p.26 #3 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
Good for you!
I learned my lesson from the 12-24mm with these bulbous wide zooms. I'm still sitting on filters and holders for that lens that cost more than the Tamron did
p.26 #5 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
vdo1 wrote:
Makes me wonder... when filters are needed, what would yield better results, Tamron + good quality glass front filter, or Sigma + gelatin rear filter?
The latter. (off-axis)
I don't see any compromise in IQ when using the Lee 4-stop gel. If one needs 6 or 10 stops + polarizer, I would suggest getting 150mm front filters.
p.26 #6 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
The latter. (off-axis)
I don't see any compromise in IQ when using the Lee 4-stop gel. If one needs 6 or 10 stops + polarizer, I would suggest getting 150mm front filters.
The other thing that bugs me with bulbous lenses (I have the 12-24) is the protection of the front element. A good percentage of ND usage cases involve water, and a front ND will also take the (sometimes salty) mist or spray or droplets. You’ll rub and clean it many times and when it becomes degraded you’ll just buy another. The front element of the lens though is a quite expensive job to replace, better not to have to rub it too often. Guess the 150mm filters would be the best choice nearby water.
Tamron 17-28 and Sony 16-35 owners rejoice, you have none of these problems.
p.26 #7 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
vdo1 wrote:
The other thing that bugs me with bulbous lenses (I have the 12-24) is the protection of the front element. A good percentage of ND usage cases involve water, and a front ND will also take the (sometimes salty) mist or spray or droplets. You’ll rub and clean it many times and when it becomes degraded you’ll just buy another. The front element of the lens though is a quite expensive job, better not to have to rub it too often. Guess the 150mm filters would be the best choice nearby water.
Yes, it's the price we pay for shooting 12-14mm. Whenever shooting near a waterfall or at the beach, it think it would be a good idea to get a 150mm UV filter.
p.26 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
nhsonyshooter wrote:
I learned my lesson from the 12-24mm with these bulbous wide zooms. I'm still sitting on filters and holders for that lens that cost more than the Tamron did
If you are talking about the Nisi S5 system, you can of course use the same filter you used for the Sony 12-24 on other lenses like the Sigma zoom. You only need to change adapter, which is not too bad at $160 (BH). I used my 150mm Nisi CPL/ND64 first on a Sony 12-24, then Sigma 14/1.8, and now the Sigma zoom. So for me it's been an excellent investment.
In fact my change-over cost in going form Sony to Sigma zooms was $0 in terms of filters because instead of waiting for a new adapter for the Sigma zoom when it was first released, I managed to modify my Sony 12-24 adapter to work with it instead. The lens diameter is only slightly smaller for the Sigma, but it did require a little dremel work to eliminate any vignetting.
p.26 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it's the price we pay for shooting 12-14mm. Whenever shooting near a waterfall or at the beach, it think it would be a good idea to get a 150mm UV filter.
I suspect the coatings on high-end modern lenses are pretty resilient. My main subject is seascapes (and my second most common subject is waterfalls) and I have no issues shooting my best lenses without filters. I just make sure I clean them after every shoot. Never been a problem.
p.26 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
vdo1 wrote:
The other thing that bugs me with bulbous lenses (I have the 12-24) is the protection of the front element. A good percentage of ND usage cases involve water, and a front ND will also take the (sometimes salty) mist or spray or droplets. You’ll rub and clean it many times and when it becomes degraded you’ll just buy another. The front element of the lens though is a quite expensive job to replace, better not to have to rub it too often. Guess the 150mm filters would be the best choice nearby water.
Tamron 17-28 and Sony 16-35 owners rejoice, you have none of these problems....Show more →
But wait...those lenses would need filters too. The difference is that they use 67-82mm filters instead of 150mm. They can be all rounded.
p.26 #11 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
One argument against using 150mm filters near water (including in the rain) is that the increased surface area (compared to lens alone) means you are more likely to get drops of water in your shot. Can be quite a pain when you're tying to get clean focus stack sequences. Unfortunately when it's wet is precisely when you are most likely to need a polarizer.
May be another reason to hang on to my Loxia 21 with its nice small front element.
p.26 #12 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
If you are talking about the Nisi S5 system, you can of course use the same filter you used for the Sony 12-24 on other lenses like the Sigma zoom. You only need to change adapter, which is not too bad at $160 (BH). I used my 150mm Nisi CPL/ND64 first on a Sony 12-24, then Sigma 14/1.8, and now the Sigma zoom. So for me it's been an excellent investment.
In fact my change-over cost in going form Sony to Sigma zooms was $0 in terms of filters because instead of waiting for a new adapter for the Sigma zoom when it was first released, I managed to modify my Sony 12-24 adapter to work with it instead. The lens diameter is only slightly smaller for the Sigma, but it did require a little dremel work to eliminate any vignetting. ...Show more →
Back when I had the 12-24 (great lens by the way) I used those style of filters and did have adapters for other lenses. That said I have since abandoned those style of filters all together because I can do a better job in LR/PS blending. I only use Polarizers and ND now , no need for graduated filters in 2019. And the simple fact is I was annoyed with the size of the adapters and filters. Plan out your kit right and you can save alot of space with regular circular with step down rings.
p.26 #14 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
But wait...those lenses would need filters too. The difference is that they use 67-82mm filters instead of 150mm. They can be all rounded.
The round ones are easier to operate IMHO, also it makes it easy to have an UV filter at all times. Thinking of city / street shooting where the Tamron would look much less conspicuous than 12-24 + Nisi holder with UV filter. Yes, you can get dirt or water in the city too, many cities have nice fountains to take pictures of. And keep a distance from kids, I once got ice cream droplets from one that was trying to clean up his hand full of melted ice cream by shaking it lol.
Back to the Sigma, I guess the rear holder is useful in those scenarios where you use the same ND filter continously for a long time, e.g. install it in the hotel room then go out taking long exposures “to make people disappear” for the next hours or so. Changing rear filters is similar to the dreaded “changing lenses” operation, so if you need to change them often, then the Nisi looks like the better option.
I’m not bashing Sigma here, I’m in the same boat with my 12-24....
p.26 #15 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
scalanc2 wrote:
Why do you need ND?
Multiple exposure are not Better?
Smooth Reflections app does multiple exposures and is great but there will be cases like wave action, light trails, etc which work better with ND filters. Also, while shooting in rain or at falls that splash its faster to get the shot with ND before water gets on the lens.
p.26 #16 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Back when I had the 12-24 (great lens by the way) I used those style of filters and did have adapters for other lenses. That said I have since abandoned those style of filters all together because I can do a better job in LR/PS blending. I only use Polarizers and ND now , no need for graduated filters in 2019. And the simple fact is I was annoyed with the size of the adapters and filters. Plan out your kit right and you can save alot of space with regular circular with step down rings.
The Nisi CPL/ND64 I'm referring to is not graduated. It's a solid 6 stop ND (and CPL). I had assumed you would be using solid NDs with your Nisi system, because as you say grads are not needed these days.
p.26 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
This reason and the fact that I can use it in my Outex housing is why I have a Canon 16-35/4 and the Sigma 14-24/2.8. Especially around the ocean I will never use the Sigma. Much easier using the canon 16-35.
I only ever use Grads at the ocean too. No need for grads for the sigma.
Also lens sharpness is also far less important when photographing by the ocean, as most things are moving.
rvh23 wrote:
One argument against using 150mm filters near water (including in the rain) is that the increased surface area (compared to lens alone) means you are more likely to get drops of water in your shot. Can be quite a pain when you're tying to get clean focus stack sequences. Unfortunately when it's wet is precisely when you are most likely to need a polarizer.
May be another reason to hang on to my Loxia 21 with its nice small front element.
p.26 #18 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
scalanc2 wrote:
Why do you need ND?
Multiple exposure are not Better?
In addition to the fact that NDs give smoother results with shutter speeds that are less than a few seconds, if you are focus stacking like I usually am, it's much more convenient to have the smoothed results in single frames.
p.26 #19 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
TakenWild wrote:
Also lens sharpness is also far less important when photographing by the ocean, as most things are moving.
Perhaps a tripod will help?
More seriously though, I look for the sharpest lenses I can get specifically to use them along the coast. I love the contrast they offer between smoothed water and sharp details in rocks and shore line.
p.26 #20 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Sigma 14-24/2.8 is capable of well defined sunstars at f/16, f/18 and f/22.
Sunstars have 22 points and IMO look nice.
Here are a few from a quick test I did today. Excuse the high ISO as the lens was handheld.
What surprised me was the lack of ghosting flare. NONE!
