-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sigma 24/1.4 at Lenstip - not good
- Thread starter epozar
- Start date
N
noudaniel
Guest
Wow that looks really bad.
BUT the dpreview samples looks extremely sharp, even at 100% f/1.4 on a 36MP sensor. Not sure why two sites have such a big difference.
Probably misfocusing from the lenstip version?
BUT the dpreview samples looks extremely sharp, even at 100% f/1.4 on a 36MP sensor. Not sure why two sites have such a big difference.
Probably misfocusing from the lenstip version?
Lenstip have not very good sample galleries. Check their Sigma A18-35 gallery, I have the lens, it is stunning, but from their photos I would not think so. Maybe they have issues with focussing and they set their cameras to zero or even negative sharpening to which we probably aren't used to.
Gollan
Leading Member
I looked at a few photos and didn't see anything sharp. Blurry at f/8 indicates that something is very wrong, an autofocus issue or a totally dud lens. I can't imagine Sigma intends to sell lenses that produce images like that, so I'm not sure why Lenstip posted them.
Last edited:
That's it, the sharpening is turned all the way down on all the lenstip samples. : )
epozar
Senior Member
It's not the zero sharpening (that is ok) but the lack of sharpness on images at f1.4 and f2.0.
Not really suitable for MilkyWay night landscapes I hoped for.
http://www.camerastuffreview.com/nl/lenstest/test-sigma-24mm-f-1-4-art-vs-canon-24-mm-f-1-4-l-ii
Indicates (not full review yet, this was with pre-production sample) very good image quality. I wouldn't be to negative just yet.
It's Dutch, but long story short: It performs just as amazing as 35/50mm Art.
Indicates (not full review yet, this was with pre-production sample) very good image quality. I wouldn't be to negative just yet.
It's Dutch, but long story short: It performs just as amazing as 35/50mm Art.
Last edited:
Miike Dougherty
Leading Member
Somewhere between pulling the SD card from the camera to posting the image on their web site, some unknown process has reduced the image quality. It could be as simple as incorrectly posting the image on their web site that's causing the sharpness loss on all their images all the time.
Island Golfer
Senior Member
Not to be a johnny-come-lately to this thread, but I have been following it from the initial post. I'm interested because, when I saw the initial samples posted by Dpreview, when the lens was announced, back then, I didn't think the Dpreview sample images were anything special. I felt they just weren't all that sharp. I was surprised they were heaping such praise on the lens. Based upon the samples posted back then, and now these new ones added to the mix, I can't see buying the lens. I'm hopeful that Sigma (or, someone) will post some additional images that are worthy of the reputation garnered with their 35mm ART lens.
Well, those images are about 4 MB, which means they've been compressed pretty significantly . . . unless they were using a 12 MP camera.
I'd wait for good quality images from a Nikon D810, before judging the lenses. I have no doubt that the SLRgear.com review will give some better insight too. Before long (maybe a month or so) we will see plenty of samples and be able to get a better idea of whether this new 24mm Art lens will be like the 35mm Art lens or something inferior. I doubt it will be up to the standard of the 50mm Art lens. That would be something truly amazing.
epozar
Senior Member
BTW, the full review is now up:
www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=430
" This test also shows how difficult it is to manufacture full frame 1.4/24 class lenses – practically every producer had huge problems with the coma and vignetting correction; also none of them managed to ensure good image quality on the edge of full frame near the maximum relative aperture."
www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=430
" This test also shows how difficult it is to manufacture full frame 1.4/24 class lenses – practically every producer had huge problems with the coma and vignetting correction; also none of them managed to ensure good image quality on the edge of full frame near the maximum relative aperture."
Lol the paragraph you are quoting, is the most negative part of conclusion, all the rest is positive (relatively) especially compared to Nikkor. This lens is just a a bit less of a blowout winner, then the 35mm/50mm art, but they admit it's a diffucult focal length, and given the price Sigma did a good job.
They call autofocus poor, and while my nikkor 70-200mm f4 is a speeddemon, compared to my other lenses, i rarely feel the Sigma art is to slow. For third party autofocus, its remarkable how good it is, and how rarely it dissapoints, especially noise wise, but also accuracy, and real life speed (not theoretical speed).
They call autofocus poor, and while my nikkor 70-200mm f4 is a speeddemon, compared to my other lenses, i rarely feel the Sigma art is to slow. For third party autofocus, its remarkable how good it is, and how rarely it dissapoints, especially noise wise, but also accuracy, and real life speed (not theoretical speed).
The review seems to indicate that the Sigma 24mm 1.4 is an ok performer.
It compares favourably against the Nikon (which I used to own, and regret selling).
The coma result is disappointing for a lens that would be commonly used for low light or night time use. I would have hoped that Sigma would have done more work in this area. Mind you, the review states the Nikon faired worse, which with all honesty, I thought the Nikon was great after dark when I had it.
Saying this though, I will still be buying the Sigma anyway.
J
It compares favourably against the Nikon (which I used to own, and regret selling).
The coma result is disappointing for a lens that would be commonly used for low light or night time use. I would have hoped that Sigma would have done more work in this area. Mind you, the review states the Nikon faired worse, which with all honesty, I thought the Nikon was great after dark when I had it.
Saying this though, I will still be buying the Sigma anyway.
J
I don't think anybody would expect a 24 mm f/1.4 (FF) lens to be great at f/1.4 at the edge of the frame. The Sigma is still the best of the four 24 mm f/1.4 lenses (Canon, Nikon, Samyang & Sigma) if only just compared to the Canon and depending on what you care most about it, one could also call it a draw with the Canon (in regard to IQ, if you add AF maybe the Canon could be called overall to better).
Lenstip's sample are ALWAYS in cam JPG with the LOWEST possible SHARPENING and CONSTRASTING settings.
If you check out their other sample images, they are ALWAYS soft, even for the best lens they ever tested. This is even more true if the test camera has an AA filter.
If you check out their other sample images, they are ALWAYS soft, even for the best lens they ever tested. This is even more true if the test camera has an AA filter.
Hello noirdesir,
I didn't read the review like you.
The Sigma performs where it matters, and that is at F1.4, that's why most people are going to buy this lens.
The Canon catches up (in the centre) at F2, but the edges don't catch up until F2.8:
And then you have the massive difference in price:
Canon 24mm 1.4 II USM $1649 U.S
Sigma 24mm 1.4 $899 U.S
I will however reserve my decision to buy, until I've read a few more reviews.
J
I didn't read the review like you.
The Sigma performs where it matters, and that is at F1.4, that's why most people are going to buy this lens.
The Canon catches up (in the centre) at F2, but the edges don't catch up until F2.8:
Loading…
www.lenstip.com
And then you have the massive difference in price:
Canon 24mm 1.4 II USM $1649 U.S
Sigma 24mm 1.4 $899 U.S
I will however reserve my decision to buy, until I've read a few more reviews.
J
epozar
Senior Member
I was probably too charitable with the Canon in my summary. The Canon comes close or roughly equals the Sigma in a number of areas, it is ahead in flare and autofocus. But it is clearly behind the Sigma in vignetting and LoCA and resolution at f/1.4, so calling it a draw optically was probably a bit too much.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum