't complain) and a 18-105 PZ "G" lens (which is an excellent lens wear if you don't mind its relative bulk - it's long and wide but not too heavy). I've also tried Sigma lenses (19 and 30mm) but thought "they would be fine if they weren't so cheap (scratch easily) and so bulky and if they had OSS." So I got them anyway sent back at the lower price. I also tried over the weekend but decided against buying the Sony 10-18 and 16-70 zooms and the Zeiss Touit 32mm. They're made of quality materials and take great pictures, but for a relative boost in image quality compared to much cheaper lenses, I feel they're overpriced. I'm sure someone will want to quote. Image tests and pixel comparisons to discuss my opinion on this 20mm lens and/or expensive Zeiss lenses, but I just think that this 'mirrorless' range of medium format cameras really doesn't need lenses that are that expensive. I recognize that there is a small market for these lenses; They are intended for people who are willing to spend 2-3 times the money for "something better" (this is how Sony pays off the investment in developing lenses that relatively few will buy). If you really want to take it a step further, I suggest you ditch the APS-C range altogether and buy one of the latest "A7" full-frame cameras and one of the expensive full-frame lenses available for them. If you invest 4 times as much money, you can see some better pictures (ceteris paribus). But going from APS-C to full screen means you're not at all on the same level to use a catchphrase. I can say all this with confidence because photography is a hobby for me, not a job. I don't shoot for National Geographic (I'd love to see myself doing it with my A6000 and one of my wandering lenses, but I'm not a delusional person). I'm happy with the two Sony APS-C cameras I have. I use and adapt to their relative merits. The extensive collection of E-mount lenses I own covers pretty much every situation I can get myself into as an amateur. Also, I bought all of my lenses for about 60 cents on the dollar (another hobby of mine is bargain hunting). The 20F28 lens is a very good lens. I bought it here at Revain as "new but sold refurbished" for about 40% off his offer. For the money it's really great as a small general purpose lens (ie both close-ups and landscapes are very good). It's smaller, faster, and sharper than the standard zoom; It also costs a lot more than a walzoom. I would add that my 18-105 "G" lens at 20mm takes a noticeably better picture (sharper, better contrast, less aberrations) than this fix, but then the zoom is only f4.0 (minimum over its entire range ), then as a prime number - f2.8, and this is 1/10 of the magnitude. That's why I keep both in my lens bag. I hope this long nonsense helps someone decide whether or not to buy this lens. If not, hey, it was free to read. World.