p.56 #3 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Great shot, Fred!
So, according to SonyAlphaRumors, Sony's competing lens (though a little wider at 12-24/2.8) is going to cost about $4,000. That's dead on arrival if I've ever seen it, considering the Sigma competition.
p.56 #4 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Jman13 wrote:
Great shot, Fred!
So, according to SonyAlphaRumors, Sony's competing lens (though a little wider at 12-24/2.8) is going to cost about $4,000. That's dead on arrival if I've ever seen it, considering the Sigma competition.
From SAR: « lens can be equipped rear filter, maybe like 400/2.8»
If the part about a drop in filter like a super telephoto that allows insertion of threaded filters without unmounting the lens from the camera, then even a $4,000 12-24/2.8 lens is very far from DOA.
p.56 #5 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
For the general consumer it is. Sure, they may see some play in the cinema market there, but extreme UWA work isn't really used there anyway. For the consumer side, how many people will be willing to shell out over $2,000 more for a slightly more convenient filter situation?
Thanks for link. Mine arrived today with $15 extra charge for fast delivery (came within 7 days from China).This little piece looks super fragile. Hope it survives some use.
p.56 #7 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Jman13 wrote:
Great shot, Fred!
So, according to SonyAlphaRumors, Sony's competing lens (though a little wider at 12-24/2.8) is going to cost about $4,000. That's dead on arrival if I've ever seen it, considering the Sigma competition.
The article only says "the price could be around US$4000!" That seems unlikely to me because I would think Sony is bringing this out with the Sigma in mind as its key new competitor. I suspect the Sigma DN has upset several manufactuers in fact, which is good for us as photographers.
p.56 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Jman13 wrote:
For the general consumer it is. Sure, they may see some play in the cinema market there, but extreme UWA work isn't really used there anyway. For the consumer side, how many people will be willing to shell out over $2,000 more for a slightly more convenient filter situation?
What does a 150mm filter system and polarizer cost, and how space consuming and inconvenient is it to carry that in the field? More so if air travel is included and luggage space is premium. That’s the value of those $2,000. Now, we don’t know at which price the Sony 12-24/2.8 will retail, so the real difference could be less than $2,000, before the price and inconvenience of a 150mm filter system is deducted.
p.56 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
A 150mm filter system and polarizer is $500. So at $4k, it would still be $2150 more expensive (assuming the screw in filter you'd buy is $50). And how inconvenient is it to carry in the field? For me, not at all. In fact, I can generally have it out of my bag and attached in the same amount of time or faster than I can a traditional screw in filter. I have front and rear caps on it, and it fits in one of my two front pockets in my shoulder bag. Pop the rear cap off, slide over lens, twist the lock, remove front cap, done. That's going to be no slower than remove filter case / stack (I use stack caps for my screw filters), pull out, remove filter holder from lens, screw in filter, replace filter holder into lens.
$2000 extra for a bit more portability isn't going to be a major thing for a LOT of people.
p.56 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
rvh23 wrote:
The article only says "the price could be around US$4000!" That seems unlikely to me because I would think Sony is bringing this out with the Sigma in mind as its key new competitor. I suspect the Sigma DN has upset several manufactuers in fact, which is good for us as photographers.
I would hope so. People expect a premium on OEM glass, and with the extra width, I could easily see $2500 for it...but much beyond that and it becomes really out of reach and reason.
p.56 #11 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
bjornthun wrote:
From SAR: « lens can be equipped rear filter, maybe like 400/2.8»
If the part about a drop in filter like a super telephoto that allows insertion of threaded filters without unmounting the lens from the camera, then even a $4,000 12-24/2.8 lens is very far from DOA.
If they include a telephoto type rear slot, the lens would have no issue with 'induced' field curvature when using filters and that system would allow both ND and polarizer filters. (or a filter that combines both ND and C-Pol in one)
p.56 #13 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
pdmphoto wrote:
Nice shot Fred, but doesn't shooting at f18 for a nice sunstar defeat the purpose is shooting with a sharp lens like this?
I took 3 exposures for this shot. One focused at infinity, another at close distance (for the foreground rocks) and a last one for the sunstar (f/18).
So, f/8 for infinity, f/5.6 for the rocks and f/18 for the sunstar.
The sunstar shot at f/8 does not look bad but at f/18 is better defined.
p.56 #14 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
I'm still trying to decide which lens I will keep: the sigma 14-24 or the 16-35 GM. I already have a complete 100mm filter system that works fine on the GM with a bunch of $ invested in that. The IQ is a wash between the 2 based on what I'm seeing. I've read all the arguments on the merits of both particularly "that missing 2mm on the wide end on the 16-35 is huge". I think if Sony makes a 12-24 GM with IQ like the sigma, that will take a normal screw on / clip on 100mm filter system, they will sell.
p.56 #15 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I took 3 exposures for this shot. One focused at infinity, another at close distance (for the foreground rocks) and a last one for the sunstar (f/18).
So, f/8 for infinity, f/5.6 for the rocks and f/18 for the sunstar.
The sunstar shot at f/8 does not look bad but at f/18 is better defined.
p.56 #16 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
Mesa Arch, Utah
Sigma 14-24 + A7R4
(Three exposures combined in post: f/8 for infinity, f/5.6 for the foreground rocks and f/18 for the sunstar)
This is a fantastic shot - I love the framing. The last time I was at Mesa Arch, pre-sunrise, there were 40+ mph gusts and it was below freezing. Only one other photographer Was foolish enough to show up that morning.
We’ve seen lots of shots of this beautiful location before, but this image takes the prize. Has “pop” and “3-Deity” in spades
p.56 #17 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
smpetty wrote:
This is a fantastic shot - I love the framing. The last time I was at Mesa Arch, pre-sunrise, there were 40+ mph gusts and it was below freezing. Only one other photographer Was foolish enough to show up that morning.
We’ve seen lots of shots of this beautiful location before, but this image takes the prize. Has “pop” and “3-Deity” in spades
Thank you!
I got there at 3:30am and was alone for about 30 minutes and was able to take some astro shots as well. That's the main difference between the Sigma and Sony ultra wide zooms...the ability to shoot astro at f/2.8.
Aurora will release light pollution rear filters as well.
I actually prefer the sunstar from the Sigma better for this scene. How about you?
I have a pretty strong preference for the Loxia sunstars. I am distracted by the short arms on the side of the Sigma shot that I am not with the Loxia sunstars. That said I do like the 14mm perspective better. Both seem to be very nice lenses.
