The Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN is a slow lens and therefore optical vignetting is not much of an issue. "Cat-eye" specular highlights can still be seen when focusing the lens at long distance but it's well controlled at f/4. (1/3 stop from wide open)
Here is a sequence from f/3.5 until f/5.6 showing both MFD and Infinity distance performance:
Close distance (TOP) vs Infinity distance (BOTTOM):
Close distance (TOP) vs Infinity distance (BOTTOM): At f/3.5: Some optical vignetting but only noticeable when focusing at infinity
Close distance (TOP) vs Infinity distance (BOTTOM): f/4: Best option for well controlled bokeh balls off-axis
Close distance (TOP) vs Infinity distance (BOTTOM): f/5.6: Improves further at infinity distance
Software: Lightroom with my default landscape sharpening. All other settings set to default
PS: Vignetting and distortion were NOT corrected. All in-camera corrections turned 'off'.
1:1 Crops showing Center, Mid-Zone and Extreme corner areas
PS: The Voigtlander 21/1.4 Nokton is a bit narrower than 21mm while the Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN seems to be a true 24mm. It looks like the Voigtlander is a 22mm lens at infinity and that's why I decided to compare it to the Sigma.
I wonder if the Voigtlander 21mm 3.5 is also closer to 22mm. If so, that might be considered as well against the Sigma. It's small and you get the sunstars despite having a mid frame dip.
The lens seems to be the worst, indeed, yet it looks fantastic. Some years ago, when I got the Batis 25f2, I'm sure I'd have chosen this lens over the Zeiss, for its compact size and price.
I'm happy with my 24 3.5. I find it plenty sharp and contrasty at 3.5 and better stopped down. The close focusing near macro and wide at 24 makes for some interesting opportunities. It's a real nice flower lens from a distance and up close. Clearly it's not a 24 1.4 Sony, but I have used it twice as much since I got this lens than the Sony. It's small and solid and easy to have with you. Not only that it makes a nice set with the I series 45 and 65.
I’m enjoying mine. I haven’t done any formal testing but nothing I’ve seen indicates it is the “worst” of the bunch. It seems extremely sharp and the out of focus areas are nice and smooth. Color is great. To my eye, it performs just like the 35, which I also have. Both are very sharp across the frame wide open, a little less so in the corners. Stop down one stop and everything gets even sharper.
Thanks Fred.
I am looking for a small 24 for mainly street/documentary usage. Any comments for this use?
Also assume once you get copies of the small Sony G lenses then that comparison will help me decide. Will be using on the A1 or perhaps on A7C if eye AF any good on the latter. camera
https://www.flickr.com/photos/95630920@N02/51190686830/in/dateposted-public/ I'm very happy with the way this lens close focuses. Obviously you need to to get any isolation of any extent but it has a very attractive bokeh. Similar to the 45 i series lens, in that it's smooth and darker in a way. Great punchy colors and sharp but not clinical.
@Fred Miranda How does the Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN C compare to the Voigtländer 21/3.5 FE in optical qualities, apart from the obvious MF vs AF and difference in focal length?
bjornthun wrote:
@Fred Miranda@ How does the Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN C compare to the Voigtländer 21/3.5 FE in optical qualities, apart from the obvious MF vs AF and difference in focal length?
I believe they would be comparable in regards to resolution/contrast except that the Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 has a noticeable mid-field dip, so the Sigma is more consistent across the image field. The Voigtlander does better in flare resistance and sunstar rendering.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe they would be comparable in regards to resolution/contrast except that the Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 has a noticeable mid-field dip, so the Sigma is more consistent across the image field. The Voigtlander does better in flare resistance and sunstar rendering.
Thanks, Fred! That nudges me in the Sigma direction. Though I think I can live without AF on a 21/24mm class lens, I know I find it quite useful with moving subjects. At the same time I don’t want to miss out on optics either. This lens will be an addition to my kit of small lenses like 35/2.8 ZA and 28-60/4-5.6.
I bought the lens for my trip to Mexico. I've been leaving this lens on the camera, and haven't used the Panasonic 20-60mm lens. Edit: This is the Sony forum? :o
Nice shots! This little lens looks like it performs quite sensibly. Love seeing those photos of my wife's home state of Guanajuato too. Been there many times and can't wait to get back when normal travel resumes.
I'm really leaning towards pairing my Sigma 45 with the 24 and 65.
memzinla wrote:
I bought the lens for my trip to Mexico. I've been leaving this lens on the camera, and haven't used the Panasonic 20-60mm lens. Edit: This is the Sony forum? :o
Dave Sanders wrote:
Nice shots! This little lens looks like it performs quite sensibly. Love seeing those photos of my wife's home state of Guanajuato too. Been there many times and can't wait to get back when normal travel resumes.
I'm really leaning towards pairing my Sigma 45 with the 24 and 65.
Thank you! I love the lens, it's so sharp! Can't wait to see your pictures from Guanajuato.
I'm also leaning towards buying the 45mm if I find it at a cheap price.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
I'm a fan of the close focus too.
Love how close this lens can focus. The lens can almost touch the subject. At f/3.5 there is some glow from SA but stopping down to f/4.5 or f/5.6 at MFD things look very crispy.
