I just bought this lens to go with my Sony a7iii and i love it! I mostly shoot landscapes and this lens is just perfect for this.. thanks guys for your great reviews!
And a lovely break from that fantastic and super practical lens (just shot an entire wedding with it yesterday, awesome !)... though certainly a tad bit bulky at times 😁😅
Honestly a very cool lens, I'm currently looking for an ultrawide zoom and I was debating whether to get the Tamron 17-28 or the Zeiss 16-35mm f4 but this might just be the best option now!
@@AsuquoTravelsProductions i owned the 17-28 i would definately go for the sigma one /the barell sucking dust magnet with the barrel is a big throwback from the tamron otherwise its a great lens
@@meyerdigitalfilm I own the 17-28 & 28-75, and I have never had an dust issues because i clean and package my lenses after every use. If I ever do have any of such, my insurance will take care of that.
cleaning doesn't help, the dust gets sucked in while zooming. Insurance won't cover it because it's regarded as normal wear and tear. One of the main reasons to go with primes.
That's rather interesting hole opened here at 6:45! TBH happens also to me. I hope Chris have not spent all his money on photo gear and still can afford some decent pants!
Great review. I don't know how you guys power through all these new cool device and lens reviews. This is an exciting time for ILC photography. Question: would this lens do well with point light sources, like astrophotography and nighttime city scapes?
Did you mention that it has a fully internal zoom? IMO that's the best part. I've been waiting for Sigma to drop an alternative to the 16-35 GM though and this focal range just doesn't cut it for me. Looks like a great lens but 35mm is my absolute favorite so I'll just stick with the 20mm 1.8 for now.
One suggestion for lens tests, is maybe you could do a field curvature test similar to how Ted from Art of Photography does! It would be especially useful for these ultrawide lenses but I think it would be useful for all lenses. I like how you guys do your corner sharpness focused in the corners, but field curvature could tell more about edge sharpness when you’re focused on the center for those of us too used to focus and recompose, or for architecture/art photography. Otherwise, excellent review like always :)
At first I thought it was an APSC lens, but quickly realized it was for Full Frame. On APSC the zoom range would be a boring and lackluster but on FF, it becomes much more interesting although not unique.
2:00 I don't really care about ultra-wide zooms, but I'd love to know what that cool-lookin' bird in the background is. I'll bet Chris Frost would have included this info…
I seen both of your reviews on sigma 10-18 and 16-28. I'm shooting on S1h. Which lense would you recommend out of those two?? Looking forward to your reply!
Chris: "I feel like we've been reviewing a lot of ultra wide lenses lately." Looking back at your reviewing history there's only the Panasonic 9mm "lately". I expect reviews of the new Sony APS-C lenses coming up later today. 😜
Never you guys doma video for Astro using those ultrawides. The tamron is excellent with comma, would love to see how that sigma behaves since I am not paying for the 14mm 1.8 and the excelent sigma 14-24 doesn’t take front filters
I think your sharpness test chart could use some work, or at least how it is shown in the video. Christopher Frost uses a nice chart and zooms in close to really highlight the differences
But their final thoughts more or less always the same, so no problem here. I always watch two of them, but dpreview first because i need these fun-review first and then technical.
From what I've seen (owning the Tamron), the Sigma might be a little bit sharper, or have a little bit more small detail punch, colors are more neutral, Bokeh at the wide end is a bit better. I like the Sigmas washed out but big sun-stars. The Tamron is just a little bit smaller and lighter with a little bit better close up ratio - and it has a 67mm filter thread, which is practical for me. A little bit less vignetting, I'm not sure about the distortion, I think both are not great in these areas. If you own a high resolution camera, I'd buy the Sigma. If you have 24 Mpix and want to save money, I'd buy a used Tamron 17-28mm. Hope there will be more comparison videos soon.
Yep, that’s my first thought too, the focal range is too short. I’d trade having 35mm for a stop of light any day - f/4 is still plenty good for a lot of UWA applications.
@@bathygao It's more a matter of versatility. 35 is a wide fifty or a tight 28, making it perfect for general shooting. Tradition has no place in photography- probably most easily evidenced by the fact we're all shooting digital.
hi :) thks for the video. Quick questio. Lightroom doesn´t have a lens profile correction for this lens. How can i solve the vignetting and distortion without doing it manually every single photo? i appreciate your help :)
Switched to Sony quite recently and the mounts are driving me nuts! Can this lens be used with a Sony A7iv? Because of FE and E mount I am so confused!!
@@mattdebyl8806 You mean Sigma SA mount, the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM for example is not in L mount and thats a beautiful lens for more artistic shots or really low light stuff but its also a zoom.
Hi Sigma, no criticism, but if you ever feel like it, could you make a FF portrait zoom lens? It doesn't really exist yet. Something like a 35-85 f1.8? Cheers!
Why always review the L-mount version? Sure I do see people with L-mount Sigma lenses once every two-three years, but the majority of the customer uses the E-mount version. The beep-beep single autofocus on L-mount doesn't really tell how the lens perform in terms of autofocus.
Sigma tends to focus its first production runs on L-mount, since that's the system it's part of, so it's the L-mount samples that are typically available first. A few years ago it would be E-mount first, then before that, Canon EF mount.
no comparison. or even MENTION of the sigma art 14-24? If the quality is fairly similar, I"d jump on this if it means a lighter lens and filter thread, even at the expense of losing the 14mm and get a 16mm
@@DGOATD Went with the 20mm 1.8, worked great for astro and general, but found when I started doing some real estate work I had to go wider. Tried adding a cheap 14mm 2.8 Samyang, but found 12mm is what did the job. Ended up selling Samyang and picked up a used 12-24mm Sony f4 G for $999 on ebay. Still love and use the 20mm 1.8
On E mount, this is a bit of yawn to be honest. I wish it was 16-35 @ $1200, then I’d jump on it. But with it topping out at 28mm, I rather save that $900 and spring for a used 16-35/2.8 GM.
@@retropixer I think the kind of person who would buy this lens will never be the same person who will save $900 extra for a used behemoth GM. This line from sigma (16-28+28-70) is specifically to tackle the Tamron 17-28/28-75 combo. It's branded, built, and priced as such.
In what universe Tamron 17-28 is a "a little bit bulkier for sure"???? :o :o :o Literally, Tamron is couple of mm smaller and 30 grams lighter... That 17mm tho...
just to stay fair, the sony 16-36 is only ~100g lighter vs. the canon ef 16-35. they are playing tricks by reducing the reach, but this is no feature of mirrorless cameras. so whats the point? producing a different lens and comparing it ? i am sure this is a great lens, but the 28mm reduce weight, so would it do on dslrs.
I just want to say, that I get a chuckle every time you use a 'noct' as a unit of measurement. Major respect for the dedication to the bit :)
Nice addition to the luneup. Now please Sigma, give us a light and compact 70-180 or 70-200 2.8 please!!
A cheaper 70-200 2.8 preferably. 🤞🏾
Yes please!!!!
I for one enjoy the frequent content from you guys.
I for two.
are you kidding me, I am loving the pace at which you're posting videos! keep em coming!! 😃👍
I just bought this lens to go with my Sony a7iii and i love it! I mostly shoot landscapes and this lens is just perfect for this.. thanks guys for your great reviews!
Thanks for all the content!
Seems like the perfect complement to the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 for wedding and event shooters!
yes. good observation. i really wish tamron would produce for l mount.
And a lovely break from that fantastic and super practical lens (just shot an entire wedding with it yesterday, awesome !)... though certainly a tad bit bulky at times 😁😅
Great review! Thanks for covering every aspect of the lens and in great structure too! I got all the answers i needed, thanks again
Maybe do a comparison between this and the tamron 17-28. Same price point and mostly same range.
Impressive review, ordered and recieved my copy. Thank you.
I know Amazon has a reputation for underpaying their employees, but I'm pretty sure Chris makes enough money to buy a decent pair of pants. 6:42
Honestly a very cool lens, I'm currently looking for an ultrawide zoom and I was debating whether to get the Tamron 17-28 or the Zeiss 16-35mm f4 but this might just be the best option now!
Same thing here !
I will go with the Tamron 17-28. It is a fantastic lens and I have that along with 28-75 too.
@@AsuquoTravelsProductions i owned the 17-28 i would definately go for the sigma one /the barell sucking dust magnet with the barrel is a big throwback from the tamron otherwise its a great lens
@@meyerdigitalfilm I own the 17-28 & 28-75, and I have never had an dust issues because i clean and package my lenses after every use. If I ever do have any of such, my insurance will take care of that.
cleaning doesn't help, the dust gets sucked in while zooming. Insurance won't cover it because it's regarded as normal wear and tear. One of the main reasons to go with primes.
We want a comparison video between this lens and the Tamron 17-28 F2.8 for Sony FE mount.
That's rather interesting hole opened here at 6:45! TBH happens also to me. I hope Chris have not spent all his money on photo gear and still can afford some decent pants!
Great video guys!
Great review. I don't know how you guys power through all these new cool device and lens reviews. This is an exciting time for ILC photography. Question: would this lens do well with point light sources, like astrophotography and nighttime city scapes?
Great video!
Amongst all the Canadian content creators/RUclipsrs... Chris N. will always be our favorite
I just love how the comparison with noct weight is still going on. Keep up the NOCT work guys!😂
I was just going to pick up the Panasonic 16-35 F4 until I found this video. Sigma Pre-Order button here I come.
Did you mention that it has a fully internal zoom? IMO that's the best part. I've been waiting for Sigma to drop an alternative to the 16-35 GM though and this focal range just doesn't cut it for me. Looks like a great lens but 35mm is my absolute favorite so I'll just stick with the 20mm 1.8 for now.
How is your use with the Sony 20mm 1.8?
One suggestion for lens tests, is maybe you could do a field curvature test similar to how Ted from Art of Photography does! It would be especially useful for these ultrawide lenses but I think it would be useful for all lenses. I like how you guys do your corner sharpness focused in the corners, but field curvature could tell more about edge sharpness when you’re focused on the center for those of us too used to focus and recompose, or for architecture/art photography. Otherwise, excellent review like always :)
At first I thought it was an APSC lens, but quickly realized it was for Full Frame.
On APSC the zoom range would be a boring and lackluster but on FF, it becomes much more interesting although not unique.
Yeah, but with Sigma its easy to see, DG is FF and DC is APS
There are no other 16-28 f2.8... so kinda unique, actually 😜
2:00 I don't really care about ultra-wide zooms, but I'd love to know what that cool-lookin' bird in the background is. I'll bet Chris Frost would have included this info…
I seen both of your reviews on sigma 10-18 and 16-28. I'm shooting on S1h. Which lense would you recommend out of those two?? Looking forward to your reply!
good review.
How does it stack up against the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8?
The Sigma 14-24 is optically superior.
wow. cool lens
I need a sigma 70-200 for sony e mount so badly!
Which one better for Real Estate and Interior Photo and Event Photography?? Please Please suggest comparing to sigma 14-24mm
this is a nice lens👀
Chris: "I feel like we've been reviewing a lot of ultra wide lenses lately."
Looking back at your reviewing history there's only the Panasonic 9mm "lately". I expect reviews of the new Sony APS-C lenses coming up later today. 😜
You're on point! Good call!
Would you pick this over the lumix 14-28 for shooting mainly small interiors?
I like "this episode shot on...", but it would be nice to know if AF was used, esp with Panasonic cameras. :)
This was shot with manual focus.
Never you guys doma video for Astro using those ultrawides. The tamron is excellent with comma, would love to see how that sigma behaves since I am not paying for the 14mm 1.8 and the excelent sigma 14-24 doesn’t take front filters
Would be a killer if this is 16-35
yeah the price would be too for the wallet
Would be bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
Keep the same size and weight with 20-35 and i buy it in a heartbeat!
How about AF Transition Speed 7? Does it have focus breathing?
Is it better than Tamron and if so, by how much?
I think your sharpness test chart could use some work, or at least how it is shown in the video. Christopher Frost uses a nice chart and zooms in close to really highlight the differences
But their final thoughts more or less always the same, so no problem here. I always watch two of them, but dpreview first because i need these fun-review first and then technical.
for those details you have the website
How does it compare to the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8?
From what I've seen (owning the Tamron), the Sigma might be a little bit sharper, or have a little bit more small detail punch, colors are more neutral, Bokeh at the wide end is a bit better. I like the Sigmas washed out but big sun-stars.
The Tamron is just a little bit smaller and lighter with a little bit better close up ratio - and it has a 67mm filter thread, which is practical for me. A little bit less vignetting, I'm not sure about the distortion, I think both are not great in these areas.
If you own a high resolution camera, I'd buy the Sigma. If you have 24 Mpix and want to save money, I'd buy a used Tamron 17-28mm.
Hope there will be more comparison videos soon.
The gesture was very subtle...
Among L-mount alternatives you forgot to mention the Leica 16-35...
Seems like it's made to pair perfectly with their 28-70 f2.8
Makes sense. I haven't thought about it that way.
I was wondering why Sigma released a 28-70 f/2.8.
Less distortion than 1635g F4??
When I think about my 16-35 gm, I just need to admit how often I use the 35mm focal length. I think there are a lot of people like me out there.
the 35mm is not a popular focal length for nothing. It's my favorite Focal length. The 35GM is awesome for it.
Yep, that’s my first thought too, the focal range is too short. I’d trade having 35mm for a stop of light any day - f/4 is still plenty good for a lot of UWA applications.
@@Ildskalli Cropping works well quite often, but point taken.
35mm is a tradition, which is probably old school now. The general public are now trained by the phone camera, often 26mm or 28mm.
@@bathygao It's more a matter of versatility. 35 is a wide fifty or a tight 28, making it perfect for general shooting. Tradition has no place in photography- probably most easily evidenced by the fact we're all shooting digital.
hi :) thks for the video. Quick questio. Lightroom doesn´t have a lens profile correction for this lens. How can i solve the vignetting and distortion without doing it manually every single photo? i appreciate your help :)
Switched to Sony quite recently and the mounts are driving me nuts! Can this lens be used with a Sony A7iv? Because of FE and E mount I am so confused!!
I am already subscribed!!!!!!!!!!!
What about vignette? 😅
Wondering how's the barrel distortion and color fringing compared to Tamron 17-28? Thanks
Nikon F mount for D750 available soon ?
No, this lens is designed specifically for the short flange-back distance of mirrorless. This design would not be compatible with any DSLRs.
nice!
Please what camera body brand
To me it isn’t little breathing at 16mm. On the left you can see one building appear and disappear while focusing.
Sigma really should convert more of their lenses to L mount
They release all their lenses in L mount. It is literally their native mount.
@@mattdebyl8806
You mean Sigma SA mount, the 24-35mm F2 DG HSM for example is not in L mount and thats a beautiful lens for more artistic shots or really low light stuff but its also a zoom.
@@SMGJohn yeah the 24-35 is nice, but it’s kind of massive. They’d be better off (and likely will) develop a native L mount one (or similar).
Sigma 16-28 or Lumix 14-24?
No internal built in focusing beep system in the lens really deal braker.
Hi everybody, 16 35 zeiss or sigma 16 28?
waiting for a 16-35 F2.8... all around lens
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaandd it's only for E and L mount. Still no 3rd party AF lens for Z & RF mount in sight.
Hi Sigma, no criticism, but if you ever feel like it, could you make a FF portrait zoom lens? It doesn't really exist yet. Something like a 35-85 f1.8?
Cheers!
We need more Jordan in the videos.... that's all I'm saying.
Are you saying you need less Chris?
very nice very nice
5:56 Looks like Chris needs new pants
when you are photographer you have no money left on pants bruh
@@slavakhudyakov3807 when you work for DPReview ;)
@@tselykovskiy Amazon company, you know. All goes to Jeff Bezos))
❤️❤️❤️
That’s a very interesting lens I hope it comes to the RF mount 😅
Hehe, I feel sorry for you Canon guys. #KeepBelieving
Canon says no.
Wow
Why always review the L-mount version? Sure I do see people with L-mount Sigma lenses once every two-three years, but the majority of the customer uses the E-mount version. The beep-beep single autofocus on L-mount doesn't really tell how the lens perform in terms of autofocus.
Sigma tends to focus its first production runs on L-mount, since that's the system it's part of, so it's the L-mount samples that are typically available first. A few years ago it would be E-mount first, then before that, Canon EF mount.
lol you guys are always so goofy and entertaining haha
no comparison. or even MENTION of the sigma art 14-24? If the quality is fairly similar, I"d jump on this if it means a lighter lens and filter thread, even at the expense of losing the 14mm and get a 16mm
Might pair well with 35mm 1.4 GM. Hmm 16-28mm 2.8 or 20mm 1.8 G...
Which one did you finally pick?
@@DGOATD Went with the 20mm 1.8, worked great for astro and general, but found when I started doing some real estate work I had to go wider. Tried adding a cheap 14mm 2.8 Samyang, but found 12mm is what did the job. Ended up selling Samyang and picked up a used 12-24mm Sony f4 G for $999 on ebay. Still love and use the 20mm 1.8
On E mount, this is a bit of yawn to be honest. I wish it was 16-35 @ $1200, then I’d jump on it. But with it topping out at 28mm, I rather save that $900 and spring for a used 16-35/2.8 GM.
they already have FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G
@@craigman7262 Yes, and they also have the Zeiss badged older FE 16-35/4 OSS, but alas, they’re both f/4 :)
@@retropixer I think the kind of person who would buy this lens will never be the same person who will save $900 extra for a used behemoth GM. This line from sigma (16-28+28-70) is specifically to tackle the Tamron 17-28/28-75 combo. It's branded, built, and priced as such.
at last a competitor for the tamron. but tammy wont cost no 899 after this is out
Omg you guys must be so busy
Does the lens take advantage of that high megapixel sensor? or can lenses get sharper?
お疲れ様でした
I wish there was a 18-35mm from tamron or sigma.
In what universe Tamron 17-28 is a "a little bit bulkier for sure"???? :o :o :o Literally, Tamron is couple of mm smaller and 30 grams lighter... That 17mm tho...
just to stay fair, the sony 16-36 is only ~100g lighter vs. the canon ef 16-35. they are playing tricks by reducing the reach, but this is no feature of mirrorless cameras. so whats the point? producing a different lens and comparing it ? i am sure this is a great lens, but the 28mm reduce weight, so would it do on dslrs.
16-35GM is still the King...& in 2023/4 the 16-35GM II will be the nuclear bomb
Sadly another lens that is only weather sealed at the mount. No use to me.
Sweet, another cool reasonably priced lens not available for canon. 😡
canon is like Apple, very restricted. 😡
There is no Sigma for Canon RF?
@@abhisheka2305 not yet, probably
Forget Canon, do yourself a favour..
Love their Lenses though.
L mount Aliance Stand Up LOL!
Not first
I wonder how Sigma feels about the new "L2 alliance" 🥲