[shoplink 7067]
[/shoplink]
Two days ago Photoscala tested the Zeiss 24mm f/2.0 lens and was pretty disappointed. They compared the lens with the Nikon and Canon 24mm f/1.4 lenses. The Nikon an Canon lenses were both sharper than the Zeiss. But whcih is the best 24mm lens? Surprise, it’s the cheapest of all of them, the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG Macro!!! (Click here to read the full test at Photoscala). The user reviews on Amazon (Click here) and BHphoto (Click here) are quite positive. And also SLRgear (Click here) gave the lens a high rating! You can also take a look at a set of image samples on Flickr (Click here). So is the Sigma $549 lens really better than the Zeiss $1,249 lens? What do you think?
Check the Sigma 24mm availability and price by clicking those direct links: [shopcountry 7067].
And here are the links to the Zeiss 24mm f/2.0: [shopcountry 3037].
22 Responses
I’m sure for what I read it must be a really good lens. And don’t forget the price!
I have this lens, and it’s great, with 17cm minimum focus distance it’s good for anything. The only 2 downsides are the corner sharpness and size.
Nice, destroy the myths admin:]
I would suspect a bad sample, shouldn’t happend but it might do. The photoscala review was pure technical, without much weight on the visual aspect.
photozone.de have tested this lens on both the aps and full frame, with 3.5 to 4 in optical performance on full frame, and 4.5 to 5 on aps-c (out of 5)
if you wonder if Sony got the short end of the stick, since other brands got the Zeiss Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZF. Well, that was rated 2 out of 5 in both nikon and canon mount.
And what about Canon and Nikons own?
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 USM L II got 3 out of 5 on fullframe, and Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED got 3.5 out of 5. So the Sony is by photozone actually better than both nikon and canon. Neither did better than the sony zeiss on aps-c either.
The Sigma however I can’t comment on. However, seeing that SLRgear say that the canon and nikon equalent (mentioned above) is sharper at any aperature, that sounds to me like the sony zeiss actually is the best of the bunch, since it trumph those.
Reviews have always been subjective. In the end you have to try it yourself to see what works better for your needs. Everyone have different requirements and preferences. So one lens’ flaws might be manageable or worth the trouble to some, while it might be a big problem for others.
What’s true is that Zeiss is a premium brand and commands a premium price. And as such, they have a monopoly on Alpha mount. Where as Sigma have to compete with ALL the third party brands.
Now really, a lens showing such an extremely asymmetrical performance can not be a good copy. If one side (or top/bottom) is significantly worse than the other, it is a sure sign of a decentered lens.
sorry: I mean the Sony Zeiss of course.
Regarding the Sigma: comparing APS-C to full frame doesn’t make too much sense.
Cow Zeiss pawned by Sigma, Canikon. Unbelieveable! goos thing is high quality cheaper lens start grab the attention
The sigma got several version for different body, Overall, I think it is good. but there are some downside too. the color tone tends to a little yellowish, and the speed is slow. But, when you look at the price tag. I think you should be accepted those.
Sigma manufactures good lenses but it has not a good quality control. Unfortunately, if you buy a sigma 50-50% you may get a great lens or a poor one! 🙂
For me at least, living in northern California, seeing and even testing A-mount lenses is difficult, Canon and Nikon for reasons well known to this website are much better distributed.
When I’m looking to add a lens to my bag my source of information is other A-mount photographers or much easier, websites that test lenses.
The problem I see with higher-end Sigma optics is the perceived issue around good copy bad copy that has been a core reason not to spend less $$$ and purchase a third party product. And second is long-term compatibility.
If your camera and its lenses are your work tools does it make sense to spend a few hundred dollars less and get less build quality and less sharpness somewhere in your frame?
The real issue here is how do you test a lens for today’s 24MP plus DSRL cameras?
For me, I read Kurt Munger’s website as a start!
I rent lenses online once in a while to test them. Be glad you’re in CA. Im in the midwest, where Sony stores is nuch much harder to find.
According to SlrGear tests, sharpness of Sigma is much worse than Sony Zeiss 24-70mm at any tested aperture either FF or APS. Even more, Sony has at least 2 stop advantage. I don’t believe that 24mm prime is worse than 24-70mm zoom lens.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/206/cat/30
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1181/cat/83
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony_24_2_m15/
would be great one 24 mm CZ for the nex, and why not a 1.7 !! 🙂
we probably are a lot to waiting for this lens !!
some news coming on june the 3rd ?
Well, if it’s anything like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 EX it’s a huge pile of dung.
Not even worth being in the same room at the Zeiss 24mm
I bought the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG but unfortunately the serial number began with a “1” and it does not autofocus or allow aperture control on digital body. I need to send it in to Sigma. Tried it on film Maxxum 7 but not yet able to really use it on digital. Quite a large lens and filter size too!
yes, it is really big. Every time when I am considering should I take this lens as my 35mm point and shot lens for my Sony NEX, I still can’t help to give it up due to its size. I really eager to see when will 24mm f/1.7 coming out and show the real muscle.
Actually, the Sigma AF 1.8/24mm EX DG Aspherical RF Macro and the Sigma AF 1.8/28mm EX DG Aspherical RF Macro are not as good as the Sigma AF 1.8/20mm EX DG Aspherical IF.
I tested several samples of their 1.8/24mm and 1.8/28mm lenses, but they all had significant mechanical play (up to 1 mm), so much that it gave clicking noises, if you shaked the lens. Sigma could not do anything about it and considered this condition as “perfectly within factory specs”.
There is no noticeable mechanical play on the 1.8/20mm, which uses a different construction (IF rather than RF).
Also, the 1.8/20mm is considerably better optically, although colors are a bit on the cold side. Still, I would even go as far as calling it a “great lens”, whereas the 1.8/24mm and 1.8/28mm have been just “good average” in my experience. Their high speed (and the lack of similarly high-speed glass from Minolta / Sony) makes them useful for available light photography, anyway.
Samples with serial numbers in the 1xxxxx range are known not to compatible with the Dynax/Maxxum/Alpha 5, 7, 7 Limited, 7 CNM, 60, 70, 7D, 5D, Sweet-D, DSLR-A100 (and many other cameras since about 2000). Samples without the “a33, a55 compatible” sticker on the box may not be compatible with the SLT-A33 / SLT-A55 / SLT-A55V. Sigma offers upgrades for both of these issues.
Greetings,
Matthias
I wish to confront Photoscala review with older review by Photozone:
http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/567-zeiss24f2?start=1
I own Distagon 2/24 ZA and I am very pleased with it’s quality and performance, I cannot agree with most of Photoscale’s verdicts. Photozone tested also Nikkor and Cannon 1.4/24, both are worst than SAL-24f20Z at APS-C. You need to consider differences caused by different testing platform, unless You connect all lenses to the same body (like Sony Nex). But it seems that Photoscale only compared pure values without normalization (eg. what MTF values are ‘good’, ‘fair’ or ‘excelent’ on chosen camera body).
I had this lens and sold it. Didn’t think it was amazing. Getting correct AF was more a matter of luck than skill. Boke was was harsh. Colors not great. It has put me off Sigma for years. Why can’t Sigma fix their quality control problems? Is it really that hard/expensive ?
I can’t understand the variance in Sigma’s quality over all lenses at all.
In the past two years I tried a lot of Sigma lenses with only two with which I have very much fun – the 8-16 and the 150 macro.
I wasn’t convinced of the 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 70-200/2.8, 50-500 and the absolut catastroph 24-70/2.8.
Regarding the lenses of the topic:
A friend lent me his Distagon for a holiday and I found it being a fantastic lens with only one disadvantage – light falloff up to F4 (as confirmed by Klaus from PZ)
CAs are always an issue on wide angle lenses with fast apertures; and need to be corrected if aimed to be used on large printouts.
Have not tried the Sigma, but I assume (based on my experiences) that it will not be able to beat the Distagon.