Indeed, still not that sharp.

The lens is sharper then what they show here. At F5.6-f8 it's a 'box of primes'-beast. The best shot is the river shot from the bridge, with forests on both sides. Especially the 14mm shot shows well what this lens is capable off.

F2.8 shots or F11-f22 shots should not be included. First has limited doff, and last has diffraction (i never stop down past F11, and rarely past f8).

14mm f2.8 on FF isn't really possible to design for filters unless one is willing to have insane levels of vignetting, or filters the size of dinner plates.

I fully agree with Rilbelust. These modern lenses and cameras produce images without pop. So much correction in the lenses and sensors, to increase dynamic range, provoke HDR-like images without any interest. It's not just sharp that makes a good photo

I don't think that his point was that modern lenses are too corrected or lack pop, rather that the skill of the photographer matters a lot more than the gear that you shoot with. (Within reason)
Quite a lot of the pictures in the gallery are unimpressive, considering the gear that was used. Of course this gallery is supposed to showcase the lens' performance, rather than impressive photography, and it does that well.
Still I think the point stands that some of the pictures could have been taken with a smartphone at first glance. Only if start to look closer at detail etc is when you see the difference.

You said it yourself.

“Of course this gallery is supposed to showcase the lens' performance, rather than impressive photography, and it does that well.”

Knocking the skill of a photographer because you think the photography could be better is unnecessary given your own comment. No?

Exactly. Perhaps you can write up a specification and start your own lens sample gallery site.

Oh, I didn't zoom in on that vertical one, just the horizontal one, and it was stellar lol.

Zooming in on the vertical shot, I honestly see softness almost everywhere except dead-center, which is a telltale sign of missed focus as it relates to how DOF behaves at center VS edges/corners, when shopping down. A particularly diabolical issue that leads me to often just focus manually on every shot in such failing light.

I'm almost done writing my 1st eBook about landscape photography sharpness, in which I elaborate on this exact issue.

Of course, I could be wrong and it's just a less-than-optimal copy of the lens, but considering how sharp the horizontal shot is, I'm not sure what to think.

All I can say with certainty is, on that dang A7R IV, even at f/8, DOF is fickle as heck!

Haha yes, that glorious half an hour, best described as "Every time you take a long shot, you lose a third of a stop". And at some point the AF dies and you don't notice and you lose 20 minutes of pictures.

@Lan, if it is shake, then it must be purely torsional, because as I said, the dead-center of the image exhibits expected levels of sharpness for that camera and lens.

To my eye, if it is camera shake at all, it's a bit mixed with DOF issues too as I mentioned above. However, IBIS is notoriously bad for correcting that type of shake, though...

Uh oh. You hurt someone’s feelings...

Not sure which comment you were referring to but the original comment was fundamentally about value for the money for an outstanding lens (costing substantially less than the RF lens mentioned in the follow up comment). So the value stated is clearly valid and frankly worthy of some excitement regardless of whether you think the RF is sharper.

“Value for money”, those are the words of poor people.

A more arrogant, elitist, snobbish statement I have not seen on DPR in my long long time here. I notice you are new here. Have you always been a jerk?

Hey Rishi, what do you think?

Cool story bro. In reality the RF 15-35 obliterates this Sigma lens. It’s not arrogant to point out the truth is it?

@Melatonin - “Value for money”, those are the words of poor people.
"Not exactly. The 5th richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, invests in value-for-money, companies and stock.
Soon, one of the best value-for-money cameras will be the Canon R.
You need more melatonin.

@MyReality People who harp on value for money are missing the point. They’re the real snobs, pretending they did something special by buying cheap crap. End of the day your “value for money” product is inferior junk. The fact that you’re happy paying a little less for junk is funny, and a little bit sad. The EOS R is real value for money, it’s an excellent camera at a more than fair price.

Sad we are not all as rich as you and we have to settle for cheap crap like this 14-24 from sigma.

You keep talking. You look more and more like a fool with every word.

You know this lens doesn’t fit on a canon body right? You know the canon lens doesn’t fit on the same bodies this lens is designed for? You are not only a jerk, you are a lost jerk.

Oh really? The OP claimed this Sigma was better than anything from Canon. That is a baldfaced lie.

Too bad there doesn’t exist a Canon body with a resolution higher than 30MP for that RP lens to even evaluate your statement.

The 45MP R5 is being announced on July 6th, so such a camera does exist.

You keep liking your comments man. Bad form.
And I haven’t seen any evaluation of your golden RF lens on the R5. Where are the samples that compare this lens to the samples on the 61MP body here to know that the RF lens is sharper than the sigma?

Anyway it doesn’t really matter the sigma will out resolve a 45MP sensor anyway, so you’re arguing about nothing...

Dude. You keep digging your hole deeper...

@Melatonin,

First, you are indeed coming off as very dismissive in a rather snobby, rude way. Just so you know how others are seeing your comments.

Second, since you haven't seen how a 61-megapixel sensor (without an AA filter) handles the RF 15-35 yet, you're talking nonsense. How about, we wait until we can see these two lenses compared on sensors that aren't literally 100% different in terms of resolution?

I've reviewed both of these lenses and they're both incredible, make no mistake. But, seeing what the 14-24 resolves on the A7R IV, and what the 15-35 resolves on the EOS R, there is definitely still room for the Sigma (or the Canon) to pull ahead once we see a ~60-megapixel sensor from Canon.

Until that day comes, don't be too rude with your argumentativeness, because it only makes it sting more if you're proven wrong.

@Rishi Sanyal -- thank you, but no, I'd rather stay with Tamron 17-28/2.8, it's heavy enough already

you can't compare 17mm with 14mm for wide angle

Dan’s point is about 1 1/3 stops more light from the f1.8 lens. A pretty important factor for Astro work. It does look like I need to buy this sigma though...

@Mike, Transmission is important, but in my testing, the Sigma 14 1.8 is only "that bright" in the dead-center. VIgnetting or light falloff is so prominent that if you compare the two side-by-side, with zero vignetting correction applied and identical exposure settings besides f/2.8 versus f/1.8, ...all you really see is a brighter dot in the middle of the f/1.8 frame.

With nightscapes, a number of different factors are always at play, and I think both lenses will have their audience. Personally, though, as someone who hikes and backpacks to get to the best astro-landscape photography locations, I'm much more inclined to bring the 14-24 2.8 DN with me.

@Dan_168,

It's clear that we have different priorities in terms of nightscape image quality. I've reviewed the Laowa 15mm f/2 and I wouldn't take it anywhere, even on a very long hike, unless it was my 2nd or 3rd lens to hit the ~14mm range.

This is a common difference I have with other nightscape photographers, though; to me a little extra noise to me is easier to reduce in post-production, but coma/astigmatism is nigh impossible to fix.

My other nightscape/timelapse friends who had the Sigma 14mm 1.8 sold theirs because the 14-24 DN is that good, and lighter.

I also do a lot of 2-3 camera adventures in the mountains and wilderness, but when it comes down to it, I've run out of reasons to lug around a lens as heavy as the Sigma 14 1.8. Hopefully they'll make another one specifically for mirrorless that is smaller and lighter, but until then, I just don't see enough of an advantage in transmission, when (Sony) camera sensors just keep getting better and better at ISO 6400-12800.