Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lens Ratings gurus??  (Read 1202 times)
Herbc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« on: April 05, 2014, 12:11:49 PM »
ReplyReply

My work is landscapes and some abstract IR, all b/w.  I am in the market for a good 20mm lens.
for full frame Nikon.

After spending way too much time reading reviews, I am struck by the huge differences.  I don't usually rely on users that simply add their opinions, instead being more likely to accept a technical review, such  Diglloyd or Dxo Mark, for example.

On reviewing the Sigma 20mm f1.8 DG lens, I was struck by their rating of this lens within one rating point of the Zeiss 15mm f2.8.   The price differential is roughly $600/$3000!!

Taking into consideration that the wider 15mm will get a lower vignetting etc rating simply due the the wider focal length, I find the rating nothing short of amazing.
If you go to, say Fred Miranda's site, which has a lot of guys giving their opinions, they rate the Zeiss at a perfect 10,
and the Sigma 20 at 7.8.

Am I missing something here??  (I own the Zeiss 15, find it excellent)
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8197



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2014, 05:05:47 PM »
ReplyReply

It is exponentially more difficult to design a 15mm lens compared to a 20mm lens.

DxO looks at measured performance accross the image field while users tend to think about how good it is for a 15mm and how nicely it "renders".

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
capital
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2014, 05:24:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure, but have you considered the 14-24 Nikon? You could potentially combine two primes into this one lens. 
Logged
jwstl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2014, 05:31:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I considered the Sigma 20 but the DXO review was really the only positive review I found. In fact, some of them claim the Sigma is quite poor:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-20mm-f1.8-ex-dg-for-canon

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/761-sigmaex2018fx?start=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-20mm-f-1.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx

When it comes to reviews, I don't know who to trust. I do read as many as I can find before purchasing and I look for gear that has the fewest negatives I can find. In the 20mm range, I'll use my older Nikon 20 2.8 AF-D when weight is a consideration and the 16-35 f/4 for landscapes.




Logged
Herbc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2014, 09:03:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I had one of those, but I really don't like primes as a general rule.
Logged
Herbc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2014, 09:05:24 PM »
ReplyReply

sorry,  I meant I had a 14-24 and sold it to buy the 15mm Zeiss.  It was big, would not accomodate filters, and it was a zoom.

thanks guys for all the responses.
Logged
D Fosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342



« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2014, 03:26:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Testing a wide angle lens mainly becomes a question of how the test results are weighted. How it performs in the center and how it performs near the corners. Which is most important?

FWIW I have a Sigma 24/1.8 and it's an excellent lens as 24mm's go, very sharp. But there's still lateral chromatic aberration and coma as you near the corners. For people shots that's not important, but for a full scale detailed landscape it's a different story. 
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2790


« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2014, 05:00:16 AM »
ReplyReply


On reviewing the Sigma 20mm f1.8 DG lens

I researched this lens a few months ago because I wanted a wide fast prime. The verdict from more than one source was that at 1.8 it was poor and only when you stopped down it performed "satisfactorily" IMO there isn't any point in buying a fast lens if it doesn't perform at it's widest stop. I ended up buying the Samyang 24 f1.5 fully manual which imo is a very good lens.
Logged

JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 753


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2014, 06:51:09 AM »
ReplyReply

The Zeiss 21 is close enough as damnit. I think everyone who uses it considers it the go-to WA. I know I do. It's a stellar lens.

To get back on subject I like Photozones for their lens testing. When Roger of Lens Rentals comments on a lens its worth paying attention to. Tom Hogan does a good job on Nikon lenses but I suppose Bjorn Rorslett is the guru, testing virtually every Nikon "F" lens known. He is especially relevant for his knowledge of using older lenses on modern bodies.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 07:14:08 AM by JohnBrew » Logged

Herbc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 109


« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2014, 08:27:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Since I am a big fan of Zeiss, it is difficult to choose otherwise.  However, I did run across a Sigma 20 f1.8 for about half list price, so I thought, wth, I can always peddle it for that.  The Zeiss will have to wait for some extra cash to show up. 
I did read the Photozone review of the Sigma, and for my purposes (b/w landscape) it might be good enough.  I am also interested in how it does on IR.  The Sigma does have fstops, which is a plus using it on a Sony A7.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad