rvh23
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN first impressions | |
jeetsukumaran wrote:
DaveFP wrote:
Can anyone quickly tell me whether this lens is considered to have higher IQ than the 16-35 GM?
The answer is probably in this thread but it is 50 pages long!
Thanks!
You know what they say about opinions ...
So, here's mine. Contrary to the opinions expressed above, I think that the answer to this cannot be answered by a simple "yes" or "no", and the truth is more nuanced.
I have both the Sigma 14-24 and 16-35 GM. I've had the GM for about a year now, and the Sigma since Dec. I use both for primarily landscape. I have tested both side-by-side exhaustively, both in contrived wall/carpet/bookshelf/chart type tests as well as real-world applications.
My verdict is:
- In the center the Sony 16-35 GM is slightly but noticeably better across all apertures and all focal lengths in which they overlap.
- In the corners the Sigma 14-24 is slightly but noticeably better across all apertures and all focal lengths in which they overlap.
Of course, the Sigma beasts the Sony easily in the 14mm-16mm range and the Sony beats the Sigma easily in the 24mm-35mm range, and I think for those deciding between the two it will come down to this.
Other things to consider:
- Oh yes, filters. I have the Nisi system for the Sigma. It is massive PIA in every sense compared to screw on type (which you need for CPL). Not to mention when shooting in salt spray or sandy/dusty conditions or simply walking about it risky places (e.g., an abandoned gold mine!), it really is nice to have the ability to protect the front element with a UV filter.
- The Sony works wonderfully with the Sony bluetooth remote. Focus can easily be adjusted in manual mode without touching lens or camera. A HUGE benefit for focus-stacking in the field. I suspect that when (or if) Sony comes out with automatic focus bracketing/stacking, it will work seamlessly with the GM. Not so sure with the Sigma.
(NOTE 1: My copy of the Sony GM was sent back to be recalibrated under warranty very early in its tenure with me. It came back considerably better in the corners. The center is a laser. And, an anomaly from everyone else's experience I know, it is also pretty strong in the long end of the range as well, using my Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II as a reference. I suspect that it is at least on the better side of the spectrum of all the copies out there thanks to the special attention it received during calibration.)
(NOTE 2: I'm definitely planning on selling one of these, i.e., either the Sigma 14-24 or the 16-35 GM soon. The fact that I have not yet decided which one to sell yet, after 3 months of both in hand, shows how difficult it is to choose between the two. Honestly, for me, it will really come down to focal range. Previously, I've managed fine with 16-35 and 100-400. I use the 100-200 range for landscapes a lot. With those two lenses in my bag, I occasionally used to miss something in the 35mm to 100mm range. But I could live with that. However, with the 14-24 instead of the 16-35, I find myself really missing the 35mm to 100mm range A LOT. I have a 24-70, but do not want to carry three heavy lenses. At the same time, though, I'm really liking the 14mm side of things. Hence my dilemma choosing between the 14-24 and 16-35!)
He wanted a 'quick' summary regarding IQ, so that's what I provided. 
There are multiple demonstrations of the Sigma's IQ in this thread, showing it can match or exceed even the very best primes in its range. And it's not just in the corners, my post above shows it performs just great at 12 and 18mm from the center too. I usually don't bother with center sharpness if I know I have great performance further out, but may look that comparison too for completeness sake when I have some time.
As far as I know, that sort of IQ was never shown for the GM here on FM. It approached the performance of some of the best primes, but more often didn't quite match it (especially in the corners). Certainly I never saw an indicatiopn that it might be better than say a Loxia 21, which is what I am finding with my Sigma.
My own experience with the GM was that is was 'great for a zoom' at the time, and I really wanted it to be as good as my Loxias because it was so convenient, but in the end had to concede it wasn't, and so I sold it.
You may well have a fabulously good copy of the GM that is much better than usual, or a poorer than usual Sigma (or both), but more generally I've seen an awful lot of indications that the Sigma is the superior lens. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long for Roger's measured MTFs.
But of course, if you need 24-35 rather than 14-16, the GM is still a great choice.
** edit ** having looked briefly at a center comparison between the Loxia and Sigma, it's not worth posting as they are both near perfect even at f2.8. And in any real world (focus stacked) images I take with these two lenses, the IQ is indistinguishable across the entire frame.
|
