Petegh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Jman13 wrote:
I don't think anyone is dismissing anything...it's just that it's not nearly as clear cut as you seem to make it out to be. The Sigma looks slightly better at 14mm across the frame to me. The Sony looks better at midframe at 18mm, and at center and midframe at 24mm....when wide open, and maybe a very slight advantage at f/4.
However, the Sigma is better at the edges in those scenarios. Does the Sony have more situations where it has an advantage? Maybe, but it all depends on what's important to you in a lens. And ultimately, I do not often require ultimate resolution at f/2.8 or f/4, so those slight tradeoff differences don't matter nearly as much to me as if there was a stark difference at f/8 or f/11. You dismiss these apertures since there's slight diffraction effects there, but the point is: how often do you shoot for cross-field sharpness with an ultra-wide at f/2.8? Astrophotography is pretty much it. And for that I'd likely want the better performance of the Sigma at 14-16mm.
However, you also need to take into account cost, as well as width. If you need 12mm in your UWA zoom and want the best glass, then absolutely, the GM is the lens for you. If you don't need 12mm, I'm not seeing anywhere near enough of a difference here to justify over double the cost. We're talking a $1400 lens and a $3,000 lens, and they are trading blows, and where there are differences, they are generally extremely small.
It's about priorities here. $1,600 for a slight wide aperture lead in portions of the frame at some focal lengths is not exactly burning a hole in my pocket. And I can't recall taking an image with the 14-24 that left me saying 'aww, too bad that's not sharp.' ...Show more →
We all can only judge based on our own eyesight and what we see on our computer monitors: smaller 4K screens that many use these days for example have too higher pixel density to accurately see differences in sharpness, so, with that caveat, and the assumption that you are looking at a high quality, calibrated screen - as I am, I'll address the point's you make:
1) I see no where in the center or the midframe of any shot where the Sigma's sharpness exceeds the GM, whereas the GM is sharper in the majority of cases.The GM also appears to have a deeper real-world depth of field at a given aperture also. I made no mention of the edges where I agree, the Sigma is generally better - if that's important for your astro - great.
2) "it all depends on what's important to you in a lens" Exactly! and this is why I think there is some confirmation bias creeping in to some of the comments here which I thought needed calling out.
3) "as if there was a stark difference at f8 and f11. You dismiss these apertures..." There is never going to be a stark difference at f8 or f11 because diffraction is the limiting variable, not the lens, and indeed Fred's examples show this: f8 looks the same to me on both lenses.
4) The cost difference you raise is a valid point, but my comments weren't speaking to that - just absolute quality.
5) "I can't recall taking an image with the 14-24 that left me saying aww too bad that's not sharp" Sharpness is a relative thing: none of the images I'd seen taken with the Sigma ever disappointed me either, but when seeing them side-by-side with the GM, the difference is there.
|
I still love my 16-35 due to easy filter usage with polarizers and once you get below 16mm it can give weird bluish skies (not that I use it much for shooting skies anyway).
.
).
