AGeoJO wrote:
Then there is the tried and proven Sigma 14-24mm DG DN.
Yes, a better lens optically for sure, but that big bulbous front element and the weight and the price are too much for me. The new Sigma seems to be aimed directly at the Tamron, and the 1mm on the wide end may get me to sell my z16-35.
May 25, 2022 at 08:58 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mjk115 wrote:
Yes, a better lens optically for sure, but that big bulbous front element and the weight and the price are too much for me. The new Sigma seems to be aimed directly at the Tamron, and the 1mm on the wide end may get me to sell my z16-35.
Sigma seems to be clearly providing a two track zoom lens approach:
14-24 f/2.8 plus 24-70 f/2.8 (excellent performance but not small)
16-28 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8 (very good performance and very small size)
It will be interesting what they do with longer zooms. It seem the excellent but not small will at some point add a 70-200 f/2.8, but the very good performance but small could either offer a smaller aperture or a shorter range. I suspect given what they have done so far that it will be a lens to compete with the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, but might have an even shorter ranges. Perhaps something like a sub 600g 70-150 f/2.8 would be a cool option for a lot of folks.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Sigma seems to be clearly providing a two track zoom lens approach:
14-24 f/2.8 plus 24-70 f/2.8 (excellent performance but not small)
16-28 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8 (very good performance and very small size)
It will be interesting what they do with longer zooms. It seem the excellent but not small will at some point add a 70-200 f/2.8, but the very good performance but small could either offer a smaller aperture or a shorter range. I suspect given what they have done so far that it will be a lens to compete with the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, but might have an even shorter ranges. Perhaps something like a sub 600g 70-150 f/2.8 would be a cool option for a lot of folks....Show more →
The other differentiating factor which matters to me is that the "C" lenses lack most of the weather sealing which the "A" and "S" lens have. I appreciate that Sigma is offering incredibly good optical quality in the "C" lineup while keeping prices and weight down. But I do wish they had not compromised the "C" build quality so much.
Im kinda on the fence with this one, here you can get the excelent Sigma 14-24/F2.8 for below 1100 euros. I know, 24 is not 28 and it's bigger, heavier and doesn't take front filters. Still, it's weather sealed, wider and has excelent IQ. Also Tamron 17-28/F2.8 is cheaper, a bit smaller, lighter and weather sealed.
Immortal wrote:
Im kinda on the fence with this one, here you can get the excelent Sigma 14-24/F2.8 for below 1100 euros. I know, 24 is not 28 and it's bigger, heavier and doesn't take front filters. Still, it's weather sealed, wider and has excelent IQ. Also Tamron 17-28/F2.8 is cheaper, a bit smaller, lighter and weather sealed.
I understand. I guess that we'll get soon some reviews & comparisons with the Tammy.
While 16mm is obviously not 14mm, for me the big differentiator is that it takes filters without adapter (a key requirement for me).
I have my eyes on it due to 1) the extra 1mm on the wide side vs the Tammy ; 2) it is packed with many Aspheric & FLD glass (so we may get great performance); ) the Sony 16-35mm f4 PZ is really expensive in Europe as you know (anyway, I am patient enough to wait for a comparison with the Sony as well).
All lenses are great until the reviews are out. It looks like a great lens and competition to the Tamron 17-28. Which I'm sure Tamron is working on a G2 version of the 17-28.
Question is about the Sigma. Will it have internal zooming like the Tamron? Hopefully the Sigma is worthy.
First tests are already in and well... it's a mixed bag. Distorsion and vignette is big like really big. IQ is very good fo the most part. Same (decent) AF like with other Sigma lenses. No weather sealing.
So yeah it's pretty much as most of us thought: if you need light, compact wide angle zoom that takes front filters this one is a good option but it's not really better than the Tamron 17-28/F2.8 (outside of being wider by 1 mm but Tamron is fully weather sealed).
Otherwise get the better Sigma ART 14-24/F2.8 which at this point is also priced pretty closed to the new zoom.
I've viewed Gordon Lain's, DPReview's and Christopher Frost's reviews :
on the pluses side :
- image quality -> really good sharpness (at least on par with the 16/35mm f4 PZ for Gordon who is using an A74 body) : best at 16mm (f4 will barely improve the image quality) but not too bad at 28mm.
- flare (DPR and CF's tests show really good flare resistance, a few small blobs for DPR but not problematic (IMO)
- Snappy AF for static but also moving subjects (Gordon's).
- Very little breathing (and mostly at 16mm)
- Light and nice zoom ring.
- Internal Zoom
on the downs side :
- Distorsion (barrel at 16mm and pincushion at 28mm : it's there but it's nicely corrected with a profile (see Gordon's video). To be expected for such ultra wide angle, so I am not shocked.
- No other function button than AF/MF switch (but to be expected from a "C" lens vs an "Art" lens ?)
- Reproduction ratio is not as good as say the 16/35mm f4 PZ, so closed focused objects won't appear as big.
I didn't see any sign that vignetting was huge (on Gordon's test, we could see that the corners weren't too dark, even at f2.8).
I don't put weather sealing as i think this is a very subjective topic and that, in reality, there are very little real weather-sealed lenses anyway (there's a sealing on this lens near the gasket).
nicephore wrote:
I've viewed Gordon Lain's, DPReview's and Christopher Frost's reviews :
on the pluses side :
- image quality -> really good sharpness (at least on par with the 16/35mm f4 PZ for Gordon who is using an A74 body) : best at 16mm (f4 will barely improve the image quality) but not too bad at 28mm.
- flare (DPR and CF's tests show really good flare resistance, a few small blobs for DPR but not problematic (IMO)
- Snappy AF for static but also moving subjects (Gordon's).
- Very little breathing (and mostly at 16mm)
- Light and nice zoom ring.
- Internal Zoom
on the downs side :
- Distorsion (barrel at 16mm and pincushion) : it's there but it's nicely corrected with a profile (see Gordon's video). To be expected for such ultra wide angle, so I am not shocked.
- No other function button than AF/MF switch (but to be expected from a "C" lens vs an "Art" lens ?)
- Reproduction ratio is not as good as say the 16/35mm f4 PZ, so closed focused objects won't appear as big.
I didn't see any sign that vignetting was huge (on Gordon's test, we could see that the corners weren't too dark, even at f2.8).
I don't put weather sealing as i think this is a very subjective topic and that, in reality, there are very little real weather-sealed lenses anyway (there's a sealing on this lens near the gasket).
I'm guessing the lenses they tested are preproduction? Or doesn't that matter with lenses? But thanks for the heads up on who has reviewed them. I'm guessing one from Dustin Abbott will be forth coming soon if Chris and Gordon had their hands on one already.
Gotta say, the fact that this is internal zooming is pretty amazing. I think that's something quite valueable here in this category. Sigma did better with this lens that I had anticipated
The 72mm filter thread might be the deal breaker for me. Both the Sigma 28-70 and 100-400 have 67 so it would be nice to have all 3 match. That’s an advantage for the Tamron.
jwpstl wrote:
The 72mm filter thread might be the deal breaker for me. Both the Sigma 28-70 and 100-400 have 67 so it would be nice to have all 3 match. That’s an advantage for the Tamron.
Agreeing with what @jwpsti said above.
4 of my main Sony primes are 67mm filter thread and so it the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 DC DN. Yet this new Sigma 16-28 DC DN zoom is 72mm filter thread and this alone would make it a no go for me. Had the Tamron 17-28 but traded up to the Sony 20G and glad I did. The 3 Tamron f2.8 zooms for Sony are all 67mm filter thread, don't know why Sigma doesn't consider this in their design series lenses, instead lenses in the same style are just a few mm off from one another.
.
