I have the 14-24. It's a hell of a performer. I pre-ordered it when it was announced and received it just in time for a trip to Banff to shoot astro. I've loved it ever since. That said, I'm considering selling it to get the 16-28 specifically because of the ability to accept front filters, as well as the size and weight. Being able to use filters, and having it weigh less in my bag are both huge advantages while hiking, and even just working with the camera for things like real estate shooting.
Yeah dude it really is not a bad option. I know they make filters for the back of the 14-24mm but it's not the same array of options like a normal thread on the 16-28mm. Honestly, the more I do these reviews the more I lean to the school of thought of "you can do anything with any piece of gear, get what makes your life easiest". You won't be disappointed if you get this. I always order, play with it for a job or two to make sure I'm gonna keep it, and then if Im happy I sell the old one. Thank you for watching
@@TNKPhoto Agreed! I definitely think that we’re at a point where even the “mid-grade” gear is SO GOOD that it really comes down to the person using it. And between these two, I have filters and step down rings. I don’t have gels for the back. One of those options is also just way easier to work with. I may have to rent a copy of the 16-28 and do some testing between the two before pulling the trigger. All the best! Thanks for the content.
You are correct sir. When I made the video I forgot about that. Truth be told I tried them and I hated that process. The front ones on regular lenses is a much easier option in my opinion
Jon Lucas, you are correct. I remembered later that they have that rear one that’s specific to this lens. I mentioned the front ones that are generic with the attachment but I’ll add that edit to the description. Thank you for watching 🙌
Better I think is relative, but I would say the 16-28mm probably won’t leave you wanting more width and I did feel like the distortion was less pronounced. This is my own personal opinion from what I can remember
@attila1899 Optically, the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 is better than the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8. Several online reviews have demonstrated this optical advantage. For event photography, however, the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 is more than good enough. Note that with the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 you can use rear gel filters. Both Haida and Fotodiox make front filter systems for the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8. Christopher Frost has reviewed the Haida system and Dustin Abbott has tested the Fotodiox setup.
Great review. I have the 16-28 and love it. Did own the 14-24 twice, but got two bad copies and gave up. Plus, I like the lighter setup. Though I’m a landscape photographer primarily, do use the Sigma 16-28, tamron 28-75 g2, and tamron 70-180 for most events.
Dude that’s awesome! And that’s exactly what I preach in every video is not to get too hung up on gear and just actually use the equipment that you have 🙌
@@JamesReubenGruta they were off centered. One edge was sharp, the other edge blurry. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. I was just unlucky. Just buy new from a reliable dealer. It’s actually a great lens.
Here’s the thing; if you’re making a living out of this, even if they do come out with a new version, if you can make some good money from it from now til, then sell it and buy the new version, it can still be worth it. To me however, I hated the f4 version of lenses. I tried the 24-105 f4 and returned it very quickly because I hated that extra stop of less light. Personally I would recommend the 16-28 f2.8 over all of them. And that’s me owning the 14-24mm 2.8 😬👀
Oooooooo thank you for letting me know. I’ll let my photographer know about it (he’s the one that owns the 16-28mm). I’ll be honest, the copy he had didn’t really have much of a hunting issue from what I remember. We generally use it in AFC mode so I’m not sure if that makes a difference. I know in AFS sometimes hunting can be more of an issue. But thank you for watching and thank you for letting me know 🙏
@@TNKPhoto thank you so much, it means a lot, im still undecided between 16-28 and 14-24. Build Quality wise 14-24 art is the way, but the problem is the filter option and its massive weight and if going 14 wide after correction will be a large crop. Lastly is the weather sealing, is there really a big difference in sealing between the 14-24 art vs the 16-28 con?
@@roadtobeingapro Thank you for taking the time to respond! Personally if I were to recommend a lens, I would lean towards the 16-28 because of size, weight, and price. According to the website it says the weather sealing is only on the mount, however. So if that's a real deal-breaker, then I would have to say spend the little bit extra on the 14-24mm instead of having to repair the 16-28mm if you run into some inclement weather. And since recording this I did remember that the 14-24 has proprietary filters that go on the back of the lens, so you do have that option, it's just a different method. A quick google search will show you where it goes. I never use them so it totally escaped my mind
@@TNKPhoto i appreciate your quick response, It really is hard to make a decision because their pros and cons is literally "ESSENTIAL" attribute for a lens. Any ways, i have 1 last question, I am building my PERSONAL trinity of lenses, i dont have any existing unit and lens investment. what lens do you think that will fit more with the following: Sigma 50mm f1.4 art + Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8? is it still the 16-28 or the 14? thank you :) and i will still wait for your photographer's review after the v.02 update :)
OoooOoOoO that’s a great question. The positive part is that you can’t go wrong with either super wide. If I were building a kit for myself again I’d do exactly what you’re doing with the 16-28mm but that’s cause I don’t have the need for weather sealing to be honest. The lightness of it wins me over
Fair point about clients never being able to notice differences or what lens you used. As a sports photographer [and wedding, portrait, event] the GM lenses absolutely differ to third party when it comes to FPS and that could mean landing the shot a third party lens would have a much harder time. I know this from shooting with my Sigma 2470 Art that I bought after selling the 2470 GM1 to shave off a little size and weight. The 2470 GM2 just took the place of my Sigma because it is smaller and lighter AND can keep up with the 30fps on the a1 and more importantly, with the forthcoming a9iii and 120fps that the GM lenses will keep up with and put me in a better position to land the shots I will need in Paris next summer at the Olympics. Something any Sigma or third party just cannot do. So you're not wrong but also not entirely right when it comes to getting "the same," out of something much more expensive. M
Genuinely appreciate you taking the time to give us your insight 🙏 I think your line of work is very specific so you’d see those tiny nuances that I think most of us won’t. So you’re totally right on that point that if you’re shooting at extremely high FPS you would notice the difference then. I actually wish my a9 had a slower rate lol even in the slowest I tend to overshoot in electronic shutter. Speaking of which…are you getting the A9iii?
@@TNKPhoto I would argue those differences aren’t so tiny or they mean more to “us” than most of y’all. So it comes down to knowing all the pros and cons and then applying your work needs and viola!
@@beatmixer0097 Absolutely. I believe you can do anything pretty much with any piece of gear. What it comes down to after years of doing what you do is what will make our lives easier. Genuinely appreciate your input
Not being able to just use any nd filter on the 14-24 is the downside for me. Do you think there’s a huge difference between these two lenses in real Estate?
So I was incorrect in one way: there's a slot in the back of the lens where you can slide a filter for the 14-24mm: www.amazon.com/Haida-Filter-Sigma-14-24mm-Leica/dp/B093WY9HXF/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Cg6qjfCKzp30GRhcgclYdImPjeizaTZmgwaTU0TY24PWA426HJ5TPxVJOBvGRu-Aa-LipIsBQ703rSC90X8EPIm-H3pNzob8EAGaiioTT28Dxbg5YsAc8BI8AFkF9p_gtLTvxbmR0IdM5h04N4IK2PHOSChjG-NVLeTsa5syx94L8YmWoAAdpqrYN_8zLu07IkxVTsOBBdsCEzCZLSrf2hrhIZX5hupZv9gwwRVc6eE.FJp--yxO81gyUU6Lr0E4r8Wb53hPz502Wxi6ZNJx9as&dib_tag=se&hvadid=557271716819&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9031088&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=14869608022782345651&hvtargid=kwd-833771237275&hydadcr=7667_13469270&keywords=sigma+14+24+nd+filter&qid=1711900634&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1 For some reason I overlooked that. Honestly though, I think you'd be great with either option. I like the lightness of the 16-28mm and if you're using it for video that might be a big selling point
I bought the Tamron 35-150 recently and after a very short period, some dust particles got inside the lens. Nothing outdoors or extreme. I'm debating if I got a bad copy and if I should send it back for another copy.
Honestly Aron, I would reach out to them. I know they’re very responsive and their customer service is very good so I’m sure they’ll take care of you 👌
Hey Goodman, honestly, I haven't had any issues with less sharpness. Perhaps it needs to be calibrated? Reach out to Sigma and send them some samples, I'm sure they'd be able to help
I’d say the gm zooms are a waste. Their primes are awesome and aren’t insanely priced compared to sigma. The other issue is if you’re shooting on an A1 then you basically have to get Sony lenses for full compatibility with the high speed bust shooting. Also it’s funny as I was going to get the 24-70 and a 70-200 but then I decided on the 35-150 and the 16-28 about a week ago. The 16-28 looks like a great lens especially with its size and weight. It’s pretty hard to justify Sonys zooms (accept the 200-600 haha).
100% agree on all of your points. I'm not a prime shooter but Sony/Sigma are probably close to one another in price so I could see the justification if someone wanted to get the Sony. But to me, if my couples/clients won't see any difference, and I won't be abusing my gear, these things are solid (Sigma) so I wouldn't spend the extra money on them. Add exactly your set up is pretty much the set up a few of my photographers have. I got the 14-24mm and 35-150 as my main set up: honestly it's all you ever need. I would say, if you haven't already, set up one of your quick buttons to go into DX mode, so the 16-28mm becomes more "normal" and less super wide for when you need that or when you wanna save space (ie. dancing photos which no one ever blows up big)
You're very welcome Brent! That Samyang is really nice too. One of our shooters bought that and it was quite nice from the little I got to play with it. I have the Tamron version but the Samyang felt very comparable
@TNKPhoto well it's my first lens and I really like it. Got it with the a7iv and loving it. It's heavy tho so while I look forward to the reduced weight, I'm hoping I would like this Sigma just as much.
hey TNK Photo do you hear any 'noise' when using the focus with sigma dg dn 14-24mm 2.8? I bought it used and it makes noises when i use auto focus. Optically it is sharp and satisfying, I was wondering if this is the norm for sigma lens.
Thank you for watching Hug. I'm gonna post a short with later today with the sound recording. I can't remember off the top of my head if it makes any noise but I never do video so I wasn't paying attention for it. Stay tuned, it'll be a UA-cam short
You’re correct Marcelo. I completely forgot about that while I was making the video. I still find the ones that go in the front to be more convenient but they did come up with a decent fix by doing that. Thank you for your time and watching
OooOoOoo that’s a great question. I never do video work (as you can tell by my average filming skills lol) but honestly it’s very very quiet from what I can say. If you wanna shoot me a message ok IG I can send over a little clip
What I need in my setup is a good wide-angle both for landscape and astro photography. Not being a pro that's indeed the choice I have in front of me, either the 14-24mm or the 16-28mm. So thx for your video which really offers some helpful points. I'm still leaning towards the 14-24mm because with astro photography I think the 14mm are going to be helpful. What deters me most is not so much the price and the weight but the non-ability to put filters on it (or only with additional hassles). Still undecided yet.
Thank you so much for watching! And yeah I did forget to mention the little attachment it has on the back for filters, it's a bit more work but it's doable. Personally I prefer the 16-28 because of the ease of use and lightness but you can't go wrong with either option
Boa tarde! Quero lhe pedir ajuda, sou fotografo a 40 anos, e, devido ao falecimento do meu irmão, prematuramente, que era cinegrafista, tive que filmar alguns eventos que ele já tinha recebido, e acabei gostando, estou usando uma A7lll , tenho um webil s e uso uma 16-1.4 sigma e uma 18-105 numa 6300, mas, gosto muito de usar o guimbal, e a 16 é muito aberta, quero comprar uma lente, tipo, 16-28 ou 18-35, mas, que eu possa usar no guimbal, uma lente que ao dar zoom não mecha a estrutura da mesma, para não desbalancear, o que pode me indicar nessa linha? agradeço sua colaboração, lhe desejo sucesso, um grande abraço.
Ei Moises, pela tradução que fiz no Google, antes de tudo, sinto muito pelo falecimento na família. No que diz respeito a essas duas lentes, eu iria com a 16-28mm porque é mais leve, especialmente em um gimball. Isto é, se você estiver usando na A7iii, já que é uma câmera full frame. Na A6300 como você já tem uma lente 18mm, não faz sentido pegar outra com a mesma distância focal. O 16mm no A7iii parecerá mais largo e lhe dará mais alcance do que o 16 1.4 que você tem no momento. Espero que este google translate funcione e eu possa transmitir minha mensagem com clareza.
Absolutely 😎 a good photographer will cook with anything but the 16-28 is a great choice cause it’s lighter and cheaper for a lens that doesn’t get used as much
you put them side by side with a Sony, as a still image, your right it most likely won't be a difference, But you aren't taking In consideration the auto focus, focus breathing, chromatic ab, etc. There are other features that make it a Sony. there's no doubt there are some lens that are newer and better, but these newer Sony Gm are BEAST
All very valid points. My thing is comparing price vs the benefits. I truly don’t feel like the price jump is worth the slight nuances that I would say the general public won’t notice. Of course if you can afford it or wanna splurge a bit, more power to you. Sony has amazing glass and build quality
@@TNKPhoto I didn’t mean to offend you. I appreciated the info you were giving and the effort you made but it was just hard for me personally to watch with these issues on a big TV and with big speakers as I was doing. I guess if I don’t have something nice to say I won’t comment next time. Peace
Good honest comparison, thanks. I am getting 16-28 on sale.
I have the 14-24. It's a hell of a performer. I pre-ordered it when it was announced and received it just in time for a trip to Banff to shoot astro. I've loved it ever since. That said, I'm considering selling it to get the 16-28 specifically because of the ability to accept front filters, as well as the size and weight. Being able to use filters, and having it weigh less in my bag are both huge advantages while hiking, and even just working with the camera for things like real estate shooting.
Yeah dude it really is not a bad option. I know they make filters for the back of the 14-24mm but it's not the same array of options like a normal thread on the 16-28mm. Honestly, the more I do these reviews the more I lean to the school of thought of "you can do anything with any piece of gear, get what makes your life easiest". You won't be disappointed if you get this. I always order, play with it for a job or two to make sure I'm gonna keep it, and then if Im happy I sell the old one. Thank you for watching
@@TNKPhoto Agreed! I definitely think that we’re at a point where even the “mid-grade” gear is SO GOOD that it really comes down to the person using it. And between these two, I have filters and step down rings. I don’t have gels for the back. One of those options is also just way easier to work with. I may have to rent a copy of the 16-28 and do some testing between the two before pulling the trigger.
All the best! Thanks for the content.
The 14-28 has a rear filter holder with filters available from Haida.
You are correct sir. When I made the video I forgot about that. Truth be told I tried them and I hated that process. The front ones on regular lenses is a much easier option in my opinion
There are rear filters for the 14-24.
Jon Lucas, you are correct. I remembered later that they have that rear one that’s specific to this lens. I mentioned the front ones that are generic with the attachment but I’ll add that edit to the description. Thank you for watching 🙌
Great review. The 14-24 is my favorite wide angle lens to date
Thanks dude 🙌 seriously, I forgot to mentioned compared to my old Nikon, it’s a steal
Which one better for Real Estate and Interior Photo and Event Photography?? Please Please suggest
Better I think is relative, but I would say the 16-28mm probably won’t leave you wanting more width and I did feel like the distortion was less pronounced. This is my own personal opinion from what I can remember
Hi. witch zou have ? Is big diference between 14 and 16 mm in real estate? I am thinking about this lenses or an tamron 17-28. what do you think? thx.
@attila1899 Optically, the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 is better than the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8. Several online reviews have demonstrated this optical advantage. For event photography, however, the Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 is more than good enough. Note that with the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 you can use rear gel filters. Both Haida and Fotodiox make front filter systems for the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8. Christopher Frost has reviewed the Haida system and Dustin Abbott has tested the Fotodiox setup.
Great review. I have the 16-28 and love it. Did own the 14-24 twice, but got two bad copies and gave up. Plus, I like the lighter setup. Though I’m a landscape photographer primarily, do use the Sigma 16-28, tamron 28-75 g2, and tamron 70-180 for most events.
I love that! Thank you for sharing your real life experience with these lenses 🙌 that’s a great set up you have too!
@@TNKPhoto thanks . Using my Samyang 135 and sigma 85 f1.4 for some portraits. I’ve had the GM lenses in past and these works just as good.
Dude that’s awesome! And that’s exactly what I preach in every video is not to get too hung up on gear and just actually use the equipment that you have 🙌
Hi @@martin9410 what do you mean by bad copies? im planning to buy one but dunno how to check properly
@@JamesReubenGruta they were off centered. One edge was sharp, the other edge blurry. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. I was just unlucky. Just buy new from a reliable dealer. It’s actually a great lens.
Do you think Sony 6 years old 12-24mm F4 still good buy or they will update it soon as the 6 years old 16-35mm GM get updated months ago?
Here’s the thing; if you’re making a living out of this, even if they do come out with a new version, if you can make some good money from it from now til, then sell it and buy the new version, it can still be worth it. To me however, I hated the f4 version of lenses. I tried the 24-105 f4 and returned it very quickly because I hated that extra stop of less light. Personally I would recommend the 16-28 f2.8 over all of them. And that’s me owning the 14-24mm 2.8 😬👀
sharpnes??
I wasn't gonna shoot charts cause that's not a real world use but I can tell you, both of them are plenty sharp for 99% of what you would need
there is an update for this lens, ver.02 released last november 2022, was it able to fix the autofocus (hunting) problem? thank you!
Oooooooo thank you for letting me know. I’ll let my photographer know about it (he’s the one that owns the 16-28mm). I’ll be honest, the copy he had didn’t really have much of a hunting issue from what I remember. We generally use it in AFC mode so I’m not sure if that makes a difference. I know in AFS sometimes hunting can be more of an issue. But thank you for watching and thank you for letting me know 🙏
@@TNKPhoto thank you so much, it means a lot, im still undecided between 16-28 and 14-24. Build Quality wise 14-24 art is the way, but the problem is the filter option and its massive weight and if going 14 wide after correction will be a large crop. Lastly is the weather sealing, is there really a big difference in sealing between the 14-24 art vs the 16-28 con?
@@roadtobeingapro Thank you for taking the time to respond! Personally if I were to recommend a lens, I would lean towards the 16-28 because of size, weight, and price. According to the website it says the weather sealing is only on the mount, however. So if that's a real deal-breaker, then I would have to say spend the little bit extra on the 14-24mm instead of having to repair the 16-28mm if you run into some inclement weather. And since recording this I did remember that the 14-24 has proprietary filters that go on the back of the lens, so you do have that option, it's just a different method. A quick google search will show you where it goes. I never use them so it totally escaped my mind
@@TNKPhoto i appreciate your quick response, It really is hard to make a decision because their pros and cons is literally "ESSENTIAL" attribute for a lens. Any ways, i have 1 last question, I am building my PERSONAL trinity of lenses, i dont have any existing unit and lens investment. what lens do you think that will fit more with the following: Sigma 50mm f1.4 art + Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8? is it still the 16-28 or the 14? thank you :) and i will still wait for your photographer's review after the v.02 update :)
OoooOoOoO that’s a great question. The positive part is that you can’t go wrong with either super wide. If I were building a kit for myself again I’d do exactly what you’re doing with the 16-28mm but that’s cause I don’t have the need for weather sealing to be honest. The lightness of it wins me over
Fair point about clients never being able to notice differences or what lens you used. As a sports photographer [and wedding, portrait, event] the GM lenses absolutely differ to third party when it comes to FPS and that could mean landing the shot a third party lens would have a much harder time. I know this from shooting with my Sigma 2470 Art that I bought after selling the 2470 GM1 to shave off a little size and weight. The 2470 GM2 just took the place of my Sigma because it is smaller and lighter AND can keep up with the 30fps on the a1 and more importantly, with the forthcoming a9iii and 120fps that the GM lenses will keep up with and put me in a better position to land the shots I will need in Paris next summer at the Olympics. Something any Sigma or third party just cannot do. So you're not wrong but also not entirely right when it comes to getting "the same," out of something much more expensive. M
Genuinely appreciate you taking the time to give us your insight 🙏 I think your line of work is very specific so you’d see those tiny nuances that I think most of us won’t. So you’re totally right on that point that if you’re shooting at extremely high FPS you would notice the difference then. I actually wish my a9 had a slower rate lol even in the slowest I tend to overshoot in electronic shutter. Speaking of which…are you getting the A9iii?
That's on you for using Sony sucka 😅
@@TNKPhoto I would argue those differences aren’t so tiny or they mean more to “us” than most of y’all. So it comes down to knowing all the pros and cons and then applying your work needs and viola!
@@Silverwarhawk 😆😆😆 damn, played myself lol
@@beatmixer0097 Absolutely. I believe you can do anything pretty much with any piece of gear. What it comes down to after years of doing what you do is what will make our lives easier. Genuinely appreciate your input
Not being able to just use any nd filter on the 14-24 is the downside for me. Do you think there’s a huge difference between these two lenses in real Estate?
So I was incorrect in one way: there's a slot in the back of the lens where you can slide a filter for the 14-24mm:
www.amazon.com/Haida-Filter-Sigma-14-24mm-Leica/dp/B093WY9HXF/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Cg6qjfCKzp30GRhcgclYdImPjeizaTZmgwaTU0TY24PWA426HJ5TPxVJOBvGRu-Aa-LipIsBQ703rSC90X8EPIm-H3pNzob8EAGaiioTT28Dxbg5YsAc8BI8AFkF9p_gtLTvxbmR0IdM5h04N4IK2PHOSChjG-NVLeTsa5syx94L8YmWoAAdpqrYN_8zLu07IkxVTsOBBdsCEzCZLSrf2hrhIZX5hupZv9gwwRVc6eE.FJp--yxO81gyUU6Lr0E4r8Wb53hPz502Wxi6ZNJx9as&dib_tag=se&hvadid=557271716819&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9031088&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=14869608022782345651&hvtargid=kwd-833771237275&hydadcr=7667_13469270&keywords=sigma+14+24+nd+filter&qid=1711900634&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1
For some reason I overlooked that. Honestly though, I think you'd be great with either option. I like the lightness of the 16-28mm and if you're using it for video that might be a big selling point
@@TNKPhoto okay. That’s not too bad. Would be cool if it could use VND’s
I bought the Tamron 35-150 recently and after a very short period, some dust particles got inside the lens. Nothing outdoors or extreme. I'm debating if I got a bad copy and if I should send it back for another copy.
Honestly Aron, I would reach out to them. I know they’re very responsive and their customer service is very good so I’m sure they’ll take care of you 👌
Do you find that the sigma 14-24 is only sharp between 5 & 8 ? Everything else is too soft
Hey Goodman, honestly, I haven't had any issues with less sharpness. Perhaps it needs to be calibrated? Reach out to Sigma and send them some samples, I'm sure they'd be able to help
Thank you. I think I will.
I’d say the gm zooms are a waste. Their primes are awesome and aren’t insanely priced compared to sigma. The other issue is if you’re shooting on an A1 then you basically have to get Sony lenses for full compatibility with the high speed bust shooting.
Also it’s funny as I was going to get the 24-70 and a 70-200 but then I decided on the 35-150 and the 16-28 about a week ago. The 16-28 looks like a great lens especially with its size and weight. It’s pretty hard to justify Sonys zooms (accept the 200-600 haha).
100% agree on all of your points. I'm not a prime shooter but Sony/Sigma are probably close to one another in price so I could see the justification if someone wanted to get the Sony. But to me, if my couples/clients won't see any difference, and I won't be abusing my gear, these things are solid (Sigma) so I wouldn't spend the extra money on them. Add exactly your set up is pretty much the set up a few of my photographers have. I got the 14-24mm and 35-150 as my main set up: honestly it's all you ever need. I would say, if you haven't already, set up one of your quick buttons to go into DX mode, so the 16-28mm becomes more "normal" and less super wide for when you need that or when you wanna save space (ie. dancing photos which no one ever blows up big)
you are insane the 24 70 gm ii has no peers for a filmmaker If you don't know ya don't know
As the owner of a Samyang 35-150, this is exactly the video I needed as I'm considering something wider
You're very welcome Brent! That Samyang is really nice too. One of our shooters bought that and it was quite nice from the little I got to play with it. I have the Tamron version but the Samyang felt very comparable
@TNKPhoto well it's my first lens and I really like it. Got it with the a7iv and loving it. It's heavy tho so while I look forward to the reduced weight, I'm hoping I would like this Sigma just as much.
Id prefer the wider lens, but I'm scared to scratch it!
Yeah it’s a valid concern. It’s the only lens I put a front cap on
Yeah it’s a valid concern. It’s the only lens I put a front cap on
Brilliant review
Thank you 🙏
hey TNK Photo do you hear any 'noise' when using the focus with sigma dg dn 14-24mm 2.8? I bought it used and it makes noises when i use auto focus. Optically it is sharp and satisfying, I was wondering if this is the norm for sigma lens.
Thank you for watching Hug. I'm gonna post a short with later today with the sound recording. I can't remember off the top of my head if it makes any noise but I never do video so I wasn't paying attention for it. Stay tuned, it'll be a UA-cam short
The filter for the 14-24mm goes on the back of the lenses...
You’re correct Marcelo. I completely forgot about that while I was making the video. I still find the ones that go in the front to be more convenient but they did come up with a decent fix by doing that. Thank you for your time and watching
They are almost same price on the used market. Get the wider one. More value
That's another great option! Thank you for watching and suggesting that 😎
How does it perform for video. Is the focus silent? Considering pairing it with my new s5ii mainly for video work.
OooOoOoo that’s a great question. I never do video work (as you can tell by my average filming skills lol) but honestly it’s very very quiet from what I can say. If you wanna shoot me a message ok IG I can send over a little clip
@@TNKPhoto thanks, i have actually bought the 16-28mm and can confirm it's quite good.
@@UrsuIonelPhotography Thats awesome! Happy you got it and you like it!
GMs have their place. Such as fps, TC on longer focal lengths.
Oh yeah dude, and if it’s in the budget, more power to the GM shooters 🙌 these are just great “affordable” options. Thank you for watching 🙏
You can put a filter behind the lens ( there is a slot in 14-24 )
I know dude I totally forgot! My bad. I never use filters so it totally escaped my mind
What I need in my setup is a good wide-angle both for landscape and astro photography. Not being a pro that's indeed the choice I have in front of me, either the 14-24mm or the 16-28mm. So thx for your video which really offers some helpful points.
I'm still leaning towards the 14-24mm because with astro photography I think the 14mm are going to be helpful. What deters me most is not so much the price and the weight but the non-ability to put filters on it (or only with additional hassles). Still undecided yet.
Thank you so much for watching! And yeah I did forget to mention the little attachment it has on the back for filters, it's a bit more work but it's doable. Personally I prefer the 16-28 because of the ease of use and lightness but you can't go wrong with either option
Boa tarde! Quero lhe pedir ajuda, sou fotografo a 40 anos, e, devido ao falecimento do meu irmão, prematuramente, que era cinegrafista, tive que filmar alguns eventos que ele já tinha recebido, e acabei gostando, estou usando uma A7lll , tenho um webil s e uso uma 16-1.4 sigma e uma 18-105 numa 6300, mas, gosto muito de usar o guimbal, e a 16 é muito aberta, quero comprar uma lente, tipo, 16-28 ou 18-35, mas, que eu possa usar no guimbal, uma lente que ao dar zoom não mecha a estrutura da mesma, para não desbalancear, o que pode me indicar nessa linha? agradeço sua colaboração, lhe desejo sucesso, um grande abraço.
Ei Moises, pela tradução que fiz no Google, antes de tudo, sinto muito pelo falecimento na família. No que diz respeito a essas duas lentes, eu iria com a 16-28mm porque é mais leve, especialmente em um gimball. Isto é, se você estiver usando na A7iii, já que é uma câmera full frame. Na A6300 como você já tem uma lente 18mm, não faz sentido pegar outra com a mesma distância focal. O 16mm no A7iii parecerá mais largo e lhe dará mais alcance do que o 16 1.4 que você tem no momento. Espero que este google translate funcione e eu possa transmitir minha mensagem com clareza.
@@TNKPhoto Lhe agradeço de coração por ter respondido, vou seguir seu conselho, desejo muito sucesso para você, um grande abraço.
Awesome video! Sounds like 16-28 is a nice bang for that buck!
Thank you for watching JonCris! And absolutely, I would definitely recommend the 16-28 to any of our new shooters
I recommend the 16-28, but i use 14-28 hahahahha
Absolutely 😎 a good photographer will cook with anything but the 16-28 is a great choice cause it’s lighter and cheaper for a lens that doesn’t get used as much
you put them side by side with a Sony, as a still image, your right it most likely won't be a difference, But you aren't taking In consideration the auto focus, focus breathing, chromatic ab, etc. There are other features that make it a Sony. there's no doubt there are some lens that are newer and better, but these newer Sony Gm are BEAST
All very valid points. My thing is comparing price vs the benefits. I truly don’t feel like the price jump is worth the slight nuances that I would say the general public won’t notice. Of course if you can afford it or wanna splurge a bit, more power to you. Sony has amazing glass and build quality
blab bal bla bla bla.............
😂 😂😂😂😂 feel better? Thanks for the view count pumpkin
Overexposed Video. Clipped Audio.
Cute story bro. And yet you still gave me a view. Have a great weekend
@@TNKPhoto I didn’t mean to offend you.
I appreciated the info you were giving and the effort you made but it was just hard for me personally to watch with these issues on a big TV and with big speakers as I was doing.
I guess if I don’t have something nice to say I won’t comment next time. Peace
And you know what man, I appreciate the kind response back. I apologize if I was rude to you. Have a great weekend man 🙏
@@EagleTasticlooks and sounds great on the phone, sounds like a tv issue.
GM a waste of money?! “Who do you think you are??” “What gives you the right?”
😂 😂 😂