Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) vs Sony E 16mm F/2.8
Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) vs Sony E 16mm F/2.8
When comparing Sony E 16mm F/2.8 and Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2), which one is better?
1. Compare weight
The lens that weighs the least of the two is Sony E 16mm F/2.8 which weighs 67 g, compared to the loser Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) which weighs 4700 g.
Winner: Sony E 16mm F/2.8
Regarding weight: When it comes to the lens's weight, it's actually more important than many people think that the lens weighs as little as possible — it's simply a pain to lug around a lens that's too heavy when you're photographing or filming for several hours, and a few hundred grams can make a real difference.
2. Compare minimum focusing distance
When it comes to minimum focusing distance, that is how close to the subject the lens can focus, Sony E 16mm F/2.8 is the winner with a minimum focusing distance of 24 cm. This can be compared with the minimum focusing distance of 99.1 cm for Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2).
Winner: Sony E 16mm F/2.8
Regarding minimum focusing distance: The lens's minimum focusing distance determines how close you can photograph your subject, such as a face or an animal. If the minimum focusing distance is 50 cm then you cannot get closer to your subject than 50 cm. Macro lenses often have a very low minimum focusing distance so that you can take close-up shots (macro photography).
Specifications
Full specifications table of Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) and Sony E 16mm F/2.8:
| Panavision AWZ2 (Anamorphic Wide Zoom 2) | Sony E 16mm F/2.8 | |
 |  | |
| Brand | Panavision | Sony |
| Weight | 4700 g | 67 g |
| Mount | Missing | Sony E |
| Focal Length | 40 - 80 mm | 16 mm |
| Largest Aperture | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| Anamorphic Lens | Yes | No |
| Minimum Focusing Distance | 99.1 cm | 24 cm |
| Type | Zoom | Prime |
| Filter Thread | Missing | 49 |
| Stabilization | Missing | No |
| Covers a Full Frame Sensor? | Missing | No |