Jump to content

Sony 28 mm vs Sigma Art 24 mm?


alex_jaimes1

Recommended Posts

Hi!

I'm debating between those two lenses. The Sigma is a lot more expensive and heavy, but I'm used to shooting 24 mm, but is it such a good lens that it'd be worth paying that much more and carrying the extra weight (besides the obvious 2 vs 1.4)?

 

[sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Sony E] vs

[Sony FE 28mm f/2 Lens]

 

I can't find any comparisons online..

 

Thanks!

alex

Edited by alex_jaimes|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own the 28/2 - decent optical quality in a relatively small and light-weight package.

I did own the Sigma in Nikon mount - optically fine but large and heavy. The Sigma has a slight edge over the Sony at f/1.4-f/2.8 in the corners; from f/4 they are pretty much even.

Since you mentioned that you like 25mm - can you stretch your budget to include the Zeiss Batis 25/2.? Maybe try to find one used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a big difference in FOV between a 24 mm and a 28 mm lens. Most people find a 28 too close to 35 to own both. (I would agree, except the difference can be significant for large groups, when you simply can't back up further.) There may not be direct comparisions, but both the Sony 28/2 and Sigma ART 24/1.4 have good reviews individually. You can't compare MTF data between different companies, but you might find good information on the www.LensRentals.com website.

 

The Sony 28/2 is a compact, largely plastic consumer lens with surprisingly good performance. The Sigma ART is kind of over the top, adding elements to sweep up miscellaneous aberrations inherent in short, wide-aperture lenses.

 

I have a fondness for 24-25 mm lenses for urban walk-about. Besides a Nikon AF-D 24/2.8 and AIS 24/2, I have a Zeiss Batis 25/2 and most recently, a Loxia 25/2.4. The manual Loxia is noticeably sharper in the corners. While the Batis is large but light (and AF), the Loxia is compact, more Leica-like in practice, less intimidating. The Nikon lenses work well enough (due to their long back-focus), but the optical quality is way below that of the Zeiss lenses.

 

The Loxia 25/2.4 is an outstanding lens for landscapes. This is of Mt. St. Helens in Washington

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 25/2.4

_7R30902_AuroraHDR2018-edit.thumb.jpg.3c0c01e646994b1604bfebcdcd5a2f32.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses. I've been shooting a 24 mm on a Nikon D800s for years- and yes, the 28 seems really different in terms of FOV. I shoot mostly street photography, and do a lot of people shots with the 24. I don't particularly shoot in low light, but find the lower f-stop useful when I do. I had not considered the Zeiss Batis 25/2- I haven't bought the Sony 7rIII, but that's the plan. all of my lenses are nikon, but my 24 mm is old, manual, and really need to replace it.

so now i'm confused between those 3 (the ones i posted and the Zeiss Batis 25/2)- would it be correct to rank those 3 lenses quality-wise (best first):

zeiss, sigma, sony ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This photo was taken with a Nikon 24/2 AIS at f/5.6. The inset is a 100% crop from the upper right. As you can see, the corner resolution is poor, as one would expect for a lens designed strictly for film or 12 MP digital sensors. This has nothing to do with the cover class effects observed with short rangefinder lenses. That has a distinct appearance, and is not applicable due to the long back focus distance of SLR lenses.

 

Sony A7Rii + Nikon F to FE adaotir + Nikkor 24/2 AIS

2050038381__DSC3385Nikon24f2.jpg.b998d6554162f0beb8c7c5108a7da2d0.jpg

 

Similar details, using a Loxia 25/2.4 and a Sony A7Rii. I get similar results with the Batis 25/2 and Sony 24-79/2.8 GM. In short, this is why using adapted Nikon lenses is a temporary solution.

631595484_Loxia25CornerDetail.jpg.9b7a801c51eac029e3ee8f1c82cc6039.jpg

Edited by Ed_Ingold
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This photo was taken with a Nikon 24/2 AIS at f/5.6. The inset is a 100% crop from the upper right. As you can see, the corner resolution is poor, as one would expect for a lens designed strictly for film or 12 MP digital sensors. This has nothing to do with the cover class effects observed with short rangefinder lenses. That has a distinct appearance, and is not applicable due to the long back focus distance of SLR lenses.

 

Sony A7Rii + Nikon F to FE adaotir + Nikkor 24/2 AIS

[ATTACH=full]1255530[/ATTACH]

 

Similar details, using a Loxia 25/2.4 and a Sony A7Rii. I get similar results with the Batis 25/2 and Sony 24-79/2.8 GM. In short, this is why using adapted Nikon lenses is a temporary solution.

[ATTACH=full]1255528[/ATTACH]

 

Thanks Ed. I'm not really considering an adapted lens- it's more of a choice between those 3 (batis, sigma, sony)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to own the Sony 28mm FE when I still had my A7R. I still have the Sigma 24/1.4 ART (Nikon mount).

 

I like the Sigma 24/1.4 on my Nikon d800e, but it's too big for the Sony A7R body, even with the grip. The Sony 28mm is a decent enough lens that balances really well on the A7R body, with or without the grip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too big for an A7 body? How big does the body need to be? I use a 70-200/4 zoom regularly, and rented a 100-400/4.5-5.6 for e recent trip. Both are large compared to even a D3 body. You support a camera from the center of gravity, not the grip. If you're shooting with one hand, I doubt even the Sigma 24/1.4 would be much of a challenge. I've done that with my 24-70/2.8, which is heavier than the Sigma. That said, if you would like to shoot with one hand, a smaller lens would be better. For general photography, it doesn't matter.

 

Any decision must be based on your wants and needs, not a spurious argument about the "balance."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too big for an A7 body? How big does the body need to be? I use a 70-200/4 zoom regularly, and rented a 100-400/4.5-5.6 for e recent trip. Both are large compared to even a D3 body. You support a camera from the center of gravity, not the grip. If you're shooting with one hand, I doubt even the Sigma 24/1.4 would be much of a challenge. I've done that with my 24-70/2.8, which is heavier than the Sigma. That said, if you would like to shoot with one hand, a smaller lens would be better. For general photography, it doesn't matter.

 

Any decision must be based on your wants and needs, not a spurious argument about the "balance."

 

Maybe in your own mind it is, but nothing spurious about how front-end heavy the Sigma 24/1.4 makes the A7R body, especially when compared to the Sony 28mm FE. I actually have owned both lenses (still own the Sigma 24/1.4 ART for the Nikon F mount) and the A7R. Have you owned both lenses and thus are speaking from experience or are you making your own spurious arguments based on baseless suppositions and what you read on the internet? I'm out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to own a lens to know how to handle it. I own and regularly use a Sony 16-35/4, which is the same weight and a little longer than the Sigma, a Sony 24-7-/2.8 which weighs 200 grams more and 2.5" longer, and a Sony 70-200/4, also 200 g heavier and 3.5" longer. I rented a Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6 and used it extensively on a recent trip to Ireland. The 100-400 weighs over twice the Sigma and is 8" long without the hood. All I need to read are the Sigma's specifications.

 

I have been a serious photographer for nearly 60 years. My latest cameras are a Sony A9 and A7Riii, but that's only the latest iteration in a long line of others.

 

Is that experience? What am I missing?

 

More to the point, the Sony body may not suit you, nor larger lenses. That is a matter of opinion, on which we can disagree without being nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the store and I'm leaning towards the Batis. Was going to get the A7Riii and saw the Nikon announcement of a new mirrorless camera being released on 8/23, so now it seems like i should wait. Even the batis seems a little big for the A7riii..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the store and I'm leaning towards the Batis. Was going to get the A7Riii and saw the Nikon announcement of a new mirrorless camera being released on 8/23, so now it seems like i should wait. Even the batis seems a little big for the A7riii..

That was the whole purpose of the premature release - make people stop and wait before switching. Do you remember the endless hype about Windows 10, and 20 years earlier, the Windows version of Microsoft Office? Starting from scratch, it makes sense to see what Nikon has to offer. With only two lenses up front, it will be a slow start.

 

The Batis 25/2 is large in diameter, but relatively light in weight, much less than the Loxia 25/2.4. You really have to try it on and see how it works for you. While the Batis design leaves ample room for electronics, I think the main purpose is to standardize a footprint which will allow for faster lenses and a wider range of focal lengths. Loxia lenses are locked into a 52 mm filter ring concept. Despite the bulge, there is plenty of room for your fingers between the grip and lens. The focus-by-wire manual operation is more practicable in Batis lenses than any other AF lenses in my collection, including setting it to infinity for astrophotography.

 

I made extensive use of the Pixel-Shift function in the A7Riii while vacationing in Washington State. Despite the caveats about artifacts rendering moving objects, it works very well for landscapes. It effectively doubles the resolution of the camera. Ghosting of moving objects, like grass and leaves, is minor and easily ignored. Conversion software is fairly primitive at this point. I'm sure most of the remaining issues will be resolved in the near future. A third-party program, "SonyPixelShift2" works much better than Sony's "Image Edge".

Edited by Ed_Ingold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your interest is in landscapes, the A7Riii, along with its large selection of native lenses, is going to be hard to beat. This shot of Mt. St. Helens in Washington was taken using a Loxia lens and the Pixel-Shift feature. The inset is 250x250 pixels at the RAW resolution. Since I was striving for the best resolution, I used a tripod and a 2 sec self-time to start the string of four exposures. Pixel-shifting uses only the electronic "silent" shutter, at intervals of 0.5 seconds (selectable).

 

Sony A7Riii + Zeiss Loxia 50/2 @f/5.6, ISO 100

_7R31019-_7R31022_AuroraHDR2018-edit.thumb.jpg.8477d797f3ac78b8fcbab2228606b75c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your interest is in landscapes, the A7Riii, along with its large selection of native lenses, is going to be hard to beat. This shot of Mt. St. Helens in Washington was taken using a Loxia lens and the Pixel-Shift feature. The inset is 250x250 pixels at the RAW resolution. Since I was striving for the best resolution, I used a tripod and a 2 sec self-time to start the string of four exposures. Pixel-shifting uses only the electronic "silent" shutter, at intervals of 0.5 seconds (selectable).

 

Sony A7Riii + Zeiss Loxia 50/2 @f/5.6, ISO 100

[ATTACH=full]1255962[/ATTACH]

Thanks! my interest is in street photography, but this is helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The new Sony 24/1.4 is a GM lens, which means it should have superb optics and image quality. The fact that it is not a brick is a real plus. Still, I'd wait to hear what other people think of it. How is its handling? Build quality? How is it to use in the field? Most important, how does it fit your own needs (and how are needs distinguished from "wants?"

 

I work it both ways. If something comes out (like the 24/1.4) that fits a niche I want to fill, and I can afford it, I may jump. I did that with the Batis 25/2, and I wasn't disappointed. At the time, the Batis 25 and 85 were the best choices as the Sony system began to grow. Conversely I waited a long time after the Loxia 25/2.4 was introduced, reading every review I could find. My ultimate decision was based on what kind of photography would benefit the most. Since my favorite categories are landscapes and architecture, a small, manual lens was a good fit. Now I have two (four, counting Nikon) 24'ish lenses, but only the Loxia has a home in my bag for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken Rock has a new rave review of the new Sony 24mm 1.4 lens. Says it is the world's best 24mm 1.4, better than anything out there today including the Leica RF 24mm 1.4. I'm reasonably sure there are other reviews of this lens out there. I may save my money for one to use on my a6000.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
In case you're shooting with one hand, I question even the Sigma 24/1.4 would be quite a bit of a test. I've done that with my 24-70/2.8, or, in other words the Sigma. All things considered, on the off chance that you might want to shoot with one hand, a littler focal point would be better. For general photography, it doesn't make a difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...