p.21 #3 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
TBH Ive tried a few versions of this lens now and they have all been bang on. Maybe Ive been just lucky but there has been very few times I have been this lucky with lens samples! So my takeaway so far is that its not too difficult to get a good one.
ftllens wrote:
I'm pretty convinced after the flare resistance. That was my only concern since my Sigma 40 still suffered from it. Just have to find a good copy now.
p.21 #4 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
Would you say that the ND64+CPL rotated to the strongest polarization has more than 6-stops?
Usually polarizers have about a 2-stop light loss.
The 6 stops is inclusive of average CPL effect. Difference between min and max CPL is about 2/3 stop.
Regarding the S5 vs 82mm version of this filter, it turns out a different CPL film has to be used to accommodate the larger filter size.
p.21 #7 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
photomadnz wrote:
TBH Ive tried a few versions of this lens now and they have all been bang on. Maybe Ive been just lucky but there has been very few times I have been this lucky with lens samples! So my takeaway so far is that its not too difficult to get a good one.
Wow, if you are talking about all 4 far corners being sharp wide open over the whole zoom range, that's not my experience at all. It took me 4 copies to get a reasonably good one when assessed like that. Stopped down to 5.6 and beyond on the other hand they were all great. Several others have commented on similar experiences in this thread. It seems to be pretty common for the long end to be a bit decentered.
p.21 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
So, perhaps if CPL is at min. strength we still get about 5 stops?
No, I meant that at average strength it looks to be about 6 stops from my quick tests. Min strength would be about 1/3 stop less, max strength 1/3 more.
p.21 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
Wow, if you are talking about all 4 far corners being sharp wide open over the whole zoom range, that's not my experience at all. It took me 4 copies to get a reasonably good one when assessed like that. Stopped down to 5.6 and beyond on the other hand they were all great. Several others have commented on similar experiences in this thread. It seems to be pretty common for the long end to be a bit decentered.
Roger at LensRentals mentioned that Sigma lenses have the lowest copy variation from all brands. They actually test them during assembly!
My experience with Sigma has been outstanding. I tested two 45/2.8 E-mount lenses and they were both identical and perfectly centered. Same for their 35/1.2 Art and 14-24/2.8. Perfect centered copies at first try. The zoom was a surprise since I usually go through many copies to find one performing well at all FLs.
p.21 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have a great copy of the FE 24/1.4 GM (same one used for this review) but I feel that at the Sigma 14-24/2.8 beats it at center, mid and extreme corners (very slightly though)
Keep in mind that 24mm is the zoom's weakest focal length. This is just remarkable that a zoom at its weakest FL, produces similar to one of our best primes. I also like the zoom's color rendering and contrast better than the GM prime. What do you think? Same settings for both lenses. (Daylight WB)
Here are the crops at 1:1 for the center, mid-field and extreme corners. (A7R4 @f/5.6)
PS: Both lenses focused at center. (without re-focusing for the other areas)...Show more →
Yep, totally agree it's a remarkable lens. I would say the first wide zoom that stopped down a little (~6.3 optimal) truly matches IQ from any prime in its entire zoom range. I love its lack of CA too, noticeably better than the gold standard Loxia/CV 21s.
p.21 #11 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Looking at it's mtf charts, i knew i would like this lens, but simply beating primes at it's weakest focal length, wow. This lens is so good, that i'm like what can Z-mount advantage get more out of it? I don't see it.
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_14_24mm_f2_8_dg_dn_review/sample_images these images are clean, sharp, contrasty, colourful, and that at 60mp size. And you still win 344 gram weight compared to DSLR. This lens (and 35mm F1.2) is one of biggest reasons i'm leaning way more toward Sony then nikon z7. I also don't think function button can work, nor AF as fine, once sigma makes one fir nikon, cause of reverse engineering.
Thanks Fred for the tests. This actually also proves for me the A7RIV isn't a bad choice, just some lenses, need to be updated, simple as that. The 100-400mm GM is tacksharp at 60mp (tested it at a7r4 demo last week), same for this sigma (by your test and link i gave). In fact this Sigma makes lens choice easier then ever: Skip any sub 24mm prime, skip 24mm GM for later when budget allows (but still want it), get Sigma 14-24mm absolutely first. With wat Roger says about how hard 14-24mm lens is to make, i'm all the more impressed.
p.21 #12 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
I’d say my Loxia 25 is a hair sharper than my sigma 14-24. But it is really weight, filters and flare resistance why I would would choose between them.
p.21 #13 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
I have a great copy of the 12 - 24G. I like shooting at 12, so I won't likely trade it for the Sigma 14 - 24, but gosh does it look a great lens. I am jealous. If I had a lesser ultra wide selection then I'd trade up without hesitation.
p.21 #14 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Matti6950 wrote:
Looking at it's mtf charts, i knew i would like this lens, but simply beating primes at it's weakest focal length, wow. This lens is so good, that i'm like what can Z-mount advantage get more out of it? I don't see it.
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_14_24mm_f2_8_dg_dn_review/sample_images these images are clean, sharp, contrasty, colourful, and that at 60mp size. And you still win 344 gram weight compared to DSLR. This lens (and 35mm F1.2) is one of biggest reasons i'm leaning way more toward Sony then nikon z7. I also don't think function button can work, nor AF as fine, once sigma makes one fir nikon, cause of reverse engineering.
Thanks Fred for the tests. This actually also proves for me the A7RIV isn't a bad choice, just some lenses, need to be updated, simple as that. The 100-400mm GM is tacksharp at 60mp (tested it at a7r4 demo last week), same for this sigma (by your test and link i gave). In fact this Sigma makes lens choice easier then ever: Skip any sub 24mm prime, skip 24mm GM for later when budget allows (but still want it), get Sigma 14-24mm absolutely first. With wat Roger says about how hard 14-24mm lens is to make, i'm all the more impressed....Show more →
Same here. I knew this lens would be special just by looking at their MTF graphs and Sigma is one of the few brands I trust the numbers.
There are plenty great options from 18mm until 24-25mm but we didn't have anything outstanding for the 14-17mm and this zoom delivers on 60MP. The Sony 12-24 comes close but imo the Sigma is better even without comparing them side by side. I have compared many primes to the Sony so I have a good idea of how it performs. Color rendering and flare resistance is also superior on the Sigma imo.
This performance also comes with a very compact size for a 14-24mm f/2.8 and the very good coma performance wide open, makes it a great choice for nighscapes as well. For landscapes, the only thing missing is defined sunstars which is only great at f/22. (A separate capture at f/22 may be needed and combined in post...or carry another lens just for that)
The rear filter slot was a nice surprise to me. It's actually the first time I tried gel filters and it actually performs great. It's so thin that it does not alter the lens field curvature. Under cold weather, wearing gloves or under heavy wind, it would be frustrating to play around with gel filters though. So, under this scenarios I would just keep a 3 or 4 stop inside the lens and just add more captures for a stack averaging. Polarizing filters would be more challenging to use.
That's when front filters come in handy!
p.21 #16 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have a great copy of the FE 24/1.4 GM (same one used for this review) but I feel that at the Sigma 14-24/2.8 beats it at center, mid and extreme corners (very slightly though)
Keep in mind that 24mm is the zoom's weakest focal length. This is just remarkable that a zoom at its weakest FL, produces similar to one of our best primes. I also like the zoom's color rendering and contrast better than the GM prime. What do you think? Same settings for both lenses. (Daylight WB)
Here are the crops at 1:1 for the center, mid-field and extreme corners. (A7R4 @f/5.6)
PS: Both lenses focused at center. (without re-focusing for the other areas)...Show more →
I sold my 24GM after getting the Tamron 17-28. Stopped down, I found the Tamron to be a little sharper overall. The real strength of the 24GM is wide open, which I rarely use.
p.21 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Well I bailed but I'm still in doubt to be honest. I bought a Batis 18 but I can return it. My CV 12 did not sell so I kept it and bought the 18 along with 24 so really I'm set. This is intriguing and so is the Tamron . Has anyone run side by sides with the two zooms. Lot of options here.
p.21 #18 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have a great copy of the FE 24/1.4 GM (same one used for this review) but I feel that at the Sigma 14-24/2.8 beats it at center, mid and extreme corners (very slightly though)
Thanks Fred, remarkable findings. It seems like every few months, another new lens comes along and blows everyone away (the 24/1.4, CV 21/1.4, this new Sigma.)
And now, the fact that we're talking about a Zoom being competitive with the finest primes in its range is really kind of mindblowing.
p.21 #19 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
pdmphoto wrote:
The Tamron 17-28 does a great job at 17mm.
---------------------------------------------
pdmphoto wrote:
I sold my 24GM after getting the Tamron 17-28. Stopped down, I found the Tamron to be a little sharper overall. The real strength of the 24GM is wide open, which I rarely use.
I am impressed by the Tamron 17-28's resolution and contrast at center and mid-field areas. It challenges all my best primes.
However, the corners do not perform as good but it matched the CV 15/4.5 III corners at 17mm. (The zoom's best FL)
Still a high IQ and compact/light zoom.
p.21 #20 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
goto_dengo wrote:
Thanks Fred, remarkable findings. It seems like every few months, another new lens comes along and blows everyone away (the 24/1.4, CV 21/1.4, this new Sigma.)
And now, the fact that we're talking about a Zoom being competitive with the finest primes in its range is really kind of mindblowing.
You're welcome!
I'm not surprised that a modern zoom with 18 elements can deliver better resolution/contrast across the field for its optimized focal length, compared to a prime with less elements. What I found surprising was the Sigma's performance at 24mm (weaker FL) compared to one of our best primes. It's not only on-par in regards to resolution and contrast but also has much better CA correction and lower astigmatism. (one of the reasons for the higher resolution)
