Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 14-24 vs Sigma 12-24 vs Nikon 14mm Samples

Go to last post
D

ddk

Veteran Member
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
0
Location
NY, US
I had a little time last week to do some testing with these lenses. I'm not going to link anything here, all the images for download at the following link so you can make your own conclusions.

Here are mine if you're interested or just skip to download;

The 14-24 is really an impressive lens to behold, its relatively very large with an impressive bulbous front. Its a specialty lens of sorts so its value at $1800+ is up to the individual user to decide. Personally 14-24mm isn't a much used focal length, also I'm already covered with the 14mm Nikkor, Sigma 12-24 and the Zeiss 25mm. I prefer primes over zoom lenses and based on this tests along with a couple of others that I conducted, I'm not sure if I'll be keeping mine.

-The Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is very soft when wide open and unusable at f2.8 imo, this is a shame since one is definitely paying for it, things change when you stop down, specially around f5.6.
  • Sharpness with both the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 and the Nikon 14/2.8 are quite respectable wide open.
  • Stopped down all 3 lenses are very close in sharpness with a tiny advantage to 14-24 and the 14mm, nothing obvious under normal circumstances and specially not in prints of 13" by X" and smaller unless you're doing heavy cropping.
  • The 14mm & the 14-24mm are very close in character, I think that the new zooms coating has slightly better contrast but the 14mm has slightly more tonal depth & resolution.
--

There are multiple samples from each lens, all are out of camera jpgs shot with the Fuji S5, set to default sharpness, WB is set to Shade and Adobe color space, so you might need to make adjustments if your workflow is sRGB.

List of the image files

Sigma 12-24 : 12/14/20/24mm each fl at f4.5 (wide open) f5.6/f8/f11

Nikon 14-24 : 14/20/24mm each fl at f2.8/f5.6/f8/f11

Nikon 14mm: at f2.8/f5.6/f8/f11

There's a Mini test of a different subject in a 2nd folder marked Mini Test @ f11, it might give you additional info about them.

The files are from Sigma 12-24 & Nikkon 14-24 at 14mm & 24mm, f11 along with one from the 14mm Nikkor @ f11. Again shot with the Fuji S5, WB set to Sunshine & Adobe color space.

http://www.box.net/shared/10q5120v11

david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
That's what it looks like at F2.8 and at every focal length but I'm not sure if that's the case since its fine at all other apertures. These are AF lenses and I didn't do any manual focusing, AF accuracy should be part of this test too if in fact that was the issue. I didn't change anything in between tests, the lenses were mounted one after the other while the camera was locked into position. AF point was set to the center. Could be sample related too but I'm just posting what came out of the camera.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
ddk said:
-The Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is very soft when wide open and unusable at
f2.8 imo, this is a shame since one is definitely paying for it,
things change when you stop down, specially around f5.6.
Click to expand...
I just received this lens yesterday and did some shots around work, testing out different apertures and light conditions,,nothing very exact, just wanted to see what the lens could do. I am so impressed! After reading some negative posts this week, I was a little worried, especially about the size and weight. After getting it the size and weight is of no concern and the image quality is spectacular. Here's a 100% crop shot at 1/60 @ 2.8 ISO 400 16mm on a D300. NO PROCESSING at all. I think it's very sharp. Heading out to Las Vegas with it on Sat. and plan to give it a good workout.



Here's the downsized photo it's taken from.

 
Hi!
ddk said:
-The Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is very soft when wide open and unusable at f2.8 imo,
Click to expand...
REALLY?

Check these 14-24 f/2.8 samples out. They look usable to me:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_c.html

Entire 14-24 review here:
ddk said:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html
Click to expand...
And another, here:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS14-24FX

I would never profess to be a competent lens tester (Bjorn and Mark in the above references are!), but here is an f/2.8 picture from my dining room. It was handheld, and at ISO 800, so I'd never give it as an example of 'sharp'. But I believe that it is more than 'unusuable':
Nikon D3 ,Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
1/80s f/2.8 at 24.0mm iso800



100% Crop:



I think that the statement: "The Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is very soft when wide open and unusable at f2.8" is probably not justified.

Best Regards,
RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
 
luna said:
luna said:
-The Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is very soft when wide open and unusable at
f2.8 imo, this is a shame since one is definitely paying for it,
things change when you stop down, specially around f5.6.
Click to expand...
I just received this lens yesterday and did some shots around work,
testing out different apertures and light conditions,,nothing very
exact, just wanted to see what the lens could do. I am so impressed!
After reading some negative posts this week, I was a little worried,
especially about the size and weight. After getting it the size and
weight is of no concern and the image quality is spectacular. Here's
a 100% crop shot at 1/60 @ 2.8 ISO 400 16mm on a D300. NO PROCESSING
at all. I think it's very sharp. Heading out to Las Vegas with it
on Sat. and plan to give it a good workout.
Click to expand...
It is a great lens even if my copy is bad wide open but I'm not sure if its worth 3 times the price of the Sigma, that's up to each individual to decide.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
Hi RB,
RBFresno said:
I think that the statement: "The Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is very soft when
wide open and unusable at f2.8" is probably not justified.
Click to expand...
Well, yours & luna's sample seem to work properly and maybe mine doesn't. My comments are based on this lens and what I see, that's why I posted all the samples for download, you might have a different opinion than me looking at the same images. I took a few frames on another camera earlier today with the same negative results @ f2.8.

One thing though RB, I'd like to see some kind of a landscape shot from a greater distance with your lens and see how it compares, I'd be grateful if you can oblige.
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
Hi David,

Yep, might be time to check another 14-24 sample.

Postings such as yours are very useful for lenses that have just been released. Some lenses seem to have more than their share of sample variations, and others have their little quirks (e.g. the plane of focus curvature of the 17-55). Probably too early to tell much about vaiability issues with the 14-24.

My tenative impressions of the 14-24 are:
1) Great lens. Love the wide coverage on the D3:
Nikon D3 ,Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
1/2500s f/3.2 at 14.0mm iso400



2) Early reports of flare by some; not sure if this is technique or bad samples.
3) Early reports of suboptimal sharpness(?) by some.

What is not clear to me, is whether there is truely much sample variation and what the nature of that variation is.

(I've shot enough with my 14-24 to suspect any suboptimal results that I get, are likely going to be due to me, not the lens!)

Good luck, and please keep us posted.

Thank you so much for your post!

Best Regards,
RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
 
14-24 compared to Sigma 12-24
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

Specifically look at his 2.8 tests:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_c.html

Mine reflects what this test shows. Stunning images wide open or stopped down. Directly compared the Sigma is not even in the same league. There is NOTHING that compares to this lens except perhaps some of the best wide primes ever made and they are MUCH more expensive. You must have a very poor copy, Nikon should send you a good one ASAP.
 
I just (like an hour ago) got a very clean 14/2.8 from a pro who bought it a few months before the 14-24 announcement (she has that now).

WOW!!!

I have made a decision to return to primes with the D3 and am surprisingly happy with this decision. My overall kit is lighter, the IQ is peerless, lens costs are far less (basically because I'm just filling in 2 WA missing primes in my lineup) -- happy boy!

Tried the 14-24 at PhotoPlus Expo in NYC and thought it was HUGE and HEAVY and EXPENSIVE. I'd really rather have the 14/2.8 the 20/2.8 and the 24/2.8 in my bag. Am I nuts? or just old fashioned? hehe ;-)

Of course, actually I spent about the same overall, but I can go out with just one or two of little primes and boy is that nice! YMMV!!!!
--
Cheers,
Joe
 
dylanear said:
14-24 compared to Sigma 12-24
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

Specifically look at his 2.8 tests:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_c.html

Mine reflects what this test shows. Stunning images wide open or
stopped down. Directly compared the Sigma is not even in the same
league. There is NOTHING that compares to this lens except perhaps
some of the best wide primes ever made and they are MUCH more
expensive. You must have a very poor copy, Nikon should send you a
good one ASAP.
Click to expand...
Download the files and look at them for yourself, I might have a bad copy of this and a great copy of the Sigma, who knows, I can only go by what I see. Aside from the f2.8 issue I really don't see a huge difference between the Sigma and Nikon at f5.6 & above to be blown away. Neither the Sigma nor the 14mm Nikkor suffer from the same distortions on Full Frame either.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
Joe Mondello said:
I just (like an hour ago) got a very clean 14/2.8 from a pro who
bought it a few months before the 14-24 announcement (she has that
now).

WOW!!!

I have made a decision to return to primes with the D3 and am
surprisingly happy with this decision. My overall kit is lighter, the
IQ is peerless, lens costs are far less (basically because I'm just
filling in 2 WA missing primes in my lineup) -- happy boy!

Tried the 14-24 at PhotoPlus Expo in NYC and thought it was HUGE and
HEAVY and EXPENSIVE. I'd really rather have the 14/2.8 the 20/2.8 and
the 24/2.8 in my bag. Am I nuts? or just old fashioned? hehe ;-)

Of course, actually I spent about the same overall, but I can go out
with just one or two of little primes and boy is that nice! YMMV!!!!
--
Cheers,
Joe
Click to expand...
My preferences are similar to yours, choosing primes over zooms. I have the 14/f2.8 for a long time now and use it often with the 25mm/f2.8 Zeiss lens, I don't seem to miss much in between since I hardly ever pack the Sigma or 17-35/2.8. Maybe that's another reason why I'm not in love with the 14-24/2.8.
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
That lens was the worst performing Nikon lens I've ever seen. I tried it on my D40 and D200 and simply had to sell it. Maybe mine was bad, but I have definitely heard of others having similar probs with this lens (softness and CA). I don't see how that lens can compare to a modern zoom.

I've become increasingly skeptical of the old primes when compared to the latest zooms. No doubt some of the old glass is top notch (85mm pc micro, 85mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.4 etc) but some of the other stuff just doesn't measure up.... IMHO
--



Derek

http://www.derekealy.com
 
Thanks David

I downloaded your Nikkor 14f2.8 files to compare against my Tamron 14f2.8. The only difference I see is a bit more CA in the Tamron but sharpness is about the same. The Tamron is pretty good when compared to the Nikkor.
Thanks again
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best
proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
 
I haven't seen your files nor do I dispute your findings about > your

If you look at the direct comparisons in that review of the 14-24 and the 12-24 at f/5.6 ,14mm and don't think the Nikon trounces, completely outclasses the Sigma then by all means stick with the Sigma, because your eyesight isn't good enough to do top notch photography. The center is clearly sharper and more contrasty and the edges look almost the same on the Nikon, but greatly smeared and blurred on the Sigma.

Are you even considering trying another copy? Or simply dismissing what seems to be a new standard in wide angle lenses because your results are less than you'd hoped and at odds with what most others are getting.

To quote Bjorn: 5 or 5 rating,

"This is the new reference for wide-angle zoom lenses. Super sharp, only vestiges of corner fall-off at 14mm @ f/2.8, high contrast, vividly saturated colours, quite low propensity for flare and ghosting as zoom lenses go, what more can you require? "

If you think it's too big or too expensive fine, but it's performance should be nothing short of amazing or you A: have a bad copy or camera, B: are doing something very wrong. I'm sure the Sigmas a nice lens, but I'd be shocked if it performed clearly better than the larger, newer, more expensive and wider aperture 14-24.
ddk said:
dylanear said:
14-24 compared to Sigma 12-24
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

Specifically look at his 2.8 tests:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_c.html

Mine reflects what this test shows. Stunning images wide open or
stopped down. Directly compared the Sigma is not even in the same
league. There is NOTHING that compares to this lens except perhaps
some of the best wide primes ever made and they are MUCH more
expensive. You must have a very poor copy, Nikon should send you a
good one ASAP.
Click to expand...
Download the files and look at them for yourself, I might have a bad
copy of this and a great copy of the Sigma, who knows, I can only go
by what I see. Aside from the f2.8 issue I really don't see a huge
difference between the Sigma and Nikon at f5.6 & above to be blown
away. Neither the Sigma nor the 14mm Nikkor suffer from the same
distortions on Full Frame either.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
Click to expand...
 
Hi Boris,
Boris said:
Thanks David
I downloaded your Nikkor 14f2.8 files to compare against my Tamron
14f2.8. The only difference I see is a bit more CA in the Tamron but
sharpness is about the same. The Tamron is pretty good when compared
to the Nikkor.
Thanks again
Boris
Click to expand...
My friend has the Tamron and besides the AF/MF collar, which I prefer the Tamron's by the way, and slight difference in the coating, the two lenses are identical. I have a feeling that CA is due to the camera rather than the lens. I read somewhere a while back that both lenses were manufactured by Tamron, I wouldn't be surprised given the similarities between these two lenses, but I can't verify that.
Boris said:
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Click to expand...
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
I've read it works much better on the D3. I to tried it on the D70 and D200 and thought it was a mess, useless. I even tried two copies, granted they were both older non D copies.

I have the 18mm 2.8 AF-D and it worked better on the D200. I tried it on the D3 the other day and found it sharp and contrasty wide open, but now that it covers a full frame there was a lot of falloff at 2.8, still some at 4, but nicely even at 5.6. Nice if you just want to toss a small wide, wide ap prime in your bag. It's beautifully built, I think one of the more overlooked under rated Nikon lenses. OK, OK, it also had more distortion than I'd like, but I'll be sending images to ptLens to get it added to the correction profiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top