Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure why the admins merged the previous Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN thread with the 50mm f/1.4 DG DN thread. I’m starting a new thread again, because it’s a totally different lens than the 50mm f/1.4!

Just got the lens in my hands today. Haven’t shot it yet but it’s pretty chunky. It’s definitely large by most mirrorless lenses with exception to the SL zooms and maybe the 50/1.4 SL.

I noticed one thing it seems none of the reviewers noticed, or at least bothered to mention, which is the lens hood is self-aligning. It’s a really nice touch, in addition to the thoughtful inclusion of the rear filter storage compartment that is built into the lens hood. The way it works is that, the inside of the lens hood is shaped to conform to the shape of the integrated petal hood on the lens. So when you push on the lens cap, the inside of the cap will self-align with the shape of the petal hood. Pretty nifty and it means that the Sigma logo on the lens hood will always be properly oriented and you can use it as a means to center the tripod collar by feel in the dark.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[helged]

13 hours ago, beewee said:

Not sure why the admins merged the previous Sigma 14mm f/1.4 DG DN thread with the 50mm f/1.4 DG DN thread. I’m starting a new thread again, because it’s a totally different lens than the 50mm f/1.4!

Just got the lens in my hands today. Haven’t shot it yet but it’s pretty chunky. It’s definitely large by most mirrorless lenses with exception to the SL zooms and maybe the 50/1.4 SL.

I noticed one thing it seems none of the reviewers noticed, or at least bothered to mention, which is the lens hood is self-aligning. It’s a really nice touch, in addition to the thoughtful inclusion of the rear filter storage compartment that is built into the lens hood. The way it works is that, the inside of the lens hood is shaped to conform to the shape of the integrated petal hood on the lens. So when you push on the lens cap, the inside of the cap will self-align with the shape of the petal hood. Pretty nifty and it means that the Sigma logo on the lens hood will always be properly oriented and you can use it as a means to center the tripod collar by feel in the dark.

A nice lens!

Check that the corners are equally sharp at infinity, wide open, and stopped down a little. Some lenses may have some misalignment of one/several glas elements. If so, this will show up as (typically) two blurred corners.

When using the lens, shooting wide open, put the focus point about 1/3 off the image centre; this tends to give even (and best) sharpness across the image. At least based on personal testing with several copies of the lens. 

(I know you are a advanced user, so pardon..., but the above may help others). 

[Pierre68]

So anyone bought the lens?

[lik]

Hi @helged,

I actually ordered it directly from Sigma and received it yesterday. My first few shots haven't been that satisfying as I expected but maybe this was an over expecting because of the enthusiastic reviews in the internet and my comparison with my Leica Vario SL 16-35

Am 11.7.2023 um 19:25 schrieb helged:

some misalignment of one/several glas elements. If so, this will show up as (typically) two blurred corners.

I'm not sure yet but this may be the case. 

And you wrote about 

Am 11.7.2023 um 19:25 schrieb helged:

personal testing with several copies of the lens. 

So you had complaints and gave back one or more? 

I hope to have the opportunity to take some milky way shots in October / November, thus I still have some time left to exchange it if necessary. 

I would be thankful for your answer. 

[helged]

4 minutes ago, lik said:

Hi @helged,

I actually ordered it directly from Sigma and received it yesterday. My first few shots haven't been that satisfying as I expected but maybe this was an over expecting because of the enthusiastic reviews in the internet and my comparison with my Leica Vario SL 16-35

I'm not sure yet but this may be the case. 

And you wrote about 

So you had complaints and gave back one or more? 

I hope to have the opportunity to take some milky way shots in October / November, thus I still have some time left to exchange it if necessary. 

I would be thankful for your answer. 

Hi,

And sorry to hear that you are not fully satisfied with the off-centre sharpness. I tested three lenses; one was totally off towards the edges, one was ok-ish, the third was fine. I did return the two first lenses, both at the local store. They accepted the return without questions.

Be sure to properly focus the lens at something faaaar away, like stars, the moon, distant mountains, etc., preferably with the focus point somewhat (1/3) off the image centre. Also try to find evenings/nights with clear air and/or without thermal flickering. I always use focus magnification. The sharpness should - by-the-way - be as good as/better than the SL16-35 at/near the edges and corners.

[lik]

Thank you so much for your answer!

I see some work ahead before fun! 😅 

[lik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since I have no opportunity to be in a landscape or another environment where every corner is far away and a cloudy sky (I'd probably better test it in Norway 😅) most of the time but being curious I tried the only quick and dirty test I could do which was - as so often – a bookshelf. This led me at least to some first assumptions an preliminary conclusions: 

• The micro contrast of the Leica SVE 16-35 is visibly better all over the frame at aperture 4 -5.6;
• from 8 they become very similar which means letters could be read in both pics but the micro contrast of the Leica to me seems to remain slightly stronger;
• color rendering of the Leica is more saturated whereas the colours of the Sigma in the corners are somewhat pale, but this might be due to the internal profiles in LR;
• comparing aperture 1.4 and 2.0 at the Sigma there's hardly a visible difference. 

In a first occlusion I dare to say

• that this lens could be very fine for astro even wide open – one reason I bought it (even though I'm far away from being an experienced astro photographer, but just have the ambition to do some on my next travel). Maybe a little challenge could be making stars in corners shining by improving contrast / mid tone contrast;
• for landscapes and architecture wide open (which is 3.5 for the Leica SVE) I would use it in case my Leica at 16mm is not enough;
• but stopped down from 5.6 and more I would not hesitate to use the Sigma instead of the Leica whenever the composition might be improved. 
• And nobody would see a difference on even large prints. 

Compared to the price of a Leica it's just a fantastic lens.

Well, shall I keep this copy or try to improve results with a change to another one? OMG - what if this one would be worse??? It's so hard to compare lenses on a 61 MP sensor... 🙄😅

[Pierre68]

Well a lot of people seem to compare the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 with the Leica 16-35 f/3.5-4.5. To me this does not really make sense as the two lenses are oriented toward radically different purposes. I think a closest competitor would be the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 or the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM... I have been lurking towards astrophotography for quite some times, using the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 ZM distagon first with a M to L adapter and then the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 which I am now considering selling since I also have the Leica 16-35 f/3.5-4.5. But the latter is definitely not an astrophotography lens because of its aperture. So I am now hesitating between keeping the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 or selling it and buying either the newest Sigma 14mm f/1.4 or the sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM....

[beewee]

On 8/17/2023 at 1:46 PM, Pierre68 said:

Well a lot of people seem to compare the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 with the Leica 16-35 f/3.5-4.5. To me this does not really make sense as the two lenses are oriented toward radically different purposes. I think a closest competitor would be the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 or the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM... I have been lurking towards astrophotography for quite some times, using the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 ZM distagon first with a M to L adapter and then the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 which I am now considering selling since I also have the Leica 16-35 f/3.5-4.5. But the latter is definitely not an astrophotography lens because of its aperture. So I am now hesitating between keeping the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 or selling it and buying either the newest Sigma 14mm f/1.4 or the sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM....

I think there’s reason to have all 3 lenses (14/1.4, 14-24 DG DN, 16-35 SL). I have them but haven’t had a chance to really give the 14/1.4 some use yet.

The focal length, aperture, and (claimed) coma free corners of the 14/1.4 makes it ideal for wide field astro but the size definitely makes it more of a specialist lens. If I had a Sony system, I’d be willing to sacrifice the 2/3 stops and go for the Sony 14/1.8 GM just because of the size and weight difference.

If I need 14mm but without the f/1.4-1.8 aperture, such as photographing slot canyons and other tight spaces, the Sigma 14-24 is a great option. The 14-24 DG DN will also work fine as an astro lens when shooting with the SL2-S where you can use ISO 12500 but for something like the SL2, the 2 extra stops of light would make a big difference for the 14/1.4. Another area where the 14/1.4 would win over the 14-24 DG DN is for Auroras where shooting at faster shutter speeds (~1s) will capture images with more structure in the aurora as they can move and change quite quickly.

The 16-35 SL is more of a generalist landscape lens. The extra reach between 24-35mm is very handy, especially if you don’t want to carry extra lenses to go more towards the telephoto side and 16mm is plenty wide for the fast majority of landscape scenes to be captured. Also, since landscape photography is normally taken while the sky has some light, the f/3.5-4.5 aperture isn’t a total deal breaker, especially something like the SL2-S where you can shoot confidently with high ISO and the IBIS is good enough to handhold down to around 0.5s.

In my controlled testing between 14-24 DG DN and the 16-35 SL, they performed similarly at equivalent apertures when shooting at distant objects about 1km away. Optically, I see them as pretty much the same so when deciding on which one to use, it’s really jsut a matter of what focal length I want and whether I want to use screw on filters or not.

Edited August 19, 2023 by beewee

[lik]

Am 17.8.2023 um 21:46 schrieb Pierre68:

Well a lot of people seem to compare the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 with the Leica 16-35 f/3.5-4.5. To me this does not really make sense as the two lenses are oriented toward radically different purposes.

Of course these lenses have different use cases as I also wrote. I simply do that comparison very pragmatically because the SL SVE 16-35 is my other ultra wide and to me it's a reference. 

[lik]

Finally I had a first opportunity to try it out and compare it to the Vario SL 16-35 for some shots. Unfortunately I had no scenery in front of me where the edges were as far away as the center or the sides of the frame. Anyway – it wasn't scientific work but I'm really surprised:

The Sigma and the Leica are very close to each other...

• ...but this is only true as long as you don't stop down more than 5.6 – so they are almost equal as long as aperture from 3.5 until 5.6 is applied...
• ...because the Sigma becomes remarkably worse due to visible diffraction stopped down from 8.0, even in the center...
• ...whereas the Leica is at least tolerable until f/11...
• ...whereas btw the sharpness of the Sigma is almost the same from 2.0 until 5.6...
• ...even from side to side of the frame...
• ...but only in the center sharpness is still good at f/1.4 – but really still good!

My personal conclusion – letting the different angles aside:

• The Sigma is a great lens which will make fun to use for the Milky Way wide open and in landscapes as long as stopping down more than 5.6 is not needed.
• At f/8 it would be disappointing to use it for landscape. 
• The SL Vario therefore is more versatile in Landscape but obviously no option for the stars. 
• So the Sigma cannot replace the Leica and vice versa. 

Really amazing – I keep both of them. 

[lik]

I had an opportunity to challenge it against bright sun. It's a bit trial and error to find the right angle without having too much flare. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pierre68]

looks pretty decent to me

 

[Simone_DF]

In case people find this lens too extreme, turns out Pergear has released a good 14mm f/2.8 lens.

TL;DR: smaller and lighter, but f/2.8, heavy vignette, good performance

https://dustinabbott.net/2023/09/pergear-14mm-f2-8-ii-review/ 

[lik]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb Pierre68:

looks pretty decent to me

 

Yes, a heavy stone but good for my use case!