Dustin.....In My opinion You are the Best Reviewer of Camera Gear on RUclips :) After watching your very detailed Reviews over the past few years i have Purchused The Canon 100-400k 2 & the canon 5dmk4 Both of which i'm very happy with. I Look forward to seeing more of the same from you in the New year......Merry Christmas Mate !!
+Dustin Abbott Love the broken down sections that make one review, it allows for more thorough examination and allows us to make the best choice for our work. I will be sticking to the Tamron 15-30. Thank you, Mr. Abbott!
best reviewer period. we need more field reviewers than chart and lab reviewers I really enjoy every review you upload and type < I almost read and watched every review you did thank you again
Thank you. Outstanding effort in reviewing. SO much details and helps tremendously when thinking about to buy. On that, I will be purchasing this lens now
First thank you for your superb detailed review...I had the tamron 15-30 on my Nikon D810 but i sold it for the following reason...Sometimes wasnt wide enough on my job,im doing real estate and architecture,i never need the f2.8 so for me is not a trade...I'm planning to buy the sigma 12-24 art after your review,i thought as well the 14-24 from sigma but again i dont need the extra stops of light but i need the extra mm ... Thank you very much,you earn one more subscriber !
Another very detailed review which really does help when it comes to spending cold, hard cash! This lens certainly falls into the "specialist" category and I, for one, would have to be sure that it would find enough use before purchasing, it really is a luxury that, at present, I cannot justify. As it's now Christmas Eve I can officially wish you a very happy Christmas mate. I hope you and your family have a great time.👍
F8 at any lens is always softer than f/4 in the center! regardless of brand/focal length. The only point to use f/8 is When you want bigger DF or if you want the picture to be equal 'corner to corner' as much as possible.
+Eli Iluz That's not even close to being true. Look at a site like Photozone that shows resolution as center, edges, and average, and you'll find that many lenses peak around f/8
Take my word to the bank! There are exceptions. But in general : - Mid-Frame "tends" to be more sharp at f/8 than f/4 (And if not sharper, less distorted) **Usually both, Sharp And / or relatively/more equal. - Corners tend to be sharper at f/8 than f/4 ((And if not sharper, less distorted) **Usually both, Sharp And / or relatively/more equal. - But the "Center" will be softer at f/8 than at f/4 - Go look again and look closely! The sweet spot of any zoom lens is about the start/middle. In terms of "Sharpness" The sweet spot of any lens is at 5.6 to 6.3 - For my opinion? 6.3... (But once again, there are exceptions, for example: 24-70 2.8L II is hair sharper at 24mm 2.8 up to f/4 than at 35mm 5.6) I've checked hundreds of lenses. Among other things like the "Quality of glass", It's about structure, focal length and in the end of the day - physics. Besides, you do an excellent job. You have very nice videos. :)
Ahh, and there is my point. What you say is true in some instances, but not all. My problem is with your statement of "any lens is always softer". That's an absolute statement, and, if there are exceptions, it isn't true.
I agree that I said it in absolute terms, it would have been better to define it "generally" (Even though it's more than generally at this era)... but it is important to note that many things have changed in the optical field. Competition in the market leads to excellence! One way or another, in the world of lenses, you always give up something to create a more correct package for the customer while physics does not always take into consideration our desires.
Decided to give this a view, thanks Dustin. I am very tempted by this lens, although I usually only look at native lenses, at half the price of the Canon 11 - 24mm it demands attention.
I actually agree on the usability of ultrawide zooms for most shooters. I used a Nikon 14-24 2.8 for several years, but after finding I just never shot at 14-20mm sold it to buy the Nikon 24 3.5 PC-E which is just a more practical focal length. And in my experience, it was also sharper and could also shoot near macro distances. If I were shooting general real estate or astro, I'd maybe consider this lens, but for Architectural photography and general purpose shooting, a 24mm is probably much more practical. cheers.
This is very true. I have a Nikon 16-35/4 that I love for landscapes, but I most often use it around 20-35. Often I find a spot which gives me a distance and perspective into the landscape I enjoy, and then I use the zoom to fine-tune exactly how much of the landscape I fit into the frame. That's why I like zooms, while they don't need to be extremely wide.
+marioplus321 It would seem sometimes like wider is better, but there is a practical limit to that. Many people would find composing with 12mm somewhat challenging.
Dustin great video! I am always looking forward your video. Your delivery is great. And I like the little montage sequences you trying to put together. I am also happy you take more pictures with a central subject in focus. Loved the car image. And wish you would take more human subjects, and more different light conditions, like you did here to see the flare, and low light conditions, to see how lens performs in different environments/sitautions. But over all your videos are growing in quality. I personally really enjoy your videos!
The weather was just terrible during my review period for this lens, and I was shooting with the 85 ART at the same time. Sigma is going to loan me this lens again when I do a big feature on a high end ski resort in the new year, so I should come back with more exciting photos from that.
Hi, Dustin. First off, thank you so very much for being such an amazing source of unbiased and very detailed source of information regarding camera gear. I was just about to grab the Tamron 15-30 before watching this review, but after this video, I am REALLY not sure. What would help is if you could share the hi-resolution images you used in the video for us to download and compare for ourselves. I found the Sigma shots on the link above, but I couldn't find the respective Tamron and Laowa shots in there. I hope you'd be okay with sharing those in a relatively high resolution. Thanks!
You always impress me with the details, thank you, and I think I don't need to change the lens, the Sigma 12-24 aperture 4, it is very good, but I need you to nominate a lens with a fixed focal length as I do not own one yet
@@DustinAbbottTWI First, thanks for the quick response. Second, I will tell you what I have of the lenses. First, Tamron 70-200 G2 Tamron 150-600 G2 Sigma 12-24 Art F4 Canon 24-105RF Canon R6 camera and my goal in the question is 50, 85 or 100 lens Or any better lens for science, I am a hobbyist and I love photography for photography only
Around 13 mins you speak on how this lens and others like it might be too wide. I think those with a tight artistic eye that want to frame specific things could feel that way (which is why the 24mm side is great for closing in) but for me I just want to capture everything I am taking in when I am looking at a scene. And the thing about it is as we turn our heads, our mind stitches the image together as one like a panoramic camera shot and we take in everything. So sometimes you want to capture all that in one shot with a photo because the photo won't spin after the shot and nobody wants to stitch photos later... so this makes me just want to catch it all.. lol. That is just me.
That's fair, though my point is that many people struggle with composition with 12mm. It's easier to take a bad photo than a good one if you don't know how to use a UWA lens.
well put together videos. so i have a question. i have a nikon d750 with the 24-120mm lens with maximum aperture of 4 that came with it as a kit. i am learning that a good lens is rather important and so most of my pictures consist of landscape, storm chasing, and anything out doors. i also want good low light capabilities. when chasing a thunderstorm 24mm is not quite wide enough but not sure how wide is wide enough. i feel like the tamron 15-30mm that you mentioned in this video might be better off for me. would you say that would be a good choice. the main things i was is in general less chromatic aberration, a sharper image, wider angle, and better at low light. so far i see theres this sigma, the tamron and i see nikon makes a 12-24mm as well. any input on these comments would be greatly appreciated. thank you!
+Trent Mayer I think all three are good choices, though obviously the Sigma goes the widest (Nikon is 14-24mm). The Sigma is also a stop slower (f/4 vs f/2.8), so you need to decide how important the wider aperture (low light performance) is to you. The Tamron is the only lens with VR and is the least expensive.
I need a good travel lens for the interior of churches. I currently carry a 24-70, 50mm, and 70-300. Should I switch to a 16-35 Canon instead of the 24-70?
This lens is actually a better option for interiors than the Canon. I just did a branding project where I shot a lot of interiors for the Fairmont resort (bit.ly/fairmotrem) and used this lens for almost all of the wide angle (interior) shots. It worked great.
I've had a conversation with Sigma, but I don't want to try to review it until I have something in my schedule worth shooting a super tele at. I need time to hit a wildlife preserve or something like that.
hi Dustin, thanks again for the nice video. I enjoy your video so much that I even watch the ones on the lenses I am not intending to buy. Just a few questions though: 1. which app did you use for checking stars. 2. wouldn't f4 be too small for star light photography? How was your experience with this lens?
The app I use is called "Sky Live". F/4 is less than optimal, as I point out. But if you are buying the lens for other reasons then it certainly doesn't embarrass itself shooting the night sky.
I'm looking to get a wide angle lens, mostly for landscape and also to take photos of stadiums as I go to football and baseball games. I've thought about this lens, all the canon zoom wide angle offerings, and even just the prime canon 24mm 2.8 is usm since it's small, very portable, and the cheapest. I shoot with a Canon 6d and already have a sigma 35mm 1.4 that I love. Part of me wonders if the 35mm is sufficient for those needs. any input would be greatly appreciated. Love your reviews.
The Canon 24 IS is an excellent lens, to be sure, though I wonder if you will find it dramatically wider when compared to your 35mm. You might want to look at my review of the Sigma 24-35 f/2 just to see some visual comparisons of the difference in that focal length.
Many people just assume that if your interested in landscape photography, you need a wide lens. The wider the better. I bought Canon's 10-18mm and RARELY use it -only when I want that unique shot of something looming in the foreground with the background looking like it is twice as far as it really is. Luckily it was less than 300 bucks. :) Other than my Sigma 18-35 (which really has seemed to solve its focusing issues since the last mid-Summer firmware update) which is on my camera most of the time, some of my best landscape shots in recent weeks have come from my new Sigma 150-600 (Contemporary)! This is just one example (taken at about 400mm) www.wayneslandphotography.com/Central-Arizona/i-pCJQ5p9
Hello Dustin ,i Just discovered ur channel and love ur reviews Congratulations for great work :) i wanna ask u if u recommend this lens vs the tamron 15 30mm vc . I have a sigma 50mm f1.4 artlens and has problems of focus points that cant be resolved with its dock so make the story short i dont trust sigma anymore. would love to hear ur opinion .
Great review! Very detailed & informative (as always) - seems like a pretty good alternative to the Canon, though I don't think either of those lenses fit in my bag. I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas! God Bless!
An f/4 aperture is subpar for doing astro work. I haven't tested the GM lens yet. A solid choice for astro is actually the newer Simga 14-24mm f/2.8 ART.
In my opinion canon 16-35 2.8 lll make more sense its not that heavy like sigma it has more cover up to 35mm sigma is only 2 mm wider so not that much difference. Both are very sharp but the price of canon is $800 more. If the price is not issue I would take canon
I'm using Nikon D850 now, I'm going to buy sigma 12-24 F4 or Tamron 15-30 F2.8 , but it's difficult to make decision.…May I ask for your opinions. Please.Thanks.
Have you used a very wide angle lens before? For many people 15mm is plenty wide. If you don't need 12mm, then go for the prime. It ought to be a nice match for your 24mm lens.
"The F4 is sharpest." "Optimum is f5.6, you can stop down to f4 for depth of field, but you'll lose sharpness." Huh? How do I trust the review when he contradicts himself in less than 30 seconds...? Sorry to be a jerk if I am, but if you can't bother to be consistent and make sure you are doing so, maybe leave the reviews to others...
sigma makes beautiful glass but unfortunatly bad autofocus, i almost built a large part of my portafolio using the 50mm art lens but now autofocus is crazy and unfixable which socks
I want to know you opinion on the REASON Sigma lenses are so damn heavy. I know we talk about the backwards engineering, but my god! It's too much. I have the 135mm 1.8. Photos are very nice. But I had to let go of the 14-24 2.8. And its being replace by Nikon Z 24mm 1.8. Guess I'll have to loose a bit of flexibility but in turn I'll loose MUCH WEIGHT!
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Dustin.....In My opinion You are the Best Reviewer of Camera Gear on RUclips :) After watching your very detailed Reviews over the past few years i have Purchused The Canon 100-400k 2 & the canon 5dmk4 Both of which i'm very happy with. I Look forward to seeing more of the same from you in the New year......Merry Christmas Mate !!
I like your opinion :) Merry Christmas to you!
Totally AGREE !
+Dustin Abbott Love the broken down sections that make one review, it allows for more thorough examination and allows us to make the best choice for our work. I will be sticking to the Tamron 15-30. Thank you, Mr. Abbott!
best reviewer period.
we need more field reviewers than chart and lab reviewers
I really enjoy every review you upload and type < I almost read and watched every review you did
thank you again
That's pretty fantastic. Thanks!
I really like this kind of review. Thanks for that. Just clicked the 'buy' button :)
Enjoy your new lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks. I'm exited. And also thinking of how i can get ND Filters on that lens..
Thank you. Outstanding effort in reviewing. SO much details and helps tremendously when thinking about to buy. On that, I will be purchasing this lens now
Enjoy your new lens
A great summary! Thanks for the review!
Glad it was helpful!
First thank you for your superb detailed review...I had the tamron 15-30 on my Nikon D810 but i sold it for the following reason...Sometimes wasnt wide enough on my job,im doing real estate and architecture,i never need the f2.8 so for me is not a trade...I'm planning to buy the sigma 12-24 art after your review,i thought as well the 14-24 from sigma but again i dont need the extra stops of light but i need the extra mm ... Thank you very much,you earn one more subscriber !
Glad to help out!
Another very detailed review which really does help when it comes to spending cold, hard cash!
This lens certainly falls into the "specialist" category and I, for one, would have to be sure that it would find enough use before purchasing, it really is a luxury that, at present, I cannot justify.
As it's now Christmas Eve I can officially wish you a very happy Christmas mate. I hope you and your family have a great time.👍
F8 at any lens is always softer than f/4 in the center! regardless of brand/focal length.
The only point to use f/8 is When you want bigger DF or if you want the picture to be equal 'corner to corner' as much as possible.
+Eli Iluz That's not even close to being true. Look at a site like Photozone that shows resolution as center, edges, and average, and you'll find that many lenses peak around f/8
Take my word to the bank!
There are exceptions. But in general :
- Mid-Frame "tends" to be more sharp at f/8 than f/4 (And if not sharper, less distorted) **Usually both, Sharp And / or relatively/more equal.
- Corners tend to be sharper at f/8 than f/4 ((And if not sharper, less distorted) **Usually both, Sharp And / or relatively/more equal.
- But the "Center" will be softer at f/8 than at f/4 - Go look again and look closely!
The sweet spot of any zoom lens is about the start/middle.
In terms of "Sharpness" The sweet spot of any lens is at 5.6 to 6.3 - For my opinion? 6.3...
(But once again, there are exceptions, for example: 24-70 2.8L II is hair sharper at 24mm 2.8 up to f/4 than at 35mm 5.6)
I've checked hundreds of lenses. Among other things like the "Quality of glass", It's about structure, focal length and in the end of the day - physics.
Besides, you do an excellent job. You have very nice videos. :)
Ahh, and there is my point. What you say is true in some instances, but not all. My problem is with your statement of "any lens is always softer". That's an absolute statement, and, if there are exceptions, it isn't true.
I agree that I said it in absolute terms, it would have been better to define it "generally" (Even though it's more than generally at this era)... but it is important to note that many things have changed in the optical field. Competition in the market leads to excellence! One way or another, in the world of lenses, you always give up something to create a more correct package for the customer while physics does not always take into consideration our desires.
seems to be a good option for real estate photoraphy. Thanks
Agreed
Decided to give this a view, thanks Dustin. I am very tempted by this lens, although I usually only look at native lenses, at half the price of the Canon 11 - 24mm it demands attention.
It definitely does, and it is an excellent lens.
I actually agree on the usability of ultrawide zooms for most shooters. I used a Nikon 14-24 2.8 for several years, but after finding I just never shot at 14-20mm sold it to buy the Nikon 24 3.5 PC-E which is just a more practical focal length. And in my experience, it was also sharper and could also shoot near macro distances.
If I were shooting general real estate or astro, I'd maybe consider this lens, but for Architectural photography and general purpose shooting, a 24mm is probably much more practical.
cheers.
People that have never shot with super wide focal lengths don't realize what a challenge they can be to compose with.
This is very true. I have a Nikon 16-35/4 that I love for landscapes, but I most often use it around 20-35. Often I find a spot which gives me a distance and perspective into the landscape I enjoy, and then I use the zoom to fine-tune exactly how much of the landscape I fit into the frame. That's why I like zooms, while they don't need to be extremely wide.
Thanks for your reviews,it helps when choosing new equipment.I value your knowledge and expertise.Very helpful
Glad to be of help!
I used to recon the wider the better. As you said, you do not need to go [so] wide in real. 35mm[eq.FF] or longer might be the most taken choice .
+marioplus321 It would seem sometimes like wider is better, but there is a practical limit to that. Many people would find composing with 12mm somewhat challenging.
Dustin Abbott indeed; I own Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 and I rarely go shorter than 15mm. To tell you the truth I shot most at 17-20.
Dustin great video! I am always looking forward your video. Your delivery is great. And I like the little montage sequences you trying to put together. I am also happy you take more pictures with a central subject in focus. Loved the car image. And wish you would take more human subjects, and more different light conditions, like you did here to see the flare, and low light conditions, to see how lens performs in different environments/sitautions. But over all your videos are growing in quality. I personally really enjoy your videos!
The weather was just terrible during my review period for this lens, and I was shooting with the 85 ART at the same time. Sigma is going to loan me this lens again when I do a big feature on a high end ski resort in the new year, so I should come back with more exciting photos from that.
Hi, Dustin. First off, thank you so very much for being such an amazing source of unbiased and very detailed source of information regarding camera gear. I was just about to grab the Tamron 15-30 before watching this review, but after this video, I am REALLY not sure. What would help is if you could share the hi-resolution images you used in the video for us to download and compare for ourselves. I found the Sigma shots on the link above, but I couldn't find the respective Tamron and Laowa shots in there. I hope you'd be okay with sharing those in a relatively high resolution. Thanks!
I'm afraid I don't have time to accommodate that request. Hopefully my review information helps.
I own this lens.
I Love this lens.
It's excellent.
You always impress me with the details, thank you, and I think I don't need to change the lens, the Sigma 12-24 aperture 4, it is very good, but I need you to nominate a lens with a fixed focal length as I do not own one yet
A fixed focal length in what area, though? Wide angle, telephoto, normal?
@@DustinAbbottTWI First, thanks for the quick response. Second, I will tell you what I have of the lenses. First, Tamron 70-200 G2 Tamron 150-600 G2 Sigma 12-24 Art F4 Canon 24-105RF Canon R6 camera and my goal in the question is 50, 85 or 100 lens Or any better lens for science, I am a hobbyist and I love photography for photography only
Around 13 mins you speak on how this lens and others like it might be too wide. I think those with a tight artistic eye that want to frame specific things could feel that way (which is why the 24mm side is great for closing in) but for me I just want to capture everything I am taking in when I am looking at a scene. And the thing about it is as we turn our heads, our mind stitches the image together as one like a panoramic camera shot and we take in everything. So sometimes you want to capture all that in one shot with a photo because the photo won't spin after the shot and nobody wants to stitch photos later... so this makes me just want to catch it all.. lol. That is just me.
That's fair, though my point is that many people struggle with composition with 12mm. It's easier to take a bad photo than a good one if you don't know how to use a UWA lens.
well put together videos. so i have a question. i have a nikon d750 with the 24-120mm lens with maximum aperture of 4 that came with it as a kit. i am learning that a good lens is rather important and so most of my pictures consist of landscape, storm chasing, and anything out doors. i also want good low light capabilities. when chasing a thunderstorm 24mm is not quite wide enough but not sure how wide is wide enough. i feel like the tamron 15-30mm that you mentioned in this video might be better off for me. would you say that would be a good choice. the main things i was is in general less chromatic aberration, a sharper image, wider angle, and better at low light. so far i see theres this sigma, the tamron and i see nikon makes a 12-24mm as well. any input on these comments would be greatly appreciated. thank you!
+Trent Mayer I think all three are good choices, though obviously the Sigma goes the widest (Nikon is 14-24mm). The Sigma is also a stop slower (f/4 vs f/2.8), so you need to decide how important the wider aperture (low light performance) is to you. The Tamron is the only lens with VR and is the least expensive.
okay thanks!
Very nice review indeed. Nobody seems to compare this lens to the Nikon 14-24. can you comment which one is better (I have a Nikon D800).
I wish I could, but I've never shot with the Nikon lens.
I need a good travel lens for the interior of churches. I currently carry a 24-70, 50mm, and 70-300. Should I switch to a 16-35 Canon instead of the 24-70?
This lens is actually a better option for interiors than the Canon. I just did a branding project where I shot a lot of interiors for the Fairmont resort (bit.ly/fairmotrem) and used this lens for almost all of the wide angle (interior) shots. It worked great.
Awesome video as usual. When are you going to do the sigma 500 F4? :)
I've had a conversation with Sigma, but I don't want to try to review it until I have something in my schedule worth shooting a super tele at. I need time to hit a wildlife preserve or something like that.
Dustin Abbott Awesome! Those big primes ususally never get a review. Thank you so much for working hard!
hi Dustin, thanks again for the nice video. I enjoy your video so much that I even watch the ones on the lenses I am not intending to buy. Just a few questions though: 1. which app did you use for checking stars. 2. wouldn't f4 be too small for star light photography? How was your experience with this lens?
The app I use is called "Sky Live". F/4 is less than optimal, as I point out. But if you are buying the lens for other reasons then it certainly doesn't embarrass itself shooting the night sky.
Funky D.....Snagged the Tamron 15--30 last year... I can't be tempted although it looks great and reviews well.
I see no reason to change lenses unless you feel you need the wider focal length.
I'm looking to get a wide angle lens, mostly for landscape and also to take photos of stadiums as I go to football and baseball games. I've thought about this lens, all the canon zoom wide angle offerings, and even just the prime canon 24mm 2.8 is usm since it's small, very portable, and the cheapest. I shoot with a Canon 6d and already have a sigma 35mm 1.4 that I love. Part of me wonders if the 35mm is sufficient for those needs. any input would be greatly appreciated. Love your reviews.
The Canon 24 IS is an excellent lens, to be sure, though I wonder if you will find it dramatically wider when compared to your 35mm. You might want to look at my review of the Sigma 24-35 f/2 just to see some visual comparisons of the difference in that focal length.
Many people just assume that if your interested in landscape photography, you need a wide lens. The wider the better. I bought Canon's 10-18mm and RARELY use it -only when I want that unique shot of something looming in the foreground with the background looking like it is twice as far as it really is. Luckily it was less than 300 bucks. :)
Other than my Sigma 18-35 (which really has seemed to solve its focusing issues since the last mid-Summer firmware update) which is on my camera most of the time, some of my best landscape shots in recent weeks have come from my new Sigma 150-600 (Contemporary)!
This is just one example (taken at about 400mm) www.wayneslandphotography.com/Central-Arizona/i-pCJQ5p9
is it worthy to upgrade from DSH HSM Sigma 12-24 II ?
I believe that it is from reports I've received, though I haven't personally used the former lens.
Hello Dustin ,i Just discovered ur channel and love ur reviews Congratulations for great work :) i wanna ask u if u recommend this lens vs the tamron 15 30mm vc .
I have a sigma 50mm f1.4 artlens and has problems of focus points that cant be resolved with its dock so make the story short i dont trust sigma anymore. would love to hear ur opinion .
Great review! Very detailed & informative (as always) - seems like a pretty good alternative to the Canon, though I don't think either of those lenses fit in my bag.
I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas! God Bless!
That's pretty good summary for most photographers.
It certainly is a unique lens for a select group.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
Good for Astro or go with Sony FE 16-35 2.8 GM or sigma 14 1.8 art?
An f/4 aperture is subpar for doing astro work. I haven't tested the GM lens yet. A solid choice for astro is actually the newer Simga 14-24mm f/2.8 ART.
Please review zeiss 28 1.4, if possible. Thankyou and happy new year to you all!
+Wei Yan I have that planned for 2017
In my opinion canon 16-35 2.8 lll make more sense its not that heavy like sigma it has more cover up to 35mm sigma is only 2 mm wider so not that much difference. Both are very sharp but the price of canon is $800 more. If the price is not issue I would take canon
I think you posted this comment on the wrong video.
Awww yeah heheheh thats right this is f4 ;)
I hope you get your hands on new Samyang 14mm F2.4 lens
That's on the "to-do" list for 2017.
I'm using Nikon D850 now, I'm going to buy sigma 12-24 F4 or Tamron 15-30 F2.8 , but it's difficult to make decision.…May I ask for your opinions. Please.Thanks.
I had already have Nikon 24mm F1.4
Or buy sigma 14mm 1.8=
Have you used a very wide angle lens before? For many people 15mm is plenty wide. If you don't need 12mm, then go for the prime. It ought to be a nice match for your 24mm lens.
Thank you very much!
Actually, I love your review about sigma 14mm F1.8.
And I may buy it as your suggestion.
Watch for my final review coming this week. It might answer any further questions.
I like that you don't say "you can't use filters" . Everybody says that and it is NOT true!
I think you are misquoting me. I said you couldn't use traditional screw-in filters.
hi Dustin !have you tried the lens on the sony A7rii? any difference in border quality or issues? thanks
No I haven't, but I'm about to start testing the 14-24mm ART on the a7R3, which should be fairly representative.
Dustin Abbott very much looking forward to this as I own a7rii and a7iii and am currently seeking a similar lens. Thanks
You Tube Is Very helpful
LOL - it can be
12-24mm is great for supercell landscapes
I'm sure it is.
Why doesn’t anyone compare to the canon 11-24
Cost and availability, I suspect.
"The F4 is sharpest."
"Optimum is f5.6, you can stop down to f4 for depth of field, but you'll lose sharpness."
Huh? How do I trust the review when he contradicts himself in less than 30 seconds...?
Sorry to be a jerk if I am, but if you can't bother to be consistent and make sure you are doing so, maybe leave the reviews to others...
Hey sorry i wrote my comment before watching,i guess Tamron is the winner.
I think the Tamron is an excellent lens, though this Sigma has a lot of value if you want to do architectural work.
sigma makes beautiful glass but unfortunatly bad autofocus, i almost built a large part of my portafolio using the 50mm art lens but now autofocus is crazy and unfixable which socks
That's a shame, but I do want you to know that the newer Sigma lenses (like this one) are much improved.
M
&M?
I want to know you opinion on the REASON Sigma lenses are so damn heavy. I know we talk about the backwards engineering, but my god! It's too much. I have the 135mm 1.8. Photos are very nice. But I had to let go of the 14-24 2.8. And its being replace by Nikon Z 24mm 1.8. Guess I'll have to loose a bit of flexibility but in turn I'll loose MUCH WEIGHT!
I have always to stop the video to see the samples. Maybe you could show less your face and more the images?………
Or you could look at the image gallery that I always reference in my videos and give a link to in the description.
Too Dark, can't see the lens properly.