When I reviewed my first Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 Art lens, I noticed that it was the second lens to be manufactured after the Nikon 2007 model (although I did mention the Tamron 15-30mm f / 2.8 lens Was neglected, which is similar). Sigma was, and still is, one of the best wide-angle zooms you can buy. What to do if it is not broken?
It’s been less than two years since I shot the 14-24mm F2.8 DG Art, and Sigma has already come out with new ones, this time with “DN” to name. It only stands on the mirror.
Unlike the shiny but untouched Sigma 35mm F1.2 DN Art, the 14-24mm DN looks like it is designed for mirrorless cameras. This is not just a restocking of the original lens; She is completely rethinking. It reduces weight by almost a pound, yet uses more glass elements, more iris blades, fixed f / 2.8 apertures, and remains airtight.
Whatever magic worked in this design was not very expensive. At $ 1,399, the DN version is only $ 100 more than the original version. This is a very fast new symptom that can be overcome, but is a warning. If you do not have an E-mount or L-mount camera, you will not be in luck.
It is also the first time that E-mount and L-mount photographers can use 14–24 mm without adapters. The non-DN version, unlike some other Sigma DSLR lenses, did not fire in an original mirrorless mount.
Fast Wide Corners are known for their enormous size – this is the price you want it to be. The wide field of view combined with the large aperture is a technical challenge, which takes a lot of glass (and usually cash) to deal with. The Nikon 14-24mm f / 2.8G, Tamron 15-30mm f / 2.8 G2, and non-DN Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 Art each weigh 2 pounds (more than 2.5 sigma).
But Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DN art? 1.75 pounds. It is narrower and smaller than the others, making it more comfortable on hand. My test camera for this review still feels pretty heavy on the Sigma FP Mini, but it looks like the perfect size for the Sony A7 series or the larger Panasonic Lumix S.
You still have to deal with a bulbous front element, meaning there are no threaded filters, but the paper filter holder is integrated into the back of the lens.
The visual design is new, using 17 elements in 14–24 mm art and 18 elements in 13 groups compared to 11 groups. The number of ED glass elements and the three aspherical elements serve to ensure minimal chromatic aberration and flare, and Sigma says the new lens is less likely to have problems arising from stronger backlighting.
But Sigma’s new design appears to be aimed at equalizing the performance of a small form factor rather than giving a revolutionary leap in image quality. Given how good the first 14-24 mm is, it’s not a bad thing.
For performance, the Sigma encounters the speed and silence of a gradient autofocus motor, but FP contrast-detection AF is not the best test for this. On Sony or Panasonic cameras, autofocus is likely to be faster.
Without a side test, I cannot say that the 14–24 mm F2.8 DN lens performs better than the original. As far as I can tell, both lenses operate at the top of their class, and there are no obvious optical defects for small DNs. It is impressive.
Deformity is present but not at unacceptable levels and can be easily corrected. This is a similar story with vignetting, with f / 2.8 apertures clearly showing darker angles than the center of 14/24 mm, but it’s nothing out of the ordinary. The shading stops with the aperture, and even f / 4 makes a big difference.
Acuity across the edge is excellent, with a slight chromatic aberration appearing near the edges. If the sharpness went down from the center, I wouldn’t be able to detect it anywhere in the real world, although I couldn’t say if it would still be true on high-resolution sensors.
The transition to 11-blade aperture is interesting, as ultra-wide lenses are not known for their bokeh. It is possible to get a shallow depth of field with this lens if your subject is close enough, but I will have to do more testing to determine if the size of the aperture makes a big difference compared to the original 14-24mm.
I would say, background blur differs between the two lenses for other reasons. The non-DN version exhibits very “stretching” of non-focal areas, an effect not seen in my testing of the new lens. This is a personal difference, and I don’t think either is bad, but it’s safe to say that a DN lens is more natural.
Achieving this kind of quality with a lens that is smaller, lighter, and at almost the same price as the original lens is an impressive feat. But, if you’ve ever shot your first Sigma 14-24mm shot, don’t expect it to explode with big gains in image quality.
The 14–24 mm F2.8 DG DN is a rare example of Art Sigma lenses that offer better or at least equal performance and better practicality. Where other Sigma Art lenses, even particularly mirrorless models such as the giant 35mm F1.2 Art, were put together to hit their image quality targets, the DN 14-24mm contrasted did.
Being still (relatively) inexpensive makes it even better.
This is the specialty lens that not everyone will use, some limited with 2X zoom power, but no better value at wide angle, and f / 2.8 magnification for mirrorless cameras.
No, but this lens is much less adaptable than the DSLR version. It is only available in L or E-mount configurations. Canon and Nikon users will have to stick to older non-DN models. This lens is specifically designed for DSLR cameras, and can also be adapted for Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras.