New Sigma for Nikon 14-24 art lens..

Today i received an announcemendfor a new Sigma lens : 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art available for Nikon .

 

We will see if it can compete with Nikon's AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED ...

 

Link for the utch announcement : Nieuw! 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art | Sigma Benelux

Yes, I spotted that (dpreview and the obvious rumour site picked up on it). Annoyingly, there's a small chip out of the hood of my 14-24, so I suspect its trade-in value will be harmed. I don't have a huge problem with the sharpness of my 14-24, but I do find I'm usually shooting at f/7 in an attempt to control the field curvature; if this lens resolves that and maintains resolution (and it does appear to be better for distortion), I may end up replacing one of my most-used and longest-owned lenses. I've been vaguely wondering when Nikon were going to do a refresh anyway.

 

Definitely worth awaiting reviews, though.

 

I saw dpreview are also hosting a story on NPS's selection for the winter olympics - lots of 600 f/4s (really lots - I don't know how many are made, but...), 400 f/2.8s, 70-200 FLs, D850s, D5s, and I think I saw 105mm f/1.4s. I'll take one of each, please.

The weight is 1150g, which is a little over 2.5 pounds. While a lot of the Sigma Art lenses seem to be great (I only have the 35mm/f1.4, which is excellent), they are all heavy.

 

I have had the Nikon 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S for 10 years, and that is a lens I rarely use. To me, 14mm is way too wide and I don't particularly like the bulging front element. Instead, I prefer the less expensive and much lighter 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S. Unfortunately, I am afraid that any 14-24mm/f2.8 zoom is going to share some of those physical limitations. However, they can be great indoors under tight corners.

I don't know. I use mine at 14mm outside a fair bit (this is one I had hanging around, not my best example). I probably use it a bit more at 24mm. The Sigma certainly still has the bulging front. The Nikkor isn't exactly light (having had it bounce off my head from an airline overhead cabin).

 

Oh wait, I knew I had a better 14mm shot (by my judgement) to hand. To be fair, I don't often need the f/2.8 aperture on a lens this wide, so stopping down to control the field curvature isn't the end of the world. DxO does clean up the corners of the Nikkor 14-24 nicely, so if the Sigma does make my shopping list, it would be behind the 85mm and 135mm primes.

Yellowstone? Nice!

Thank you. :-) Yup, Grand Prismatic from the walkway. (I have more recent photos from the new overlook, but not in such nice weather.) Wide was necessary; I slightly regretted not having my fish-eye to hand, and I'd still like to go back on a quieter day and try to elevate the camera to the top of a tripod's reach. (The other one's from Capilano, if anyone's playing spot-the-landmark.)

I noticed in the writeup about the lens that that Sigma will rework the lens hood for VR (Virtual Reality). What is that all about?

I noticed in the writeup about the lens that that Sigma will rework the lens hood for VR (Virtual Reality). What is that all about?

 

As I understand it there's an alternative hood (which might be factory re-fit) which excludes the "petals". For normal shooting this would be detrimental, since it makes the lens more prone to flare from outside the image area. I think the idea is that if you're shooting VR and trying to capture a spherical panorama with multiple lenses (wedged close together) for VR video purposes, you don't want the hood from one lens to appear in the field of view of an adjacent lens - so it's better just to have bare lens elements sticking out the front.

 

That's an only-slightly-educated guess, though.

If I had to choose - I'd most likely pick the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC over both the Nikon and Sigma 14-24/2.8 offerings.

Even though I have the Nikkor 14-24, realistically, I don't need any one of those lenses (including the Sigma and Tamron). IMO 14, 15mm is way too wide, and I don't need f2.8 for a super wide. In most cases I want more depth of field anyway. And of course I would much rather avoid a bulging front element.

 

Something like a 16-35, 17-35, or 18-35 covers a much more useful zoom range.

I solved my dilemma of getting something very wide without the Nikon/Sigma weight penalty with the Sony 12-24/4 - a bit more than half the weight of the Sigma 14-24/2.8 or Sigma 12-24/4. And if I was into star-trails/milky way photography, then the Sigma 14/1.8 would be highest on my list.

I'm not interested in this lens, but am still planning on getting the 14mm f.8 Sigma. Mostly I want it for astro. I do have a 24-14mm lens though! It takes 77mm filters. It's the Nikon 24mm PC-E! It's a standard 24mm, it's a shift lens when doing architecture or waterfalls, and when I need something REALLY wide, I simply make perfect three shot stitches with it. It's one of Nikon's most versatile lenses.

 

 

Kent in SD

Everyone's photography is different, and for the kinds of things I enjoy wide angle lenses are where it's at. They're almost an addiction and you want wider and wider.

 

I forget exactly when I bought my 14-24 2.8, but it was September or October(I went through a lot of consternation on here before I decided it was the one :) ). I've actually considered picking up the 14mm 2.8 because-even though it's optically inferior for the most part-by the specs it's a bit wider, has a wider range of compatible cameras(if you "fork" it you can meter on everything back to the F, and of course can AF on all but the lowest end digitals), and can at least take rear gels for B&W.

 

I'll have to give the Sigma a look, but I don't see it displacing the Nikkor from my line-up. The 14mm Nikkor would be a more likely addition and better FOR ME for what the Sigma will cost.