Those are some gorgeous images, Pav. Thank you, as always for a super review :) This 17-28 seems the perfect companion for the 28-70 L-mount. I hope they also make a 70-180 kind of contemporary zoom to complete the lens range
A really helpful review! Finally found a review comparing this new Sigma lens with Tamron FE1728 F/2.8. I thought this would be the most important comparison since they share pretty much the same specifications. But surprisingly, all reviews I read/watched didn’t mention it. Come on I don’t need someone to tell me this lens is not better than Sony GM lens. Thank you for the review! Waiting for your more in-depth comparison video.
@@v3zMedia I checked it out, it weights 2.5 lbs. how do you deal with the weight? That killed it for me. Every other 40mm lens I’ve seen is tiny or pancake size, this lens is very ironic.
@@GunslingerMediaCo I treat it like the specialty lens it is. If I want a specific shot to be extremely sharp and flawless or for cinematic video. I just bought the Samyang 24-70mm F2.8 which arrives today which is 2.2lbs. 😭 I’m a powerlifter so maybe that’s part of the reason I was able to get used to it. They are worth the weight for the unique characteristics they give you optically. My next 2 lenses will be the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 & 85mm F1.4 then I’m done. Those are much lighter. The 40mm dropped down to $599 recently for like 2 weeks I’d wait for it to go on sale again. Maybe it’ll be on a super sale again for the 4th of July.
Thanks Pav, after buying my Sigma 16-28, I finally got to test it after a month, and I'm amazed with the lens quality, no heavy vignetting at all in my model, unlike the other reviews on RU-vid show. I love it, it is sharp ! I wonder which material sigma use to build their Art vs Contemporary glasses. Sony GM and Sigma Art seem both easier to clean more than the Contemporary glass.
Very good weight.The 2 Sigma DG DN lenese are lighter than one Lumix 24-70 mm f2.8 and you'll get focal length from ultrawide to mid-tele. Thank you for the review.
Thanks for the great review! I love my primes (Viltrox 20 1.8, Voigtlander, 21, Samyang 24 f1.8, Samyang-35 1.8, Sigma-45, Sigma-70 macro, Viltrox-85, Samyang-135 f2). Been looking for something wider this last 6 months that is affordable. I was considering the voigtlander 15mm, but not crazy on the vignette. Not interested in the Tamron 17-28 (not a fan of the rendering). I have the Tamron 35mm f2.8 as well, which i like particularly for the macro. The Sigma 14-24 has long held my attention, but to be honest, it would not come with me often enough because of the weight. For me, it has to stand up close to a prime for a 42 MP sensor, and have a good rendering across the range (otherwise i would just get another prime). I recently got the Sigma 45mm f2.8 when on sale for $250. A controversial lens in that was optimized for rendering instead of sharpness. While not for everything, and it has given me renewed respect for Sigma to go out on a limb with that lens, and the transitions such as rich forest scenes are beautiful.. This one looks to be it. I also saw that it is very good with coma, and thus usable for astro at 16mm as well. The other contenders are the Sony 14mm 1.8 gm, and the new sony 16-35 F4 (although both are more expensive, which is a factor for me).
@@MarkusGebhard I did. I like the 16-28, particularly on the wide end where it is very sharp, and i am getting some nice Astro from it as well, although not yet Milky Way season. I use it mostly in the 16 to 20mm range, so it works well for me. A great match with the 45mm. I also picked up the sigma 28mm f1.4 on sale for under 500 usd, which is a stellar lens, with incredible rendering. Together they all make a nice kit, with the 28mm bring the central lens, then the 16-28 on the wide side, and 45 sigma and either a 75mm samyang or 105mm sigma macro on the other side.
Looks amazing! But it is definitely unfortunate that the 28-70 has a different filter size. Surely they know people will pair these two together and needing separate nd filters or stepping rings is a strange choice for sure. But I am a HUGE fan of internal zooming lenses so this seems like a great new lens.
Greetings from London! Love the review.. I will be getting this lens too as I didn't find the Tamron appealing either. I have the Sony 20mm I would love to know how the 2 compare. I don't know if its worth keeping both
hopefully we get sigma 70-180/200 2.8 contemporary so we get the holy trinity :)) I absolutely love this contemporary series. I use a7s III w/ the 28-70 and am looking to get the 16-28 soon.
You're the only one I've seen so far who said this is better than Tamron 17-28. Focus and focus seem to be better on Tamron but distortion it's the bigger gap. Sigma has horrible distortion at both ends.
oh well .... I'm taking it back. I'm comparing them side by side right now (video coming out next week) and I am actually surprised how almost identical they are. Sigma's bulging will be corrected by lens profile (when that's out). Sigma is marginally sharper but that's about it in my opinion - check out my video on Tuesday
I really hope there is a comparison video between this lens vs the 16-35 F4 PZ coming out soon. The price difference isn’t that much.. 2.8 vs longer zoom range and PZ ability. One of these two will be my next purchase so I really need to know what to go for. Any words of wisdom Pav?
I'm not sure that these two are really comparable. I am sure that sharpness wise at f4 they will be the same (in the real world) but the Sigma has got wider aperture when you need it
@@PavSZ question is, do you prefer the faster lens vs the longer range and the added buttons/PZ ability. How much can the dual ISO on the a7 iv compensate for low light when using an f4? And being a Sony native lens, will the PZ have certain advantages with the camera?
@@Image1Nation these are the questions that only you can answer. Different lens for a different job, a different tool. Only you'll know if you need more zoom or wider aprture
@@BoxxyFan both these focal ranges can be used for real estate and each one can add something to my workflow. Both are under my personal budget. Sounds like you have nothing to contribute, get off your phone.
@@PavSZ I bought the 18mm =D Liking it so far. Perhaps an even wider zoom in the future. That 14mm or smth for the dam 4k60 crop. Too bad s5 m ii will have the apsc crop it seems :/
Holy moly these shots look amazing. I was all set to grab an 18mm prime to go with my 28-70 but now I'm like nope. Guess I'm just a sigma guy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Is there any negative about this lens ? If not, Im buying it TODAY. I have tamron 35-150 and sony 200-600. And Im thinking about this Sigma for wide/indoor (if needed) ?
Using it on real estate photography I found the linear distortion at 16mm to be very apparent and ruined several shots. correction in Post was as high at +12 in distortion. Compared to several of my other Lens this was definitely the worst lens I've used.
if you are using Sony, you need to switch the lens correction on in the camera, otherwise wait for the lens profile to come to Adobe Lightroom sometime soon.
@@PavSZ Hi Pav! I'm super curious about this lens and thinking it might be my first one when moving to the L Mount system. But I noticed some people mentioning the distortion. I know it is easily corrected in photography but I don't know how it works with video! Does it correct internally?
@@filipecardoso3145 you will always get wide angle distortion at this wide focal length but shooting jpeg and video it should be corrected by most of current cameras (you need to switch the lens correction in the camera)
Based on how much you liked the Sigma 14-24, which lens do you like better? I've recently been asked to do some real estate photos and since I don't have an UWA this will basically be my do it all wide lens. What do you think would be the better purchase if real estate was the reason I'm purchasing either of these, but not the reason I'll hang onto the lens
I prefer this only because it is smaller, lighter and it takes standard screw on filters - performance wise they are very close. I also think that 14mm is too wide for real estate - it will distort reality just a tiny bit too much in my opinion
What a great photographer! You make this lens look a lot better than other people have been able to. Should I get this, or should I get the Sony 20mm G f1.8 and just use clear image zoom to get to 28mm? I don’t need wider than 20. And I’m just using it for video. I feel like the Sony will have faster auto focus, and overall better quality but if I am zooming in digitally, I don’t know if that’s going to factor in. I will be using the Sony a7iv.
Oh thank you very much! Only you can answer your question. Sony 20mm is great, you also have new Sigma 20mm available. Both very good choice for a7IV. This is different, the aperture is not as wide but you get more out of it. You get wider and a bit of zoom when you need it.
@@PavSZ I’m thinking clear image zoom may introduce too much noise and blur though and it may be weird still being 20mm although cropped in to 24. Vs the zoom lens actually being at 24 although it was a less sharp image from the getgo. I really need both lenses to test but returning lenses is a hassle.
@@switchunboxing only you can answer because only you know what for and how you are going to use them. I can't tell you that one is better than the other. It would be just my personal opinion and not really relevant to you in this case. These two lenses are totally different tools with totally different specs as well. I do own the Sigma myself and I do like it a lot, 20m prime is just a little bit too limiting for me personally, it doesn't meant that it would be to you
I thinkI will get one to replace my 16-35 GM. The GM is a good lens, not great at 2.8 35 but ok. It is big and heavy and my least used lens at weddings. I also have the sigma 24-70 Art and Sigma 85 f1.4 art so it will go with them nicely.
I'd like to complete my Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 and 90mm 2.8 line up with a wide angle. This or the 20mm 2.0 are my favourite so far. Which would you recommend?
Please help! To shoot very small narrow interiors would you still recommend this over the lumix s 14-28mm?? I'm tempted top go for the extra 2mm but not sure ....
How do you feel this lens stacks up to the Viltrox 16mm, specifically in image quality/sharpness? Looking for an affordable ultra wide and I’m down to these two. Love the quality of your work!
Great quality of the review. If I understood correctly, the lens is focus by wire, so it's useless for video. You should add more information about AF in video because it should be perfect then to recomend sigma for video work. It is the only one factor in your reviews I miss. How good lenses are in actual run and gun situations. If someone only uses MF, will buy manual lens instead.
“Useless” is doing some heavy lifting here haha. If you rely on MF solely then of course, but many use AF now that the current lineup does such a good job.
well, it's not useless, especially if you are using Lumix L-mount camera (focus can be set to linear) and I really don't think that any serious film maker, shooting only with manual focus would be looking into a lens like this.
I have seen reviews that show that the center sharpness at wide angle is significantly better on the Sigma 14-24. For those like me who shoot architecture, this is important, and would justify the price premium of the 14-24. Did you get a chance to test the 14-24 against the 16-28 ?
not side by side but I have reviewed these lenses independently. I personally do not believe that this lens could be any sharper at wide angle. I do actually own it now and it replaced my Tamron 17-28. 14-24mm might be a higher class lens overall but I don't think it is significantly sharper, if sharper at all. It is also huge, heavy and required back filters
? where are you seeing that it's much sharper? if anything, both are insanely sharp, with marginal differences, with the art maybe slightly sharper. the biggest advantage is the 14mm wide angle... but it's almost double the price
@@sonicsaviouryouwillnotgetm6678 I'm in the same dilemma as well. The 20mm f2's size and weight is amazing for a small walkaround setup. That said, with the minimal price differences between the two, its a no contest to pick the 16-28 f2.8 for most users. I value a small light setup and will go for the 20mm f2.
the answer is maybe. The Sigma EF to L-mount adapter works pretty well. The only thing is that you have a lens to adapter to the camera then. It makes it all bigger and heavier. I'd personally go for the Sigma
@@PavSZ i watched the vid. but i wanted to know the test result. specialy the macro (close foccus) comparation . hope u will address im ur nxt vid. good day.
