Jump to content

sigma 20mm L-mount


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi together,

I got my hands on the new I 20mm from Sigma this weekend. To me it looks "not bad" - but there is no Leica SL available to compare. In the corners its is better than my 18mm SEM till f-5,6 than it's equal on the SL. The bokeh (look for yourself) is like any super WA a little bit nervous for landscapes but f 2,0 is not so soft used in this field of Photographie. How good the intern Profile is is hard to say - you can switch it off in C1 but there is no C1-Profile available till now. In Affinity there are no intern profiles and than you have very strong distortion.

So look for yourself :)  

1: f/2,0

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 31 Minuten schrieb TeleElmar135mm:

Hi together,

I got my hands on the new I 20mm from Sigma this weekend. To me it looks "not bad" - but there is no Leica SL available to compare. In the corners its is better than my 18mm SEM till f-5,6 than it's equal on the SL. The bokeh (look for yourself) is like any super WA a little bit nervous for landscapes but f 2,0 is not so soft used in this field of Photographie. How good the intern Profile is is hard to say - you can switch it off in C1 but there is no C1-Profile available till now. In Affinity there are no intern profiles and than you have very strong distortion.

So look for yourself :)  

1: f/2,0

 

to MY point of view it depends on your workflow and wherefore you are using the lens. as you mentioned there is no leica L Mount glass in this range (f2.0). I took a lot of pics with my 16-35 and with m mount 28mm Summilux. I cannot say subscribe your opinion "not bad". I do like the 20mm

 

 

 

the last four pics are taken at f2.0

Lensflare- only direct into the sun...

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 4 Minuten schrieb BlackDoc:

to MY point of view it depends on your workflow and wherefore you are using the lens. as you mentioned there is no leica L Mount glass in this range (f2.0). I took a lot of pics with my 16-35 and with m mount 28mm Summilux. I cannot say subscribe your opinion "not bad". I do like the 20mm

You are right, there is the Vario Leica lens - but there are differences between the varios and the primes when you comparer them.  And the 16-35 is 3,5-4,5 and the Sigma is 2,0. The Summicron primes are 2,0 - so I think its more meaningful to compare two primes - but that's not possible.

"The not bad" - is an expression translated from  German ("nicht so schlecht") for a very well thing when you want to say it could be a little little better - but that's  whining on a high level. That's why a put it in " ". Sorry for misunderstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 7 Minuten schrieb TeleElmar135mm:

You are right, there is the Vario Leica lens - but there are differences between the varios and the primes when you comparer them.  And the 16-35 is 3,5-4,5 and the Sigma is 2,0. The Summicron primes are 2,0 - so I think its more meaningful to compare two primes - but that's not possible.

"The not bad" - is an expression translated from  German ("nicht so schlecht") for a very well thing when you want to say it could be a little little better - but that's  whining on a high level. That's why a put it in " ". Sorry for misunderstanding.

😃

Right at the moment I am on a trip through the isle of Skye, and more than ever am using a prime -> this 20mm. To me it fits...

another example with f2.2

(click to get a sharper view)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sigma looks good - as I said before - but it is not a real 20mm lens.

The angele of view compared to an Elmarit 21mm is much smaller with the profile. If you switch off the profile from Sigma, you get the "real" angele of view (but terrible distortion) but with you have about a 22-23mm lens. Even the 24-70 DG DN at 24 mm with and without profile makes such a big cut (and the aov is nearly identical to 24mm M). The Sigma 20mm has the biggest digital correction I ever saw.

My conclusion: If you have a 24mm you barely need the "cropped" 20mm Sigma because it is to close to a "real" 24mm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TeleElmar135mm said:

The Sigma looks good - as I said before - but it is not a real 20mm lens.

The angele of view compared to an Elmarit 21mm is much smaller with the profile. If you switch off the profile from Sigma, you get the "real" angele of view (but terrible distortion) but with you have about a 22-23mm lens. Even the 24-70 DG DN at 24 mm with and without profile makes such a big cut (and the aov is nearly identical to 24mm M). The Sigma 20mm has the biggest digital correction I ever saw.

My conclusion: If you have a 24mm you barely need the "cropped" 20mm Sigma because it is to close to a "real" 24mm. 

It would be interesting to compare the angle of view of the corrected sigma 20 and 24mm lenses. I don’t mind the idea of using digital correction for lens distortion, but if a lens is designed to be used with software correction, as this on is,  the focal length with correction should be listed. Or at least provide the angle of view in the specifications with and without correction. Not doing so is deceiving. This, and the strong vignette in some of the images posted above are a let down. I think sigma tried too hard with this lens to minimize size and weight and would have been better off making it a little bigger or stop slower. I am considering this lens, but  now I’m not so sure. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Very personal note …

I am using lenses by taking photos.
In practical use i can take photos with the 20mm where the 24-90 Leica has its limitation in wide angle.
There  is no other lens (M Mount excluded)  < 24mm. 
Go out and take some  nice photos - or wait, compare and complain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlackDoc said:


Very personal note …

I am using lenses by taking photos.
In practical use i can take photos with the 20mm where the 24-90 Leica has its limitation in wide angle.
There  is no other lens (M Mount excluded)  < 24mm. 
Go out and take some  nice photos - or wait, compare and complain.

Sigma has a 14mm which is less than 24mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlackDoc said:

Which I tried and  is a good lens, too. Unfortunately barely impossible to be used with a filter.....

There’s also a 14-24 zoom. I have one and love it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BlackDoc said:


Very personal note …

I am using lenses by taking photos.
In practical use i can take photos with the 20mm where the 24-90 Leica has its limitation in wide angle.
There  is no other lens (M Mount excluded)  < 24mm. 
Go out and take some  nice photos - or wait, compare and complain.

Agree. The Panasonic 16-35 was my first and still most used L mount lens. Gives me the luxury to consider prime options. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...