p.60 #2 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Perhaps I got lucky with the particular tolerance variations of my products.
The filter slides in at the angle created with 9.5mm of clearance between the tab at the top and the lens mount ring, which is sufficient to hand hold. This requires very little pressure, no more than what it takes to place the filter in and lock it, and doesn't bend the glass. going beyond 1cm the pressure builds quickly.
After use, when released, the filter naturally springs out to approximately 4.5mm. This is a little challenging for my larger fingers, mine are somewhat flat and blunted from playing stringed instruments and rock climbing. However if I am precise I can catch the edge, and lift it to the 9.5mm mark, where it slides out easily.
I carry cloth in the filter case so I can do this without getting fingerprints on it.
p.60 #3 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
alexands wrote:
That is disappointing. I'm not sure whether to return the filters when I receive them or to take my chances. If I had ordered just one filter, I'd probably take my chances, but with the full set, I'm not sure...
If I'm understanding things correctly, the filter breaks when one lifts the end of the filter during the unmounting process. Do you think gluing a very small tab onto the end of the filter might make it easier to remove without having to bend the filter as much?
After my own experience i would strongly advice to cancel orders for Kase filters and either wait for better solution or pay extra for Nisi system. Don't know what were Sigma guys thinking but design is really silly. This pointy part of filter is very hard to slide in and you will need to bend filter slightly in order to have it laying down properly to use lock. This is where filter can easily break and also when you are removing it, it can easily break.
What you could also try if you already have filters in, is to intentionally and very carefully break pointy part of filter so you don't have to slide it in and use only lock. I believe it could still hold filter quite well. Obviously you might not be able to return filters after this
p.60 #4 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
milkod2001 wrote:
After my own experience i would strongly advice to cancel orders for Kase filters and either wait for better solution or pay extra for Nisi system. Don't know what were Sigma guys thinking but design is really silly. This pointy part of filter is very hard to slide in and you will need to bend filter slightly in order to have it laying down properly to use lock. This is where filter can easily break and also when you are removing it, it can easily break.
What you could also try if you already have filters in, is to intentionally and very carefully break pointy part of filter so you don't have to slide it in and use only lock. I believe it could still hold filter quite well. Obviously you might not be able to return filters after this ...Show more →
I don't think the Sigma design is silly. Most ultra wides zooms don't even offer that option including the Sony 12-24/4G. The rear slot was designed for gel filters and there is absolutely no issue using them with this lens. Inserting glass filters into that slot is the challenge. For sure, Aurora will have the best design since it uses thin glass with an aluminum frame around it and will work magnetically. Since it was produced in China, there were delays but it will be available soon.
p.60 #5 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't think the Sigma design is silly. Most ultra wides zooms don't even offer that option including the Sony 12-24/4G. The rear slot was designed for gel filters and there is absolutely no issue using them with this lens. Inserting glass filters into that slot is the challenge. For sure, Aurora will have the best design since it uses thin glass with an aluminum frame around it and will work magnetically. Since it was produced in China, there were delays but it will be available soon.
The rear filter might not be silly, but could there have been a better design which allowed for glass filters to be more easily inserted? It seems the rear drop in filters for some Canon lenses function quite well. Maybe the ultra wide lenses have some design constraints.
p.60 #6 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
milkod2001 wrote:
After my own experience i would strongly advice to cancel orders for Kase filters and either wait for better solution or pay extra for Nisi system. Don't know what were Sigma guys thinking but design is really silly. This pointy part of filter is very hard to slide in and you will need to bend filter slightly in order to have it laying down properly to use lock. This is where filter can easily break and also when you are removing it, it can easily break.
What you could also try if you already have filters in, is to intentionally and very carefully break pointy part of filter so you don't have to slide it in and use only lock. I believe it could still hold filter quite well. Obviously you might not be able to return filters after this ...Show more →
I decided to follow your advice and have put in a return request with amazon for the filter set. Thanks.
p.60 #7 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Perhaps an expert in optical design could clarify this but I've never seen an ultra wide zoom lens featuring a drop-in filter.
The latter is very common with super teles and I'm sure there is good reason for this aside from offering a filter alternative to the large front element.
Laowa was the first to add a regular rear filter to their 10-18/5.6 ultra wide zoom but perhaps there are optical compromises with this approach.
Sigma never claimed glass filters could be added to the rear slot. They specifically mention "sheet" type filters. These filters are made of some type of plastic or gel and are very thin (~0.1mm).
Filter manufactures are trying to overcome this limitation with glass filters but there are compromises in IQ (due to induced FC) or usability (fragile filters)
Clip-on filters (link) have the worse impact on IQ being very thick 0.1m glass (10x thicker than gel)
The Haida rear filter (0.5mm) does not seem to break very easily but it does not have the protruding tip and is almost twice as thick as the Kase or Aurora Scott glass. It will lower IQ towards the edges due to induced field curvature.
The Kase works great optically but it's very thin and breaks easily. (0.3mm)
Aurora may have the best solution (framed and magnetic) but it's something yet to be seen...(Also 0.3mm)
p.60 #8 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Not sure if this has been posted on FM before, here the review of the Sigma by Albert Dros, one of my favorite landscape photographers. I notice he is not afraid to use very small aperture, like F13-F16.
p.60 #9 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
I guess I can take some solace in that, as I am willing to stop down in that range as well.
kdrk888 wrote:
Not sure if this has been posted on FM before, here the review of the Sigma by Albert Dros, one of my favorite landscape photographers. I notice he is not afraid to use very small aperture, like F13-F16.
p.60 #10 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Of course if it needs to be a single shot, sometimes the required F-stop overides all other considerations. But if you are regularly stopping down that far, there are probably cheaper/smaller/lighter options that produce IQ that's not too far from the Sigma.
p.60 #11 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Just contemplating the Sigma. I have multiple primes that cover most of the range....and I'm a single shot kind of shooter.
rvh23 wrote:
Of course if it needs to be a single shot, sometimes the required F-stop overides all other considerations. But if you are regularly stopping down that far, there are probably cheaper/smaller/lighter options that produce IQ that's not too far from the Sigma.
p.60 #12 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
tsdevine wrote:
Just contemplating the Sigma. I have multiple primes that cover most of the range....and I'm a single shot kind of shooter.
Hi Tim,
Good luck on that. I am still going to use my Leica M WATE for its size, weight, and compactness, and filter options (particularly now with my Sony A7rII Kolari Ultra Thin sensor camera).
The Sigma is still larger and heavier than I would personally like, and I am not overjoyed with the filter options for the lens.
p.60 #13 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
The filter situation does hold me back. But the WATE and stack mod isn't cheap.....and technically it is lighter than the primes that I have covering that range. I don't have any zoom wider than 24mm.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Tim,
Good luck on that. I am still going to use my Leica M WATE for its size, weight, and compactness, filter options (particularly now with my Sony A7rII Kolari Ultra Thin sensor camera).
The Sigma is still larger and heavier than I would personally like, and I am not overjoyed with the filter options for the lens.
p.60 #14 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
tsdevine wrote:
The filter situation does hold me back. But the WATE and stack mod isn't cheap.....and technically it is lighter than the primes that I have covering that range. I don't have any zoom wider than 24mm.
Hi Tim,
I certainly wasn't suggesting that you do what I have/was doing. In my case I have owned the WATE for some years as well as other M-mount wide angle lenses that would benefit from the UT modification of a Sony A7rII that I purchased for that purpose.
p.60 #15 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Yes, I’m envious!
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Tim,
I certainly wasn't suggesting that you do what I have/was doing. In my case I have owned the WATE for some years as well as other M-mount wide angel lenses that would benefit from the UT modification of a Sony A7rII that I purchased for that purpose.
p.60 #16 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
Hey everyone,
I purchased this lens and so far I'm pretty happy with it. In a few shots I've taken I thought maybe the corner sharpness isn't as good as I'd hoped, so I did a series of photos to test for decentering. I think this has mostly alleviated my concerns, but I was hoping a few of you with more experienced eyes than me could chime in and let me know what you think. Crops from the extreme corners at 100%. Sorry a few of these are a bit dark.
p.60 #19 · Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions
BikerBoy33 wrote:
I think this has mostly alleviated my concerns, but I was hoping a few of you with more experienced eyes than me could chime in and let me know what you think.
I agree with Guy. I think they look fine. If you compare a decent lens of the same focal length and aperture to the Sigma, you will likely find that the Sigma holds up. I conducted this test with a bevy of lenses -- zooms and primes -- and the Sigma held up well, and this was against the best lenses available in E-mount (e.g., Batis 18, Loxia 21, 24GM, etc.).
