p.41 #1 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Mine is centered at all FLs. (First copy)
Never had that luck with a zoom before. Waiting for the Sigma 24-70/2.8 now...
rvh23 wrote:
Quite a few copies seem to behave like this - excellent at the wide end, and increasingly asymmetric towards the long end.
It took me four copies to find one that was fairly consistent across the whole zoom range (actually best at 18mm). But all four I tried were great by F6.3, and I would say only the worst of those four was as asymmetric as yours seems to be. I would try another one if possible. Several FM members have reported receiving copies that were well centered across the whole range first try.
It seems this sort of variability plagues most, if not all zooms.
p.41 #3 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
snapsy wrote:
You have the Midas touch Fred Besides the asymmetry on my copy this is by far the sharpest UWA lens (zoom or otherwise) I have ever seen.
I agree, the best ultra wide zoom in the market. I hoping the 24-70/2.8 DN DG will be just as good.
p.41 #6 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
The distance info that is displayed in Sony cameras has less resolution than what lenses actually send to the camera, so multiple lens settings can show the same distance value in camera, which can give the impression of "inconsistency". It's particularly troublesome at displayed distances of "1m" and "2m". You can check this using exif data.
But if you use transitions between displayed distances, I found they are very consistent for any particular lens, including my Sigma 14-24 (E.g. the transition between displayed values of 1m and 2m is always very close to 1.4 according to the exif). I posted a note to this effect here.
How well the exif value agrees with actual focus distance is a separate question that will depend on lens calibration (and field curvature), but it should be consistent. It might actually be better than average with the Sigma because quality control for the art lenses is very good according to Roger at lens rentals, and the lens has very little field curvature.
Note also that this lens has a speed dependent focus step size. Use slow rotations for better "consistency".
p.s. with regard to flare, the Sigma is imo actually very impressive for an ultrawide zoom, and MUCH better than the Sony 12-24 (as shown in multiple posts on this forum). You can make any lens flare badly if you try hard enough, even Loxias. ...Show more →
Leaving price aside, how is the Sigma 14-24 DG DN compared with the Sony 16-35 GM, which I think you had extensive experience with? I am trying to decide between these two for UWA.
p.41 #7 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
viperrabbit wrote:
Leaving price aside, how is the Sigma 14-24 DG DN compared with the Sony 16-35 GM, which I think you had extensive experience with? I am trying to decide between these two for UWA.
I did own the 16-35 for a while and it was the first zoom that rather impressed me. Enough in fact to replace my primes for a short while. But it didn't last for a few reasons. It couldn't quite match the resolution of my Loxias at 21 and 25mm in the corners, and at 16mm it wasn't any sharper than the Laowa 15/2. I also didn't like its colors, which weren't as bad imo as the Sony 12-24, but still a long way from the Loxia palette that I much prefer. Also, 16mm is sometimes not quite wide enough for my astro needs.
The Sigma remedies those shortcomings. Stopped down to say 6.3 or beyond, it's as sharp as the Loxias in my experience. And a good copy of the Sigma can match the Loxias even wide open. At 14mm-16mm it is without question the sharpest optic currenty available; much sharper than the Laowa. And color is much more like the Loxias.
The only issue for some, but not for me, is that you need a larger filter system for the Sigma, or use rear filters which doesn't work well for polarizers, wheras for the GM you can use regular filters. Apart from that, the obvious other reason for choosing the GM over the Sigma would be if 25-35mm was an important range for you. But for that I just carry a small Loxia 35.
I also carry a Loxia 21 to shoot against the sun. Although the Sigma handles flare better than the GM, neither zoom is really ideal for that, and the Loxia has much more pronounced sunstars. Combined, the Sigma zoom and two small Loxias make a terrific landscape kit that leaves me wanting very little in terms of any new lenses.
But if I had to choose, and could only own one lens for landscapes, I think I would have to sell my Loxias rather than the Sigma.
p.s. Both zooms suffer some sample variation that tends to be greatest at the long end of the zoom range, but I have heard more reports of well centered Sigmas than GMs on this forum.
p.41 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
I did own the 16-35 for a while and it was the first zoom that rather impressed me. Enough in fact to replace my primes for a short while. But it didn't last for a few reasons. It couldn't quite match the resolution of my Loxias at 21 and 25mm in the corners, and at 16mm it wasn't any sharper than the Laowa 15/2. I also didn't like its colors, which weren't as bad imo as the Sony 12-24, but still a long way from the Loxia palette that I much prefer. Also, 16mm is sometimes not quite wide enough for my astro needs.
The Sigma remedies those shortcomings. Stopped down to say 6.3 or beyond, it's as sharp as the Loxias in my experience. And a good copy of the Sigma can match the Loxias even wide open. At 14mm-16mm it is without question the sharpest optic currenty available; much sharper than the Laowa. And color is much more like the Loxias.
The only issue for some, but not for me, is that you need a larger filter system for the Sigma, or use rear filters which doesn't work well for polarizers, wheras for the GM you can use regular filters. Apart from that, the obvious other reason for choosing the GM over the Sigma would be if 25-35mm was an important range for you. But for that I just carry a small Loxia 35.
I also carry a Loxia 21 to shoot against the sun. Although the Sigma handles flare better than the GM, neither zoom is really ideal for that, and the Loxia has much more pronounced sunstars. Combined, the Sigma zoom and two small Loxias make a terrific landscape kit that leaves me wanting very little in terms of any new lenses.
But if I had to choose, and could only own one lens for landscapes, I think I would have to sell my Loxias rather than the Sigma.
p.s. Both zooms suffer some sample variation that tends to be greatest at the long end of the zoom range, but I have heard more reports of well centered Sigmas than GMs on this forum. ...Show more →
Thank you for taking the time to write in great details your impressions of these two lenses.
I did try out the Sigma last weekend. I love the contrast and color rendition of the images (before crop), but unfortunately the copy @14mm f2.8 was soft. And this was the only copy in town and the agent had no more stock. I would have to wait until new stock arrives to test out another copy.
p.41 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
snapsy wrote:
Thanks. I'm actually going to roll the device and send it in to C.R.I.S. for an authorized Sigma USA warranty service and see if they can adjust the lens to correct the issue. I'll report back my results, hopefully in a week or two. If they're unable to correct the issue then I'll be sending it back to the dealer for a replacement.
At least in Germany Sigma never adjusts lenses. They always exchange the lens against another one. I had experienced this 3 times in the past. Twice was the exchanged lens nearly perfect, but once was the exchanged lens even worse than the one I sent to Sigma.
Zeiss in Germany on the other hand never exchanges lenses they always adjust (with very good result). Therefore if I got a bad Sigma lens I will always directly return it while with a bad Zeiss lens I often keep it and just send it to Zeiss for adjustment.
By the way for the Sigma 14-24 DG DN I tried two samples. Both were nearly perfect from 14-18mm, but one sample was clearly better at 24mm than the other.
p.41 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
viperrabbit wrote:
I did try out the Sigma last weekend. I love the contrast and color rendition of the images (before crop), but unfortunately the copy @14mm@ f2.8 was soft. And this was the only copy in town and the agent had no more stock. I would have to wait until new stock arrives to test out another copy.
@14mm@@@ f2.8 100% crop
@14mm@@@ f4.0 100% crop
Are you sure that the difference between the two 100% crops is not just the result of different DOF at f/2.8?
The focus was probably somewhere at the center of the image and not directly at the building of the 100% crop.
p.41 #11 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Despite not being much of a zoom user, I couldn't resist giving this one a try after the rave reviews, including one from Lloyd Chambers, who likes very little that he tests. I had an L-mount version briefly during my short venture with the S1r, and thought it excellent. Not long afterward, I left L-mount and returned to Sony, replacing the lens with an E-mount copy. And it's even better than the first one by a small margin!
I seem to have lucked into a really good copy. It's basically symmetrical throughout its range, and while sharpness is best at the wide end, it's not far off all the way to the long end. I never thought I'd find a zoom, in particular, that could meet/beat the big Distagon 15/2.8 ZE, but the Sigma does just that. Simply amazing.
p.41 #12 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Bobu wrote:
Are you sure that the difference between the two 100% crops is not just the result of different DOF at f/2.8?
The focus was probably somewhere at the center of the image and not directly at the building of the 100% crop.
in both shots I was focusing at the blue signboard at the centre, which is at least 90m away from my location. The DOF at this distance @14mm@ f2.8 and f4.0 is 1.6m and 2.27m respectively, to infinity should be sharp. Therefore the cropped images should also be sharp.
p.41 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
snapsy wrote:
Just received my Sigma 14-24mm DN. Another day, another brand-new tilted/decentered $1k+ lens. Sigh. It's perfect at 14mm but the right edge gets progressively softer vs the left toward the longer end. These are at f/2.8: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZZfp6RZ/0/2e3a5de7/O/i-ZZfp6RZ.jpg
And here are full-sized photos at 22mm, which appears to exhibit the worst of the asymmetry. The right edge sharpens up by around f/8: 22mm @ f/2.8 22mm @ f/4 22mm @ f/5.6 22mm @ f/8
mine copy behaves exactly like yours. Why is it ALWAYS the right side which is softer?
I think Sigma intentionally designed and moved the softer side to the right during manufacture.
As it does not really affect my typical pics I am living with it as the 14mm which I use 80% of the time is perfect and for the 20% of the time, I am limited by DOF if I am shooting at 24mm f12.8.
I did a comparison and found that my previous sony 12-24mm corners is softer than the "soft" right side of the sigma 24mm f2.8.
p.41 #18 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
I have to say I like the the NiSi Pro IR ND64&CPL better than the Landscape CPL. The former gives a more Velvia film look to the images (which are preferable in my opinion for landscapes), while the latter one is more Provia like (too cool). But that's personal preference.
My copy of the lens is due to arrive next week, can't wait. I also can't believe I gave up my MF CZ and Voigt glass in favor of this lens. Not to mention filtering size and pricing which come with it, yikes. Hope it's all justified.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Per @Fred Miranda@, I ran some tests of the color shifting/color cast of the NiSi S5 Filters on my Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 DG DN Art lens.
Used in this test, NiSi S5 Filter Holder with the following filters:
1) NiSi Landscape NC CPL, 2) NiSi Pro IR ND64&CPL (6-stop ND + CPL combo), and the NiSi Pro IR ND1000(3.0) (10-Stop ND)
First set with the NiSi Landscape NC CPL Filter:
This filter is designed for Landscape Photographers to provide a CPL with a cooler more natural effect. You can see in the scene below this CPL does in fact tend to remove the warm color cast from this early morning scene. The base scene with no filter was shot with a “Daylight” white balance setting and with the CPL applied the warmer tones are cooled down a bit and the scene becomes more neutral. In effect the filter has removed the color cast but there is still some of the warmer glow on areas of the scene lit up by the early morning sunlight. This can be beneficial when a scene has a strong color cast to it but for this scene I would probably process it by adding back some warmer tones with some additional white balance adjustment. However, I can see where this more neutral effect can be advantageous in many scenes that may have some unwanted color cast. One other observation is that the NiSi Landscape NC CPL Filter reduces about 2-Stops of light when used on the lens.
First image - the Base scene with no filter applied
Second image - with the NiSi Landscape NC CPL and maximum polarizing effect
Third image - with the NiSi Landscape NC CPL and partial (approx. 1/2) polarizing effect
Fourth image – Screen shot of Without CPL (left side) compared to With maximum CPL (right side) ...Show more →
p.41 #20 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
OH MY GOODNESS! My 14-24 arrived and I put it through the paces today (typical corner/corner infinity and shooting stars last night) against my beloved Leica 16-18-21 WATE. Not only was the the Sigma sharper in the deep corners but even the tonal separations were as good as the Leica! And I really love the Manuel Focus of the Sigma - not much different than a native MF lens!
Considering this will replace the WATE and my 14mm 2.8 - I'll live with the weight (pun intended). As for my beloved Leica - well its goodbye my love!
Besides the asymmetry on my copy this is by far the sharpest UWA lens (zoom or otherwise) I have ever seen.
