Nikon 14-24 vs Sigma 12-24

[Reschsmooth]

Whilst I am not in the market for either at the moment, I was considering these two lenses and wanted opinions. Based on my limited knowledge, I would compare and contrast as follows:

1. Nikkor is faster by about 1-2 stops or so?
2. Sigma is a touch wider.
3. Sigma accepts [gelatin] filters, Nikon none.
4. Sigma is c1/3rd the price.
5. Both are 28cm min focusing.
6. Sigma offers DOF at 12mm, Nikon none.
7. Nikon has pretty gold lettering, Sigma has white.
8. Neither appear to have aperture rings (relevant for older film cameras).

I guess the price difference must come down to image quality (and gear elitism)?

Thoughts?

[moz]

The Nikon should be significantly sharper - the Sigma was always a "if you need that wide you have to buy that lens" choice, with softness and CA varying as you zoom and change aperture. The Canon 16-35I was significantly sharper across the frame over the common range, for instance, and the MkII even more so. So the Sigma is pretty reasonable on a 12MP camera but put it on a high-res sensor and things start to fall apart pretty quickly, even at f/8. If the Nikon is not worlds better I would be seriously pissed off, but from the tests I have seen it's closer to the nigh-end primes than most zooms - it beats the Canon lens in most places for instance. Based on the one decent and couple of play tests I have seen, at least.

But then, I sold my Sigma and bout the 16-35II with the intention of getting a full frame camera as well, so I'm not really a happy user of the 12-24...

I suspect that the Nikon mount Sigma will be much cheaper second hand than it was a month or two ago.

[Yi-P]

1. Nikkor is faster by about 1-2 stops or so?
By just this, it justifies everything to go with the Nikkor. Its miles faster and sharper with much better colour rendition.

2. Sigma is a touch wider.
12mm on the wide end on a 35mm film is insane, don't forget light fall-off on the corners, might not be feasible to shoot at 12mm and wide aperture.

3. Sigma accepts [gelatin] filters, Nikon none.
Do you have any? Will you take the chance of taking lens off, putting gel in, putting lens back on, look through VF, "oh crap, it doesn't work", repeat steps to remove filter...

4. Sigma is c1/3rd the price.
That's the only upper hand of the Sigma as I can see. But if you have gone for Nikkor, you will never look back. If you got a Sigma, you might still think about the Nikkor.

5. Both are 28cm min focusing.
Yes, that's right.

6. Sigma offers DOF at 12mm, Nikon none.
Nikon offers more DOF control @ f/2.8, but does it matter at this wide angle?? you'd be working at infinity all times or hyperfocal at most times.

7. Nikon has pretty gold lettering, Sigma has white.
You might be able to melt/scrap off some gold off the nikkor and sell them for higher price than the lens.

8. Neither appear to have aperture rings (relevant for older film cameras).
Yeah, its too bad about this. Have to go primes if you need to use on older bodies.

[Reschsmooth]

Thanks guys - looks like I will be saving up for the Nikkor.


Yi-p
6. Sigma offers DOF at 12mm, Nikon none.
[/quote]

I meant to say:
6. Sigma offers DOF markings at 12mm, Nikon none.

[Yi-P]

Thanks guys - looks like I will be saving up for the Nikkor.

Yi-p
6. Sigma offers DOF at 12mm, Nikon none.

I meant to say:
6. Sigma offers DOF markings at 12mm, Nikon none.

Yes, that's what I understood, as my reply, does it matter to have DOF markings for 12/14mm?

[Killakoala]

Simple.

I have the Sigma 12-24 and I am going to get rid of it and 'upgrade' to the Nikon 14-24 when it is readily available as the examples I have seen just pile doodoos all over the Sigma.

It is definitely worth the extra money. Three times the cost equals three times the quality.

2. Sigma is a touch wider.
12mm on the wide end on a 35mm film is insane, don't forget light fall-off on the corners, might not be feasible to shoot at 12mm and wide aperture.

This image was taken at true 12mm using a 35mm camera. Although it's there, the light falloff from the Sigma really isn't that bad.
http://www.stevekilburn.com/photos/240237524-O.jpg

[sirhc55]

Nikon is DX so limited use on a FF camera whereas the Sigma can be used on FF

[Alpha_7]

Chris the 14-24 is FF the Nikon 12-24 is DX

[sirhc55]

Sorry, can’t see for looking

[Glen]

Hi Patrick, great question.

Short answer: I only have the Sigma but would expect the Nikon to be substantially better.

Long rambling answer: Patrick I think that you have to look back ten years when the widest full frame lens readily available by Nikon was the 14mm 2.8 at a substantial sub $3k price. I assume this is because that is what they could reasonably make keeping their pro quality objectives in mind. With the rise of DX format cameras, there came a need for what (on a 35mm) could be called extreme wide angle. These lenses came about by using tricks from telephoto lenses by using things such as a negative lens group to shift the focal point. In a telephoto lens, there is often a negative element after a positive element to shift the focal point (the point where the light rays converge) further back than it otherwise would be. This is used so a 800mm 5.6 doesn't have to be 800mm long and in real life the focal length of such a lens is usually somewhere in front of the front element.

Conversely, one could imagine that for a single element 12mm lens, the rear of that element would be within the camera body! These new wide angle lenses often use a reverse of the telephoto design, putting a negative lens group in front of a positive group, thereby shifting the optical centre well to the rear and creating very short focal lengths. As you can imagine this is somewhat oversimplified and there are also aspherical elements, ED glass, etc, etc involved.

My thoughts on why the Nikon 14-24 would be better is because the chose a focal width (14mm) they already knew they could produce at a pro quality level at a reasonable price, avoiding the "ultra wide" as it was not required on the FX format, also I assume due to pricepoint they are built with better quality glass. I also think their previous experience building this size is helpful. It is also a generation later than the Sigma which was the first of the breed. The Sigma does a very admirable job, but I think that consumers are probably not prepared to pay what would be required to put top quality elements into a 12-24. There is a reason a 600mm F4 costs $13k and a 12-24 costs $1k and it is not just the size of the elements. I think they could produce better quality extreme wide angles, are we prepared to pay? Personally I would love a high quality 10 or 12mm prime which should be cheaper to produce and possibly higher quality. PS (disclaimer, my total knowledge of light and physics came from staring at the cover of "Dark side of the moon" whilst my friends were stoned)

[Oneputt]

This is like comparing a mini with a roller, both do the job but only one does it in style

[sirhc55]

This is like comparing a mini with a roller, both do the job but only one does it in style

And I thought it was the operator and not the gear

[Glen]

Isn't the common link between a Mini and a Roller that they were both British made, with all that entailed, so now both are owned by BMW and pretend to be British? Which is a much better fate than Rover, Austin, MG, etc or worse, Jaguar's potential fate.



Patrick, an interesting comparison for you, the Nikon V Sigma v a Canon - http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14 ... 4mm_a.html

[Killakoala]

Isn't the common link between a Mini and a Roller that they were both British made, with all that entailed, so now both are owned by BMW and pretend to be British? Which is a much better fate than Rover, Austin, MG, etc or worse, Jaguar's potential fate.



Patrick, an interesting comparison for you, the Nikon V Sigma v a Canon - http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14 ... 4mm_a.html

The Queen of England is also German.

Glen, your spiel about lenses was quite informative.

[Reschsmooth]

Thanks for the information, folks, and Glen, a very informative discussion. The main issue I have with the Nikkor is the letter G - no aperture ring. This is fine for the D200 and, to a point, the f90x (which I can use in shutter priority) but I don't think I will be able to use on the FE or F. That said, my intention with those two latter lenses is to build a collection of primes (ie, can only be divisible by themselves and 1).

[gstark]

Patrick,

This is a bit like the recent test series between Australia and Sri Lanka.

If you're asking the question, then it means (to me) that you're considering the Nikkor. At that point, the decison, to my mind, is made. I think that the Nikkor would be worth every cent of the price difference.

Let me put this another way: with what lens would you replace a Nikkor 85 f/1.4?

Oh yes, for wide stuff on the FE ... grab a 21, 18, or 15. AIS, of course.

[Reschsmooth]

Let me put this another way: with what lens would you replace a Nikkor 85 f/1.4?

This one?

Oh yes, for wide stuff on the FE ... grab a 21, 18, or 15. AIS, of course.

Of course! Or a 24 f/2 or 35 f/1.4 (not quite as wide)

[gstark]

Let me put this another way: with what lens would you replace a Nikkor 85 f/1.4?

This one?

Oh yes, for wide stuff on the FE ... grab a 21, 18, or 15. AIS, of course.

Of course! Or a 24 f/2 or 35 f/1.4 (not quite as wide)

Well, no. Consider your original subject line, Patrick.

Stay focused, man. Stay focused!

[Reschsmooth]

Stay focused, man. Stay focused!

I am being differentially focused. But I take your point.

[Viz]

After just switching to canon for the financial benefits, I am planning to make a switch back to Nikon at some stage when the D3 and 14-24 (or equivalent) are more affordable. In short - I want that lens/body combo.

[Grev]

Well I know several 5D users put lens mount adapters on their cameras and use the Nikon 14-24 already, so, quite possible one of the best wide lens (prime or zoom) ever made.

[gstark]

quite possible one of the best wide lens (prime or zoom) ever made.

That seems to be the general consensus.

[Viz]

Well I know several 5D users put lens mount adapters on their cameras and use the Nikon 14-24 already, so, quite possible one of the best wide lens (prime or zoom) ever made.

Can anyone name such an adapter manufacturer.

[gstark]

Well I know several 5D users put lens mount adapters on their cameras and use the Nikon 14-24 already, so, quite possible one of the best wide lens (prime or zoom) ever made.

Can anyone name such an adapter manufacturer.

Chan?

Ho ??


Short answer is no, but they're readily available on eBay for around PP20 - PP60. Some have eletrical contacts in them to fool the body into thinking it's a Canon lens of some type, others are just a vanilla Canon mount mated to a Nikon one.

[Viz]

Damn, I was hoping for more of a Sadahiro or Matsuyo... biased, perhaps.

I am apologetic for harping on, but does anyone have anything to report on any of these?

[aim54x]

I remember reading a piece by Ken Rockwell about such adaptors

[Grev]

Only thing I have with this lens is that you can't use filters, didn't even provide a rear slot filter...