More wide angle lens discussion

Following up on my previous post about 24mm lenses, I am now considering some other options. I had decided to get the Sigma 24 ART, which I know is a great lens, but after EJ's comments about how well it would perform on my D600 I am now having second thoughts. Generally, I use the D600 for landscapes and general stuff (about 10% of the time) and my D500 for birds, mammals, macro, etc. (about 90%). I assume the D500 has a better sensor and could better utilize the quality of the 24 ART. However, that then makes it a 36mm, and I need wider at times. So this leads me back to looking at wide angle zooms. The Sigma 18-35 f1.8 ART gets very good reviews and on my D500 would be a 27-52mm. Still not quite at a 24mm, which is what I was looking for, but should work very well on the D500. My main issue is that it would not be usable on an FX body. 

So, would the 24mm ART be better IQ on the D600 over the 18-35 ART on the D500?

My absolute preference would be a zoom that is close to the IQ of the 24 ART, that would work on both the FX and DX bodies, but I am guessing that is not possible? Maybe the Sigma 24-35mm f2 DG HSM ART?

It would exceed the camera's capabilities on both the D500 and D600 - you won't be lens limited once you get beyond f/1.4. I haven't tested the 24-35 so can't comment.

What comment of mine are you reacting to regarding to the 24mm on the D600?

Certainly the D500 is newer than the D600. And the sensor in the D500 is good for a DX sensor. I'm not sure that it is that much better than the D600, especially for landscape. Sigma has no Art lenses designed for DX that I would consider wide. Of course, the 12-24 FX lens or the 14 FX lens would work but those are US $1600 lenses. In fact, the lack of good DX wide angle lenses lead me to get the Tokina 11-20 F2.8 lens which has some issues in the corners.

In fact, I've started using the Canon M6 for my wide to medium angle images since Canon was nice enough to provide a wide angle lens for the EF-M mount. And that camera with 3 lenses takes up the space of a lens of the wide angle F-mount lens in my bag.

Thanks guys. In my photography paradigm anything 35mm and below is wide angle. I am not looking to go below 24mm. Sigma makes the 18-35 DX lens that is supposed to be very good, but I do not want to be limited by a DX lens. I am seriously leaning towards the Sigma 24-35 f2 after reading all the glowing reviews. If finances go well this year, I am going to "try" to replace the D600 with a used D810.

EJ, here's what you said in my previous post about 24mm lenses and in particular the Sigma 24 f1.8 ART.

"OK, the reason I asked is to see if you would even see the difference and while you might not on a D600, if your aspirations are to eventually get into high megapixel imaging then you definitely should stick with premium optics lenses"

I took that as a possibility that the D600 may not be good enough to get the performance from the Sigma 24 ART

Ah OK, my point was that a D600, being just 24 megapixels in a full frame camera might not reveal a major difference in lenses that outperform 24 megapixels in resolution capability, a future camera that you may one day own might so sticking with premium optics is a good idea. The D500 being DX is a totally different camera and sensor. I would definitely opt for the D600 over the D500 for landscape work. Not only is it slightly higher resolution, it allows you to use the lens as a true wide angle rather than a 36mm which is almost a "normal" perspective lens.

EJ, if you ever do get your hands on a Sigma 24-35 f2 ART, or do any research on them, I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

To update this post, I ordered the Sigma 24-35 f2 ART yesterday. They had them on sale until Nov 30th for $200 less. Sure hope it lives up to its reputation. I just felt that it was worth spending an extra $50 for the versatility of 24-35 vs the 24 f1.4 ART. The f stop difference from 1.4 to 2 is insignificant to my needs. I will post back when I receive it and have had a chance to put it to work. The only "decent" landscape lens I have owned was the Tamron 24.70 f2.8. It was nice, but I am hoping this Sigma will be another step up.

Tim Zurowski wrote:To update this post, I ordered the Sigma 24-35 f2 ART yesterday. They had them on sale until Nov 30th for $200 less. Sure hope it lives up to its reputation. I just felt that it was worth spending an extra $50 for the versatility of 24-35 vs the 24 f1.4 ART. The f stop difference from 1.4 to 2 is insignificant to my needs. I will post back when I receive it and have had a chance to put it to work. The only "decent" landscape lens I have owned was the Tamron 24.70 f2.8. It was nice, but I am hoping this Sigma will be another step up.

I ordered the same lens last night, about two hours before the Sigma discount expired.  I should have it by the middle of next week and I will be doing some extensive "eyeball" testing of the sharpness of the lens, compared with the Nikon 24-70/2.8 G.   If the 24-35/2 is a significant upgrade in terms of sharpness across the focal range, I'll keep the lens.  If it's not a substantial sharpness upgrade, it goes back for a refund.

That's great Kerry. Please post back with your results. Everything I have read, as well as asking a few people, suggests that this lens is just as sharp as the 24 f1.4 ART. If it is, I am sure I will be very happy with it. Mine is scheduled to arrive on Dec 6th.

Tim Zurowski wrote:That's great Kerry. Please post back with your results. Everything I have read, as well as asking a few people, suggests that this lens is just as sharp as the 24 f1.4 ART. If it is, I am sure I will be very happy with it. Mine is scheduled to arrive on Dec 6th.

Will do.  Mine is also supposed to arrive on the 6th.  And I, too, have been told that this lens is virtually as sharp as quality primes throughout the focal range.  I'll see if it meets expectations.

I am not likely going to be as fussy about the lens as you will be. Mostly because my best 24mm right now is the Nikon 24 f2.8, which is okay, but not great either. So this 24-35 will be as good as I can get (afford) and landscape work is about 5% of what I do, so it will be plenty good enough for me. My only real concern is the size and weight.

UTim Zurowski wrote:I am not likely going to be as fussy about the lens as you will be. Mostly because my best 24mm right now is the Nikon 24 f2.8, which is okay, but not great either. So this 24-35 will be as good as I can get (afford) and landscape work is about 5% of what I do, so it will be plenty good enough for me. My only real concern is the size and weight.

I SO wish Nikon would upgrade that little 24mm 2.8 prime. 

Carl

I finally got out yesterday with the new Sigma 24-35 f2 ART. I fine tuned it the other day with my new (used) D810 and it was the easiest lens I have ever fine tuned. I went to Sooke River Provincial Park and hiked the river trail. I do not do a lot of landscape photography, but hope to do more in the coming years. So I don't have the knowledge to compare this lens to other lenses other than my previous Tamron 24-70 and Nikon 24 f2.8. It is noticeably better than the Nikon 24mm, but it has been awhile since I used the Tamron and I cannot say I see a huge improvement over that lens. The Sigma is constructed VERY WELL, but is also larger and heavier than I was expecting. The locations I was shooting at did not allow for me to move around very much to compose, and the first thing I noticed was that 24mm to 35mm is not a large spread, and I found myself wishing it was a 24-50 or a 24-70. Even though I would rather use this lens for it's IQ, I ended up using my Nikon 50mm f1.8 for half the shots. That being said, having 24-35 is still more versatile than if I had bought the 24mm f1.4. I found I used it at 35mm most of the time. If there was a 24-70 for around the same price and same IQ, I probably should have looked at that.

In the end I am very happy with the lens and the IQ is very good! Now I am looking at a decent 85mm (no one seems to make a 70mm?) and will probably go for the Nikon 85mm f1.8G, only because I cannot afford another Sigma at this price. I would also like to get the Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART, but again too costly for me and my needs at this time.

Nothing at all wrong with the Nikon 85/1.8 - it's a great lens, especially at the price.

Thanks EJ . . . . . . I was hoping you would say that  

I know it is a cheap lens, but do you think the Nikon 50 f1.8D is a usable lens. Would there be a better choice in the under $500 range? Say the Nikon 50mm f1.8G?

All of the Nikon 1.8 lenses are very good, in many cases better than the 1.4 lenses.

Do you think the 50mm f1.8G would be a worthwhile upgrade from the 1.8D that I currently have? They have the 1.8G on sale here in Canada now for $199 CAD.

Tim Zurowski wrote:Do you think the 50mm f1.8G would be a worthwhile upgrade from the 1.8D that I currently have?  They have the  1.8G on sale here in Canada now for $199 CAD.

Wide open it will be a huge difference, at f/8 not so much.  The break even point is right around f/5.6.

I was caught out of town unexpectedly when the lens arrived last week; just got back today and had a few moments to mess around with it. I"m going to do some more extensive testing over the next few days but earlier today (using the same D800E body) I set both the new lens and the 24-70 G up at 24 mm, f/7.1 on a tripod, MLU, cable release, very careful manual focus using LV and took a couple of shots of books on a bookshelf. Again, this is preliminary, but I'm hard pressed to see any difference in sharpness between the two in the center of the image circle (with MF on the center). The corners, however, are another matter entirely; the Sigma 24-35 is significantly sharper (again, with MF on subject matter in the same corner with both lenses).

I'll extend this test throughout both the compatible focal range and aperture settings beginning at 2.8 and see if this rule of thumb holds true.

Kerry, make sure you AFFT the lens before you do any tests and make any judgments. I was shocked at the sharpness differences between just a few increments. Mine came out at +7, and the difference between that and 0 is huge! I used mine again today and it is better than any 24 or 35 mm lens I have ever used and probably equal to the Sigma 24 and 35mm primes.