p.6 #1 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
And at the long end of the Sony 's range, at least my copy could not match my Loxia 21 (and therefore also CV 21/1.4) and 25, whereas the new Sigma zoom does and in fact looks better than any of them in the corners.
Thirdly, I like the color from the recent Sigma Art lenses much more than the Sony zooms, and especially the 12-24. But that's a personal preference.
First of all, huge thanks for your thorough and informative testing and for sharing it with us.
This lens really does seem quite exceptional.
Based on what you've uncovered, this has me thinking I'll send back the Laowa 15 2.0 I got for astro and sell the 16-35/f4 Sony I've had and buy this instead. That would cover both my UWA and astro needs in one lens. The lens most often glued to my camera is the 24-105, so this would cover the 14-24 range and the 100-400 and remaining primes would take care of the rest.
Do you see anything that would make this consolidation a bad idea?
Do you have any experience with the 16-35/4? Based on your comparison on corner sharpness with the Loxia 21, it sounds like the Sigma would be better than the 16-35 in all comparable focal lengths?
Finally, in your night sky testing for coma, how did it perform brightness wise?
In your testing, it seemed you at one point suspected there might be higher depth of field than the aperture would suggest, which would then impact light collection. Anything noticeable?
p.6 #2 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
SDTrojan wrote:
First of all, huge thanks for your thorough and informative testing and for sharing it with us.
This lens really does seem quite exceptional.
Based on what you've uncovered, this has me thinking I'll send back the Laowa 15 2.0 I got for astro and sell the 16-35/f4 Sony I've had and buy this instead. That would cover both my UWA and astro needs in one lens. The lens most often glued to my camera is the 24-105, so this would cover the 14-24 range and the 100-400 and remaining primes would take care of the rest.
Do you see anything that would make this consolidation a bad idea?
Do you have any experience with the 16-35/4? Based on your comparison on corner sharpness with the Loxia 21, it sounds like the Sigma would be better than the 16-35 in all comparable focal lengths?
Finally, in your night sky testing for coma, how did it perform brightness wise?
In your testing, it seemed you at one point suspected there might be higher depth of field than the aperture would suggest, which would then impact light collection. Anything noticeable? ...Show more →
If you don't need the longer end of the 16-35 I would do the same in your position, and have no doubt the Sigma zoom will easily outperform both the Laowa and Sony 16-35/4. Even though I haven't tried the 16-35/F4 personally, the many related posts on this forum leave little doubt that the 16-35 GM and 12-24G both are significantly better, and the Sigma in turn is at least as good, and in my experience better than either of those.
For astro, the Sigma has much less coma and also CA than the Laowa (I really disliked the Laowa's fairly prominent corner CA in astro work). I have only done the quick coma test I posted so far in relation to night sky work with the Sigma, but don't expect brightness to be a problem. The only lens that I have seen produce noticeably brighter 2.8 images at such a wide focal length is the larger Sigma 14/1.8, presumably due to the reduced vignetting with such a large front element.
p.6 #3 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Here is a challenging test for any zoom. These are wide open (f2.8) extreme corner comparisons (approx the last 5% of the frame) across the full zoom range, tested at 14mm, 20mm and 24mm. Focus was held fixed at each focal length. A distant aerial on a roof top was moved in turn into each extreme corner without adjusting focus. Apologies for the somewhat variable lighting across some of the frames.
As usual, 100% crops from 42mp, minimal sharpening.
p.6 #4 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
In the f2.8 shots above, the lens looks pretty well centered to me at the wide end (14mm), but the differences between corners are a bit larger at 20 and 24mm. My impression, from the limited experience I have with zooms, is that it is extremely rare to find a copy that is well centered across the full zoom range. Maybe other copies will be better in that regard. We'll have to wait for other reports.
But I will likely keep this copy, as I doubt it will have any real impact on my images. Stopped down to f5.6, the corner differences are minimal even at 24mm as shown below. Remember we are talking about 100% in the extreme corners of the frame here.
p.6 #5 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
That level of centering looks acceptable for a zoom. No corner is bad and at 14mm (where presumably most people will use the lens moreso than the long end) it performs very well. As you note, the weaker parts of the range clean up nicely by f5.6.
I'd be happy if I got a copy that was well centered from say 14-18mm. I have my 21Lox for 21mm, although obviously a copy that performs to an acceptable standard throughout the range would be ideal.
p.6 #6 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
When I ordered the zoom, I expected to have to keep both 21 and 25 Loxia or CV primes to complement it. But having seen how good the zoom is for real-world shooting, I've already sold my 25. I am keeping a 21 only for sunstars / shooting against the light, but not for corner sharpness.
p.6 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
No crop testing, but a few from the lens this am as it showed up yesterday. Peeping yesterday indicated it's well centered and sharp WO in the corners. Stars at 14mm WO will have to wait until the clouds clear on Friday/Saturday nights.
p.6 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
When I ordered the zoom, I expected to have to keep both 21 and 25 Loxia or CV primes to complement it. But having seen how good the zoom is for real-world shooting, I've already sold my 25. I am keeping a 21 only for sunstars / shooting against the light, but not for corner sharpness.
I'm doing the same but may sell my 18mm Batis and 14mm Rokinon SP as well if it can replace it for astro
p.6 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
If you don't need the longer end of the 16-35 I would do the same in your position, and have no doubt the Sigma zoom will easily outperform both the Laowa and Sony 16-35/4. Even though I haven't tried the 16-35/F4 personally, the many related posts on this forum leave little doubt that the 16-35 GM and 12-24G both are significantly better, and the Sigma in turn is at least as good, and in my experience better than either of those.
Thank you so much for the helpful reply.
One final question, from someone who has never owned a lens with a bulbous front element prohibiting the use of screw in filters - do you prefer to use one of the 150 mm kits (the one from Nisi has reviews saying it causes lots of vignetting from 14-17) or the rear filter holder?
I would imagine one wouldn't want to use a CPL anyway with an FOV that wide, but an ND would certainly be very nice for some shots.
p.6 #12 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
mcbroomf wrote:
No crop testing, but a few from the lens this am as it showed up yesterday. Peeping yesterday indicated it's well centered and sharp WO in the corners.
Do you think the copy you have is noticeably better centered when you look in the extreme corners across the zoom range compared to what I show in my crops above?
p.6 #14 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
SDTrojan wrote:
Thank you so much for the helpful reply.
One final question, from someone who has never owned a lens with a bulbous front element prohibiting the use of screw in filters - do you prefer to use one of the 150 mm kits (the one from Nisi has reviews saying it causes lots of vignetting from 14-17) or the rear filter holder?
I would imagine one wouldn't want to use a CPL anyway with an FOV that wide, but an ND would certainly be very nice for some shots.
I always use a CPL in rainforest/waterfall photography, even at 14mm, and the results are fine. It's only with large areas of sky that you need to be more careful with a CPL at the wide end of this lens.
I personally have no experience with rear filters, but wouldn't like to have to take the lens off the camera every time I want to change filters.Nisi have a few filter systems. The one I use is the S5. When used with the right adapter for the lens, I've seen no vignetting with with either the Sigma 14/1.8 or the Sony 12-24. Because there is no Nisi S5 adapter for the new Sigma lens yet, I've also tried the adapter for the Sony 12-24 on the new Sigma zoom (with an added rubber band on the lens to make up for the difference in diameter) and again see no vignetting.
Note that the BHphoto website information I saw about a week ago about filters with the new Sigma lens was wrong as it pertained to the old HSM art lens which has a different diameter. Hopefully they will correct that some time.
p.6 #16 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
SDTrojan wrote:
Thank you so much for the helpful reply.
One final question, from someone who has never owned a lens with a bulbous front element prohibiting the use of screw in filters - do you prefer to use one of the 150 mm kits (the one from Nisi has reviews saying it causes lots of vignetting from 14-17) or the rear filter holder?
I would imagine one wouldn't want to use a CPL anyway with an FOV that wide, but an ND would certainly be very nice for some shots.
The rear filter holder is a good idea but we still don't know how it would affect field curvature at the wider range.
Something else to keep in mind is that ND gels are only offered up to ND 1.2 (4-stops) and their IQ is still questionable.
p.6 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
I always use a CPL in rainforest/waterfall photography, even at 14mm, and the results are fine. It's only with large areas of sky that you need to be more careful with a CPL at the wide end of this lens.
I personally have no experience with rear filters, but wouldn't like to have to take the lens off the camera every time I want to change filters.Nisi have a few filter systems. The one I use is the S5. When used with the right adapter for the lens, I've seen no vignetting with with either the Sigma 14/1.8 or the Sony 12-24. Because there is no Nisi S5 adapter for the new Sigma lens yet, I've also tried the adapter for the Sony 12-24 on the new Sigma zoom (with an added rubber band on the lens to make up for the difference in diameter) and again see no vignetting. ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Fred Miranda wrote:
The rear filter holder is a good idea but we still don't know how it would affect field curvature at the wider range.
Something else to keep in mind is that ND gels are only offered up to ND 1.2 (4-stops) and their IQ is still questionable.
Thank you both very much. Sounds like the 150 mm front Nisi filter with adapter will be the way to go.
I'm going on a photo trip at the end of October, and I doubt Nisi will come out with an adapter by then, so I might just keep the 16-35/4 for any shots requiring filters and get the 14-24 for night sky photography in Iceland and any shots that don't need a filter.
p.6 #18 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
An additional test at 21mm/F5.6, using what I think is the weakest corner on my zoom (assessed wide open, even when focused for that corner), and compared against my Nokton 21, also at 5.6. 100% corner crops from 42mp, minimal CR default sharpening.
By F5.6 btw, the zoom seems essentially flat field for practical purposes, and across the full zoom range. Note also the CA advantage over the Nokton even at F5.6.
p.6 #20 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
How does a modern 14-24, like this, compare to the Nikon 14-24, which is now more than 10 years old?
I assume the advantages at 2.8 might be significant, but much less so at e.g. 5.6?
Just curious. I'm expecting delivery of this lens tomorrow. I've been an all prime shooter since I got the A7RII when it launched, so zooms are to me a new (old) kinda thing.
