p.35 #2 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
BTW I got a WonderPana for my 12-24 but more important these filters are quite large Im using a Peak Design Field pouch for it and really nice fit. My return hit today hopefully I get a great copy early next week. The Sigma is not off my radar, Im still paying attention to it.
p.35 #3 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
GMPhotography wrote:
BTW I got a WonderPana for my 12-24 but more important these filters are quite large Im using a Peak Design Field pouch for it and really nice fit. My return hit today hopefully I get a great copy early next week. The Sigma is not off my radar, Im still paying attention to it.
Unfortunate that you got a bad one. I'll keep my fingers crossed for the next one to be good!
p.35 #5 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
After trading in some lesser used glass, I have one about to be delivered this weekend.
Since Fred mentioned it's easy to cut out a lot of those rear filters from one sheet: In actual use, how frequently do you need to replace them? Just trying to get a sense of the economics here, compared to getting the NISI converter and the CPL plus NDL filter.
p.35 #6 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
vdo1 wrote:
They should make a polarizer too. You would then just rotate the camera to the desired effect. And crop in post.
[/just kidding; I am fully aware that this negates the whole point of an UWA lens haha; but after reading so much about how you should use the GM 24 in crop mode, I couldn't resist it ]
No one ever said "should" we said "can". Big difference
p.35 #7 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Yesterday my 14-24 arrived and I did a quick test today. At 14mm centering is nearly perfect, at 18mm and 24mm still very good.
Compared to my (very good) Sigma 1.8/14mm @f/2.8 the 14-24 has slightly better corner sharpness and in addition no midzone sharpness dip at all (which the 1.8/14 has).
Compared to my Batis 18mm @f/2.8 the 14-24 has much better sharpness at the exteme corners but slightly less center sharpness/microcontrast/3D. I would probably still prefer the 14-24 image over the Batis wide open.
Stopped down the difference between these three (top-notch) lenses can be neglected.
This is definitely the best lens at 14mm I've ever seen.
I'm extremely impressed by this new 14-24 and will sell my 1.8/14 and maybe even the Batis 18 (if the Aurora/Haida/Nisi rear filters work on the 14-24 without inducing FC).
p.35 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
As others had already reported: 24mm is the weakest point of this lens. I will probably use it as a 14-20mm zoom and use my Loxia 21 and Loxia 25 above 20mm.
p.35 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Bobu wrote:
Yesterday my 14-24 arrived and I did a quick test today. At 14mm centering is nearly perfect, at 18mm and 24mm still very good.
Compared to my (very good) Sigma 1.8/14mm @f/2.8 the 14-24 has slightly better corner sharpness and in addition no midzone sharpness dip at all (which the 1.8/14 has).
Compared to my Batis 18mm @f/2.8 the 14-24 has much better sharpness at the exteme corners but slightly less center sharpness/microcontrast/3D. I would probably still prefer the 14-24 image over the Batis wide open.
Stopped down the difference between these three (top-notch) lenses can be neglected.
This is definitely the best lens at 14mm I've ever seen.
I'm extremely impressed by this new 14-24 and will sell my 1.8/14 and maybe even the Batis 18 (if the Aurora/Haida/Nisi rear filters work on the 14-24 without inducing FC)....Show more →
Thanks for these comments. I had the 14/1.8 previously but didn't get a chance to compare compare the two directly. I had the feeling the zoom at14mm was slightly better in the corners at f2.8, but wondered about performace at around f5.6 where the 14/1.8 was very impressive. Also, when I had the 14/1.8, center sharpness was phenomenal. Do you think the zoom is as good in that area?
p.35 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
Thanks for these comments. I had the 14/1.8 previously but didn't get a chance to compare compare the two directly. I had the feeling the zoom at14mm was slightly better in the corners at f2.8, but wondered about performace at around f5.6 where the 14/1.8 was very impressive. Also, when I had the 14/1.8, center sharpness was phenomenal. Do you think the zoom is as good in that area?
I think in the center there is no real difference between the two lenses, stopped down and wide open (which says a lot about how good this zoom is). Here a two 100% center crops, both shot at f/5.6:
Compared to the Batis 18, the center sharpness of the Batis is slightly better than the 14-24 at nearly all apertures, but not in the corners, even stopped down.
p.35 #13 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Bobu wrote:
I think in the center there is no real difference between the two lenses, stopped down and wide open (which says a lot about how good this zoom is). Here a two 100% center crops, both shot at f/5.6:
Compared to the Batis 18, the center sharpness of the Batis is slightly better than the 14-24 at nearly all apertures, but not in the corners, even stopped down.
Thanks for the center shots. Perhaps they are within test-retest, and there may also be some copy variation, but to me your zoom here actually looks sharper than your 14/1.8. In any case, both are remarkable lenses that currently outperform anything else at this focal length. It will be interesting to see how long it takes Zeiss (or perhaps Voigtlander) to come up with a 15mm mirrorless lens as good as either of these.
p.35 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
Thanks for the center shots. Perhaps they are within test-retest, and there may also be some copy variation, but to me your zoom here actually looks sharper than your 14/1.8. I
I agree. Actually to my eye, and it may just be this individual test shot that's the issue mind you, the 14/1.8 looks pretty bad. Maybe it's just the comparison to the much better 14-24 shot that makes it appear so, but the 14/1.8 shot is definitely lacking here.
p.35 #18 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Aztatlan wrote:
I agree. Actually to my eye, and it may just be this individual test shot that's the issue mind you, the 14/1.8 looks pretty bad. Maybe it's just the comparison to the much better 14-24 shot that makes it appear so, but the 14/1.8 shot is definitely lacking here.
If you have a look at the MTF curves at lensrentals for the Sigma 14/1.8 you'll see performance in the center is remarkable. In Roger's words: "this lens is getting scary good in the center at f/2.8"
p.35 #19 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
If you have a look at the MTF curves at lensrentals for the Sigma 14/1.8 you'll see performance in the center is remarkable. In Roger's words: "this lens is getting scary good in the center at f/2.8"
Yeah, I know the lens is a strong performer normally, so I'd tend to think that the sample crop provided here is either slightly misfocused or a bad copy. Or perhaps the 14-24 just looks so much better that the 14/1.8 looks bad in comparison
p.35 #20 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Aztatlan wrote:
Yeah, I know the lens is a strong performer normally, so I'd tend to think that the sample crop provided here is either slightly misfocused or a bad copy. Or perhaps the 14-24 just looks so much better that the 14/1.8 looks bad in comparison
It wasn't misfocused but of course there could be better samples of the 1.8/14mm. At least my sample is well centered. The crop above is not from the exact center of the image. In LR MTF you can see a dip of high frequency details at 4mm image height. Could be that the crop was from this area. Or the 14-24 is just exceptional good.
]
