The new Sony A7R III has a 42 megapixel sensor and both a really good resolution and overall photo quality. But it is also challenging the lenses.

So far, there is only one ultra-wide angle lens for Sony, FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM, which has an aperture of f/2.8. Is it the choice to go for landscape astro photography? How would the FE 12-24mm F4 G or Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS perform in comparison?

Intended use is shots of landscapes at night, for example the milky way over a mountain, with a lot of landscape and a lot of sky in the image.


There is only one wide angle lense from Sony, FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM

You may actually learn how to read catalogs. Because there are MORE wide angle lenses. Note that for Full Format Wide Angle is anything BELOW 50mm.

I have a good 28mm, plus adapters to make it wider.

There also is a 28-135, which covers quite a lot of wide angle too (all under 50mm). Then there is a 24-70 (again, good part wide angle)

Then we have the Sonnar 35mm. Then a 24-105.


Seriously, saying there ONLY is a 16-35 is not really showing that you know the definition of wide angle.

is it the choice to go for landscape astro photography?

Depends what you shoot. I have shot Landscape with 85mm at times - not everything is about "wide angle" and sometimes you have something that is a little further than you want ;)

Astro is generally tricky - StarEater (google is your friend) is still there, so other cameras are better. Especially with removed Sensor filters. Not sure something like this: http://noctilove.co.uk/astro-modification-guide/ even exists for Sony. And that is hobby - you want to make good astro, this looks more like it... https://www.digitalrev.com/article/the-d5500a-cooled-is-the-most-insane-astrophotography-mod-camera-ever

But generally, what is Astro? Shooting the sky? Or actually mounting the camera on a telescope? Not a lot of wide angle then. No actualy a lens ;)

  • Coming from APS-C and used to the crop factors, I am still confused by wide-angle and ultra-wide-angle. I added some detail to my question. Thank you for hints. – this.myself Apr 18 '18 at 12:58
  • Also, thank you for the links to the mods. But this is far beyond what I want to do. – this.myself Apr 18 '18 at 13:30
  • 2
    Where did you ever get the idea that anything below 50mm is wide angle? The diagonal of the 135/FF format is only 43mm, so anything longer than 43mm is certainly not WA! The general consensus for "wide angle" with 135 film was around 28mm or shorter. 28-70mm was considered "normal", and over 70mm was considered "telephoto." In the digital age, 24mm seems to have replaced 28mm as the line between WA and normal fo FF cameras. – Michael C Apr 18 '18 at 18:45
  • 2
    Not to mention that the question specifies Ultra wide angle, not Wide angle. UWA is generally considered about 18mm or wider for FF cameras. You may actually learn how to read questions before you answer them. – Michael C Apr 18 '18 at 18:49
  • Still true. I think I have a fisheye adapter for the 28 ;) Makes this a second UWA. – TomTom Apr 18 '18 at 19:24

You can buy a lens adapter and use DSLR wide angle lens on your camera , i think it should work will.

you can find a guide of how to use or buy which adapter in this site : ULTIMATE GUIDE TO SONY LENS ADAPTERS

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.