Sigma's New Ultra-Wide-Angle High-Speed Zoom

Sigma's new 14–24mm ƒ/2.8 DG HSM Art lens, just announced

I've been trying to think*...in all my former years as a CLN (certified lens nut) I don't think I ever once used or tried a true ultra-wide-angle zoom. The closest I ever came was a AF-Nikkor 24–50mm (1987–94) that I owned only briefly. In those days, 24mm was considered the gateway, the high end, of the "ultra" wide angle category, and "normal" zooms that went all the way to 24mm at the wide end were rare. (Of course, in those olden days, too, Sigma was the only lens brand I felt secure in making fun of. Its products were cheap, all right, but brother, were they cheap.)

Now 24mm can be at the top end—the narrower angle—of zoom ranges. The newest Sigma Art lens is something at which to marvel. Not only is it of a specification that would have seemed impossible those few decades ago, but Sigma already has a 12–24mm ƒ/4 lens in its lineup.

Sigma 12–24mm ƒ/4 DG HSM Art lens

And that estimable lens weighs two and a half pounds and costs $1,600. Yet Sigma felt for some reason that it needed a one stop faster alternative that weighs the same and costs...what? Hasn't been announced yet. Fourteen millimeters at the wide end as opposed to 12mm is apparently the technical cost of that additional stop.

Who needs the new lens? What additional purpose does it serve? A hint might be in the fact that, for an additional charge, Sigma will remove the petal lens hood and replace it with a circular lens shade that doesn't shade, as seen in the picture up top. The press release states:

Front Mount Conversion Service for Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art
Addressing the rising popularity of multi-camera productions, especially using ultra wide-angle lenses in shooting virtual reality (VR) content, Sigma has introduced its Front Conversion Service. Converting the petal-type hood of the 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art to an exclusive round component allows for the lens to be used in various VR scenarios without the risk of interfering with other lenses in the VR rig or undesired shadows in the content.

The availability of this fee-based service for Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 Art will be announced at a later date.

I'm going to pretend I know what that means, even though I don't. (I'm tryin' to think!) I had not heretofore been apprised of the rising popularity of multi-camera virtual-reality shooting. It is apparently a thing.

Nikon has a stalwart in the pro-oriented AF-Nikkor 14–24mm ƒ/2.8G ED, same spec as the new Fuji, for a cool $1,900 (a pro price, too). Doubtless it is the target of the new Sigma. Canon brackets the Nikon's spec, with the less expensive EF 16–35mm ƒ2.8L II and the more expensive and even more radical EF 11–24mm ƒ/4L USM, which, at $3k, wins "coolest overall UWA"—although it's on sale right now for $300 off. I think I'd own that one just for bragging rights and that awesome semi-hemispheric globule of gorgeous glass at the business end. The UWA zoom for Micro 4/3 that I've heard friends (well, just one friend, Ken) extol is the Panasonic G Vario 7–14mm (14–28mm-e) ƒ/4 ASPH. And Fuji has the XF 10-24mm (15–36mm-e) ƒ/4 R OIS, although I don't think I've ever heard anyone say so much as a peep about that.

Front view of the Canon 11–24mm. Surrender Dorothy.

Clearly, though, the WA zoom category is one which has seen major improvements in recent decades. Improvements in CAD programs, glass types, and production methods are making possible lenses that not long ago would have seemed like fantasy. And from Sigma, even, which is now a very different company than it once was, competing head to head, as it now does, with the world's best makers.

Mike

*Curly of the Three Stooges: "I'm tryin' to think...but nothing happens!" Winnie the Pooh: "Think...think...think...."

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Bruce: "I took the 9–18mm Olympus to Everest Base Camp last year—light and sharp and relatively cheap. Before the trip, I didn't think I'd use it that much, but EXIF files show it shot 60% of my Micro 4/3 pix. For my real estate shoots back home the Canon 10–18 ƒ/4.5–5.6 is remarkably good on my 7D, and is cheap and light. Lightroom has profiles to automatically correct the (relatively high) distortion, and at ƒ/8 it is terrifically sharp. If you want to go wild with Micro 4/3, try the manual focus 7.5mm ƒ/3.5 Fisheye. Very sharp, even wide open. And one of Sigma's profiles in Lightroom corrects the fisheye distortion to linear superwide quite well for small blowups. All the above are cheap, effective products to enter the wild wonderful wide-angle world."

Speed: "Several years ago I was between planes at Chicago O'Hare when a professional-photographer-looking-man and an official-United-Airlines-looking-man walked up to the gate. I asked the photographer-looking-man who he was shooting for. The New York Times. I was impressed. I asked what lens he was using (on his Canon camera). 16–35mm ƒ/2.8. Why not the less expensive 17–40mm ƒ/4, I asked. Because I need the extra stop, he said, in a tone that told me the conversation was over.

"He then turned into a chimpanzee jumping from seat to seat, standing on seat backs taking high angle shots of people streaming off the airplane on their way to Thanksgiving turkey. The official-United-Airlines-looking-guy looked on. He'd seen it before. I still have my 17–40mm ƒ/4. I don't work for the New York Times. I don't need the extra stop."

Richard Jones: "Re 'Clearly, though, the WA zoom category is one which has seen major improvements in recent decades': You can include Sony's FE 12–24mm ƒ/4 G.

12mm is wonderful for tight spots indoors:

And outdoors, here in the Sequoia National Forest, California:

Moose: "Re 'The UWA zoom for Micro 4/3 that I've heard friends (well, just one friend, Ken) extol is the Panasonic G Vario 7–14mm (14–28mm-e) ƒ/4 ASPH.'

"As is common in Micro 4/3 land, there are multiple AF choices from the two major makers. The Panny 7–14mm ƒ/4 is an older design, using 16 elements, only a few of which are 'exotic.'

"The Oly 7–14mm ƒ/2.8, a recent design, uses only 14 elements, most of which are 'exotic' and more size, weight and dosh for the greater speed.

"Even newer is the PanaLeica 8–18mm ƒ/2.8-4.

"The venerable Oly 9–18mm ƒ/4–5.6 rounds out the pack, trading width of coverage and speed for tiny and light.

"It's hard to visualize sizes from specs. Camerasize.com to the rescue, sorta; they only show collapsible lenses collapsed—and that's one of my points. So, I've cobbled a 9–18mm opened up at 9mm into their comparison.

"As you can see, although lighter and thinner, the Oly is actually longer in use than the 7–14mms and 8–18mm.

"I've never liked Oly's manually collapsible lenses, as they have a fussy little slide lock on the side to collapse them. Panny's 12–32mm and 35–100mm are much nicer, with just a stiff detent to avoid accidental closing.

"I used the 9–18mm a fair amount, 378 shots in the first year, 2013, but it has languished with little use since. A general switch to stitched panoramas for wide landscape is a factor, but the ergonomics just don't suit me; nice to pack, less than ideal in use.

"I've been pleased so far with my recently acquired 7–14mm ƒ/4 Panny. Eleven of the photos (58%) in this little gallery are with it. Only time will tell how much I use it."

John Camp: "Let me add to your friend Ken's extolment of the Panny 7–14mm. I use it quite a lot, but not for serious photographic work (although I use it for serious stuff—research on the appearance of certain scenes that will show up in my novels.) I've had wide zooms before, but not one so light (it's heavy for Micro 4/3, but not, you know, fundamentally heavy.) It shows far less distortion than my earlier extra-wides, and is quite sharp."

Carl: I'll add a note in praise of the 7–14mm ƒ/4 Lumix lens. I've never made friends with zoom lenses in general but this one has proved incredibly useful to me and delivers excellent optical results. It balances well on small Micro 4/3 cameras though I prefer to use it on a tripod as a sort of technical rig. I bought it to use on my drive-in theater road trip several years ago. I just checked, and in the tight edit web gallery of one digital capture each from 107 theaters, 81 of them were shot with the 7–14mm. Recently I've been using it as the primary lens for a 'four seasons' series of pictures at a nearby forest preserve. I've printed an autumn portfolio of these as 11" platinum/palladium prints and viewers have been amazed to learn the pictures began as small format digital captures. In the right situations this type of lens can be extremely useful, though for general walkabout-style shooting I still prefer a set of primes."

Steve Caddy: "At the risk of telling you something you already know, the round hood is for people using a rig of multiple cameras, set up to capture a 360° spherical image. Software places the user in the middle of this ‘photosphere’, projecting an offset version into each eye, producing the illusion of being enveloped in a three dimensional environment. The reason the round hood is important is so that the cameras can be clustered close together without getting each other in frame, which would produce strange shadows in the final photosphere. Other VR techniques include mapping the environment using a 3D scanner and texturing that 3D model of the world with photographic 'texture.'"

Geoff Wittig: "The logical target market for this lens may be folks taking photographs of the night sky, like those cool images of the Milky Way against a dramatic foreground landscape. For this a lens basically can't be too fast or too wide. An ƒ/2.8 lens cuts the exposure time in half compared to ƒ/4, so movement of stars is reduced commensurately as is sensor noise.

"I will readily confess that my skill with super-wide optics leaves a lot to be desired. I just seem to 'see' more like 80–150 mm or so. Most of the photos I've taken with Canon's 16–35mm ƒ/2.8 are, well, awful. But a few are among the best pictures I've ever taken, so I keep dragging it with me everywhere I go, hoping the lightning might strike again."

Comments

[Joe]

I love my 14-24mm Nikon f/2.8. The image quality is astounding. Once you start to use that 14mm end of the range, it quickly becomes addicting. I used the 14mm end for almost all of the images in my "Urban Wilderness" series, for example, which wouldn't have been at all the same through a 24mm field of view. https://josephholmes.io/New-York-City/Urban-Wilderness-(2010)/1

I'll keep an eye on that Sigma zoom. When the Sigma Art 24mm lens was released a couple years ago at a lower price but similarly quality to my Nikon 24mm, I sold the Nikon, bought the Sigma, and had cash left over and a brand new warrantied lens.

[David Zivic]

I enjoyed this post from a sentimental direction. Especially that the 24mm was back then at the bottom of wide spectrum and that it now is at the top of the wide spectrum. Back I was a Yacht Broker I was taking photos with my Nikon F3 for Yacht interiors and especially in the engine room. I was used to was using my 28mm lens. Then I read an article (remember magazines?) and it said that the 24mm was the widest lens to use before that you get that fisheye look. I had a diffuser for the flash to go that ultra wide and a polarize filter would vignette a little bit. It was state of the art for wide. its wide prints were very effectual. I still use it occasionally....manual focus, very heavy, aperture ring, etc. what's not to like.

[John Krumm]

I owned the respectable 4/3 7-14 f4 Zuiko for several years (14-28 equivalent). I used it several times too. Mostly it served to teach me that what I really wanted was something like a good 20mm equivalent prime. That was wide enough. But the zoom was super sharp and a marvel at optically controlling distortion, which is probably why it weighed as much as a full frame lens.

The D-FA 15-30 2.8 Pentax also has a good reputation, and is also heavy, and for such a lens is not hugely expensive ($1300 on sale now at B&H). But I have to remind myself that, for me, it would likely be a $1300 shelf decoration most of the time.

[psu]

I had the old Nikon 12-24 (18-35 equiv) which only covers APS/DX ... and it was great fun for a while, but having gone back to mostly using 24 as my widest equivalent FOV I find I don't miss the wide end that much. Usually.

Is that sigma 12-24 full frame or cropped frame?

[Will Hoffman]

I've been considering the need for ultra-wide in lanscape photography—I've got a Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-4.5 which might as well be glued to the end of my camera when I'm photographing nature. Searching through 500px I see that most photos which aren't heavily distorted are verticals which include a lot of sky, mostly at night. Or vistas with very little foreground. Any images with near objects have the bizarre effect of looking down and simultaneously looking out. Thanks but I'll save my money for other psychotropic drugs.

[Chris Kern]

And Fuji has the XF 10-24mm (15–36mm-e) ƒ/4 R OIS, although I don't think I've ever heard anyone say so much as a peep about that.

Well, it’s hardly my most-used lens, but it performs well throughout its zoom range and its distortion, except at 10mm, is less than you would expect. (Lens correction metadata can correct for this automagically or in a post-processing program such as Lightroom.)

Here's a sample image at 10mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/26193428985/in/datetaken-public/

and one at 24mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chriskernpix/37458902821/in/datetaken-public/.

[Eric Brody]

Is the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM chopped liver? It’s wide, fast, sharp, and expensive, and lighter than most.

[Richard Parkin]

The only “multi-camera virtual-reality shooting” I’m interested in would be David Hockney’s, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-MXSQdMHGsE

[AC]

"I've been trying to think*...in all my former years as a CLN (certified lens nut) I don't think I ever once used or tried a true ultra-wide-angle zoom"

I think you have a new Baker's Dozen topic.

[Michael Mejia]

Think...think...think...

Okay, the Fuji 10-24 f4 is a grand and weighs a pound. The Nikon 12-24 f4 is $1200, the Sigma and Canon equivalents are $1600 and $2700 respectively and weigh 1.5 to 2.5 pounds.

Okay, the Fuji doesn't look as cool (the Blob o' glass on the Sigma and Canon and the Hal 9000 Nikon stare) but why no buzz for it?

[JG]

Speaking solely for myself, the reason I use fast lenses isn't to take photos with the apertures wide open, but to gather enough light so I can compose and focus photos in the dark, because I photograph mostly street and alley scenes at night, using only ambient light. I will then stop down to f8-ish, confirm focus (often with the aid of a flashlight!) and take my photo.

For a time, I used several Sigma Art lenses, including the 12-24/f4 zoom. But I had to return it because its permanently attached lens hood severely restricted the size of the image circle it projects such that I had only a minimal amount of movements available with my FrankenKameras. Ditto for their 20/f1.4 prime, too. (On the other hand, their 24, 35, and 50 primes all project oversize image circles -- I suspect this is one of the reasons they perform so well, because they only use the "sweet spot" in the center of the lens -- that were sufficient for my needs most of the time. The same is also true for their 24-35/f2 zoom, too.)

That said, I always thought I was a bit of an outlier and the type of photography I do is a very small niche, so I am also surprised that Sigma is releasing this lens and even more so that they're offering a modification service to install a different lens hood.

Still, despite their considerable weight and bulk, a two-lens outfit comprised of the 14-24/f2.8 and 24-35/f2 zooms will cover 95+% of my needs and could be a very tempting combo indeed!

[Bob Travaglione]

With the new high dynamic range sensors, I do not feel the need to add weight and size to any lense for 1 stop of speed increase. I am very happy with my Fujifilm 10-24mm F/4 OIS lens. Plus the extra width is wonderful for my Real Estate Interior Photography. This new Sigma Lens is an Expensive Dinosaur!

[Josh Hawkins]

So much glass, so little time. (And so little money.)

[Robert Hudyma]

These large aperture WA zooms are heavy and will contribute to your fatigue if you carry them for any length of time. The large protruding front element is always exposed and special holders are required if you want to use any filters.

On the other hand, there are some tiny WA zooms that are great choices if you carry your equipment with you all day as I do.

First, the Nikon 1 6.7-13mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 VR lens is tiny and I like the images that I am making with it on my Nikon V1. The Nikon 1 lenses and bodies are often discounted since Nikon appears to have abandoned this system. Get one and your lower back will thank-you.

A slightly larger WA zoom lens is the Olympus Zuiko 9-18mm ƒ/4-5.6. On an OMD-EM5 I can carry this all day long and suffer no fatigue. I like this combination a lot.

Both the Sony E 10-18mm ƒ/4 OSS and Fujinon FX 10-24mm ƒ/4 R OIS are quite similar but considerably larger than the Nikon 1 and Zuiko zooms.

You can use the Sony E WA zoom on an A7 full-frame and it nearly fills the entire frame.

[kirk tuck]

My favorite wide angle zoom for m4:3 is the Panasonic/Leica 8-18mm. It's relatively compact, a great optical performer, and it has the added benefit (over the previous Panasonic 7-14 and the Olympus 7-14 Pro) of not having a bulbous front element. This lens allows for the use of standard, screw-in filters where the others do not. This makes it a favorite of video shooters who need to use neutral density and variable neutral density filters on a routine basis. A great lens that doesn't get a lot of press....

[Bruce]

On crop cameras (and to a lesser extent full frame), they are good for live performance in small, wide spaces. You need the wide open aperture for shutter speeds that stop movement in low light. And the wide angle to capture both the space and the performer(s).

[Ken Bennett]

Peep peep. The Fuji 10-24 is a very nice example of this class of lens. I swore I wouldn't buy one -- I already had the excellent 14mm f/2.8 -- until a friend lent me his for a few hours. The image stabilizer makes it a terrific travel lens.

At work I have both the 11-24mm f/4 Canon -- yes, you should own one!! -- and the 16-35 f/4 image stabilized Canon, which our video guys borrowed once and I have not seen since. I had several of the f/2.8 Canon wide angles, and they were all pretty terrible in the corners. The two f/4 versions are terrific.

[Jim Richardson]

I don't know every possible use for this lens but I know one: Milky Way pictures. For that the critical specs are that it has fit a full frame camera, has to be 14mm and has to be f2.8. Nothing less will really do. Crop sensor cameras (Fuji, 4/3) are out of the running be cause of lower high ISO, you need 14mm (or as much as you can get) to get in lots of the Milky Way, and it has be to f2.8 (f4 just won't do because it forces longer exposure time which equals streaky stars.) Lens should be sharp enough in the center but critical is how it handles coma in the corners. This combo is why nuts like me own the 14-24 Nikkor.
What I want to know is if that shade lobotomy will mean you can screw in a filter holder?

[Stephen Scharf]

I've used the the Fuji XF 10-24 f/4 lens and IMO, its a sweetheart. It makes for a great landscape lens, and its sharp and very versatile. I absolutely loved it using it for pit lane and paddock at the SaveMart 350 NASCAR race at Sonoma Raceway last June, 2017.

Killer lens, in my book.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've used the Olympus Pro 7-14 mm -- a distinct improvement over the Panasonic of the same range, and as big and scary-sharp as they say, but I think the real winner in this contest at the moment is Leica's 11-23 CL zoom for APS-C format. It offers f/3.5-4.5, is WAY smaller and lighter than the two M43 wizoos, incredibly contrasty and sharp and even does macro. For an example: https://flic.kr/p/24byuNw

scott

[scott kirkpatrick]

And a classic scene taken at 11 with the Leica CL:
https://flic.kr/p/EzigPg .

[Oskar Ojala]

You're leaving out the recent Sony 12-24 for full frame, which has been getting praise and is pretty lightweight :-)

People taking pictures of nighttime landscapes tend to want fast lenses, especially if stars are involved. Even if the final image will be stopped down, it's much less frustrating to be able to focus with a fast aperture when the sun has gone down long ago. Another application is people and event photography, where a fast shutter speed is required, though I would choose an 16-35 rather than the ultrawides.

But with speed comes cost and size. I tried the Sigma 20/1.4 on my camera and had to dismiss it due to the ridiculous size and no possibility to attach a filter. More modestly sized lenses, especially with mirrorless, are pretty nice when one has a bag full of gear to begin with.

[Eolake]

Back when I had the way-too-big Nikon D2x because it was the only 12MP camera around, I also had the then-cutting-edge 17-35mm. That was big enough for me, for sure. Probably today, like with the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8, we found out when full frame arrived that it was not *that* hot. (A pro friend of mine actually loved the 70-200mm *because* it was so soft at the edges, but he’s nuts. :-)

[longviewer]

I enjoyed my time with the Pentax 10-17 fisheye zoom.. wish it were still with me.

[Graham Byrnes]

Real estate agent's lens ;-)

[Most RE agents take pictures with their phones, I think. So at best it's a very GOOD RE agent's lens. --Mike]

[Ken Tanaka]

Wow. Big! Heavy! Why?

I’ve had fun with the Panasonic 7-14mm on my little GX85 while traveling. It’s small, lightweight, and sharp.

Guggenheim Museum, New York,, 2016

[John McMillin]

Why an f:2.8 ultrawide zoom? Because folks want 'em for astronomical photography.

Me, I still get by with Sigma's EX 12-24/4-5.6, in the daytime only.

[Dave New]

I learned (the hard way) that using built-in flash on my Canon 7D does not play well with my 17-85 zoom with the petal shade. You end up with a nasty petal shaped shadow cast on the scene.

I imagine a similar issue would arise with the petal shade on the Sigma lens, and it's fixed to the lens. At least I could take my petal shade off of my 17-85 Canon lens, if I remember to...