• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

next PZ lens test report: Sigma 12-24mm f/4 HSM DG ART


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,373 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:28 AM

It started promising ... but then it ended in ... perhaps not.

 

http://www.opticalli...-sigma1224f4art


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#2 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:31 AM

excellent cliffhanger! "but then...*  ^_^

 

"the the borders"



#3 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 24 June 2017 - 09:46 AM

Thanks for your test and findings. We obviously didn't have the same lens and I tried it only less than half an hour, but I thought I was seeking for flares, ghostings, fringing and all the stuff I knew from the Nikkor - and I was positively "disappointed" not to find these, at least not in a all too obvious way. But maybe I was too careful? When looking at my pictures in the range of 18-24 mm I could not see fiel curvature - but then, the idea occurred when the subject is perspectively, that curvature might even help to increase DoF?

 

Edit: I was looking at your 7 sample pictures and hoping to find some "ghostings" to proof of curvature. Not to defend the lens - I just want to know what it looks like your were talking about?



#4 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,491 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:31 AM

Ew...

 

Looks like an f/4-5.6 lens after all. :) But I guess for many people it'll be practically a 12mm prime anyway. :P (but then, the distortion... ZOMG)

 

P. S. No 21MP results this time around?



#5 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,715 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:32 AM

There are no 18 or 24mm sample images (except a leaf close up), so a bit difficult to look for the field curvature there...


  • JoJu likes this

#6 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,715 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:37 AM

Ew...

 

Looks like an f/4-5.6 lens after all. :) But I guess for many people it'll be practically a 12mm prime anyway. :P (but then, the distortion... ZOMG)

 

P. S. No 21MP results this time around?

For prime, I'd rather look at the Irix 11mm f4 instead ;)



#7 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:40 AM

          Very good real world review, especially given the detailed info on the lens's field of curvature which causes a little "mayhem" at the longer focal lengths, most reviews mention nothing of that genre.

    I'm not sure if a compromise setting, (putting the focus point at the 1/1/3rd of the way from the frame edge) would help ease the corner/ edge situation,  probably? 

 

  Huge lens though and heavy at 1.15 Kgs....this is a lens you can get round by using two lighter primes or a prime and a zoom, there's the Samyang 14mm F2.8,  (one stop brighter for peanuts for example)   

 

 On a trip this lens would be a pain to carry coupled added to your standard kit!



#8 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,491 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:43 AM

For prime, I'd rather look at the Irix 11mm f4 instead ;)

No AF, no sell for me (YMMV of course). I'd like to see a 12mm AF prime from someone to replace my 14mm Sigma (which is not stellar in itself, albeit passable, but also comes a little too close in the FL department to the 16-35mm lens that I call my bread and butter unit...)

 

Tamron, I'm looking at you.



#9 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,715 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 24 June 2017 - 10:46 AM

No AF, no sell for me (YMMV of course). I'd like to see a 12mm AF prime from someone to replace my 14mm Sigma (which is not stellar in itself, albeit passable, but also comes a little too close in the FL department to the 16-35mm lens that I call my bread and butter unit...)

 

Tamron, I'm looking at you.

Klaus mentions that the Sigma tends to overshoot AF?



#10 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:42 AM

 

          Very good real world review, especially given the detailed info on the lens's field of curvature which causes a little "mayhem" at the longer focal lengths, most reviews mention nothing of that genre....

 

Actually, I would like see some evidence how it looks like and how big's the impact. 7 samples are not a lot, I was scrolling through 48 pictures (less than an hour? ha! 20 minutes - so really nothing to call it a test) and simply could not see these problems in real world. But I realized I have less high expectations on sharpness as there is so much to be seen on the picture - I simply didn't bother enough to see the structures of leaves close to the lens' ∞ position.

 

Although I tried the lens, I also think of looking at the Irix would be worth to do. As for lack of AF: I haven't tried a DLSR-body (so far) which had no troubles to AF these UWA reliably. Apparently the grass is not much greener at the Canon side of the hills, and I think there are not much subjects in UWA situations which are moving so quickly. Personally, I don't see the value of PDAF in that region to be a ,must have'.



#11 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:53 PM

Actually, I would like see some evidence how it looks like and how big's the impact. 7 samples are not a lot, I was scrolling through 48 pictures (less than an hour? ha! 20 minutes - so really nothing to call it a test) and simply could not see these problems in real world. But I realized I have less high expectations on sharpness as there is so much to be seen on the picture - I simply didn't bother enough to see the structures of leaves close to the lens' ∞ position.

 

 

  Well the third real world resolution graph tells the story, whether you can compromise across the frame for infinity focus, but then you are fiddling either with; use once AF fine tune settings; or MF in LV  not ideal...

 

     ...and all that for F4!



#12 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:28 PM

In a perfect world scenario the focus field is absolutely flat - so e.g. if you take a perpendicular picture of a wall, the focus field should sit exactly on that wall.


I don't know about you guys, but I'm not buying an UWA for a "perfect world" flat reproduction of maps or huge posters.

 

I could not measure the lens I tried - and looking back and seeing the pictures I was inspired to compose, I have to say, "absolutely flat" would be a physical miracle and worse, nothing to improve my pictures. Long ago I thought enough DoF can save any day, any missed focus and also perspectively challenging shots.

 

12 mm on full frame - how on Earth could such a lens bend the laws of optics enough to be sharpest at some flat pane?

 

The pictures in the tower were very complex in terms of involved distances:

 

_DSC4751-L.jpg

 

Pictures like these don't need to be sharp on each little brick or scratch in metal, I'd say.

 

_DSC4714-L.jpg

 

_DSC4740-L.jpg

 

Do you see field curvature? And if so, does it matter?

 

"... and all that for F4". First, it's f/4, second feel free to develop a lens which covers a whopping 36° zoom range (122.0°-84.1°)  with less distortions, field curvature... Apparently I sometimes can adapt to the fact, not to live in a perfect world scenario  ^_^

 

But if you'd ask me "will you buy it to replace the Nikkor?" I'd hesitate. Although it is much better in terms of flare and offers 2 mm shorter FL. I was not very often in the situation to really need the zoom part of the UWA zoom, but then it was good to have it - the big angle of view sometimes bring in distractive things, then it's good to narrow it a bit.

 

It's not a clear decision to make. I think, Sigma did a fairly cool job with it, but I'm curious about the 14/1.8 as well - and both Irix lenses are as well on my list to play with.


  • Brightcolours likes this

#13 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts

Posted 24 June 2017 - 06:08 PM

Great shots JoJu!!



#14 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 24 June 2017 - 07:49 PM

Thanks, I chose them because I thought the lens is

  • decently sharp
  • reasonably priced
  • better in terms of flare than it's (10 years old) Nikon colleague
  • clean of CA "wide open"(which is f/4, so should really be no problem)
  • coming with an attractive zoom range start - not many 12 mm zoom options available with AF
  • highly adjustable (although that bit is a nightmare to do)
  • used to get "dramatic", "dynamic""huge overview" pictures.

Geometrically precise reproduction is hardly a big strength for any of these lenses. In a way it's good Klaus checked for this (PZ's tests usually don't have extra chapters for this type of flaws, so kudos to do so)

 

Beside field curvature, the corners are really nothing to be ashamed of in terms of resolution. Depending on the subject, I tend to guess this curvature is eventually helpful. But in any case, the lens has a lot of strengths. So, if I would have to choose between that one and the Nikkor today, with the perspective to get a pretty fast 14/1.8 additionally, I reckon to decide in favor of the Sigma. Simply because front and side light is not such a pain in the butt - and in rooms (architectural shots) a tripod is always a good idea, so the f/2.8 not necessarily an advantage.

 

EDIT: A while after the post I decided to upload more images to a sample gallery. Please bare in mind, I was trying to find out if that lens would handle some situations better when I felt being let down by the still more expensive Nikon - or was at least disappointed.

 

If you like to check exposure data, right hand at the botton is an info icon. As well as the three layered rectangles which allows to choose "original" as size. I don't mind if you download some of the pictures to examine, just don't used them to publish without my permission.

 

Couple of shots didn't make it into the gallery because of missed AF - I learnt it's better to switch on LiveView and don't hope for "it will be fine with PDAF". I didn't add extra sharpening, eventually a little clarity. I'm also no fan of white clouds when I know there's structures behind the white and  the sensor did catch it. So shadows and highlights are to my likes. At two pictures I was a bit confused because of little spots which turnt out to be a cloud of little flies at 100%.

 

I found shooting at 12 mm challenging - but never because of the lens, always because it's hard to see in finder or on screen all the little details I can look at later on on a big screen. And I know how easy it is to miss a nice detail or to show too much non-important things.



#15 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,373 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:57 PM

JoJu ... you have qualified as the defender of the faith now ...  :P

 

- the field curvature is an issue STARTING at 18mm - not across the range. You are probably aware that we use a slicing approach to determine the best spot on the focus field. If the center and corner slice differ by "5 slices" I wouldn't bother too much - yes, you will see that on a wall but - as mentioned in the review - who really cares. At 24mm f/5.6 the Sigma was at up to 9 slices and at the edge of what we covering (ca. +/-12 slices). The Canon 11-24L didn't have this issue.

- remember that 50mp are magnifying any issues substantially. Yes, I will provide the 21mp figures soon (and that will, as usual, ease the pain)

- a comparison with the Nikkor 14-28mm is meaningless in the Canon section. The benchmark is the 11-24mm L here. The 11-24L flares as well, of course, but not quite as much as the Sigma. 

- if your sample is different - good for you - yet this was a brand new lens and passed Sigma's QC. The center was quite fine centering-wise. From there on it is not my problem anymore. PZ does not exist to defend manufacturers. It is worth remembering that any criticism is also meant to tell the manufacturers that they have to push more QC-wise and quality-wise. If you want to read hallelujah ratings ... well, there are many sites out there that do that.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#16 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,571 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 25 June 2017 - 12:19 AM

I do know that you do series of focus samples, so I understood why there are differences between the resolution charts and the field curvature chart. I also don't want to defend or show faith in Sigma although I admit they have my sympathy, more than Nikon does for their lenses. As I said I have doubts to decide for that lens, and part of it is of course your findings with the field curvature.

 

In the set of pictures I took there were a lot in narrow space, perspective distortions (not only by the lens), other things hardly impressed me - like AF failing in few pictures although I could not recognize why. Purposefully I don't say the lens failed to AF - at first, it was not at all calibrated. And I'm unclear if calibration would be easy or helpful afterwards.

 

But in practice I can imagine some shots blown due to field curvature and others saved because of it - would the lens be entirely useless at the borders, I'm sure you would have showed that. I also understand that doing more than unusual "border shots" to get the peak performance is annoying. But it was worth the effort, and it was also great to point that out. Otherwise people buy it, do their usual brick wall tests and complain about PZ  :lol:

 

One of the pictures I took I was a bit puzzled to check afterwards. It was wide open @ 24 mm and from the door in the background to the white chess figures in the left corner the sharpness surprised me. Now I know, that field curvature played some part in it. That's what made me asking "is it in the wild such an issue like it doubtless is on a test chart?" Anyway, that brings the "3D-effect" to an entirely different meaning  ^_^ Next time I use my 3D-glasses...

 

Oh, and the first guy who brought me that Nikkor to attention was a Canon photog, who praised it very much and used it with adapter. 8-10 years ago, that was. The Nikkor was for long a lens Canon shooters were lusting for, so I reckon I can refer to it. Forgive me tho post Nikon samples in a Canon forum on PZ, if you would have put more and more critical shots in your samples, I would not habe been so tempted to do so  :P



#17 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,373 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 June 2017 - 12:44 AM

Here's the "field curvature" at 21mp.

 

Again - this looks MUCH WORSE that it is. If I would take these readings with a +/-2 slice horizon the chart wouldn't look that extreme anymore.

As mentioned I am therefore reluctant to providing these figures.

 

So at 21mp, the f/11 figures is livable again.

Attached Files


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#18 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,373 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 June 2017 - 12:51 AM

If I chose the +2 slice (outer region) the chart would look like this AT 21mp ...

 

This gives probably a more realistic figure what to expect in the real life (at 21mp, it will still be much worse at 50mp).

 

Again ... I don't like to play that field curvature game but it is part of the whole picture.

Attached Files


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#19 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,373 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 June 2017 - 12:59 AM

FWIW, 50mp at +2s. I replaced the chart in the review with this one - that's more fair.

Attached Files


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#20 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,373 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 25 June 2017 - 04:01 AM

I just updated the review with the 21mp data.


Chief Editor
photozone.de




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de