Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DG DN Art Review: Wide, Weird, Weighty, and Wonderful!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2024
- For a lifetime subscription to Audiio's great music library for $199 (down from $499) go to:
audiio.com/petapixel
Make sure to use offer code "petapixel199"! You can't even find a price that low on Audiio's website. Take advantage of this insanely good deal today and never worry about the cost of music for your videos ever again.
-
We were initially baffled when we heard about the Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DG DN Art lens, but it’s rare that we see a completely unique type of lens. The Sigma 15mm f/1.4 is designed for astrophotography, but how well does it perform for other types of photography? Chris Niccolls has the scoop!
0:00 - Intro
0:46 - Design and handling
2:07 - Flare and sunstars
2:39 - Sample images
3:28 - Bokeh
4:00 - Autofocus
4:35 - Sharpness
6:16 - Astrophotography
7:59 - The wrap - Наука та технологія
That Jordan shot playing drums was great 🎉
1:42 im a big fan that their scenes seem to have regularly been including passing trains in the background. a couple episodes ago there was a really good shot of the calgary ctrain passing and im a big fan
Brilliant review as usual, extremely helpful, and I’m saying that over and over because you keep answering questions that I didn’t even have (yet). So, thanks so much for being fantastic at what you’re doing! 🙏
As for the lens itself, it addresses the overall shortcomings of the 14-24mm I have, I wasn’t even remotely aware that there was a fix due to this diagonal approach. I feel like I want to trade in my wide angle zoom and jump on this beauty of a prime asap.
Underwater photographers are going to like this. One of the main reasons many have for not switching to mirrorless is the lack of a fisheye. Unfortunately it is not a zoom, the Tamron 10-17mm is still the underwater king, partially because you can zoom to something less wide than 180 degrees (other zooms like the 8-15mm Nikon are circular at 8 and 180 degrees at 15 and basically useless in between, but mainly only useful at 15mm)
I agree but considering how large this lens is, I don't think there is a housing currently that could handle it?
Nope. by the time you defish it then crop the stretch corners, the fov will effectively be 18-20mm and the stretched corners wil look very soft indeed.
I've read forum posts from underwater photographers suggesting otherwise. The size and weight are awkward, but it also has an optical problem (or at least a tradeoff that works against that use case). Minimum focus distance is really weak, and close-up performance is poor. Sure, f/1.4 sounds great, but the rest of the package doesn't really work.
@@thebitterfig9903 The minimum focus distance is indeed really poor for a fisheye, especially for underwater usage, that is very true and by far the biggest weakness for the use underwater. Obviously F1.4 is useless underwater, but nobody forces you to use that, due to corner sharpness it is likely it will be put at something like f8 or more (seems it doesn't stop down beyond f16, that isn't great either, but depth of field isn't an issue, especially as you can't focus extremely close)
@@nordic5490 Why the hell would you want to defish it?
Are you guys going to review more Panasonic glass like the new 28-200?
Second a request for the Panasonic 28-200, the images I'm seeing from it are actually really impressive.
Working on it right now!
@@geoffreybassett6741good seeing a second lens of this range (after Tamron) hope Sony/Sigma or Samyang also make their version
this is an absolut dream for snowboarding, mountainbiken, skateboarding, etc
It would be really impractical trying to get it that size lens it's impractical use because of its size
Chris has a layer of thick hair! But I still wonder how he can live in such cold snowy weather without wearing hat!
Jordan on the drums was such a cool photo! What an interesting lens!!
Well done on your review. I enjoy shooting with a fisheye lens. It reminds me that photography can be fun and not so serious. However, this fisheye comes with a serious price tag. It might be worth it though.
Funny thing - I was not at all interested in this lens, but seeing this review, and samples of what a great tool it can be, even I was wowed. I can only imagine what it means to people that do want this! Great job Sigma!
This looks like a really nice lens for stage photography with that aperture and that mild fisheye perspective
I can't find any info on the fov per side, does anyone know it? Maths suggests it's 180 diagonal, 150 long side, 100 short side but with a fisheye lens you're not always guaranteed to have the same fov
Great video. My wife were trying to figure out where that bridge is at that park/cliff you were standing on the side of?
I recognize that location on the lifeguard station in the photo, I was there taking pictures 2 weeks ago.
That’s cool in Calgary ‘ might be fun to check this town out - peta, Files , peta pixels lol 😆
Best lens ever for shooting corn!!!
Very nice, love the effect a fisheye lens gives. I use the Sony HDR AZ1 F/2.8 to take photos to get the same kind of effect 😊
What do you think of the s5ii X. It's been out for a while now. I have had mine for 4 months.
would love to see a comparison of the canon 8-15 and this both at 15 to see which is wider/more distorted
Would it make the Okotoks Erratic look bigger in an astrophoto?
Hey team, any idea on how a De-fished look would be on this?
I wonder how well this would cover GFX 44x33 format. I bet it would be quite useable.
Would've loved to see a vlog test with this monstrosity 😂. Sigma impress once again
On sony 4k60 crop with stabilisation it's like a 28mm right?
I wouldn't be able to hold it at arms length for very long.
@@mipmipmipmipmip it's pretty hard to do FoV equivalents with a diagonal fisheye.
Technically it should be 22.5mm.
@@mipmipmipmipmipwhich Sony? a7iv 4k60 crop would turn this 15mm Sigma into 22.5mm
Not to downplay Chris' talents, but I think of all your reviews this one had the most amazing photos you've ever took (for a video at least).
OK, im interrested O_o
still the best haircut worldwide
Still waiting for that a6700 vs xs20😔
Really loving the unique glass Sigma is releasing. Hope to see a macro or tilt shift from them. Sony seemingly doesn't want to make unique glass anymore. 😂
I still prefer the sigma 14-24 f2.8 for most scenarios as i don't need a wider aperture.
Only a single Neil Peart easter egg in here. What the heck Jordan?!
My bad.
- Jordan
@@PetaPixel 😂
I will agree that it is wide and weird, but not wonderful ! I have used fisheye Lenses sometimes, I can be fun, for only 2 seconds !!!
is it available in the Canon RF mount? lol
Not at the moment by the info on the website. wish it was
Nope l, canon is still closed off to third party AF lenses
This RF shooter doesn't want it. I have better RF lenses
This is a 15mm fisheye lens. What that means is that after 'defishing' (stretching the corners) and cropping to make the image 'rectalinear', the remaining field of view is the same as a 18mm or 20mm lens. That is not ultra wide.
I shoot with a Canon RF 10mm rectilinear lens on y R5,, and let me assure you, there is nothing like the view of a 10mm rectiliear lens. You can always crop in, but you cannot crop wide.
I have about a dozen lenses with focal length of less than 16mm, inc several 8mm fisheyes. Sure, a 8mm circular fisheye on a full frame body is fun for a very few sbots only. I have shot full sky milkyway timelapes with the 8mm pointing upwards, and the circular frame 180° fov covers horizon to horizon. But, only once.
I own 10, 12 and 14mm rectiliear lenses - all ok, but the image quality of the RF 10-20mm rectilinear is superb, and you just cannot beat the look of 10mm. Yup, it is F4, meas you also need to learn how to use it effectively.
F1.4 sounds good ? But... probably not needed unless you were shooting video hand held of glow worms in a cave, and then the fisheye distortion would be very difficult to deal with.
I own 4 fisheyes and would not buy another. It is not worth it - by the time you defish the image you end up with a much narrower fov, and the stretched corners will look very soft indeed.
Sonys small 46mm mount will vignette the image from a 10 or 11mm rectiliear lens. Both Canon and Nikon run much larger 52mm mounts.
why? warped perspective 15 when they have a corrected 14? Rather spend on the Sony FE 12-24mm F2.8 GM
I took lots of cool pictures with my old Olympus 8mm fisheye. They have a particular look which works well for somethings and not as well for others. If you don't understand the appeal of fisheye lenses, then don't get one. Or maybe you just haven't realized yet how cool they are.
@@xintophotography9848 I have several fisheyes, for m4/3, aps-c and full frame, and even modified the canon 10-22 to shoot circular images on a full frame body, so nothing new there, but from 14-15 mm, may as well apply an effect in post to the 14 image, the one in a thousand times you need warped perspective
Damn this has the size of my Sigma 105 1.4 Art🤣. Im kiddin, the 105 is smaller...
I would buy this in a heartbeat if it weren't for the Canon RF mount stupidity and then not allowing sigma to make this. This lens looks amazing!
pls open rf mount :(
Hope they release a Nikon Z version soon.
We need literally any FF lenses from sigma tbh
Sad RF noises
If it wasnt so humongous it wouldve been great for underwater close focus wide angle stuff
Close focus distance isn't good enough, the dome housing disqualifies this lens for such use as you need something that can be right up against the front dome for it to work. Underwater photographers on water.pixel wished it weren't this way, but alas.
What mount is this for? I assume e-mount but you never mentioned it.
Available for E and L mounts.
Canon and Sony bringing out absolutely horrendous lenses that really nobody needs and have bad glass.... while Sigma brings out really interesting speciality lenses that have superb glass... just shows that the RF and Z mount NEED third party lenses.... this is gonna drive even more people to E and L Mount... which is good for Panasonic and Sony but may hurt Photography in the long run as both Nikon and Canon have been drivers in the market for decades
This is a 15mm fisheye lens. What that means is that after 'defishing' (stretching the corners) and cropping to make the image 'rectalinear', the remaining field of view is the same as a 18mm or 20mm lens. That is not ultra wide.
I shoot with a Canon RF 10mm rectilinear lens on y R5,, and let me assure you, there is nothing like the view of a 10mm rectiliear lens. You can always crop in, but you cannot crop wide.
I have about a dozen lenses with focal length of less than 16mm, inc several 8mm fisheyes. Sure, a 8mm circular fisheye on a full frame body is fun for a very few sbots only. I have shot full sky milkyway timelapes with the 8mm pointing upwards, and the circular frame 180° fov covers horizon to horizon. But, only once.
I own 10, 12 and 14mm rectiliear lenses - all ok, but the image quality of the RF 10-20mm rectilinear is superb, and you just cannot beat the look of 10mm. Yup, it is F4, meas you also need to learn how to use it effectively.
F1.4 sounds good ? But... probably not needed unless you were shooting video hand held of glow worms in a cave, and then the fisheye distortion would be very difficult to deal with.
I own 4 fisheyes and would not buy another. It is not worth it - by the time you defish the image you end up with a much narrower fov, and the stretched corners will look very soft indeed.
Sonys small 46mm mount will vignette the image from a 10 or 11mm rectiliear lens. Both Canon and Nikon run much larger 52mm mounts.
can't be assed to read this... read you have to crop to get rid of the fisheye... on a fisheye lens and knew you have no idea what you're talking about... plenty of ultra wide glass out there that's not fisheye lenses@@nordic5490
Where da podcast at this week? I know you guys are busy but don't do this to me haha.
Check again!
@PetaPixel perfect! Haha thanks guys for releasing an episode just for me 😄
I wish you demoed it more in cramped indoors spaces in landscape orientation
I'm just going to add some pincushion distortion to my phone's wide angle shots and say I got one of these
Why are you framing the bokeh up close at 1.4 as being "unsharp" in the corners? Thats the whole point of a 1.4, isn't it?
Definitely lens for me ...
Too bad Nikon doesn't have Z lens like that.
Anyone ever notice how if you close your eyes he kinda sounds like Saul Goodman
We have!
ua-cam.com/video/Ej7paqU42FU/v-deo.htmlsi=O-mBJZ5LmB4gN1pC
Panasonic released two small lenses and Sigma this behemoth, 2024 is upside down year in the L-mount alliance!
This lens is for those who are going to Drumheller, Alberta to image the Auroras and some wide flat prairie sky landscapes past midnight on a clear no-moon night with the entire galactic plane showing its beauty!
This lens is ALSO for imaging skateboarders sliding on rails and skiers cutting their line right by or into the treeline! If there is a busy background with some large in-your-face object or person in the forefront being or doing something exciting, then this THIS is the lens for you!
I also would use it to get the really-up-close front face shot of a big or small colourful tropical fish, tropical bird or other small and large animal and print it at 36 by 24 inches or 64 by 48 inches on the Epson or Canon wide photo printers and post it on my office of living room wall! If you can put this lens and the camera in a high quality underwater housing, it's ALSO GREAT FOR SCUBA DIVING image-gathering in the world's greatest coral reefs!
BE CREATIVE! Shoot way-up-close at f/4 and fill the frame with EXCITEMENT and/or HUUUUUUUGE facial expressions!
V
Here's a tech support question for you (and anyone in the comments who knows more about this than I do): What are the main factors that impact the size, weight, length, etc. of a lens? I understand that wider apertures and longer focal lengths usually lead to larger lenses...but then I look at lenses like the Sigma 56mm 1.4 and the Sigma 16mm 1.4. What makes the 16mm larger than the 56mm? Why are there some wide angle lenses that are larger than some telephoto lenses?
Love the video as always!
I suppose the angle of vision, if it is at 16mm it needs to have big glasses to let the angle “fit inside it” otherwise you will have 16mm but only see the housing all over the borders of the images 🤷♂️
I guess handling distortion requires a lot of glass.
If they made f/2 version at ~900g, it would still be optically the brightest fisheye but they would sell much more of them.
Fisheye is a sideshow lens even at best circumstances - and I do shoot with it a lot - but this is just abomination no one asked for ;)
Astral photography.
Kinda sucks it isnt coming out for canon RF. Is canon still preventing third party lenses??! Thats so stupid
This is a 15mm fisheye lens. What that means is that after 'defishing' (stretching the corners) and cropping to make the image 'rectalinear', the remaining field of view is the same as a 18mm or 20mm lens. That is not ultra wide.
I shoot with a Canon RF 10mm rectilinear lens on y R5,, and let me assure you, there is nothing like the view of a 10mm rectiliear lens. You can always crop in, but you cannot crop wide.
I have about a dozen lenses with focal length of less than 16mm, inc several 8mm fisheyes. Sure, a 8mm circular fisheye on a full frame body is fun for a very few sbots only. I have shot full sky milkyway timelapes with the 8mm pointing upwards, and the circular frame 180° fov covers horizon to horizon. But, only once.
I own 10, 12 and 14mm rectiliear lenses - all ok, but the image quality of the RF 10-20mm rectilinear is superb, and you just cannot beat the look of 10mm. Yup, it is F4, meas you also need to learn how to use it effectively.
F1.4 sounds good ? But... probably not needed unless you were shooting video hand held of glow worms in a cave, and then the fisheye distortion would be very difficult to deal with.
I own 4 fisheyes and would not buy another. It is not worth it - by the time you defish the image you end up with a much narrower fov, and the stretched corners will look very soft indeed.
Sonys small 46mm mount will vignette the image from a 10 or 11mm rectiliear lens. Both Canon and Nikon run much larger 52mm mounts.
@@nordic5490 What an absurd comment. You don't buy this lens to defish it. Sigma's 14/1.4 is right there if you want rectilinear. You buy this because you want a fisheye's optical characteristics. I'm not really much of a fisheye shooter, but sometimes it's fun to take out my Dad's old Rokkor X 16mm. The distortion isn't something to be "dealt with" in post but something to incorporate during composition.
It doesn't work for you? Fine. No problem with that. We all have our stylistic preferences. Some folks like oil pastels, some folks like watercolors, some folks like charcoals. It doesn't make someone a worse photographer if they don't gel with these kinds of lenses. But it does make someone a worse member of the community if they can't grok that some folks want this lens for what it is, not to convert into something that it isn't.
Now comes the real question... Sigma 14mm f1.4 or Sigma 15mm F1.4 Fisheye?
2:44 is that Justin Bieber's guitar?
Too bad Sigma hasn't expanded into other mounts yet like Nikon Z, or perhaps when Canon embraces 3rd parties, RF. Staying wide, love to get your compare and contrast of the Laowa AF 10mm. This is what I love about 3rd party lens designs. Some completely different take outside of what is available from OEM.
I guess Tamron has a deal with Nikon, holding off Sigma. Similarly there's no Tamron L-mount.
@@mipmipmipmipmip I've been wondering that myself. If there is some secret exclusivity between OEM's and third parties? Which would be even wackier then this lens. The elephant in the room for Nikon has been those 2.8 zooms using Tamron designs. But a manufacturer stating that you will be my only supported major 3rd party? Laowa does have Nikon Z, but perhaps not 'official official' support at Nikon?
Third!
Wgirthy
dat is wideee
sigma is the best as what they do - not even sony can beat them at that point, and for the money? SIGMA wins everytime
Nope. by the time you defish it then crop the stretch corners, the fov will effectively be 18-20mm and the stretched corners wil look very soft indeed.
I’m not sure why anyone would buy this if the Sony GM 14mm is available for 1.599€ which only weighs 460 grams.
it's not EDC lens , so too heavy.
Wide, Weird, Weighty and Wonderful. dat what ma girlfriend says every evening
"Only 15mm?"
@@mipmipmipmipmipIt's the girth that counts
@@POVwithRC or ... it's not the focal length that matters, it's how you use its aperture
What happened to „that’s what she said“?
@@andreaskaphengst8121What can I say, she's shallow. We are a good fit.
I can see some Canon corpo defenders saying " If Canon marketing won't get us to have this lens we would have it, that means we don't need it."
😢😢😢
I love how sigma is fighting back against Canon's concern of losing sales or whatever. They're just making lenses that Canon or Nikon won't make. Wolud be fantastic on a R5🎉
Brilliant and fun.
Neither is true. This is a 15mm fisheye lens. What that means is that after 'defishing' (stretching the corners) and cropping to make the image 'rectalinear', the remaining field of view is the same as a 18mm or 20mm lens. That is not ultra wide.
I shoot with a Canon RF 10mm rectilinear lens on y R5,, and let me assure you, there is nothing like the view of a 10mm rectiliear lens. You can always crop in, but you cannot crop wide.
I have about a dozen lenses with focal length of less than 16mm, inc several 8mm fisheyes. Sure, a 8mm circular fisheye on a full frame body is fun for a very few sbots only. I have shot full sky milkyway timelapes with the 8mm pointing upwards, and the circular frame 180° fov covers horizon to horizon. But, only once.
I own 10, 12 and 14mm rectiliear lenses - all ok, but the image quality of the RF 10-20mm rectilinear is superb, and you just cannot beat the look of 10mm. Yup, it is F4, meas you also need to learn how to use it effectively.
F1.4 sounds good ? But... probably not needed unless you were shooting video hand held of glow worms in a cave, and then the fisheye distortion would be very difficult to deal with.
I own 4 fisheyes and would not buy another. It is not worth it - by the time you defish the image you end up with a much narrower fov, and the stretched corners will look very soft indeed.
Sonys small 46mm mount will vignette the image from a 10 or 11mm rectiliear lens. Both Canon and Nikon run much larger 52mm mounts.
@@nordic5490 I don't know I'm not thinking that too hard into it. The 1.4 aperture will at least allow for some creativity or so. I've been shooting at 10 mm crop/16 mm ff for 12 years now. But early on I used to rent the Canon 8 to 14 fisheye and yes you're not going to use it all the time but I still really enjoy the images that I took with it.
It was a 15 mm F4 then I probably wouldn't care. For wide lenses the small aperture could probably do some interesting stuff that's the thing I'm caring about the most. Otherwise for my ultra wides I'm just doing landscapes but with a 1.4 I'm wondering what else I can do with something so wide and a little bit circular.
This lens makes no sense imho.
Not for me.
It is a 1.4 and you cry it is weighty lol
Dave, when you picked up that Largemouth Bass I'm sure you didn't actually cry either, but you probably said to everyone "Holy hell that's a big fish! Look at that boys!" Nothing wrong with saying something is what it is.
@@niccollsvideo weren't there some pro bass fishers even adding metal balls to increase the weight 😂
@lsvideo I was mad it was not a 9 pound bass actually :)
Shame this lens is for stupid and slow Sony cameras (I'm not counting A1 and A9iii cuz nobody can afford those)
You guys have been putting out the same kind of review videos for like a decade now. Loosely structured, not very technical, outdoors, walking around and Chris just talking. You should try to change it up. Do something different. More samples and closeups rather than just showing Chris's face. Do comparisons. Visit interesting places. Meet other photographers. Do a photography challenge, etc. Also you need to zoom in a bit more on your sharpness tests. It's hard to see any detail in your videos.
taking vertical photos with a fisheye is the most cringe thing I've seen all day stopped watching at 2:56
To be honest 1.4 up close looks unusable
To be honest, it is unusable. At least f2.8 if you're focusing close.