Sigma 14-24 F2.8 First Impressions

Brev00

Forum Pro
Messages
12,020
Solutions
9
Reaction score
5,999
Location
Tulsa, OK, US
I have had this lens for less than a week but have had the chance to do many test chart and real world shots with it. I have posted many of these images here. My initial impression from the chart shots was not that great. The sharpness did not seem as high as I had seen in the reviews I have read. But, the evenness across the frame was very good and the ca's were remarkably low--as compared to my Sigma 24 1.4. When I took a shot with the sun off frame and saw the flare, I was leaning toward returning it. At 14mm, f 2.8:



At 14mm, f 8:



My 24 1.4 showed no flare (but it is a 24mm lens). At 24mm, the flare of the 14-24 was greatly reduced. These shots were of the wall not the chart. I wanted to see if the barrel distortion which was very high at close distance was less further out and that is the case. You can also see the vignette at f 2.8 and how it lifts at f 8.

These next two shots show barrel distortion before and after correction. The correction is my best effort. It is manual as Elements does not have any lens info and On1 has no info on this lens. I can save it as a preset in On1 but not in Elements. All of these shots are processed in Photoshop Elements 18. The second version was editied in DxO Filmpack 5 after distortion correction. At f 8.







The flare may be off putting, but the lens does better with the sun in the frame and I also like the sunstars:







I corrected for the slight ca's in the first but did no ca correction in the sunstar shot. Both my Sigma 24 1.4 and my Tamron 35 1.8 would show easily noticeable ca distortion in such backlit branches. There is some purple flare running off to the lower right. Not objectionable to me.

I was starting to have fun with the lens. I took a break at Antoinette's Bakery. Had a lemon tart. And, as I have done before, I took shots both with my phone and with the lens I had on hand. Here is one at the minimum focusing distance (which put me just inches away with the hood almost touching the plate). This is slightly cropped:



Here is a shot a little further back:

928ed385c398486fa79dcd12c0922ed4.jpg

Here is a shot using the 24 1.4 at an earlier time at 1.8. Being faster, it can blur the background more completely though that is not always desirable. I wish I took a picture of the lettering with the 14-24 as I did here, a much better target than meringue.



I stayed out late on my second day downtown and, after another stop at Antoinette's, tested out the bokeh circles:



I was surprised at the quality. They were nice and round with pretty smooth surfaces and a pretty negligible rim. Probably not important to most people, but I may go for shallow dof at any time.

The 14-24:



The 24 1.4. Not shot at the same time. The 24 required ca correction, the 14-24 did not. Both were sharpened to some degree.



One last one. Another brick wall shot with distortion correction. I used a vivid picture control rather than diving into DxO. Some ultra sharp mask applied. I shot it in live view to take advantage of the level indicator. I did that pretty often during the shoot. It does wear down the battery. I took shots both with the af and manually in live view during both the test chart series and the real world shots. I saw no difference in the results. I may do some more precise testing to see if I need to fine tune the lens with the dock.

300d4f054938486b80f36aaa7f2e206a.jpg

Any observations would be appreciated. I like using the lens. Most of my misgivings have fallen to the side. The lack of ca's is amazing to me. I don't know if the sharpness is quite as high as I thought it would be given that some say it is better than the Nikon version. The upper left corner seems a tad worse than the rest--less sharp and contrasty. My tendency so far is to add more sharpening than I do with the Sigma 24 prime. Maybe I am expecting too much. The barrel distortion at 14mm is correctible as is the vignetting at 2.8. The close focusing and bokeh are nice. I don't mind the weight. I did use a tripod for the alley shots and the camera was on a table in the bakery. The sunstars are nice and it does well with the sun in the frame. I can probably reduce the flare with a well placed hand. The build quality is amazing. The focus ring is huge and smooth.

I have until February to decide as B & H extended the period during the Christmas season. They also offered a nice $300 discount: $899. I will probably be so deep in taking pictures with it that I don't even notice when the return period ends. I will give it 4 stars right now with an option to update the score.

Thanks for reading and Happy Holidays and a great New Year!

Larry







--
 

Attachments

  • 3836889.jpg
    3836889.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836919.jpg
    3836919.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836918.jpg
    3836918.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836882.jpg
    3836882.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836887.jpg
    3836887.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836885.jpg
    3836885.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836877.jpg
    3836877.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836884.jpg
    3836884.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836878.jpg
    3836878.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836879.jpg
    3836879.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836888.jpg
    3836888.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 0
Looks decent to me Brev. Didn’t examine your images close up 100%, but general impression is good. Nice colors, saturation, contrast. In frame flare looks well under control. No nasties from what you’ve chosen to share. I would say enjoy, especially given the discount...
 
By the way, the hood is great. I have read complaints about other bulbous front element lenses that the hood easily falls off. Not so here. There is some sort of resistance here that holds the hood in place while still being easy to put it on or take it off. Sigma noticed several of the flaws in previous attempts by other lens makers and corrected them. Obviously, they did not consider the weight of such lenses a flaw as this is heavier than the Nikon. But, Sigma is unconcerned about weight in general. A distinct positive about Sigma lenses is their transferability to other camera mounts. One can send in a Nikon mount 14-24 and get a Sigma E mount for it. Not quite sure how well this lens will suit the smaller format of mirrorless. It will be even heavier with the Sigma mount added. The versatility is welcome as one day it might be nice to buy a Z series camera and get a Z mount to replace the F mount in my Sigma lenses. I think having native z mount lenses would be better than using the NIkon adapter. I would not be able to do this with my Tamron lenses.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
 
Last edited:
I would say definitely keep it if you like it otherwise. If you are on tripod flare can be avoided just by using a sheet of paper or even your hand. Besides, only a few shots will have flare.
 
Yes, I think you are right both about keeping the lens and easily preventing the flare.

I just thought about one advantage this lens has over the Tamron 15-30: the extra width. It is fun to shoot at 14mm and I do like to shoot at the extremes that a zoom lens offers.
 
Yes, I think you are right both about keeping the lens and easily preventing the flare.

I just thought about one advantage this lens has over the Tamron 15-30: the extra width. It is fun to shoot at 14mm and I do like to shoot at the extremes that a zoom lens offers.
There’s different ways to divide the pie regarding advantages/disadvantages for each of these lenses. What matters is you are happy with your purchase. Some may appreciate VC and extra flexibility on long end, whereas others may be focusing on the factors you are bringing up. Choice is the spice of life :-)

Spec wise the lens that actually most appealed to me for my usage was the Nikkor 16-35 f/4, but according to the various reviews did not hold up to the Tamron 15-30 in terms of sharpness/IQ. Reason I opted for the latter. Considered the Sigma 14-24 also and read a lot of good things about it, but VC and the extra 6mm on long end swayed my final decision.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think you are right both about keeping the lens and easily preventing the flare.

I just thought about one advantage this lens has over the Tamron 15-30: the extra width. It is fun to shoot at 14mm and I do like to shoot at the extremes that a zoom lens offers.
There’s different ways to divide the pie regarding advantages/disadvantages for each of these lenses. What matters is you are happy with your purchase. Some may appreciate VC and extra flexibility on long end, whereas others may be focusing on the factors you are bringing up. Choice is the spice of life :-)
Exactly. I am just describing how I feel about the lens. I did consider the Tammy. But, I like covering the mid-range with my primes: 24, 35, 50, and 70. I figured that in most landscape situations, I would use a tripod with either lens. The vc, a great feature, was not a high priority for me. The G1 dropped in price but only because the G2 just came out. Without the sale, the Sigma would have lost a key advantage as the G2 is only $100 more than the Sigma. But, I probably wouldn't have spent that much for either!
Spec wise the lens that actually most appealed to me for my usage was the Nikkor 16-35 f/4, but according to the various reviews did not hold up to the Tamron 15-30 in terms of sharpness/IQ. Reason I opted for the latter. Considered the Sigma 14-24 also and read a lot of good things about it, but VC and the extra 6mm on long end swayed my final decision.
Do you have a link to your website? I would like to see what you are doing with it. Maybe write a review! I was swayed to some degree by Dustin Abbott. Just iq against iq without consideration for the other features, he recommended the Sigma. That, the price, and not needing the vc or length made the decision easy. Plus, I still have over a month to return it if I wind up displeased with it. Because of the current high price of the G2, I would likely try the Tamron 17-35 as a replacement. The $899 I spent on the 14-24 is the most I have ever spent on a lens. So far. I still don't have a 150-600 yet and am thinking about the Tamron G2 which is well over $1K. The Sigma C was $739 in the same sale as the 14-24. The cheapest way to 600mm and some say as good as any other.
 
Yes, I think you are right both about keeping the lens and easily preventing the flare.

I just thought about one advantage this lens has over the Tamron 15-30: the extra width. It is fun to shoot at 14mm and I do like to shoot at the extremes that a zoom lens offers.
There’s different ways to divide the pie regarding advantages/disadvantages for each of these lenses. What matters is you are happy with your purchase. Some may appreciate VC and extra flexibility on long end, whereas others may be focusing on the factors you are bringing up. Choice is the spice of life :-)
Exactly. I am just describing how I feel about the lens. I did consider the Tammy. But, I like covering the mid-range with my primes: 24, 35, 50, and 70. I figured that in most landscape situations, I would use a tripod with either lens. The vc, a great feature, was not a high priority for me. The G1 dropped in price but only because the G2 just came out. Without the sale, the Sigma would have lost a key advantage as the G2 is only $100 more than the Sigma. But, I probably wouldn't have spent that much for either!
Spec wise the lens that actually most appealed to me for my usage was the Nikkor 16-35 f/4, but according to the various reviews did not hold up to the Tamron 15-30 in terms of sharpness/IQ. Reason I opted for the latter. Considered the Sigma 14-24 also and read a lot of good things about it, but VC and the extra 6mm on long end swayed my final decision.
Do you have a link to your website? I would like to see what you are doing with it. Maybe write a review! I was swayed to some degree by Dustin Abbott. Just iq against iq without consideration for the other features, he recommended the Sigma. That, the price, and not needing the vc or length made the decision easy. Plus, I still have over a month to return it if I wind up displeased with it. Because of the current high price of the G2, I would likely try the Tamron 17-35 as a replacement. The $899 I spent on the 14-24 is the most I have ever spent on a lens. So far. I still don't have a 150-600 yet and am thinking about the Tamron G2 which is well over $1K. The Sigma C was $739 in the same sale as the 14-24. The cheapest way to 600mm and some say as good as any other.
I don’t have website, but I posted a review of sorts and various images in this thread:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61786976

I agree the $300 discount on the Sigma 14-24 makes it very appealing.
 
Last edited:
The lens is fantastic and the discount is too tempting
 
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important. Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.

BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
 
Last edited:
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important. Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.

BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?
Not on this roadmap unfortunately :-)



f730ee1ef574493da1b4f53a5628d9cb.jpg.png
 
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important. Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.

BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?
Not on this roadmap unfortunately :-)

f730ee1ef574493da1b4f53a5628d9cb.jpg.png
What isn't?

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
 
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important.
If I wanted to shoot slow motion waterfalls handheld, yeah, could come in handy, but I don't and I expect to use it on a tripod a good deal of the time. I will also shoot it handheld. While I don't think I am as steady as you, I am not bad and I think a weighty lens like this does help keep things steady.
Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.
That is not going to happen. Extending ultra wide angles into the midrange is a dicey proposal I think and getting it in at 2.8 even more so. Maybe ok for micro 4/3 where it is really a midrange. Sigma does make unorthodox fast zooms but with very narrow focal ranges. Like the 24-35. Anyway, my whole idea of going full frame was to shoot with primes. Apparently, the best laid plans . . .
BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?
I subscribe to B&H emails. Huge discount on the 150-600 C, too. Only $739 at the time. Just lasted a weekend. Kinda hard to pay full price when I see how low prices can go. I did find out too late that my local brick and mortar store would have matched the price. Now I know. But, they don't offer a very long return window.
 
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important. Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.

BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?
Not on this roadmap unfortunately :-)

f730ee1ef574493da1b4f53a5628d9cb.jpg.png
What isn't?
14-40 or 16-40. I’m with you on this one, and would love it if such options were available at comparable image quality and reasonable size, which I knew you meant. I hate changing lenses in the field, too much dust gets on/behind focus screen and difficult/costly to remove. Basically I like/appreciate flexibility. One reason I tended towards 15-30 rather than 14-24 as is provides more overlap with my 24-70.
 
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important. Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.

BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?
Not on this roadmap unfortunately :-)

f730ee1ef574493da1b4f53a5628d9cb.jpg.png
What isn't?
14-40 or 16-40. I’m with you on this one, and would love it if such options were available at comparable image quality and reasonable size, which I knew you meant. I hate changing lenses in the field, too much dust gets on/behind focus screen and difficult/costly to remove. Basically I like/appreciate flexibility. One reason I tended towards 15-30 rather than 14-24 as is provides more overlap with my 24-70.
The roadmap you posted is Nikon's though. Only Sigma or Tamron might be crazy enough (or intelligent enough) to make such a lens. I also want 20-120mm F2.4. Nikon's 24-120mm is a total sh..t besides 24mm is just not wide enough.

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
 
Last edited:
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important.
If I wanted to shoot slow motion waterfalls handheld, yeah, could come in handy, but I don't and I expect to use it on a tripod a good deal of the time. I will also shoot it handheld. While I don't think I am as steady as you, I am not bad and I think a weighty lens like this does help keep things steady.
Might remain an ongoing debate for a while. VC is relatively new to UWA. Argument being it may make difference between good shot and very good shot. Keep one or two stops lower ISO for example, higher DR, less noise. I haven’t fully formed my opinions yet, but decided to buy into the feature and give it a go.
Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.
That is not going to happen. Extending ultra wide angles into the midrange is a dicey proposal I think and getting it in at 2.8 even more so. Maybe ok for micro 4/3 where it is really a midrange. Sigma does make unorthodox fast zooms but with very narrow focal ranges. Like the 24-35. Anyway, my whole idea of going full frame was to shoot with primes. Apparently, the best laid plans . . .
He was not meaning high quality 14-40 f/2.8 or 16-40 will happen any time soon. This I assume is about craving flexibility. BTW, I only have zooms. Couldn’t bear the prospect of interchanging among primes in any environment other than indoor studio, but especially for landscape. Too much sh*t gets into our DSLR’s! Yes, best laid plans...
BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?
I subscribe to B&H emails. Huge discount on the 150-600 C, too. Only $739 at the time. Just lasted a weekend. Kinda hard to pay full price when I see how low prices can go. I did find out too late that my local brick and mortar store would have matched the price. Now I know. But, they don't offer a very long return window.
Ha ha, try Best Buy. They essentially have 0 day return policy. Charge a 15% re-stocking fee for camera gear returns...
 
Last edited:
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important. Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.

BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?
Not on this roadmap unfortunately :-)

f730ee1ef574493da1b4f53a5628d9cb.jpg.png
What isn't?
14-40 or 16-40. I’m with you on this one, and would love it if such options were available at comparable image quality and reasonable size, which I knew you meant. I hate changing lenses in the field, too much dust gets on/behind focus screen and difficult/costly to remove. Basically I like/appreciate flexibility. One reason I tended towards 15-30 rather than 14-24 as is provides more overlap with my 24-70.
The roadmap you posted is Nikon's though. Only Sigma or Tamron might be crazy enough (or intelligent enough) to make such a lens. I also want 20-120mm F2.4. Nikon's 24-120mm is a total sh..t besides 24mm is just not wide enough.
Tamron, Sigma, are you listening. Free marketing advice being provided! :-)
 
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important.
If I wanted to shoot slow motion waterfalls handheld, yeah, could come in handy, but I don't and I expect to use it on a tripod a good deal of the time. I will also shoot it handheld. While I don't think I am as steady as you, I am not bad and I think a weighty lens like this does help keep things steady.
Might remain an ongoing debate for a while. VC is relatively new to UWA. Argument being it may make difference between good shot and very good shot. Keep one or two stops lower ISO for example, higher DR, less noise. I haven’t fully formed my opinions yet, but decided to buy into the feature and give it a go.
That is the argument for stabilization in a nutshell. It is the stance Tamron has taken to differentiate themselves from Sigma. Lower weight and weather sealing as well. Though Sigma is starting to include more weathersealing. It is really an internal debate within the consumer: vc or no vc in a wide angle lens. I do find it essential in a long zoom.
Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.
That is not going to happen. Extending ultra wide angles into the midrange is a dicey proposal I think and getting it in at 2.8 even more so. Maybe ok for micro 4/3 where it is really a midrange. Sigma does make unorthodox fast zooms but with very narrow focal ranges. Like the 24-35. Anyway, my whole idea of going full frame was to shoot with primes. Apparently, the best laid plans . . .
He was not meaning high quality 14-40 f/2.8 or 16-40 will happen any time soon. This I assume is about craving flexibility. BTW, I only have zooms. Couldn’t bear the prospect of interchanging among primes in any environment other than indoor studio, but especially for landscape. Too much sh*t gets into our DSLR’s! Yes, best laid plans...
A 16-40 is possible. Extending a little into the mid-range is much easier than going from 16-14. The 14-40 2.8 is much less likely. Tamron's 15 is not even a 15. I obviously don't mind changing lenses. I don't shoot in difficult environments and don't mind cleaning my sensor on occasion.
BTW, how did you get such a huge discount?
I subscribe to B&H emails. Huge discount on the 150-600 C, too. Only $739 at the time. Just lasted a weekend. Kinda hard to pay full price when I see how low prices can go. I did find out too late that my local brick and mortar store would have matched the price. Now I know. But, they don't offer a very long return window.
Ha ha, try Best Buy. They essentially have 0 day return policy. Charge a 15% re-stocking fee for camera gear returns...
I just checked that out. You are right. I would think that wouldn't apply if the unit is defective. I will have to ask.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
 
Last edited:
VC on the UW lens is not hugely important.
If I wanted to shoot slow motion waterfalls handheld, yeah, could come in handy, but I don't and I expect to use it on a tripod a good deal of the time. I will also shoot it handheld. While I don't think I am as steady as you, I am not bad and I think a weighty lens like this does help keep things steady.
Might remain an ongoing debate for a while. VC is relatively new to UWA. Argument being it may make difference between good shot and very good shot. Keep one or two stops lower ISO for example, higher DR, less noise. I haven’t fully formed my opinions yet, but decided to buy into the feature and give it a go.
Besides there is certain SS you can't just simply go beyond. The best I can do on 15-30 is 1/10. Maybe 1/5 if I did not have coffee all day. But I can also do 1/10 without VC on just less consistently. But I like having 30mm. And if Tamron or Sigma come out with 14-40mm F2.8 I would definitely buy it. Even 16-40mm would be fine with me.
That is not going to happen. Extending ultra wide angles into the midrange is a dicey proposal I think and getting it in at 2.8 even more so. Maybe ok for micro 4/3 where it is really a midrange. Sigma does make unorthodox fast zooms but with very narrow focal ranges. Like the 24-35. Anyway, my whole idea of going full frame was to shoot with primes. Apparently, the best laid plans . . .
He was not meaning high quality 14-40 f/2.8 or 16-40 will happen any time soon.
Why not? Sigma made high quality 60-600mm. Anything is possible these days. And if they make above lenses it wouldn't have to be sharp in the corners. These would be strictly PJ lenses.
This I assume is about craving flexibility. BTW, I only have zooms. Couldn’t bear the prospect of interchanging among primes in any environment other than indoor studio, but especially for landscape. Too much sh*t gets into our DSLR’s! Yes, best laid plans...
I have zooms and primes but only use primes on special occasions if I know exactly where I am going and if I have flexibility of movement. For example recently I went to a bar to photograph a punk group on assignment. I took my Sigma 20mm F1.4, and 85mm F1.4. It was so dark that I could not see in front of me and only few colored lights were sometimes shined on the stage.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top