p.25 #1 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I also prefer 10 or 12 straight blade sunstars but this stuff is actually very subjective just like bokeh rendering... The surprise for me was the lack of flare ghosting which I was expecting a ton for such a lens. The negative for the Sigma in respect to sunstars is that one would need to stop the lens down to very small apertures. (just like with other lenses with rounded blades)
The use of filters is definitely a pain but there are great options out there being with a large front filter (NiSi, Haida, Fotodiox) or a ridiculously small gel rear filter. I think it's worth the trouble because it's the best ultra wide zoom ever made, challenging and in most cases exceeding our best primes in IQ....Show more →
No question the lens has many great attributes. I was just bemoaning the lack of things I want. I know I am hard to please, lol. The issue with stopping down to F16 or smaller is diffraction so for sun star fans there is no free lunch with this lens. I know there are filter solutions, but they are not small and the lens is already large. I guess I wish there were a Loxia or CV 15 or so but maybe it is not possible or not profitable enough to develop. The rear gel filters seem to have coloration issues from what I have seen, but perhaps that will get solved.
p.25 #3 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Luvwine wrote:
No question the lens has many great attributes. I was just bemoaning the lack of things I want. I know I am hard to please, lol. The issue with stopping down to F16 or smaller is diffraction so for sun star fans there is no free lunch with this lens. I know there are filter solutions, but they are not small and the lens is already large. I guess I wish there were a Loxia or CV 15 or so but maybe it is not possible or not profitable enough to develop. The rear gel filters seem to have coloration issues from what I have seen, but perhaps that will get solved. ...Show more →
I agree that sunstar rendering is a negative unless shooting with very small apertures. (And still not as good as CV or Loxia for my taste)
I'm planning on using my CV 21/3.5 under backlight situations with the sun in the frame but for scene that requires a wider FL, I would not hesitate using the zoom and taking a separate capture at f/22 (to avoid diffracting the entire image) just for the sunstar for a later composite in post.
For me, the Sigma 14-24 is mainly a landscape/nightscape lens where resolution, contrast, CA correction, flare resistance and low coma are the most important features. On the A7R4, I don't think there is better zoom lens and our best primes in the 14-17mm range can't match it either.
p.25 #4 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
You could always create various starbursts in photoshop by using your Loxia starburst as a luminosity selection and paint it in.
Luvwine wrote:
No question the lens has many great attributes. I was just bemoaning the lack of things I want. I know I am hard to please, lol. The issue with stopping down to F16 or smaller is diffraction so for sun star fans there is no free lunch with this lens. I know there are filter solutions, but they are not small and the lens is already large. I guess I wish there were a Loxia or CV 15 or so but maybe it is not possible or not profitable enough to develop. The rear gel filters seem to have coloration issues from what I have seen, but perhaps that will get solved. ...Show more →
p.25 #6 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree that sunstar rendering is a negative unless shooting with very small apertures. (And still not as good as CV or Loxia for my taste)
I'm planning on using my CV 21/3.5 under backlight situations with the sun in the frame but if the scene requires a wider FL, I would not hesitate using the zoom and taking a separate capture at f/22 (to avoid diffracting the entire image) just for the sunstar for a later composite in post.
For me, the Sigma 14-24 is mainly a landscape/nightscape lens where resolution, contrast, CA correction, flare resistance and low coma are the most important features. On the A7R4, I don't think there is better zoom lens and our best primes in the 14-17mm range can't match it either....Show more →
Very interesting, Fred. Were you able to find some old test images for comparison from the Sony 16-35 2.8 GM?
p.25 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
chiron wrote:
Very interesting, Fred. Were you able to find some old test images for comparison from the Sony 16-35 2.8 GM?
I've been hesitant to post this comparison because it was not captured under similar lighting and this Sony 16-35/2.8 GM was not the best copy I've seen. (high variation with the GM zoom)...But it's the only one I found so far; Both lenses at 16mm and f/5.6 and focused at center.
Keep in mind that the GM crop is from the A7R3 and the Sigma is from the R4...
p.25 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've been hesitant to post this comparison because it was not captured under similar lighting and this Sony 16-35/2.8 GM was not the best copy I've seen. (high variation with the GM zoom)...But it's the only one I found so far; Both lenses at 16mm and f/5.6 and focused at center.
Keep in mind that the GM crop is from the A7R3 and the Sigma is from the R4...
Thanks, Fred. The difference in the cameras, lighting, and copy variation does make it hard to interpret, as you said. But the direction of quality difference, if not the degree, seems able to be inferred.
p.25 #12 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've posted previously that I will be testing 6-stop and 10-stop ND gel filters soon.
They are the Kodak Wratten 96 ND gels.
Aren't the Kodak Wratten filter real gelatine filter and therefore extremely sensitive to any moisture or wetness? Or has this changed and they are now also polyester? Last time I used them was about 20 years ago.
p.25 #13 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Bobu wrote:
Aren't the Kodak Wratten filter real gelatine filter and therefore extremely sensitive to any moisture or wetness? Or has this changed and they are now also polyester? Last time I used them was about 20 years ago.
Boris,
Gel filters is what fits on the Sigma real slot. Anything thicker than that would not even slide into the slot.
p.25 #14 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
Boris,
Gel filters is what fits on the Sigma real slot. Anything thicker than that would not even slide into the slot.
Yes, I know. But Gel filters from Lee are not made of Gelatine but are Polyester based, while Kodak Wratten filters were made out of real Gelatine, at least 30 years ago if I remember correctly. And real Gelatine is very sensitive to moisture. That's why I asked.
p.25 #15 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Bobu wrote:
Yes, I know. But Gel filters from Lee are not made of Gelatine but are Polyester based, while Kodak Wratten filters were made out of real Gelatine, at least 30 years ago if I remember correctly. And real Gelatine is very sensitive to moisture. That's why I asked.
It seems they have at least slightly improved the robustness of their filters. But according to several sources on the net they still have problems with humidity and temperatures above 50°C. Here is another description I found on the net which doesn't sound very promising:
I'm really interested in your experience with the Kodak Wratten filters. Especially how they compare to the Lee filter foil (both optically and regarding robustness).
p.25 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've been hesitant to post this comparison because it was not captured under similar lighting and this Sony 16-35/2.8 GM was not the best copy I've seen. (high variation with the GM zoom)...But it's the only one I found so far; Both lenses at 16mm and f/5.6 and focused at center.
Keep in mind that the GM crop is from the A7R3 and the Sigma is from the R4...
Hi Fred, are you seeing that 16 mm on the GM is equivalent to 14.6 mm on the Sigma, per your comparison? Is the Sigma that far off in terms of actual FL?
p.25 #19 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
chiron wrote:
Thanks, Fred. The difference in the cameras, lighting, and copy variation does make it hard to interpret, as you said. But the direction of quality difference, if not the degree, seems able to be inferred.
Despite the camera/condition differences, I think you can assess degree pretty well too because the centers are very similar, but increasingly as you move towards the corners the Sigma shows a clear advantage.
p.25 #20 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
Despite the camera/condition differences, I think you can assess degree pretty well too because the centers are very similar, but increasingly as you move towards the corners the Sigma shows a clear advantage.
Maybe, but as Fred said, the 16-35 GM he was using was not the best copy, suggesting decentering. And the differences in the colors are hard to interpret. But the general trend does seem clear.
The surprise for me was the lack of flare ghosting which I was expecting a ton for such a lens. The negative for the Sigma in respect to sunstars is that one would need to stop the lens down to very small apertures. (just like with other lenses with rounded blades)
