p.5 #1 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
hiepphotog wrote:
Not a zoom shooter until recently, so I can't say for sure. My first was the Sony 12-24 and I don't remember such a significant dip. However, it seems many are happy with theirs so mine could be an outlier. It was a centered copy as well. And I believe this way, panning from side to side, it's much easier to spot a dip. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sigma is still better than other good Tamron copies. The Sigma is twice the weight.
Thanks! Yes, I'm aware of the size/weight difference but I guess I didn't expect it to be that apparent in the images.
p.5 #2 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
timerickson wrote:
Update: these are not the right size. You'd be better off buying gel sheets and cutting using the included template or waiting til commercially available pre-cut options
Thanks for letting us know!
Unfortunately I have not seen any ND gel stronger than 1.2 (4 stops)...This could be in issue for those who want 5 or 10 stops.
p.5 #4 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
hiepphotog wrote:
Not a zoom shooter until recently, so I can't say for sure. My first was the Sony 12-24 and I don't remember such a significant dip. However, it seems many are happy with theirs so mine could be an outlier. It was a centered copy as well. And I believe this way, panning from side to side, it's much easier to spot a dip. I wouldn't be surprised if the Sigma is still better than other good Tamron copies. The Sigma is twice the weight.
how does this sigma 14-24mm compare with the sony 12-24mm which you owned?
Do you still have the 12-24mm? If not, what made you sell it?
Still thinking about swapping my 12-24mm .... I really don't have much issues with it and I like the 12mm a lot... just itchy fingers
p.5 #5 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
wind30 wrote:
how does this sigma 14-24mm compare with the sony 12-24mm which you owned?
Do you still have the 12-24mm? If not, what made you sell it?
Still thinking about swapping my 12-24mm .... I really don't have much issues with it and I like the 12mm a lot... just itchy fingers
My 12-24 was really well centered and it had great sharpness at WO, but I have to say this Sigma is sharper there. Can't say for sure in the center. The reason I sold it mainly cause I do use UWA for nightscape with starry sky as an element. The Sony has strong vignetting at WO so that makes it even harder to deal with at f/4. That and the bulbous front element. When I sold it, I was also hoping Zeiss will release a Loxia 15/2.8 soon (the ZM 15 was my favorite with the center sharpness as good or better than any UWA I have shot with, just the corners were garbage due to cover stack). I know this Sigma has a bulbous element as well, but it solved 2 problems of the Sony for me: faster aperture and quite sure much less vignetting.
Here is a crop at the very corner... It looks about as sharp as the center to me...
p.5 #6 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
In an attempt to 'learn' how to use the distance readout when using the Sigma zoom on my A7rII, I compared distance readout with both exif data and for nearby distances also a tape measure layed out along the ground (so there is some parallax error).
For an example run at a focal length of 21mm I obtained the distance measures (in meters) shown below. Where I show "first-X" it is the closest instance where the display readout changed (when turning slowly) from the previous focal step/distance (there are about 4 rectangle steps at 1m for example for this example in my camera). Note however that for very small focus adjustments even the sliding rectangle doesn't move so for those there is absolutely no display indication of a change in focal point.
If this behavior is reasonably consistent, a set of 'remembered' display readouts like this may suffice to improve sufficiently over the integer indications beyond 1m to cover my typical DOF requirements when stacking.
It also suggests the poor displayed distance resolution is due to the camera rather than the lens. And from this anecdotal run at least, also that the lens exif data is not a bad indication of focal point. Why not display that rather than integers, particularly at 1m and 2m which is a critical area for landscapes. Something else for Sony to fix?
p.5 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I never understood why only integers after 1m for the camera distance scale. It goes from 1m to 2m, 3m...etc. Nothing in between...not very accurate.
I have yet to see an actually accurate and thus useful distance scale on a manual focus lens. They are just too crude, all of them. The OLED displays on the Zeiss Batis lenses are way easier to read, particularly now that I require reading glasses. So for me the Zeiss OLED displays are the only distance and DOF scales of any use.
p.5 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
Yes, the exif data clearly show we could have much better than that. Even 0.5 or 0.3 meter steps would help tremendously for typical landscape work.
Indeed. However, I've been thinking about it. For focus stacking, can you start from the closest distance then keep doubling it until you get to 7-8m or so (at least on my copy that is around the infinity point at 14mm). I imagine with f/5.6 or f/8, doubling the distance should be covered by the DOF.
p.5 #11 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
bjornthun wrote:
I have yet to see an actually accurate and thus useful distance scale on a manual focus lens. They are just too crude, all of them. The OLED displays on the Zeiss Batis lenses are way easier to read, particularly now that I require reading glasses. So for me the Zeiss OLED displays are the only distance and DOF scales of any use.
I think that even the Batis OLED is based on the camera's distance scale. If a more accurate distance is written to EXIF, it's just a question for Sony to implement this real time when changing distance via fly-by-wire.
p.5 #12 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
An actually useful analogue distance scale should require a cine style lens housing, just in order to have enough space to engrave a proper and really useful scale. Those kinds of lenses are big and heavy...
p.5 #13 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think that even the Batis OLED is based on the camera's distance scale. If a more accurate distance is written to EXIF, it's just a question for Sony to implement this real time when changing distance via fly-by-wire.
That’s interesting, definitely something to investigate further.
p.5 #14 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
hiepphotog wrote:
Indeed. However, I've been thinking about it. For focus stacking, can you start from the closest distance then keep doubling it until you get to 7-8m or so (at least on my copy that is around the infinity point at 14mm). I imagine with f/5.6 or f/8, doubling the distance should be covered by the DOF.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. You need smaller ratios as you come in closer. But even if you know the ratios, the problem remains that you can't dial up reasonably accurate focal points using only the cameras integer display beyond 1m, and errors will be largest in the closer region up to a few meters.
Hence my suggestion to use a known set of display settings, possibly complemented by a 'nearest point' manually best focused frame.
As Fred notes, displaying instead the distance written to the exif would fix the problem totally. Why is it we are so much better than Sony at knowing how cameras should operate?
p.s. interesting to hear your 14mm infinity is at 7-8m, that's very close to where mine is (6-7m). I find that it doesn't change much with focal length on mine too, which is nice. Does yours do the same?
p.5 #15 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
Unfortunately it's not that simple. You need smaller ratios as you come in closer. But even if you know the ratios, the problem remains that you can't dial up reasonably accurate focal points using only the cameras integer display beyond 1m, and errors will be largest in the closer region up to a few meters.
Hence my suggestion to use a known set of display settings, possibly complemented by a 'nearest point' manually best focused frame.
As Fred notes, displaying instead the distance written to the exif would fix the problem totally. Why is it we are so much better than Sony at knowing how cameras should operate? ...Show more →
For a while I used a technique that worked well for me. I would take one shot at f/18 (usually at infinity) and another at f/7.1 focused on my primary subject. For many scenes this would be enough to get everything "in focus" with a strong emphasis to the main subject.
In post, I would move the detail slider in LR to "100" in order to offset diffraction for the f/18 image which in turn would sharpen up considerably.
Blending the two images was very easy and gave me natural results where everything was sharp while my focal point was tack sharp.
p.5 #16 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
I've done something similar in Helicon if there isn't time for a proper stack: shoot 2 frames, one stopped down to around f/16, the other at optimum aperture, with focus point unchanged between them. Process in Helicon and it will automagically find the sharpest parts of each for merging.
p.5 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
For a while I used a technique that worked well for me. I would take one shot at f/18 (usually at infinity) and another at f/7.1 focused on my primary subject. For many scenes this would be enough to get everything "in focus" with a strong emphasis to the main subject.
In post, I would move the detail slider in LR to "100" in order to offset diffraction for the f/18 image which in turn would sharpen up considerably.
Blending the two images was very easy and gave me natural results where everything was sharp while my focal point was tack sharp.
p.5 #18 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
The need for focus stacking in many cases arises from certain cliches which have evolved in landscape photography since decent ultra-wide lenses exist. (Ansel Adams had none, so in his pictures these cliches couldn't come up).
in particular it's the cliche that you have to have a "foreground subject", some "leading lines" and a "background subject" (like some mountains, a sunset...).
Truth is: Most of the time the "foreground subject" is totally uninteresting and irrelevant. If you're honest you're shooting the scene because of the majestic view of the further away subject. But since you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by internet cliches like "these wonderful ultrawide landscape images I always see on Instagram and in forums", you look hard for some rocks, flowers etc. you can use as a "foreground subject", because that's how the experienced dudes who get all the "likes" do it, right?
Frankly, I'm SICK of seeing the umpteenth, ever-same image with some rocks (and perhaps some long-exposed water between them) in the foreground.
My suggestion: Ditch that simply. Think more about what's REALLY your subject and the story of your photo, compose accordingly. (You will most probably see that you will need that ultrawide lens much less.) And what's the problem with some unimportant edge area being not sharp? Not sharp = not important, that's exactly what the doctor ordered, right?
p.5 #19 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
In order to get everything sharply focused in the "you-are-there" near-far sense that I enjoy, I have persisted with trying to find a reliable way to use this focus-by-wire lens in combination with Sony's integer readout, and think I may have found something that helps.
It turns out that with this lens at least, but I suspect others also, that although the integer readout is very inaccurate, the distance at which the integer increments is highly repeatable according to the exif.
I did three repeats of finding the change-over point between 1m and 2m, both at 14mm and 24mm focal lengths, and the exif was very close to 1.4m in all cases. Similarly, the change-over point between 2m and 3m was always very close to 2.5m.In other words, I can know the lens is focused at 1.4m if I carefully find the point at which the display just toggles between 1m and 2m. Similarly I know I am at 2.5m when the display just changes between 2 and 3m.
You can find other toggle points according to your typical interests, but for me these two distances in particular will be very helpful in typical landscape scenes. Perhaps I should also post this as a separate topic for readers not interested in this particular lens.
** edit *** the toggle point between 0.9 and 1m consistently is at 0.9m according to the exif. So now I have three well reliable focus distances at 0.9m, 1.4m, and 2.5m that correspond to the readout change-over points between 0.9m-1m, 1m-2m, and 2m-3m respectively. I will look forward to using these in the field.
*** further edit **** I continued this discussion here so as not to get too off topic in this thread.
p.5 #20 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
In order to get everything sharply focused in the "you-are-there" near-far sense that I enjoy, I have persisted with trying to find a reliable way to use this focus-by-wire lens in combination with Sony's integer readout, and think I may have found something that helps.
It turns out that with this lens at least, but I suspect others also, that although the integer readout is very inaccurate, the distance at which the integer increments is highly repeatable according to the exif.
I did three repeats of finding the change-over point between 1m and 2m, both at 14mm and 24mm focal lengths, and the exif was very close to 1.4m in all cases. Similarly, the change-over point between 2m and 3m was always very close to 2.5m.In other words, I can know the lens is focused at 1.4m if I carefully find the point at which the display just toggles between 1m and 2m. Similarly I know I am at 2.5m when the display just changes between 2 and 3m.
You can find other toggle points according to your typical interests, but for me these two distances in particular will be very helpful in typical landscape scenes. Perhaps I should also post this as a separate topic for readers not interested in this particular lens. ...Show more →
I appreciate all the effort into reporting and testing. I’d be doing exactly what you’re doing if I had a copy of the lens so I am glad I am not alone FBW really feels like a one step forwards, two steps back sort of thing though. Any benefits are almost certainly more than offset by the extreme difficulty it causes for repeatable manual focus, and presumably much shorter lens lifespans. A lot of us still use old lenses like say the CY 35-70 and 100-300 on our Sony’s but it’s hard to imagine someone being able to use any modern mirrorless lens 30 years later, given the focus system would almost certainly die long before that.
