Comparing the Best Ultra Wide Zoom Lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sony & Sigma
Wide angle zoom lenses are a dime-a-dozen but are often seen on crop-frame cameras. When it comes to full-frame cameras, on the other hand, the wide-angle zoom options are few and far between if you want good range, quality, and low distortion. In this comparison, we’ll be looking at four full-frame lenses. The lenses in question are the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S, Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art, Canon 11-24mm f/4L, and Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G.
To begin, I’d like to lay out a comparison of the specifications on these lenses:
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S –
- 14-24mm
- f/2.8
- Max Aperture f/22
- Weight 2.2 lbs.
- Length 5.2 in.
Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art
- 14-24mm
- f/2.8
- Max Aperture f/22
- Weight 2.5 lbs.
- Length 5.3 in.
Canon 11-24mm f/4L –
- 11-24mm
- f/4
- Max Aperture f/22
- Weight 2.6 lbs.
- Length 5.2 in.
Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G –
- 12-24mm
- f/4
- Max Aperture f/22
- Weight 1.2 lbs.
- Length 4.6 in.
As you can see from the specifications, the Canon has the widest range, the most substantial weight, and the longest length of the bunch. The Sony has the lightest weight and the shortest length. And both the Sigma and Nikon are f/2.8 which give them the best light gathering ability of the group.
It’s worth noting that none of these lenses offer in-lens Image Stabilization All of these lenses are advertised as being weather and dust resistant (These aspects I did not test, nor do I recommend testing in any way). Let’s start with how these lenses handle.
Feel
To be clear, all of these lenses, aside from the Sony, are heavy and feel heavy. What I mean is, they will fatigue your arms and wrists very quickly if you are trying to hand hold. The Sony is the glaring exception here. Testing was done on the Sony a9 which is a rather weighty mirrorless camera and balanced the 12-24mm very well and made it the most comfortable combination with no fatigue. I carried it around all day and was able to keep it on my hip to bring up at a moment’s notice. While that may not be important for most shooters looking at wide angle zooms, it’s a convenient characteristic that makes it the most versatile of these lenses.
The Canon is the heaviest, and it shows very quickly while shooting. Testing was done on the Canon 5D Mark III which weighs about half a pound less than the lens. That means gravity will be pulling your wrists forward if you try hand holding it. A tripod is the most effective way to use the lens which means you won’t find yourself wanting to pull this out quickly for some fun shots. This is a very deliberate lens, in my opinion, that you’ll want to plan shots around. That’s not to say it isn’t fun, but it loses points for making these front heavy.
The Nikon and Sigma lenses were both tested on the Nikon D750. If the Canon was feeling front heavy, these were worse since the Nikon camera is lighter weight than the Canon in comparison. The Nikon lens is heavy but not nearly as bad as the Sigma. In my tests, the Sigma “feels” heaviest because of the weight difference and balance between camera and lens. This could have been offset a bit by using a weightier camera, but I was trying to match sensors as best as I could. The Sigma was not a fun lens to shoot with as far as feel goes. The Nikon lens, on the other hand, was more average feeling. The weight of the lens is a little better balanced and was a bit more hand-holding friendly.
The Sony feels the best in this category for its light weight and better balance. Canon was the heaviest, and it felt every bit as heavy as it is. That lens is always a struggle to shoot with, for me. Now we move to build quality.
Build Quality
This one is even more complicated than the feel of the lenses. The Sony feels cheap as it is lighter and feels plastic and toyish in comparison to the other lenses, a product of its lightweight. The Canon, in my opinion, seems to be built the best. This lens is massive and feels like it could take a beating. The abundant, curved front element, on the other hand, gives a bit too much area for potential scratches and scuffs, especially knowing that none of these lenses have the option for permanent protective filters. The Sigma and Nikon have roughly the same front diameter and curvature since they both have f/2.8 apertures and 14-24mm range, slightly smaller than the Canon. This makes them a bit less of a target for scratches. The build quality of these two lenses is a bit different as well. The Nikon has always felt a bit flimsier than average in my hands, almost feeling a bit loose with all of these that I have handled in the past. Not a bad build, just meh, in my opinion. The Sigma, alternatively, has a pretty robust, sturdy build that lends itself to feel more durable. Sigma’s lens quality has really gotten a lot better of the years, and these Art lenses are comparable to first party lenses now, and it shows here. Best build quality is a toss-up for me here between the Sigma and the Canon. I may even give my nod to the Sigma as controversial as that may be. Next up is focal range and autofocus.
Focal Range and Autofocus
Without a doubt, the Canon has the best focal range of this group of lenses. That is obvious merely looking at the numbers. Autofocus is where things get a little different. Keep in mind, each camera performs differently in autofocus but to even the playing field, I ensured that I was only center focusing. Also, each camera was set to manual, with the same exposure settings. (This is why every photo will vary slightly in color, contrast, and saturation) To test autofocus, I took photos of my wife seated, on a tripod, in our living room using a flash. As you probably might have guessed, they all focus at almost precisely the same speed when all things equal. Since the lenses all have the same minimum focus distance, they all tend to take exactly the same time to reach proper focus. If I had to give a lens an advantage, it would be given to the wider aperture Nikon and Sigma lenses. F/2.8 will allow for quicker focus in lower light scenes. Again, in my particular tests, they all performed nearly identical. I intentionally forced them to have to work a bit more to focus, but they were all fairly quick. Next is the main event: Image quality.
Image Quality
I’m grouping distortion, sharpness, and field of view in here together. Distortion is generally make or break for this type of lens and is made even more exaggerated by the full-frame sensor which can show any huge curvature and softness in the corners. I wanted to start off showing the amount of distortion as well as the field of view of each lens at 11mm, 12mm, 14mm, and 24mm at both f/2.8 and f/4. As always, you can download the full resolution images by clicking here.
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S –
Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art –
Canon 11-24mm f/4L –
Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G –
What can we gather from these photos? The first thing that becomes apparent is that the Sony seems to have a slightly narrower field of view than the others, and the Canon seems to have a slightly wider field of view than the rest. This carries over into the 14mm images as well. This could probably be down to environmental variables even though I was using a tripod for these shots. All of the lenses are, unsurprisingly (as they all are full-frame and 24mm), reported to show an 84° field of view in the spec sheet. As far as distortion at 24mm, It is completely nominal all across the board on all of these. I couldn’t detect any barrel distortion, pincushioning or mustache distortion in any of the 24mm images.
At 14mm, we start to see barrel distortion that seems to be most apparent on the Canon and least evident on the Sigma, to my eyes. The Sony seems to be right in the middle. They all still look very nice of course with even corners and sharp centers. Very pleased with the 14mm rectilinear characteristics of all of these lenses. I’d say at this point; I’d still give the Sigma the edge here as it seems to have minimal distortion and excellent sharpness. Also, keep in mind that these tests were done with a single copy of each lens.
12mm cuts out the Nikon and Sigma from the running as only the Sony and Canon go this wide. Looking at these side to side, I give the edge to the Sony as it appears to have more even corners (by a very tiny margin and mainly because there is less vignetting) and a tad bit less barrel distortion. The Sony is a pretty impressive lens for fitting in the lightweight mirrorless category. I dig it.
11mm is only available on the Canon, and it is super wide. Surprisingly, though, it is still quite sharp despite some excessive distortion and vignetting. The corners are nice and even, the center is nice and sharp, and it is all around pretty great if that is the look and field of view you are going for.
Measuring Sharpness
Sharpness required a slightly more scientific setup. While still not overly technical, this involves a grid line cutting board that has reasonably fine lines that can show us the sharpness in the edges and center to a pretty good degree. I was doing this in my office with minimal available lighting, so please be gentle. This is not a Roger scientific review, after all. As always, you can download the full resolution images by clicking here.
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S –
Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM Art –
Canon 11-24mm f/4L –
Sony FE 12-24mm f/4 G –
They are all pretty much the same in the center at 100% crop. They are way too close to say one is sharper than the others here.
In the edges, it is another story entirely. The Nikon and Sigma are relatively close and fine. They show softness, but it’s common for a wide angle lens to show that. The Canon is the softest of the lot and looks pretty smudgy, but the Sony is nice and sharp. This one goes to Sony.
Once again, too close to tell. The centers here are all very sharp and clear.
The loser here is Sigma, and the clear winner is Nikon. Sony and Canon both look fine. A strange outcome as intuitively I would think 14mm would be sharper in the corners. What I suspect is that there is some slight bend in the cutting board that shows up more in the narrower field of view and evens out at the wider focal lengths. Not scientific by any means but the board and tripod never moved in testing.
They are both pretty sharp, but the Canon wins this round. I had a suspicion that it might.
While neither is fantastic in the corners at 12mm, the Canon outperforms Sony. Not a huge difference here but a clear winner.
This one is just for fun, but interestingly, once again the Canon is sharp in the center and not bad in the edges. Roger, unsurprisingly, was right when saying that this thing is nice and even all the way out to 11mm and in the corners. Bravo.
Conclusion
To finish this comparison up, I have to say that there’s not a bad lens in this offering. They serve their purpose, and each has their ins and outs, but really you can’t go wrong using any of them. If you need quality, wide range and you’re fine using a tripod; the Canon is the way to go. Need a lightweight lens with pretty good focal range and sharpness? Sony is the lens you want. Nikon is the best overall, in my opinion, seeing as it has the f/2.8 aperture and the sharpness you want even if it doesn’t have the range of the Canon. If you are looking at your budget and can’t get one of these others, the rugged, sharp and all around keeper is the Sigma. The reality is that there is not a single bad lens here. I’ve mentioned my dissatisfaction with Sony’s lens offerings a few times in the past but really, this is a winner that surprised me for how fun it was, and it may be my favorite of the group. The Nikon gets my vote for sharpest in its focal range. The Sigma feels rugged and is pretty well rounded, better than average. If I could own one of these lenses, though, it would be the Canon. My highest recommendation still stands with this lens as it has the greatest bang for the buck in a rectilinear wide angle lens that has minor vignetting and sharpness at all focal lengths. You can’t go wrong with any of these lenses. Get out and Shoot!
87 Comments
Athanasius Kirchner ·
This comparison is much better and more useful than the last one. Thank you very much for the samples, it must’ve taken quite a while to set everything up.
The only thing I disagree with is the opening line. UWA zooms are more or less plentiful for APS-C DSLRs, but aren’t very abundant for mirrorless bodies, and 35mm mounts just have a lot more options in general than crop systems. Also, UWA primes are far more ubiquitous for larger systems, too.
Munchma Quchi ·
Someone must have spilled a Diet Coke on OLAF. This kind of lens testing is ridiculous.
“The leaves in lens A are so much more sharpy and contrastry than the leaves of lens B”
For the first time ever I miss Brandon Doobie.
Brandon Dube ·
Hi.
Athanasius Kirchner ·
This comparison is much better and more useful than the last one. Thank you very much for the samples, it must've taken quite a while to set everything up.
The only thing I disagree with is the opening line. UWA zooms are more or less plentiful for APS-C DSLRs, but aren't very abundant for mirrorless bodies, and 35mm mounts just have a lot more options in general than crop systems. Also, UWA primes are far more ubiquitous for larger systems, too.
Andrada Velniciuc ·
What about Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 VC USD…? Have you forgotten or did not want to include it in comparison? Be honest!
Zach Sutton Photography ·
Why would we not want to include it?
The reality is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. We can’t include every lens by every manufacturer in every focal length. It’s just not feasible. But I’m not sure what this conspiracy you all are getting at is about. We’ve highlighted and featured Tamron plenty on here.
El Aura ·
It’s the conspiracy of other people not doing what I want them to do. 😉
oscarpinol ·
Well, 15mm to 30mm and f2.8.
Weight? As much as the others. Nice quality and really sharp. Good price (perhaps the best of all if compared).
What was the problem? Maybe because of the Vibration Compensation (the only one).
I can send you mine…
fanboy fagz ·
nah, the tamron would have been the best option out there and they wanted to protect their investments with oem companies. no other reason.
they did 4 lenses, adding a 5th isnt a problem. there was a clear reason they didnt add the winning tamron. it would be the best overall. build, IQ and VC.
Ally Aycock ·
He tested Sigma.
Phanter ·
But the Sigma 12-24 F4 Art would have definetly belong here, even more than the 14-24 F2.8 Art
TinusVerdino ·
Sure but the drawing of lines is not the question. Where you drew it is.
Astro Landscapes ·
Throwing the Tamron in this particular comparison would be like if on “Spinal Tap” they had an amp that only went to 9. 😛
Sickheadache ·
It a big ol softy lens ..never liked it.
Andrada Velniciuc ·
What about Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 VC USD...? Have you forgotten or did not want to include it in comparison? Be honest!
Zach Sutton Photography ·
Why would we not want to include it?
The reality is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. We can't include every lens by every manufacturer in every focal length. It's just not feasible. But I'm not sure what this conspiracy you all are getting at is about. We've highlighted and featured Tamron plenty on here.
El Aura ·
It's the conspiracy of other people not doing what I want them to do. ;)
oscarpinol ·
Well, 15mm to 30mm and f2.8.
Weight? As much as the others. Nice quality and really sharp. Good price (perhaps the best of all if compared).
What was the problem? Maybe because of the Vibration Compensation (the only one).
I can send you mine...
Astro Landscapes ·
Throwing the Tamron in this particular comparison would be like if on "Spinal Tap" they had an amp that only went to 9. :-P
Spy Black ·
Leaving the Tamron out this review is suspicious at best.
El Aura ·
And if you put in the Tamron but leave out the Tokina (16-28 mm f/2.8), that will be the next complaint. And when you also put in the Tokina, you’d also have to put in all the other 16-xx FF zooms.
Spy Black ·
Considering they stuck in an 11-24 and a 12-24, your argument is pretty moot. The Tamron is probably the most popular lens in that category. Conspicuous in it’s absence.
El Aura ·
What is extremely conspicuous is that whenever something happens that somebody doesn’t like, that somebody will claim a conspiracy.
There are two very obvious criteria that can explain the selection that don’t require a conspiracy: 1) minimum focal length, and 2) maximum focal length. These four lenses represented the four widest FF, non-fisheye zooms (which happens to be 14 mm or shorter as starting focal length). But even more homogeneity exist at the maximum focal length, all four lenses end at 24 mm.
FF wide-angle zooms can be almost perfectly divided into two groups:
1) 11/12/14 – 24 mm
2) 16/17/18 – 35 mm
The Tamron simply happens to fall almost perfectly in the middle between these two groups. The Tokina as well but sticks closer to the second group.
Spy Black ·
Statistics are very easy to make. Reality dictates that there are a lot of people here also wanting to know why that lens wasn’t included, for obvious reasons.
El Aura ·
Reality is that a certain background noise cannot be avoided nowadays. At some point you either learn to ignore it or you withdraw from any engagement.
fanboy fagz ·
the tokina doesnt stand a chance amongst the group here. the tamron would better them all in all of the aspects. add VC as well. and cheapest also
feck the 16-35 f/4 lens by nikon. it sucks and wouldnt stand up to the challenge. the canon though is VERY sharp. even sharper then the 16-35 f/2.8 mk2
Spy Black ·
Actually, other than some funky prismatic halation from point light sources, typically at night, the Tokina would do pretty well. It’s heavy AF tho.
fanboy fagz ·
No it wouldnt. Bad bokeh. Corners arr crap. At 5.6 its fine but then who gives a shit. Since a person wants a lens to be decent wide open. They have that halation in all their lenses. Somethinh with their glass compound imo
Spy Black ·
Not the copy I worked with. Good wide open, AF was accurate. No problems. You may have had a bad copy, which is an ongoing problem with buying lenses today, even from OEMs
El Aura ·
And if you put in the Tamron but leave out the Tokina (16-28 mm f/2.8), that will be the next complaint. And when you also put in the Tokina, you'd also have to put in all the other 16-xx FF zooms.
Spy Black ·
Considering they stuck in an 11-24 and a 12-24, your argument is pretty moot. The Tamron is arguably the most popular lens in that category. I'm not the only one commenting on it either. It's conspicuous in it's absence, period.
El Aura ·
What is extremely conspicuous is that whenever something happens that somebody doesn't like, that somebody will claim a conspiracy.
There are two very obvious criteria that can explain the selection that don't require a conspiracy: 1) minimum focal length, and 2) maximum focal length. These four lenses represented the four widest FF, non-fisheye zooms (which happens to be 14 mm or shorter as starting focal length). But even more homogeneity exist at the maximum focal length, all four lenses end at 24 mm.
FF wide-angle zooms can be almost perfectly divided into two groups:
1) 11/12/14 - 24 mm
2) 16/17/18 - 35 mm
The Tamron simply happens to fall almost perfectly in the middle between these two groups. The Tokina as well but sticks closer to the second group.
Spy Black ·
Statistics are very easy to make. Reality dictates that there are a lot of people here also wanting to know why that lens wasn't included, for obvious reasons.
Mark Burgess ·
Wish you would have included the Sigma 12-24 f/4.
Astro Landscapes ·
I do wish this lens had been included. In fact I’m not sure why this wasn’t done as two separate reviews, one for f/4 zooms in the 11-12mm range, plus maybe the Irix 11mm f/4, …and then compare the 14, 15, and 16mm f/2.8 zooms against themselves in another review.
SolJuJo ·
Well, what do you do then with people who want to make a well-informed decision between the two Sigmas 12-24 and 14-24? Or Sony 12-24 vs Sigma 12-24? Anyway – if this is the comparison, I rather don’t bother as it has systematic weaknesses and falls short of the standards used to see from lensrentals.
Astro Landscapes ·
Ideally the solutiio is simple: review all the 2.8’s in one review, and all the 4.0’s in another review, and then simply add a similar section to both reviews that helps readers understand the trade-offs between aperture, focal length, weight and price, with a link to the other review of course.
RC Jenkins ·
Regarding this statement:
“If I had to give a lens an advantage, it would be given to the wider aperture Nikon and Sigma lenses. F/2.8 will allow for quicker focus in lower light scenes. ”
While F/2.8 will affect autofocus speed of mirrorless cameras, it should not affect autofocus speed in DSLRs at all when using the optical viewfinder. Phase detection is sampled from fixed lens positions, not from using the full aperture of the lens.
Burgmark ·
Wish you would have included the Sigma 12-24 f/4.
Astro Landscapes ·
I do wish this lens had been included. In fact I'm not sure why this wasn't done as two separate reviews, one for f/4 zooms in the 11-12mm range, plus maybe the Irix 11mm f/4, ...and then compare the 14, 15, and 16mm f/2.8 zooms against themselves in another review.
SolJuJo ·
Well, what do you do then with people who want to make a well-informed decision between the two Sigmas 12-24 and 14-24? Or Sony 12-24 vs Sigma 12-24? Anyway - if this is the comparison, I rather don't bother as it has systematic weaknesses and falls short of the standards used to see from lensrentals.
Astro Landscapes ·
Ideally the solution is simple: review all the 2.8's in one review, and all the 4.0's in another review, and then simply add a similar section to both reviews that helps readers understand the trade-offs between aperture, focal length, weight/size, and price, with a link to the other review of course.
RC Jenkins ·
Regarding this statement:
"If I had to give a lens an advantage, it would be given to the wider aperture Nikon and Sigma lenses. F/2.8 will allow for quicker focus in lower light scenes. "
While F/2.8 will affect autofocus speed of mirrorless cameras, it should not affect autofocus speed in DSLRs at all when using the optical viewfinder. Phase detection is sampled from fixed lens positions, not from using the full aperture of the lens.
Joshua Richardson ·
“Canon was the heaviest, and it felt every bit as heavy as it is. That lens is always a struggle to shoot with, for me.”
Do you even lift, bro?
Astro Landscapes ·
Do you even timelapse, bro?
(Try lugging three bodies and 4-5 lenses up a mountain a few times, then we’ll talk…)
Joshua Richardson ·
"Canon was the heaviest, and it felt every bit as heavy as it is. That lens is always a struggle to shoot with, for me."
Do you even lift, bro?
Astro Landscapes ·
Do you even timelapse, bro?
(Try lugging three bodies and 4-5 lenses up a mountain a few times, then we'll talk...)
Chris Court ·
“I took photos of my wife seated, on a tripod, in our living room.”
That doesn’t sound like a very comfortable place to sit…
PJ ·
Ha! I thought the same thing.
Tord55 ·
Ouch!
Chris Court ·
"I took photos of my wife seated, on a tripod, in our living room."
That doesn't sound like a very comfortable place to sit…
Spy Black ·
Actually, other than some funky prismatic halation from point light sources, typically at night, the Tokina would do pretty well. It's heavy AF tho.
geekyrocketguy ·
Doesn’t a lens’s sharpness depend on its focus distance? Given that the chart must have been pretty close, and these lenses are generally optimized for outside shooting of far away objects, I can’t convince myself that the sharpness test is representative of real-world (i.e. far away) performance.
Jo Jundt ·
Correct. I tried the Sigma 14-24/2.8 (and a year ago the 12-24/4) and at around 3 m there’s nearly no distortion left at 14 mm.
I don’t care if a lens “feels” heavy – if it’s the best for the job, it simply is the best.
But I do care if a lens tends to show flare – and at least the (old) Nikon 14-24 is a flare magnet! “Forgetting” this, and putting subjective “feels heavy” in the comparison – no way.
Zach, Roger has build quite a reputation by comparing a batch of lenses and see how they do. He always pointed out – at least, that’s what I remember – the random effects of testing only one sample. I take it that the samples tested were within specs. But leave the comparison of lenses to other sites which better understand the needs of information.
If you can’t do better than this, Philipp Pettit, you should leave it. Excluding two lenses which fit in the pattern and are neither exotic nor unavailable at Lensrentals is a pretty weird decision.
geekyrocketguy ·
Doesn't a lens's sharpness depend on its focus distance? Given that the chart must have been pretty close, and these lenses are generally optimized for outside shooting of far away objects, I can't convince myself that the sharpness test is representative of real-world (i.e. far away) performance.
Jo Jundt ·
Correct. I tried the Sigma 14-24/2.8 (and a year ago the 12-24/4) and at around 3 m there's nearly no distortion left at 14 mm.
I don't care if a lens "feels" heavy - if it's the best for the job, it simply is the best.
But I do care if a lens tends to show flare - and at least the (old) Nikon 14-24 is a flare magnet! "Forgetting" this, and putting subjective "feels heavy" in the comparison - no way.
Zach, Roger has build quite a reputation by comparing a batch of lenses and see how they do. He always pointed out - at least, that's what I remember - the random effects of testing only one sample. I take it that the samples tested were within specs. But leave the comparison of lenses to other sites which better understand the needs of information.
If you can't do better than this, Philipp Pettit, you should leave it. Excluding two lenses which fit in the pattern and are neither exotic nor unavailable at Lensrentals is a pretty weird decision.
Phanter ·
I am sorry, but this test doesn’t live up to your usual standard @lensrentals
1. Why exclude the Sigma 12-24 F4 Art? (I know why you excluded lenses like the Tamron 15-30; Sony 16-35 GM or Canon 16-35 III, but this lens would definetly belong here)
2. Your sharpness test is a joke. Testing a landscape lens at close focus? That will skew your results by a large margin
3. Same goes for the distortion. Please test that at infinity
Jo Jundt ·
I only can agree. There are tons of amateur “comparison” videos on YouTube. Lenstrentals used to bring some sense and solid facts, less so the “feels heavy” part.
If a Canon or Nikon owner is looking into UWA zooms, the Sigmas are a valid alternative to the genuine ones. A comparison not including both Sigmas is really not worth being called a comparsion.
geekyrocketguy ·
I agree wholeheartedly. The Lensrentals blog distinguished itself through
1) objective, scientific analysis of lens performance; and
2) having statistically significant sample sizes (i.e. NOT JUST ONE LENS) and then commenting on sample variation.
No one else provided these two services.
All these recent un-scientific posts are just watering down the body of work at the LensRentals blog and detracting from its credibility. A small number of high-quality posts is far better than a deluge of these sorts of fluff posts.
Carleton Foxx ·
Back off. He’s just a rookie, give him a break.
And close focus on a landscape lens is very important because good landscape photos require the juxtaposition of very close objects in the foreground, differently scaled objects in the mid ground, and elements in the distance at yet another scale.
The hallmark of a bad photographer is to shoot landscapes in which there is no variation in size or distance among the main elements of the scene.
Phanter ·
I am sorry, but this test doesn't live up to your usual standard @lensrentals
1. Why exclude the Sigma 12-24 F4 Art? (I know why you excluded lenses like the Tamron 15-30; Sony 16-35 GM or Canon 16-35 III, but this lens would definetly belong here)
2. Your sharpness test is a joke. Testing a landscape lens at close focus? That will skew your results by a large margin
3. Same goes for the distortion. Please test that at infinity
Jo Jundt ·
I only can agree. There are tons of amateur "comparison" videos on YouTube. Lenstrentals used to bring some sense and solid facts, less so the "feels heavy" part.
If a Canon or Nikon owner is looking into UWA zooms, the Sigmas are a valid alternative to the genuine ones. A comparison not including both Sigmas is really not worth being called a comparsion.
geekyrocketguy ·
I agree wholeheartedly. The Lensrentals blog distinguished itself through
1) objective, scientific analysis of lens performance; and
2) having statistically significant sample sizes (i.e. NOT JUST ONE LENS) and then commenting on sample variation.
No one else provided these two services.
All these recent un-scientific posts are just watering down the body of work at the LensRentals blog and detracting from its credibility. A small number of high-quality posts is far better than a deluge of these sorts of fluff posts.
Carleton Foxx ·
Back off. He's just a rookie, give him a break.
And close focus on a landscape lens is very important because good landscape photos require the juxtaposition of very close objects in the foreground, differently scaled objects in the mid ground, and elements in the distance at yet another scale.
The hallmark of a bad photographer is to shoot landscapes in which there is no variation in size or distance among the main elements of the scene.
Yair ·
Thanks for the effort.
I didn’t get the same results out of my tests on the D850.
I suspect today a landscape photographer is using a 36 MP and up camera and it is critical to test the lenses on a body like this( 5Dsr or A7R 3)
I strongly recommend retesting the Sigma ART 14-24 at reasonable distance.
Sigma has clearly optimized the lens not for close focusing.
( Same case as with the 135 ART)
I had both Nikon 14-24 and Tamron 15-30 for a long while and the Sigma is way better in real world than both of them.
I feel the real competition today is Canon 16-35 2.8 MK3 vs Sony 16-35 2.8 GM vs Sigma Art 14-24.
Or
Canon 11-24 F/4 , Sony 12-24 F/4 and Sigma ART 12-24 F/4.
Mixing zooms with so different FL doesn’t make sense.
Thanks again
Yair
SpecialMan ·
I’ve always wondered how to find out what distance a particular lens was optimized for. Can you shed some light on how you came to the conclusion that Sigma has not optimized its lens for close focusing? Is there a standard method that I can try with my lenses? Thanks…
Yair ·
i suggest you look into dustin abbott youtube review of the Sigma ART 135mm and the comparison to the Zeiss Milvus.
you can clearly see the Sigma is inferior to the Zeiss on close range while on normal portrait distance they are much closer.
i own the ART 135 and it is amazing from about 2 meters while below that distance even when manually focused very carefully it is just not as bittingly sharp. the Milvus is perfect and in any distance , at a cost 🙂
Same goes in the 14-24.
Yet the nikon is not perfect at the distance it has nasty field curvature and bad CA and flare.
I moved from the Nikon to the Tamron 15-30 and it was better overall, and recently i moved to the ART and it is the best UWA Lens i tested on the D850 again not at close distance.
Sadly you have to carefully pick your sample of Sigma ART , the copy variation seems big.
dustin abbott reviewed a very good copy while cameralabs and Diglloyd had copies with different behaviours.
All lenses are compromises especially on wide angle, even the Otus 28 isn’t as perfect as the 50 and 85.
Yair ·
Thanks for the effort.
I didn’t get the same results out of my tests on the D850.
I suspect today a landscape photographer is using a 36 MP and up camera and it is critical to test the lenses on a body like this( 5Dsr or A7R 3)
I strongly recommend retesting the Sigma ART 14-24 at reasonable distance.
Sigma has clearly optimized the lens not for close focusing.
( Same case as with the 135 ART)
I had both Nikon 14-24 and Tamron 15-30 for a long while and the Sigma is way better in real world than both of them.
I feel the real competition today is Canon 16-35 2.8 MK3 vs Sony 16-35 2.8 GM vs Sigma Art 14-24.
Or
Canon 11-24 F/4 , Sony 12-24 F/4 and Sigma ART 12-24 F/4.
Mixing zooms with so different FL doesn’t make sense.
Thanks again
Yair
SpecialMan ·
I've always wondered how to find out what distance a particular lens was optimized for. Can you shed some light on how you came to the conclusion that Sigma has not optimized its lens for close focusing? Is there a standard method that I can try with my lenses? Thanks...
Yair ·
i suggest you look into dustin abbott youtube review of the Sigma ART 135mm and the comparison to the Zeiss Milvus.
you can clearly see the Sigma is inferior to the Zeiss on close range while on normal portrait distance they are much closer.
i own the ART 135 and it is amazing from about 2 meters while below that distance even when manually focused very carefully it is just not as bittingly sharp. the Milvus is perfect and in any distance , at a cost :)
Same goes in the 14-24.
Yet the nikon is not perfect at the distance it has nasty field curvature and bad CA and flare.
I moved from the Nikon to the Tamron 15-30 and it was better overall, and recently i moved to the ART and it is the best UWA Lens i tested on the D850 again not at close distance.
Sadly you have to carefully pick your sample of Sigma ART , the copy variation seems big.
dustin abbott reviewed a very good copy while cameralabs and Diglloyd had copies with different behaviours.
All lenses are compromises especially on wide angle, even the Otus 28 isn't as perfect as the 50 and 85.
SpecialMan ·
Nice work. Very useful and your method is an intriguing alternative to Roger’s hyper-controlled tests. You’re the yin to his yang.
SpecialMan ·
Nice work. Very useful and your method is an intriguing alternative to Roger's hyper-controlled tests. You're the yin to his yang.
Spy Black ·
Not the copy I worked with. Good wide open, AF was accurate. No problems. You may have had a bad copy, which is an ongoing problem with buying lenses today, even from OEMs. The 24-70 Tokina I worked did not have the prismatic effect, and was far superior to the G1 Tamron.
Gene ·
Since these were taken on a tripod, was the mirror locked up for the image comparison photos on the Canon & Nikon cameras?
Nobody Knows ·
I have had the Nikon 14-24mm since it first came out in 2007 and it really was a revelation at the time and I still have it. I recently jumped into Sony mirrorless and the 12-24mm with the profile applied is doing a great job . As you say you cannot really go wrong with any of them.
Ally Aycock Patterson ·
He tested Sigma.
Azmodeus ·
One of the prime reasons I got a Sony A7R3 was to get the Sony 12-24 f/4. Whislt I still have Canon gear, the idea of a 1.1+kg lens that cost nearly $4K where I live was galling. The A7R3 + 12-24 saves me around 3/4kg and the lens cost be half the 11-24 and performs exceptionally well. UWA is the one area mirrorless lenses can be made substantially smaller than their DSLR counterparts.
corrupted pixel ·
One of the prime reasons I got a Sony A7R3 was to get the Sony 12-24 f/4. Whislt I still have Canon gear, the idea of a 1.1+kg lens that cost nearly $4K where I live was galling. The A7R3 + 12-24 saves me around 3/4kg and the lens cost be half the 11-24 and performs exceptionally well. UWA is the one area mirrorless lenses can be made substantially smaller than their DSLR counterparts.
Munchma Quchi ·
I only buy the Zeiss Milhouse lenses. They are the best. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f78b121104b56d181bd7095026e8fdbc2d4d19d9050b1525773bbd0ecb369e46.jpg
Dr Jiulin Teng ·
The Sony’s size & weight are very attractive
ftig ·
but the price makes it the least. especially when youre comparing what u get with the sigma 14-24. $800 less !!!!
Dr Jiulin Teng ·
The Sony's size & weight are very attractive
Rick Colman ·
Disappointing is the lack of any mention of COMA and astigmatism. I would, and perhaps others into night landscapes, might have wished for testing in this area.
Lauryn ·
Any opinions between the sigma 14-24 2.8 vs the sigma 12-24 f4?
Tamron India ·
Thanks for the post, Introducing Tamron's Best Zoom lens, designed specifically to meet the needs of professional photographers. With its advanced and innovative technology, this lens ensures crisp and clear images, making every shot a masterpiece. Plus, its compact and lightweight design lets you capture those breathtaking moments without any hassle. Get ready to elevate your photography game with Tamron's Best Zoom lens.
Visit here: https://tamron.in/
Tamron India ·
Tamron India presents a remarkable range of DSLR camera lenses that cater to the diverse needs of photography enthusiasts. Our lenses are designed using cutting-edge technology and high-quality materials to deliver exceptional performance. Whether you are an amateur or a professional photographer, our lenses will help you click sharp and clear pictures, every time.
Visit here: https://tamron.in/
Tamron India ·
Thanks for the post, Introducing the latest and greatest from Tamron India - our Lens for E-Mount! Designed with precision and quality in mind, this lens is perfect for capturing stunning images on your E-mount camera. With superior sharpness and clarity, this lens will take your photography to the next level. Upgrade your gear and invest in Tamron's Lens for E-Mount.
Visit here: https://tamron.in/