| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
  | sent on 31 Gennaio 2026 Pros: Fearful clarity. Cons: A little heavy. Opinion: I've been aiming to have this lens for years. Bought used, in mint condition, I started using it to photograph concerts, because I needed something brighter than the 12-24 mm, which I already owned. Wonderful angle of view, incredible sharpness. I love her. In my opinion, Sigma is unbeatable on wide angles. Highly recommended. |
 | sent on 16 Marzo 2023 Pros: Pro optics that excel in sharpness, distortion and color rendering Cons: Weight, Excessive costs of holders, filters and related components (assuming that you are looking for the top of the products on the market) Opinion: Perfection in photography does not exist but this lens touches it, the color rendering is excellent, real and well-balanced colors, distortion is almost absent, the top for landscaping and architecture; sharp already at f2.8 in the center and for most of the frame, this makes it quite valid at night, if the stars are also present, these will be elongated at the edges, the vignetting will be a lot especially when the exposure is not optimal; But I do not think that lenses of focal equivalent and aperture can do better, it becomes a blade on the whole frame closing the diaphragm of 2/3 stops and such is maintained up to f11 / f14, and by blade I mean the sharpness the real one, the one that makes the details readable even of elements placed at km away such as casoloari, hills, vegetation etc .. These characteristics remain unchanged at all focal lengths. On the other hand (like all wide-angle zoom lenses) it has the WEIGHT, considering that wide angle = landscape = long hikes, walks, trips .. With its 1,150 kg of weight + SLR and everything else, it can prove to be a real boulder to carry on the back, which is why after years of honorable service I finally gave it up |
  | sent on 27 Marzo 2021 Pros: High sharpness a real blade, very little or no distortion, high overall optical quality, fluid rings, excellent value for money, color rendering, brightness Cons: At the moment I would say nothing Opinion: Yes, it suffers the side lights but with a protruding lens it was to be expected, there are those who say the weight, it will be but to me its 'substance' makes me a great impression Only real problem could be the filters that can not be mounted and I solved with the holder of the Nisi and filters of 150 not a small expense but the final result is spectacular the tests I did left me really satisfied |
 | sent on 17 Novembre 2020 Pros: sharpening colors distortion build quality Cons: maybe the weight but it's well balanced Opinion: Bought and arrived I immediately did a quick test comparing it to the 14 ii and 24 ii both canon of course, In my possession The first impression is positive Faithfully returns the colors as if it were a sharp canon at 14mm f2.8, a little higher than the 14 ii A 24mm, at 2.8 and 4.0, practically identical to the canon in the center but loses at the edges Considering it is a zoom I would say that it is acceptable It costs less than one of the two and you carry around both of them |
  | sent on 07 Dicembre 2018 Pros: High sharpness, almost absent distortion, water resistant construction, minimal aberrations Cons: Weight and footprint, but the quality weighs Opinion: I took this lens to experience different perspectives and I made an exit to try this beautiful lens, I was open-mouthed, sharp from fear a blade already at 2.8, neutral colors, good resistance to backlight does not lack anything, the price, if Considered the alterego of Nikon, it is economical compared to performance. Zoom nuts and smooth focus with right consistency, fast autofocus and Precisissimo, has the electromagnetic diaphragm the Nikon version as the Canon. What about if instead of a kidney you make out half, referring to the price, I highly recommend it, does not need to envy any goal. Of course the weight is there, 1150 grams are many, but after a while no longer feel, I have you fell asleep or you have made a habit. Sigma with these latest productions has taken a giant step. |
 | sent on 05 Novembre 2018 Pros: High sharpness even at the edges and optical quality in general, water lens treatment and dust proof really useful, import price, construction, built-in hood, lens cap that is finally not detached every second, focal range, bright, Cons: Suffers a little bit the side lights view the protruding lens, autofocus not really lightning, weight (but for a lens like that is normal), creates addictive, holder and filters apart expensive (I use filters and Haida holder and the expense has been fairly contained) Opinion: As a lover of landscape photography I am a fanatic of ultra wide angle lenses, so much so that I have always looked for the best in this focal range. I had several lenses of value, both zoom and fixed (Canon 16-35 f4 is, 17-40 F4, Fuji 10-24, 16 1.4 etc.) and I tried many other (like the 20 1.8 Nikon that at the level of sharpness is exceptional). I was undecided between the Tamron 15-30 VC, the Nikon 14-24 and the Sigma art. After so much research and reviews read (very few that are on the net on the 14-24 Sigma), I decided to risk anyway. After having tested it in the field, I can affirm that none of the optics listed above comes close to the quality that once again gives Sigma with the ART series: This 14-24 2.8 is very sharp even at full aperture, has a fantastic focal range for landscapes, is Built really well and has a lens treatment that is making me hate that of the Tamron G2 that I own; I used it under a waterfall with the lens that filled with water, and everything slips away smoothly and without creating halos. Same speech for the dust: Finally a lens that does not fill with dust in front of the glass even remaining firm in the backpack. What surprised me most however is the sharpness at the edges, almost comparable to the one present in the center! Thing I've never seen on an ultra-wide-up like that! It's a new standard in the field of landscape photography in my opinion, stuff for which pixels peeper would lose their heads. I use it on D750, the weight I have to say that you feel especially when hiking. But to this day I could not use anything else for my landscape photographs. The negative note concerns the reflections and flare that are created in the situation of Light side: Unfortunately from this point of view loses the comparison with optics such as the Canon 17-40 (which is not a sharpness of the monster, but does not suffer the flare at all) and also the 16-35. Finally a mention for many superfluous but for me it is a welcome surprise: the cap of the optics is not in classic with the levers to be hooked to the optics: it is a simple cap with internal gasket that "tucks" in front of the optics and is the first that I do not Cause anxiety, since almost all of the other optics are easily released. As for the filters, I recommend the Haida holder with Nano Pro filters, you will find import from ebay, do not cost absurd figures such as those nisi, and the quality is guaranteed. |
 | sent on 18 Giugno 2018 Pros: Sharpness, colours, absence of chromatism, well-controlled distortion, "anticlockwise" zoom bezel, Canon style. Cons: Overall dimensions, weight, weight, weight, sensitivity to side lights. Opinion: I finally decided to take it! The first impressions are very good, already very sharp at full aperture (usable at 2.8 in Astrofoto focusing carefully, so it's just what I needed), beautiful colors, solid, excellent construction, very contained vignetting considering the focal range (I also had Nikon 14-24 and Canon 16-35 2.8 III, and it seems much better than both). The geometric distortion is very well controlled, chromatic aberration does not even know what it is! Between the defects inevitably the weight and a certain sensitivity to the lateral light, that if it manifests in the form of slight halos at night if there are for example side street lamps, but nothing that wide similar do not present. The real flaws remain the weight and the encumbrance: handling it is really challenging, also complicit in a non-exceptional ergonomics (the body is very wide and grasping it with one hand is not very reassuring). But if the performance is these, it is a price you will gladly pay. |
 | sent on 20 Maggio 2018 Pros: Construction, value for money, sharpness. Cons: Nothing. Opinion: Having to buy an optic with this focal excursion, for the Nikon d850, I wanted to conduct a bit of testing comparing the Nikon 14 24 and the Sigma Art 14 24, of course without any scientific claim, but making sure to look for those that could be the limits for The use I want to make. As weight and dimensions seem to me roughly equivalent, and both are presented with a prominent frontal lens to which you have to be very careful; I leave to others the considerations on Tropicalizzazioni, and anti dirt/fat treatments, but some constructive measures make it convenient, and of course, the more a lens is new and more technologically advanced (I remind you that the Nikon 14 24 came out in 2007 for 24 MPX, and at Apparently there is no intention to update it). I first tried the Nikon because I wanted that but the impression I immediately had is that it did not have a resolution power capable of solving a sensor from almost 50 mpx... then I went to an event where you could try the material nital , and I tried it again: the same situation! You have a feeling of homogeneous slight blur that accentuates the edges, where in addition are added important chromatic aberrations (it is true that it resolves in post, but here we are talking about the optics). I tried then the Sigma, and it seemed much sharper (I speak of power resolution, ie the ability to solve the fine detail that makes you appreciate the potential of the sensor; unable not test on a target, I tried to include subjects with plot , situations of light indentation, lines, at different apertures, as well as I had done with the Nikon). The chromatic aberrations on the Sigma seem to me much more contained and for this in post you can fix it better and sooner. A little more complex speech for distortions: at first glance, especially if you include straight lines in the foreground, they both seem to suffer a bit of barrel; In fact when you open the file in Photoshop, it is obvious that even in this the Sigma wins easy: The Sigma in the central areas and even further, it is straight (even applying the lens correction, you notice that only move the edges); Different story for the Nikon file; In this case we can see that the distortions start gradually from the center, to the edges (where, again, a considerable chromatic aberration is added), and this makes a correct correction much more complex. At more closed apertures the differences of chromatic aberrations and distortions, are reduced but do not disappear, while on the sharpness, the Sigma remains evidentememte much higher. In the end the choice is relapsed on the Sigma: In addition to the practical advantages of yield and constructive sturdiness, a nice saving of almost 800 euros (both official nital the first and mtrading the second). Good photos to all! |
 | sent on 10 Aprile 2018 Pros: Sharpness, construction, brightness Cons: nothing Opinion: Skeptical at first for not having opted in original optics solutions but immediately forget using this great goal. It is exciting to just have it mounted. Will return a sharpness and strength like no other. Maybe a little heavy, but there's a price and you realize you have a perspective that makes for what it really is. Very satisfied to the extent of even consider purchasing the 50 mm that apparently if the play on an equal footing to Zeiss. Very happy with it. Vote 10! |
 | sent on 22 Marzo 2018 Pros: Sharpness, construction, distortion correction Cons: Poor resistance to reflections, weight and size Opinion: Purchased today and immediately tested and also compared with 14 Samyang and 21 distagon zf2; the first impressions are excellent, but I reserve a more conscious judgment in a few months. For now I can say with confidence that the sharpness is excellent, even at the edges, a bit 'at all focal lengths, even higher than that provided by the 21 Zeiss; the objective appears solid and well made, the rings run smoothly; the correction of the distortion appeared to me very good (in this respect the Samyang is shredded). The weight is considerable and the overall dimensions must also be considered. The real neo I found it in tests carried out with strong lateral light, when I checked an obvious reflection. In the same situation the Zeiss has endured very well, the Samyang a little better. In the past I had Nikon 14-24 who had the same problem; in any case, both lenses have an imposing and protruding front lens. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
