Sigma 12-24mm f/4 ART Image Quality Examination
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 ноя 2024
- Sigma 12-24mm f/4 ART Image Quality Examination: Resolution, CA, Distortion, Flare, and Coma. Photographer Dustin Abbott puts Sigma new wide angle flagship through the paces and tests its real world performance. To see the image gallery: bit.ly/2fLmQrd | Purchase it here: bhpho.to/2fRfE0r or in Canada: amzn.to/2hXnu6q | Zhiyun Crane Gimbal - USA: bhpho.to/2gDJhnC
Want to support this channel? Use these affiliate links to shop at:
B&H Photo: bhpho.to/1TA0Xge
Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Ebay: bit.ly/DustineBay
Make a donation via Paypal: paypal.me/dustinTWI
Get a discount off all Skylum Editing Software (Luminar, Aurora HDR, AirMagic) by using code DUSTINHDR at checkout: bit.ly/LuminarDLA
Become a Patron: / dustinabbott | Check me out on: Personal Website: dustinabbott.net/ | Sign up for my Newsletter: bit.ly/1RHvUNp | Instagram: bit.ly/DLAinsta | Google+: bit.ly/24PjMzv | Facebook: on. 1nuUUeH | Twitter: bit.ly/1RyYxIH | Flickr: bit.ly/1UcnC0B | 500px: bit.ly/1Sy2Ngu
My filming setup: Sony a7R III: B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2D6ibNO or Amazon: amzn.to/2CNxOvH | or | Sony a9 @ B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2HyWIyt or Amazon: amzn.to/2s1vYE0
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2FA00la or Amazon amzn.to/2G2kaEr
Lights: Rotolight AEOS @B&H Photo bhpho.to/2IK7mqV | Genaray Contender @B&H Photo: bhpho.to/33HbGNM | and Aputure AL-MW: bhpho.to/2N3MtZV
DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
You will be THE go-to reviewer for the new Sigma 14mm f/1.8! Thanks for so much great work, Austin.
I've requested the lens for September. It's a pretty month around here, and starts the best season to shoot astro.
A great and thorough review!! Much appreciated!
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks for the review Dustin! It was as always a very thorough and in depth look at the lens IQ, and I really appreciate that in your videoes!
My pleasure. I do try to bring something different to table.
Really appreciate what you do. Thanks for another great video!
You're welcome.
Another fantastic review! Thanks a lot Dustin! Merry Christmas and great holidays!
Merry Christmas to you, too!
Hello Justin. Thank you for taking the time to do these reviews. I wonder if the reduction in sharpness you found at ~3 - 4 min could be due to focus shift/field curvature? I know some other reviewers have found this. For example, DPreview found that it wasn't possible to optimise for both centre & corner at 24mm due to field curvature. Focus shift however could be mitigated by focusing at the shooting aperture (easier with a Nikon as the DoF button doesn't need to be pressed in LV). I have seen some very inconsistent/contradictory results for this lens...even on the same site (eg DxO: 25Mpx sharpness score on D810, 16Mpx on 5Dsr. Doesn't make sense! ) It looks as if this is a tricky lens to evaluate. Stephen Green (UK)
That’s possible, though I didn’t find radically different results at infinity. It’s very true, however, that evaluating wide angle lenses at close focus distances is challenging.
i've been patiently waiting for your review of this Sigma 12-24mm F4 ART. Great review as always sir. Thank you for your time and effort to making photography's gears review.....
My pleasure. My final verdict on the lens will be coming at the end of the week.
Thanks for a great review (again) Dustin. Just bought the lens and have been waiting for your review :) - btw your production has really improved! And thanks for sharing your knowledge and opinions. Keep up the good work. Merry Christmas from Norway:)
Thanks all around. Enjoy the lens!
Great review again! The Sigma really seems like an excellent lens. It's not surprising, and I'm glad to see those results, especially compared to their older 12-24mm. First one had very low distortion, but was super soft. Second one was sharper, but had more distortion. The ART one is sharper, and has low distortion also.
And your Tamron really did seem decentered.
+wandererstraining I think it may be. Tamron is good to take care of that kind of thing for me. The 12-24mm has very few weaknesses, really.
Dustin Abbott Yes, I might have bought the Sigma had it come out earlier. With that being said, f/2.8 is very nice to have. And I just took the Tamron out for a one day lay over to Hong Kong (literally, I'm just passed the security on the way back to the airport). I used 15mm plenty, but I used 30mm as much or even more. And I'll probably crop most 30mm shots.
Excellent review (as always) Dustin, thank you for posting it.
Sigma seem to have nailed CA and the distortion seems to be very well controlled on this lens, where do you see future improvements in their lenses (or is this too large a subject?!)?🍀👍
I think ironing out all of the kinks in autofocus should be their focus moving ahead. They've been nailing the optics.
Dustin Abbott yes, that really would be a welcome improvement. I have a number of Sigma lenses (the newer Art series) and have been lucky but I know a couple of people who have had AF problems. To be fair, these AF problems do seem to occur less than the bad old days pre the Art/sport/contemporary lines which, in itself, is a welcome improvement.👍
Enjoyable review!
Thanks!
Surprises: 1. it's very close to the Tamron 15-30, which is a truly great lens, especially at f4, 2. How little distortion there is especially for a zoom lens 3. How quickly diffraction sets in, looks like our might even be before f8, 4. Evenness of sharpness across the frame (this might be becoming sigmas signature)
$1599 is a bit dear. The Tamron might be a better deal. I would be surprised if it doesn't get a bit of a price reduction.
Nice review.
Trevor - I think you've nabbed the salient points. I think this will be a niche lens due both to its nature and (at least for now) price. I see this be a very good option for architecture/interiors, though. I'm doing a profile piece on a high end ski resort in February and have asked Sigma Canada to borrow a copy again for that shoot for this very reason.
scenery looks beautiful....but painful.....running a/c here in O'do
Photography is a lot more work around here this time of year!
please take a look at Irix 15mm f2.4 blackstone lens
That's on the "to-do" list.
In your opinion, which has the better image quality (between Sigma 12-24mm ART and Canon 11-24mm)? It'd be nice to see a review comparing both lenses
I haven't used the Canon, but, from what I understand, there is some give and take between the two.
Season's greetings, thankyou。
Same to you - thanks!
Great review Dustin. I went ahead and bought one of these after watching your reviews (and others) but my copy is quite soft in the corners at 12mm F4, which is a bit disappointing. F 5.6 is better and F8 is great at 12mm. Perhaps I need to do a bit of testing as I didnt use mirror lock up , just a 2 sec timer. It is a great lens overall though.
That's interesting, as I didn't find that in my tests.
Dustin Abbott. I’m still very happy with it. Will take some more test pics on the weekend maybe. Your reviews are very good. Congrats mate.
Very detailed review as always Dustin! I'm curious though, i have the older 12-24mm f4-f5.6 DG HSM mark II version of this lens. I wonder if the changes are substantial enough to warrant an upgrade. Aside from the constant f4.0 aperture, might there be a significant optical difference between the two? I havent heard of any plans on Sigma phasing out the Mark ii version as it still sells for about $1,000~ compared to the Art which is $600 more.
Take a look here: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=369&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1084&Sample=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. The new lens is definitely a lot sharper. I'm not familiar with the older lens, so I can't comment on the other areas.
Thanks for sharing! mines the DG II version. I see noticeable improvements in the corner sharpness and distortion on the art lens, but mid and especially the center isnt much of a change and easily correctible in post. I guess ill be hanging unto my lens for now. :) Thanks again!
Raymund Enriquez Hello, I am about to buy a lens for real estate photography and came across the same question, especially because the Art lense is too heavy? Are u still happy w version ii? May I have your opinion on this?
Thank you for this review Dustin.
It helps me decide between the Tamron 15-30, this Sigma or the Tokina 14-20mm f2.
I am leaning towards the Tokina now (pricewise, fast f-stop and 82mm filter possibility).Just not sure yet how the sharpness will be able to keep up if compared to the tamron and Sigma.
Merry Christmas and thanks again for sharing.
You do realize that the Tokina is for APS-C only, right?
Hi Dustin Abbott , tnx for the heads up. yes I did notice but that is fine for me as I will use it with the BMCC mft cinemacamera with speedbooster, making it close to S35, so should be able to cover that. I also use the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 that way. I'm also considering the Nikon D750, but I read that can use APS-C lenses via sensorcrop. I have a lot of old Nikon AI-S lenses..so thats why I would consider the D750 as those do cover full frame.
I have been waiting for this review since October, thank you very much for this fantastic review.
I think sigma really stepped up thier game with the art series and especially this lens.
great performance at a reasonable price
although I want to ask for your advice, I have a Nikon D750 and want to make a decision between this lens and the Tamron 15-30 .. ?
I can't really make that decision for you. It really depends on whether you actually need the wider focal length - otherwise I would go with the Tamron.
Dustin Abbott thank you very much again , the wider I get the better I guess especially with this strong performance from sigma, to be honest I had a 16-28 f2.8 tokina before and I really hated it for its performance and for its limitations little bit
I know the Tamron is better but since the sigma cover most of tamron's focal length so why not ? I have a Nikon 24-120 and soon 70-200 , so I want every focal length is covered, with your recommendationI will consider the Tamron though, thank you very much , this is my best channel of RUclips
hi Dustin , i actually went with the Tamron, I found it second hand around 670$ , it's really wide, and the composition is really challenging
Ashraf Alhujaili That's a GREAT price for the lens. Good choice.
Dear Dustin, I have acquired a Sigma Quatro H camera to explore the merits of the Foveon sensor. However it is a 1.3X sensor. I will shoot a lot of landscapes. Do you advise on the 12-24/4 or the 14-24/2.8?? Will the 12-24 make a good pair with the 24-105 art? I have read that the 24-70/2.8 is not as sharp.
The 12-24 is probably a nicer option with the 1.3x crop.
14:36 In that patio with the doors/slider...Haha..the distortion in depth is so much they looked like sliders....But that is normal for all superwides I think...Anyway....
The right corner brick wall, you do see the Sigma having a weird distortion of the vertical line going outward vs. Laowa is holding straight. You zoom into that area and can see it just before you zoom back out. You can also see the door frames right lower corner kicking out a bit as well on the Sigma...Its got some wonky distortion that would be hard to fix, and coinsides with a few reviewers who purchased and returned the lens.
This moves the Sigma to the bottom of my list, as this would be primarily for architecture/realty work, then maybe concerts and night skies...which the F4 wasn't helping, but not too worried about that.
Nice comparisons, but you are usually detail oriented and surprised these didn't get on your radar.
Remember that I am reporting on my observations from many, many more photos than what I share in my reviews. I stand by my observations.
Dustin i am upgrading from my 17-40L shall i choose this or the canon 11-24 which is almost double the cost or the 16-35 mark3
I am choosing specifically for landscape. I am also not fan of using filters
I'd go with either this lens or the 16-35. I like the optics of the 16-35 a bit better, but it has more distortion and obviously a much less wide field of view. Make the choice based on whether you actually need that extra width or not.
Dustin Abbott agreed i hated the distortion from 16-35 . So looks like Sigma it is
+Dustin Abbott Just so everyone is clear, that portrait result is from a different kind of distortion that is not because of the lens per se. That is from perspective distortion, which depends only on distance to the subject, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography) This you can see without any lens even. What we're looking at with the straight line tests is optical distortion, which the lens is responsible for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics) Unfortunately, wide angle lenses often get blamed for having bad distortion that is really just the perspective distortion (because if you want to try and fill the frame for a portrait shot with a wide angle, then you get really close, so you get lots of perspective distortion). If you shoot with the wide angle from the same distance as you would with an 85, and then crop (maybe use a 5DSR :P), it will look like a shot taken with an 85 in terms of the perspective distortion.
That's really the same point I am making. Just because a lens has low distortion doesn't mean you can't create perspective distortion by using it foolishly. Regarding your final point, however, I slightly differ. The basic distortion might be similar, but the features will be rendering differently by the true 85mm due to compression.
+Dustin Abbott What do you mean by "compression?" The way most people I've spoken to have used it they actually mean the perspective distortion that you get for distant objects, in which case it is indeed identical. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? Actually, you may be in a good position to test this yourself, since you have your hands on the 12mm (still?) Laowa, so we can mostly take optical distortion out of the equation (and low optical distortion 85mm lenses aren't too tough to get). I contend that the compression will be the same. What I think will be different are, resolution (clearly since one will be a very heavy crop), CA (even for lenses that exhibit the same CA the heavy crop means that relative the image size it will be much greater), other lens aberrations, bokeh, noise will be much more apparent, etc... This sentence in the Wikipedia article indicates that compression distortion is usually a name used to perspective distortion for distant objects as seen through telephoto lenses: "Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion." And they demonstrate what I'm referring to in their first example, the one with the fence: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)#Examples You will find that standing in the same place, that 3rd (70mm) image is very very close to being a crop of the 1st (28mm) image. And any differences are almost certainly due to optical distortion, I don't know how well corrected their shots were. It's unfortunate that their samples are such low resolution. Unfortunately as well, it is difficult to find an example of this only, everyone like to move and reframe for the same framing to show what different lenses (aka perspective distortion because the distance is changing) does but not many show from the same place.
Well, I just made an example ttbek.deviantart.com/art/Example-wide-angle-telephoto-perspective-659407670
It's a bit more extreme because I needed lenses for which I had optical correction profiles.... so 14mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/6.3 Samyang lenses were used. The crop is extreme, but I'm not seeing a difference in compression as I understand it. Sorry, my upper left corner of the crop was slightly too wide, but I think you get the idea. I will also post the jpegs with the optical distortion correction applied but no crop or downsampling to the same gallery momentarily. Both are 1/8 of a second and ISO 6400, and both are f/6.3.
There most definitely will be a difference in the way that facial features are compressed (the distance between them). Longer focal lengths bring features closer together, while wide focal lengths exaggerate the distance between them. There's a reason why focal lengths between about 75-135mm are preferred for portraits.
+Dustin Abbott No, there's not, that's what I'm telling you, and showed you, do you really think that would have been different were it a face? When shooting from the same distance away from the subject as I did. The reason you use lenses from 75-135 for portraits is because you want to fill most of the frame with the subjects head or head and shoulders, so if you used a wide angle you would be standing really close to that and would get the bad perspective distortion. If you use 75-135, for that same framing you will be standing much further away. It really is only because of the distance.
+Dustin Abbott I know exactly what you're talking about, e.g. www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/4uqe7v/they_say_the_camera_adds_10_lbs/ But what I am saying is, to frame the head shot like that with those lenses, every one of those was shot from a different distance.
Did you turn off Tamron VC while shooting on tripod?
Yes. That's always a wise practice.
Please Dustin, if you have any say in them (?) tell them they need to produce a new 100-300/4 art zoom lens! It's been years since they made it! It will complete the holy trinity : 12-24/24-105/100-300/4.0....All the zoom power you can consume from 12 to 300 with a constant f4...
I've not heard any rumblings of that. The new 100-400mm is available for preorder, though.
Yes but it's much slower, extends to beyond tele region AND it's not an "art" lens! The two other art lenses are crying for their bigger brother...:)
There is definitely a hole there where Canon has a pretty dated lens (4/300).
you were comparing f4 @ 1/160th to f8 @ 1/40. of course it won't be as sharp... there is movement in the branches
I thought Sigma has the capability to make a 12-24 f/2.8 lens (Since they don't care about size anymore). a f/4 lens doesn't really work well for astrophotography. Though, I still have high hopes for them to make a f/1.8 UWA lens to complete their holy trinity for aps-c. If even Tokina can make a 14-20 f/2, I see no reason why sigma cannot make something like a 10-16 f/1.8.
BTW, you said chromatic aberration control twice at the end of the video :D.
I would say that making that transition to f/2.8 from f/4 is probably a bit harder than what we realize. Canon certainly didn't try it with their 11-24...and it's already a beast of a lens.
"Close to 3 stops of vignetting on the edges"?
Whuh?!
I'm not sure about the source of the surprise. That's pretty common in wide angle lenses.
Dustin Abbott
That's an 85% loss in light transmission at the corners.
:/
If that is a big issue for you, the Tamron 15-30 VC is the best performer I've seen in a wide angle zoom for low vignette.