[Klaus]

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/c..._14_24_28/

 

The MTFs look substantially better than for the f/4

[borisbg]

Do the charts show vignetting more than 2.5 stops?

[Rover]

Klaus, I feel for you.

[JJ_SO]

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/c..._14_24_28/

 

The MTFs look substantially better than for the f/4

 

Stay fair. 14 mm is a bit less complicated to do than 12 mm 

 

Sigma needs to become a bit more careful with their double or triple focal lengths. 14 mm are covered with two zooms, one fast prime, then 20 and 24 the same. 24-35/2 or 24/1.4 and 35/1.4?

 

It's good to have choices - but somehow it would be better to know about the upcoming choices. I'm not sure if I had chosen the 14/1.8 if I had an idea about the 14-24/2.8 to come. MTF look very good, now I just wonder how flare behaviour will be. And of course, Sigma should and could solve the filter design. It comes either with tulip hood or round without hood, and there's not only the mount conversion service but also the front conversion service. One day they will have an aperture conversion service and we need to decide how many blades we want.  :unsure:

 

[obican]

Zeiss Classic 15/2.8 also had the front conversion service, it's a good option for people who rely on filters. I think they solved the issue completely by giving the Milvus version a removable hood, which is actually quite impressive.

[JJ_SO]

What good is a cylindrical hood for filters, if the front-element of the lens is protruding?

[obican]

Sigma hood removal doesn't make it work with filters? That's stupid!

 

And apparently that's the way it is. 

 

Maybe someone will create a filter holder that extends enough to clear the front element but still, this is stupid.

[MatjazO]

Sigma needs to become a bit more careful with their double or triple focal lengths. 14 mm are covered with two zooms, one fast prime, then 20 and 24 the same. 24-35/2 or 24/1.4 and 35/1.4?

That’s easy, 24/1,8 Nikkor. 😉


Having choice is good. 🙂

[JJ_SO]

Maybe someone will create a filter holder that extends enough to clear the front element but still, this is stupid.

 

I still have a 3D printed filter holder customised for Nikkor 14-24 and as well 150×150 filters for it. It's a rather expensive idea to use these kind of super big filters, not to mention the transport of that big surfaces.

 

I might go the Irix way: They have a filter holder behind the rear element. I'd be interested in their 11 mm. Okay, it's a bit complicated to unmount the lens, put the filter in (not to mention how to focus with an ND 3 filter). But the fat filterholder I bought I just don't take with me.

[Rover]

It comes either with tulip hood or round without hood, and there's not only the mount conversion service but also the front conversion service. One day they will have an aperture conversion service and we need to decide how many blades we want.  :unsure:

 

That's a great idea. Make our lenses modular, like the way things were in the days of the T-mount.