Thanks for putting the time for these tests especially with this massive heat wave going on. Both lenses look amazing and I am still very happy I chose to go with the GM instead of the sigma despite it's price difference I wouldn't see a big enough focal length difference between my 16-35 GM and sigma 14-24. I think anyone who doesn't have an ultrawide can be very happy with the sigma 14-24 2.8.
Thanks for the test. Sigma looks better at 14mm to my eye, but Sony is better at midfield at the mid and long end (but same or worse at the corners). In all, there's so little real world difference between the two that I would have an extremely hard time justifying $1600 more for the Sony unless 12mm was absolutely essential in my wide zoom. And it's not.
Let’s wait for field curvature, flare, rendering, coma, and sunstars. But there’s no question how much of a bargain the 14-24 is when it comes to resolution (and probably coma).
I suspect Fred’s completed review will reveal some challenges Sony will have in moving a $3000 lens once the insta-buy crowd gets their copy, esp. with this level of competition from Sigma. In a year, and at closer to 2300 I could see Sony selling a bunch more.
Jman13 wrote:
Thanks for the test. Sigma looks better at 14mm to my eye, but Sony is better at midfield at the mid and long end (but same or worse at the corners). In all, there's so little real world difference between the two that I would have an extremely hard time justifying $1600 more for the Sony unless 12mm was absolutely essential in my wide zoom. And it's not.
21mm EXTREME CORNER resolution/contrast comparison between Sony 12-24/2.8 GM @12mm vs Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 Color-Skopar
(21mm) Extreme corner at f/4: The Voigtlander shows more astigmatism
(21mm) Extreme corner at f/5.6: The Voigtlander improves greatly and the Sony improves as well. They are not too different now and f/5.6 is their optimal apertures for the corners
Neurad1 wrote:
How much better is this version than the 12-24 G that I already own?
The Archilles' heel of the G is it's poor flare performance. It's been greatly improved with the GM. In terms of IQ, the Sigma DN zoom clearly outperformed the G, and presumably set the bar for the GM.
rvh23 wrote:
Fred, does it look to be correct that the rear filter holder requires you to bend the filter to insert it, therefore precluding glass filters?
I have not tried the rear filter yet but it looks like you are right! If that's the case it will be hard for glass to bend. However, Aurora told me it will be possible to make magnetic filters for it. I think it will be like the "glue in" type they made for the 12-24/4 G which means they would bypass the rear filter's sleeve all together. I will get back to you on that.
Neurad1 wrote:
How much better is this version than the 12-24 G that I already own?
I tried getting a good copy of the FE 12-24/4 G to compare to the GM but the two copies I received were badly asymmetric, especially after 14mm.
I've owned the "G" for a couple years and it's a great performer. It won't match the resolution/contrast of the GM/Sigma though. Flare resistance is definitely its achilles hill and the sunstar is never attractive to me but this is subjective.
Fred Miranda wrote:
When my copy arrived yesterday - the first thing I noticed was how compact and light it was for a lens with a fast 12-24mm range while the build and operation felt similar to my other GM lenses.
The size increase is not negligible though. A year or two ago when I posted samples from the then class-leading Sigma 14/1.8, many users commented that despite the IQ the lens was just too big and heavy to be practical. Yet here we are with the Sony zoom coming in at 97.6 x 137 mm (847g) versus the Sigma 14/1.8 at 95.4 x 126 mm (1170g) according to the BH specs. The Sony is actually larger in both dimensions, and although it's about 300g lighter, I'm not sure it would be that noticeable considering total weight of either lens plus camera.
Personally I don't mind carrying larger lenses if IQ warrants it (as it does in this case), but I don't think we're in the realm of compact lenses anymore with this one.
* actually, if I remember correctly, the BH spec for the Sigma 14/1.8 (Sony version) may underestimate the actual lens length a little, but regardless it's almost identical in size to the Sony.
It'd be fun to carry small filters for the back. I have still my LEE Filters SW150 Mark II Filter System and all I would need to do is get the adapter when it comes out for the sony and I can re-use my 150mm glasses that I spent quiet a bit of $ on. Still I prefer to see what Aurora comes up with maybe for a lighter package.
Field curvature is moderate from 12 until 14mm. After that FC is very low to negligible.
Here are some crops showing the corners at 12mm, 18mm and 24mm. There were focused at center (LEFT) and at corner (RIGHT).
If you remove the field curvature variable, the GM puts up a great performance at 12mm and 14mm.
PS: It got a bit overcast here.
(12mm) LEFT extreme corner crop: Focused at CENTER /// RIGHT extreme corner crop: Focused at CORNER - Moderate field curvature
(18mm) LEFT extreme corner crop: Focused at CENTER /// RIGHT extreme corner crop: Focused at CORNER - Very low field curvature
(24mm) LEFT extreme corner crop: Focused at CENTER /// RIGHT extreme corner crop: Focused at CORNER - Negligible
Field curvature is moderate from 12 until 14mm. After that FC is very low to negligible.
Here are some crops showing the corners at 12mm, 18mm and 24mm. There were focused at center (LEFT) and at corner (RIGHT).
If you remove the field curvature variable, the GM puts up a great performance at 12mm and 14mm.
PS: It got a bit overcast here.
Excellent work again Fred. Do you think if you corner focus, it then matches the Sigma (which had a corner advantage at 14mm in your first comparisons) at 2.8?
Wow Fred, amazing work, and puts the argument to bed. Both lenses are amazing, but the Sony is not categorically better. It simply comes down to will you pay an extra 1700 for the 12-14/2.8 range - or do you need ever so slightly better center (Sony) or ever so slightly better corners (Sigma). So much appreciate your work, i think you just saved me 1700$.
Midfield matters a lot in landscape—of which the GM excels. It matters more if you ask me than corners. To each their own of course.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Wow Fred, amazing work, and puts the argument to bed. Both lenses are amazing, but the Sony is not categorically better. It simply comes down to will you pay an extra 1700 for the 12-14/2.8 range - or do you need ever so slightly better center (Sony) or ever so slightly better corners (Sigma). So much appreciate your work, i think you just saved me 1700$.
rvh23 wrote:
The size increase is not negligible though. A year or two ago when I posted samples from the then class-leading Sigma 14/1.8, many users commented that despite the IQ the lens was just too big and heavy to be practical. Yet here we are with the Sony zoom coming in at 97.6 x 137 mm (847g) versus the Sigma 14/1.8 at 95.4 x 126 mm (1170g) according to the BH specs. The Sony is actually larger in both dimensions, and although it's about 300g lighter, I'm not sure it would be that noticeable considering total weight of either lens plus camera.
Personally I don't mind carrying larger lenses if IQ warrants it (as it does in this case), but I don't think we're in the realm of compact lenses anymore with this one.
* actually, if I remember correctly, the BH spec for the Sigma 14/1.8 (Sony version) may underestimate the actual lens length a little, but regardless it's almost identical in size to the Sony. ...Show more →
The Sony 12-24/2.8 is only a tad longer than the Sigma 14-24/2.8. It's just wider to accommodate the extra 12mm FL. I found it amazing that's only 50g heavier than the Sigma while feeling about the same in hands.
Also, I believe the Sigma 14/1.8 E-mount's criticism was also weight. The E-mount version is actually 1,230 grams and that's almost 400 grams heavier than the new GM ultra wide zoom.
rvh23 wrote:
Excellent work again Fred. Do you think if you corner focus, it then matches the Sigma (which had a corner advantage at 14mm in your first comparisons) at 2.8?
If both are focused at the corner, perhaps the GM matches the Sigma's corner. I will test it soon.
The GM out resolves the Sigma at most focal lengths but especially after 18mm on the A7R IV but the difference is small after f/4.
Justin Stone wrote:
Midfield matters a lot in landscape—of which the GM excels. It matters more if you ask me than corners. To each their own of course.
At landscape apertures, say F5.6 and beyond, there is no meanigful difference between these lenses that you would ever detect in any real world print.
I think anyone who doesn't have an ultrawide can be very happy with the sigma 14-24 2.8.
