Sigma 14 - 24 F 2.8

[Hendrikus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Someone experiences with the Sigma 14 - 24 mm F 2.8 DG DN Art on the SL 3/SL3 S

[beewee]

Would be helpful if you have specific questions about the combo.

[Ning Ning]

Indeed. If you have any specific questions, let us know.

Otherwise, I can only report very good things about the combination in general. In terms of sharpness (right into the corners) and distortion, it is by far the best ultra-wide-angle lens I have ever owned. Until then it was the Nikon 14-24.

[Tirpitz666]

Don’t have for L mount, but it has performed always wonderfully adapted on my high MP Sony and Nikon cameras, a very capable (although heavy and bulky) fast WA zoom with a very reasonable price (especially used).

[Hendrikus]

Thanks to you both. Let me introduce myself first, Henk Vos from The Netherlands, since a few months owner of  a Q 3 43, and before that enthusiast user of Fuji equipment. I am almost  75 years of age and I didn't want to travel any more with a number of lenses in my backpack, convinced as I was that one lens will do from that moment. But I was wrong .

By using the Q 3 43 I missed reasonable soon after that  more reach for my way of photographing: street, city and landscape . In other words my intention is to trade in the Q 3 and go for an Sl 3 or  SL 3 /S .   And to keep the cost a little bit low therefore my choice for Sigma. Besides the 14- 24, also found good reviews about the 50mm and the 85 mm.

I saw the good reviews about the Leica 28 - 70 but I prefer primes.

 

[beewee]

Optically, the Sigma 14-24 DG DN is every bit as sharp as my SL 16-35 at all equivalent focal lengths and aperture.

I personally don’t use it all that much because the focal length range is less useful than the 16-35, it doesn’t accept front filters, and it can be a bit prone to lens flair when the sun is in or at the edge of the frame. However, until the Sigma 14/1.4 came out, the 14-24 was my main astrophotography lens.

I don’t own the SL 28-70. The size and generally rendering looks quite appealing. The only optically quality that gives me pause about this lens is that every single photo that I’ve seen taken with this lens at close focus distance with bright bokeh balls in the background shows some strong blue chromatic aberrations around the edge of the bokeh balls. I imagine for landscapes, if you’re shooting at smaller apertures and focused close to infinity, this shouldn’t be a problem but if your shooting at close focus distances for street or city at night with large apertures, you’ll likely run into the issue especially in the evenings and at night.

If you want a light kit and prefer primes, there are a number of really good options in Sigma’s i-series contemporary line. They are reasonably priced, light, compact, and optically excellent, especially if stopped down for landscape.

Edited July 25 by beewee

[Hendrikus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, beewee said:

Optically, the Sigma 14-24 DG DN is every bit as sharp as my SL 16-35 at all equivalent focal lengths and aperture.

I personally don’t use it all that much because the focal length range is less useful than the 16-35, it doesn’t accept front filters, and it can be a bit prone to lens flair when the sun is in or at the edge of the frame. However, until the Sigma 14/1.4 came out, the 14-24 was my main astrophotography lens.

I don’t own the SL 28-70. The size and generally rendering looks quite appealing. The only optically quality that gives me pause about this lens is that every single photo that I’ve seen taken with this lens at close focus distance with bright bokeh balls in the background shows some strong blue chromatic aberrations around the edge of the bokeh balls. I imagine for landscapes, if you’re shooting at smaller apertures and focused close to infinity, this shouldn’t be a problem but if your shooting at close focus distances for street or city at night with large apertures, you’ll likely run into the issue especially in the evenings and at night.

If you want a light kit and prefer primes, there are a number of really good options in Sigma’s i-series contemporary line. They are reasonably priced, light, compact, and optically excellent, especially if stopped down for landscape.

Thanks Beewee, I'm going to have a further look on the Sigma's. I just saw an excellent review of Sigma's 35mm F 1.2 DG DN art, but very heavy.  

[Tirpitz666]

I'm eyeing that Sigma 35 since a lot of time, apart from the weight and bulk, looks like an amazing lens for the price, but for now I'm doing with the comparably diminutive Voigt 35 F1.2 III for M-mount, which is anyway a pretty good lens for the price.

Edited July 25 by Tirpitz666

[Donald M]

I used the 14-24 as well, but I went for the Sigma 17mm dgdn. Very light and very good quality, especially compared to the 14-24. Only f4.0 though. I can recommend the Sigma 50mm f1.2, as I use the 24-90 (not exactly a light lens😅) as my main lens and the f1.2 is rather different. I have next to the 50mm or the 24-90 always the 17mm with me. Maybe you can try before you buy…

[BernardC]

54 minutes ago, Tirpitz666 said:

I'm eyeing that Sigma 35 since a lot of time, apart from the weight and bulk, looks like an amazing lens for the price, but for now I'm doing with the comparably diminutive Voigt 35 F1.2 III for M-mount, which is anyway a pretty good lens for the price.

There is a rumour that Sigma will release a new version of the 35/1.2 later this year. It should be smaller and lighter, and probably sharper, although the current one is no slouch.

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, beewee said:

Optically, the Sigma 14-24 DG DN is every bit as sharp as my SL 16-35 at all equivalent focal lengths and aperture.

I personally don’t use it all that much because the focal length range is less useful than the 16-35, it doesn’t accept front filters, and it can be a bit prone to lens flair when the sun is in or at the edge of the frame. However, until the Sigma 14/1.4 came out, the 14-24 was my main astrophotography lens.

I don’t own the SL 28-70. The size and generally rendering looks quite appealing. The only optically quality that gives me pause about this lens is that every single photo that I’ve seen taken with this lens at close focus distance with bright bokeh balls in the background shows some strong blue chromatic aberrations around the edge of the bokeh balls. I imagine for landscapes, if you’re shooting at smaller apertures and focused close to infinity, this shouldn’t be a problem but if your shooting at close focus distances for street or city at night with large apertures, you’ll likely run into the issue especially in the evenings and at night.

If you want a light kit and prefer primes, there are a number of really good options in Sigma’s i-series contemporary line. They are reasonably priced, light, compact, and optically excellent, especially if stopped down for landscape.

Blue fringing around highlights is normally not chromatic aberration but sensor blooming. In general fringing in OOF areas cannot be chromatic aberration because that can, by definition, only occur in the focal plane.
Also chromatic aberration will always be two opposing fringes, like red-green,  purple-yellow, etc. 
We are not looking at a lens fault here.

What camera are you using? I have seen this occur on the SL601, but other sensors are not immune.

 

[Tirpitz666]

Thank you Bernard, one reason more to hold off for a bit more 🙂

[beewee]

12 hours ago, jaapv said:

Blue fringing around highlights is normally not chromatic aberration but sensor blooming. In general fringing in OOF areas cannot be chromatic aberration because that can, by definition, only occur in the focal plane.
Also chromatic aberration will always be two opposing fringes, like red-green,  purple-yellow, etc. 
We are not looking at a lens fault here.

I think you’re referring to lateral chromatic aberrations. 

There’s also longitudinal chromatic aberrations where highlights and high contrast areas in front and behind the focal plane shows colour fringing that is different in colors. For example, you may see magenta for high contrast edges in front of the focal plane and cyan behind the focal plane.
 

 

[jaapv]

I am referring to both lateral and longitudinal chromatic aberration. Purple Longitudinal Chromatic aberration certainly exists, but it will manifest itself on sharp edges. If it occurs in the OOF edges, it is sensor blooming. The same with the blue haloes described by the poster for bokeh balls. Given that they are out of focus they are a sensor phenomenon - and a well known one. The M8 was particularly vulnerable. My personal experience with the Summilux 50 asph - an APO lens without the official designation-,bears this out. So yes, these colour aberrations are a multiple-cause effect and cannot be attributed to a single reason without thorough analysis. The best guidance is the plane of focus   If the colour aberration occurs there it is without doubt chromatic aberration. If outside the plane of focus the cause is increasingly not in the correction of the lens.

l. 

[Hendrikus]

Thank you all so far...I visited nearby my hometown a Leica shop yesterday and they offered me a SL 3 S  with the Leica 35 en 50 mm both 2.0 asph. for a very reasonable trade  in with my Q 3 43 (From February this year))  As far as I read reviews on this forum both lenses are doing  quitte well. So  I will think this over also this weekend, besides the Sigma's  I mentioned earlier here.

For a very long time I am not used to write in English language , so I do apologize if something is not correct. 

[jaapv]

If you want to save, the Panasonics 35 and 50 1.8 l are the "donor lenses" for the Leicas, albeit lesser rain resistant but optically identical and well built. Of course the set you mention is on special offer right now.