Comparing the Best Ultra Wide Zoom Lenses Canon, Nikon etc.

An article by Phillip Pettit from Lens Rentals comparing these full frame ultra wide zooms.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/0 ... ony-sigma/
Published June 19, 2018

Some extracts….
"They are all pretty much the same in the center at 100% crop. They are way too close to say one is sharper than the others….

At 24mm… In the edges, it is another story entirely. The Nikon and Sigma are relatively close and fine. They show softness, but it’s common for a wide angle lens to show that. The Canon is the softest of the lot and looks pretty smudgy…..

The reality is that there is not a single bad lens here. I’ve mentioned my dissatisfaction with Sony’s lens offerings a few times in the past but really, this is a winner that surprised me for how fun it was, and it may be my favorite of the group. The Nikon gets my vote for sharpest in its focal range."


IMO it is a bit disappointing that he did not use Roger Cicala’s optical bench to do some really precise comparisons.

He uses “fun, ease of use, barrel distortion and sharpness” as criteria for ranking them.

For me overall sharpness is paramount.

Shame he did not look at corner CA’s and coma more closely, again, a deal breaker for me if it is poor in a lens.

John Sibley

Aaargh!
Darned Word formatting commands!!
Tried taking all these formatting commands out by saving it a plain text, then Rich text, and even as a PDF, but these pesky formatting commands remain - sorry!

UPDATE - have managed to remove them from within the Naturescapes text editing box with the View Source tool.  :)

John

I'd take all those tests with a grain of salt, there's a pile of subjectivity and potential for errors in them. OTHOH, the comments about balance and weight and such are worth paying attention to.

I’m interested in real world experiences of photogs using the Sigma f 2.8/ 14-24 Art – especially of those who  previously owned or tested the  Nikon f 2.8/14-24 G in comparison.  I’m shooting Canon, though and bought the Nikon 14-24 a couple of years ago, - primarily for photographing northern lights. Canon had no good fast UW-Zoom at that time.  I have been using  the Nikon via a Novoflex adapter primarily on my 1Dx(II) and occasionally on the 5D III (now replaced by the 5D IV), too. That said, I think the brand of the body doesn’t matter much here for a valid comparison of the two UW zooms in question, so I’d appreciate any comments of the Nikon shooters, too, of course.
So far, the Nikon UW zoom worked well for my aurora shots. But I find the distortion in the 14-19mm range sometimes a bit disturbing and hard to correct. The Sigma on the other hand additionally would offer me AF and convenient variability of the apertures for daylight shots without the hassle with the manual adapter. That’s why I’m struggling with the decision of selling the Nikon for the Sigma.  The Canon f2.8/16-35 III on the other hand is highly regarded but the severe vignetting  at f 2.8 is not  welcomed for night shots. And the 11-24 is a bit too slow here.

So my key questions are:

[ul]
[li]What about the edge sharpness (and overall sharpness too) of the Sigma at f 2.8 in the 14–24 range - especially compared to the Nikon ?[/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]What about distortion, vignetting at the wide end @ f2.8  ? [/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]Any issues with the coma ?[/li]
[/ul]

Of course, centering (alignment) may be a critical point with the sigma, too, as evidentally experienced with a copy at imaging-resource. I’ve seen the reviews at lenstip, too. But the Nikon had been tested on a crop camera some years ago. So the comparison isn’t informative.

In summary, it’s difficult to decide if I should sell the Nikon for the Sigma. Any advices and comments are very much appreciated. Thank you in advance

Wolfgang

Not in the comparison since 16mm isn't wide enough for the LensRental comparison, but by a significant margin, the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM lens is the best wide zoom.  Nothing Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron makes is even in the same universe and even the new Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III isn't up to this lens.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Not in the comparison since 16mm isn't wide enough for the LensRental comparison, but by a significant margin, the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM lens is the best wide zoom.  Nothing Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron makes is even in the same universe and even the new Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III isn't up to this lens.

Interesting but the Sony is not a possible option for Canon shooters as far as I know - unless they jump ship, of course . So there's still the question for me how the Sigma f2.8/14-24mm in practice compares to the Nikon (especially for edge sharpness, distortion and vignetting). As known the Nikon can only be used on Canon with a manual adapter offering 3 fixed apertures. That's why I'm thinking of a switch if the Sigma actually performs at least equally in the field regarding the optical quality.

Wolfgang 

Didn't realize the discussion was specific to Canon. But I think your questions should be answered by the lensrentals link at the top of this thread.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Didn't realize the discussion was specific to Canon.  But I think your questions should be answered by the lensrentals link at the top of this thread.

Of course, the discussion was not specific to Canon though the header of the thread didn't include Sony either - just UW zooms for Canon and Nikon. That's why I was interested in practical experiences of users who perhaps have owned /tested both the Nikon and Sigma - rather than just looking at the charts at lensrentals. As written in my first post above, the question was addressed to the Nikon shooters, too, knowing that the number of people who mount the Nikon UW zoom on Canon bodies as I did probably is limited, of course. Anyway, thank you for your comment and hint.

Wolfgang

WJaekel wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:Didn't realize the discussion was specific to Canon.  But I think your questions should be answered by the lensrentals link at the top of this thread.

Of course, the discussion was not specific to Canon though the header of the thread didn't include Sony either - just UW zooms for Canon and Nikon. That's why I was interested in practical experiences of users who perhaps have owned /tested both the Nikon and Sigma - rather than just looking at the charts at lensrentals. As written in my first post above, the question was addressed to the Nikon shooters, too, knowing that the number of people who mount the Nikon UW zoom on Canon bodies as I did probably is limited, of course. Anyway, thank you for your comment and hint.

Wolfgang

You are right on the title.  The article that was linked included the Sony 12-24 (and Sigma 14-24) though, that's why I brought the 16-35 into play.