p.50 #2 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
This is the worst you will see at any focal length that I tested 14,16,18,21,24. But look at the real upside the distortion is very very good its very minimal for one . It does vignette a little but overall its almost perfect. I have not tested mid zone stuff and I probably will not. Reason is I already know there is very few lenses that would even be close and its chasing rainbows. Folks Ive been testing lenses for decades even this wall. This maybe the best Ive seen. But as good as it is. At 5.6 to get perfect corners you need 5.6 . If thats not good enough for you than quit photography right now.
p.50 #4 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Again these are the worst of the lot and all focal in this zoom. I could do this all day long with the best in class. This is also being extremely nit picky.
Whats really impressive is how centered this lens is. I sometimes find a very slight side even on a centered lens. Usually its the right side ever so slightly . Not here
p.50 #5 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
I kicked the Sony 12-24 out for two reasons . Its a F4 and I sold my 24mm 1.4. I bought this to get F2.8 and figured at 24mm on this lens would be extremely good. I betted the house and won. Rare day a zoom performs this good.
p.50 #6 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
A thought and this one has bugged me for decades. When we travel or go on a day trip we always think small, light and good at least I do. And I always looked at zooms sideways for that work. Typically they are not worth salt but lately what we are seeing is down right impressive . Here we are seeing a smoking gun over a lot of primes. The hard part for me is can I just get over the fact its a big , heavy lens and realize its 5 lenses in one. I have been fighting that mindset for so damn long. I guess my views on this has changed so much lately its really hard to make that stick in my brain.
p.50 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
GMPhotography wrote:
I kicked the Sony 12-24 out for two reasons . Its a F4 and I sold my 24mm 1.4. I bought this to get F2.8 and figured at 24mm on this lens would be extremely good. I betted the house and won. Rare day a zoom performs this good.
I've done exactly the same, sold my 24mm, hope mine's as good as your copy, hopefully mine arrives next week, now the struggle to find good rear filters 🙄
p.50 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Great test Guy.
The Sony 12-24/4G is impressive but imo the Sigma 14-24/2.8 is even better optically throughout the range.
They are both great choices though so it really depends if one's priority is range or speed.
p.50 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
GMPhotography wrote:
A thought and this one has bugged me for decades. When we travel or go on a day trip we always think small, light and good at least I do. And I always looked at zooms sideways for that work. Typically they are not worth salt but lately what we are seeing is down right impressive . Here we are seeing a smoking gun over a lot of primes. The hard part for me is can I just get over the fact its a big , heavy lens and realize its 5 lenses in one. I have been fighting that mindset for so damn long. I guess my views on this has changed so much lately its really hard to make that stick in my brain. ...Show more →
I think that's exactly the process quite a few of us have been through. The Sony 12-24 already challenged the mindset that primes are optimal for IQ, but the Sigma is the nail in the coffin, especially since it's also fast enough for a lot of low light work. And because that applies to its entire zoom range, I now have the smallest yet highest IQ landscape kit I've ever owned.
p.50 #13 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
I just got the lens and given my tests which honestly I’ve tested hundreds of lenses against this scene. No question it’s going to be tough to keep up with this lens if you get a good copy. But what I think more important is that the whole range is exceptional which most case a lens maybe good like these zooms are great at the beginning of the range. Or the end of it but the whole range is more rare to come by . This one is killer good
p.50 #14 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
DaveFP wrote:
Can anyone quickly tell me whether this lens is considered to have higher IQ than the 16-35 GM?
The answer is probably in this thread but it is 50 pages long!
Thanks!
You know what they say about opinions ...
So, here's mine. Contrary to the opinions expressed above, I think that the answer to this cannot be answered by a simple "yes" or "no", and the truth is more nuanced.
I have both the Sigma 14-24 and 16-35 GM. I've had the GM for about a year now, and the Sigma since Dec. I use both for primarily landscape. I have tested both side-by-side exhaustively, both in contrived wall/carpet/bookshelf/chart type tests as well as real-world applications.
My verdict is:
In the center the Sony 16-35 GM is slightly but noticeably better across all apertures and all focal lengths in which they overlap.
In the corners the Sigma 14-24 is slightly but noticeably better across all apertures and all focal lengths in which they overlap.
Of course, the Sigma beasts the Sony easily in the 14mm-16mm range and the Sony beats the Sigma easily in the 24mm-35mm range, and I think for those deciding between the two it will come down to this.
Other things to consider:
Oh yes, filters. I have the Nisi system for the Sigma. It is massive PIA in every sense compared to screw on type (which you need for CPL). Not to mention when shooting in salt spray or sandy/dusty conditions or simply walking about it risky places (e.g., an abandoned gold mine!), it really is nice to have the ability to protect the front element with a UV filter.
The Sony works wonderfully with the Sony bluetooth remote. Focus can easily be adjusted in manual mode without touching lens or camera. A HUGE benefit for focus-stacking in the field. I suspect that when (or if) Sony comes out with automatic focus bracketing/stacking, it will work seamlessly with the GM. Not so sure with the Sigma.
(NOTE 1: My copy of the Sony GM was sent back to be recalibrated under warranty very early in its tenure with me. It came back considerably better in the corners. The center is a laser. And, an anomaly from everyone else's experience I know, it is also pretty strong in the long end of the range as well, using my Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II as a reference. I suspect that it is at least on the better side of the spectrum of all the copies out there thanks to the special attention it received during calibration.)
(NOTE 2: I'm definitely planning on selling one of these, i.e., either the Sigma 14-24 or the 16-35 GM soon. The fact that I have not yet decided which one to sell yet, after 3 months of both in hand, shows how difficult it is to choose between the two. Honestly, for me, it will really come down to focal range. Previously, I've managed fine with 16-35 and 100-400. I use the 100-200 range for landscapes a lot. With those two lenses in my bag, I occasionally used to miss something in the 35mm to 100mm range. But I could live with that. However, with the 14-24 instead of the 16-35, I find myself really missing the 35mm to 100mm range A LOT. I have a 24-70, but do not want to carry three heavy lenses. At the same time, though, I'm really liking the 14mm side of things. Hence my dilemma choosing between the 14-24 and 16-35!)
p.50 #15 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Lens looks good even though I hate these bulbous front lenses. If Sony doesn't release a wide GM this may be my only option. That said since I sold my last Loawa 15mm I have not missed it as much as I thought. When I need wider I have just been stitching a couple 24GM's together but that doesn't work well in some scenarios. I'll continue to lurk here till the GM comes out I guess to make a final decision.
p.50 #16 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
jeetsukumaran wrote:
You know what they say about opinions ...
So, here's mine. Contrary to the opinions expressed above, I think that the answer to this cannot be answered by a simple "yes" or "no", and the truth is more nuanced.
I have both the Sigma 14-24 and 16-35 GM. I've had the GM for about a year now, and the Sigma since Dec. I use both for primarily landscape. I have tested both side-by-side exhaustively, both in contrived wall/carpet/bookshelf/chart type tests as well as real-world applications.
My verdict is:
In the center the Sony 16-35 GM is slightly but noticeably better across all apertures and all focal lengths in which they overlap.
In the corners the Sigma 14-24 is slightly but noticeably better across all apertures and all focal lengths in which they overlap.
Of course, the Sigma beasts the Sony easily in the 14mm-16mm range and the Sony beats the Sigma easily in the 24mm-35mm range, and I think for those deciding between the two it will come down to this.
Other things to consider:
Oh yes, filters. I have the Nisi system for the Sigma. It is massive PIA in every sense compared to screw on type (which you need for CPL). Not to mention when shooting in salt spray or sandy/dusty conditions or simply walking about it risky places (e.g., an abandoned gold mine!), it really is nice to have the ability to protect the front element with a UV filter.
The Sony works wonderfully with the Sony bluetooth remote. Focus can easily be adjusted in manual mode without touching lens or camera. A HUGE benefit for focus-stacking in the field. I suspect that when (or if) Sony comes out with automatic focus bracketing/stacking, it will work seamlessly with the GM. Not so sure with the Sigma.
(NOTE 1:
My copy of the Sony GM was sent back to be recalibrated under warranty very early in its tenure with me. It came back considerably better in the corners. The center is a laser. And, an anomaly from everyone else's experience I know, it is also pretty strong in the long end of the range as well, using my Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II as a reference. I suspect that it is at least on the better side of the spectrum of all the copies out there thanks to the special attention it received during calibration.)
(NOTE 2:
I'm definitely planning on selling one of these, i.e., either the Sigma 14-24 or the 16-35 GM soon. The fact that I have not yet decided which one to sell yet, after 3 months of both in hand, shows how difficult it is to choose between the two. Honestly, for me, it will really come down to focal range. Previously, I've managed fine with 16-35 and 100-400. I use the 100-200 range for landscapes a lot. With those two lenses in my bag, I occasionally used to miss something in the 35mm to 100mm range. But I could live with that. However, with the 14-24 instead of the 16-35, I find myself really missing the 35mm to 100mm range A LOT. I have a 24-70, but do not want to carry three heavy lenses. At the same time, though, I'm really liking the 14mm side of things. Hence my dilemma choosing between the 14-24 and 16-35!) ...Show more →
Thanks for the detailed summary; much appreciated !
p.50 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
GMPhotography wrote:
I just got the lens and given my tests which honestly I’ve tested hundreds of lenses against this scene. No question it’s going to be tough to keep up with this lens if you get a good copy. But what I think more important is that the whole range is exceptional which most case a lens maybe good like these zooms are great at the beginning of the range. Or the end of it but the whole range is more rare to come by . This one is killer good
