Thanks a lot for this video, I've been bothering on it recently! Sigma 24 F3.5 is almost ¥1000 cheaper than the Sony 24 F2.8 G here in the Chinese market, but the slightly faster aperture of the Sony's made it hard to make the final choice. After watching your video I decided to pick sigma! 👌
Interested to know how you feel about picking the sigma 24mm, f3.5 now a few months after making the comment and picking it over the Sony, 24mm, f2.8, G. Is it everything you hoped it would be?
Which one did you get, the Sony, 24mm, f2.8, or the Sigma, 24mm, f3.5? It’s not clear from your comment? How do you feel about your buy now 2years later?
Great analysis, Gordon! These videos don’t make themselves and you did a splendid job Comparing the two. I am one who owns the Sony, f1.4, GM, (and I am not giving it up)but I am attracted to the idea of the size, sharpness, and macro capability of the Sigma, 24mm, f 3.5 as a secondary more compact 24mm lens. I already have the wide max aperture with my 24mm, f1.4, GM so the Sigma’s f3.5, (as long as it is a sharp f3.5), wouldn’t bother me much. The majority of my shooting is outside landscape photography with my 24mm GM, and I go f8 anyway, because I want everything in sharp focus. I really want to like the Sony, f2.8, G, but the barrel distortion is really holding me back. I was hoping to see a comparison of the Sigma with lens corrections applied like what you showcased from the Sony, though I think at 10:03 you are saying the camera automatically applies corrections to JPGs without the distortion correction feature turned on. The sample photos seem very sharp, (as do the Sony images), but does the f3.5 seem to give Sigma an edge in reducing distortion?
Look forward to Samyang 24mm F1.8 joining the competition. Talking about affordable and compact! I am sure at f3.5 sharpness is no difference but Samyang can shoot at f1.8
I see that all these new e-mount lenses have quite heavy vignetting, this 24mm 2.8 starts at -3ev at the corners, can you call such a thing a true f2.8? Actually even the much praised 24mm gm suffers from light falloff which doesn't really clear up when stopping down....
Great review. Despite the price I'm more likely to go for the Sony lens. Will the Sigma lens maintain compatibility with future Alpha E-mount cameras? Back in the day I experienced compatibility issues with Sigma lenses on the A-mount. Sigma would resolve the issue (have to send the lens in for servicing) but if the lens was no longer supported then you are out of luck. Hopefully these issues no longer occur.
The similar recent full frame Sony FE 24mm f/2.8 G according to various reviews has horrendous barrel distortion. This is corrected digitally with jpeg files inside the cameras. Digital lens corrections conceal optical problems of many lenses but a good lens is only a good lens without digital corrections. Also I own the similar older full frame autofocus e-mount Samyang/Rokinon FE 24mm f/2.8 which has far less barrel distortion. It is very sharp at around f/5.6 with less sharp corners at f/2.8. Its autofocus speed and accuracy isn't ideal. It suffers from flaring but that can be avoided. This Sigma 24mm f/3.5 looks the perfect choice for a small, light full frame wide lens designed for mirrorless cameras. The f/3.5 is an issue with low light situations but with the common IBIS, longer shutter speeds permit lower ISO with handheld shooting. f/3.5 is very uncommon with prime lenses. I have the Sony APS-C macro e-mount 30mm f/3.5 which have great optical quality for its price but without IBIS handheld shooting with low light is a problem.
I disagree with this view. The view that a lens has to be fully *optically* corrected, is originating from the old film-era, where the only way you can get a good output, was for the lens to be fully corrected, optically. There were no second chances then, when it came to the final image, since the image was final (for most intents and purposes), right out of the camera. In the digital era, it makes good design sense to allow some of the "easy to fix" corrections to happen within the camera, if that results in a smaller/lighter and more portable lens. At the end of the day, it is the final output that matters, and not whether a manufacturer has done a lot of design gymnastics and built in a ton of *unnecessary* optical corrections into the lens, resulting in a big/large/unwieldy lens.
Thanks again for the great extensive work comparing the two lenses. (Magnificent). The barrel distortion on the Sony 24mm, f2.8, G is the only thing holding me back from pulling the trigger on it. 10:03 I did see the toggle between the uncorrected distortion of the raw file, and the corrected JPG of the Sony but I am noting you didn’t do the same for the Sigma lens. Is there a reason why? Perhaps distortion correction doesn’t work for the Sigma lens? For Sony I can see a clear difference. I am not a fan of the camera’s distortion correction because it stretches the image out and still distorts whats in on the edges. Faces look wider and bodies, or buildings look fatter, you still don’t get a true image.
Sigma would of been better off making them lighter faster like f1.8 in 24/40/60mm with the same design as there apsc dcdn lenses line up and they would of sold like hot cakes.
Testing Sigma's mid-price compact wide-angle prime lens for Sony and L-mount cameras!
Check prices at B&H: bhpho.to/3uAUoPD // WEX UK: tidd.ly/39RoCFX
Buy Gordon a coffee: www.paypal.me/cameralabs
Gordon's In Camera book: amzn.to/2n61PfI / Amazon uk: amzn.to/2mBqRVZ
Cameralabs merchandise: redbubble.com/people/cameralabs/shop
Music: www.davidcuttermusic.com / @dcuttermusic
#Sigma #24mm #lens
00:00 - Intro
00:20 - Examples of 24mm
00:50 - Other small lenses
01:53 - Coverage
02:52 - Design and controls
04:55 - Autofocus
06:09 - Portrait quality
07:50 - Closeup quality
09:32 - Landscape quality
10:58 - Video notes
12:15 - Verdict
Thanks a lot for this video, I've been bothering on it recently! Sigma 24 F3.5 is almost ¥1000 cheaper than the Sony 24 F2.8 G here in the Chinese market, but the slightly faster aperture of the Sony's made it hard to make the final choice. After watching your video I decided to pick sigma! 👌
Interested to know how you feel about picking the sigma 24mm, f3.5 now a few months after making the comment and picking it over the Sony, 24mm, f2.8, G. Is it everything you hoped it would be?
I really enjoy watching your reviews, Gordon. I appreciate what you do. Thanks.
Glad you enjoy them!
Great timing! I just ordered one for my S1 & fp combo. :)
Nice!
Which one did you get, the Sony, 24mm, f2.8, or the Sigma, 24mm, f3.5? It’s not clear from your comment? How do you feel about your buy now 2years later?
If only this lens was available for RF mount. That .5x mag ratio is really useful for environmental macro work of reptiles and amphibians.
I hold out hope that RF and Z-mount versions have to come at some point.
Smoother bokeh on the Sigma, despite its darker aperture.
Did you stop down the Sony to 3.5 to compare renderings? Or did I miss it?
I agree the background looks better in the sigma when the Sony is at 2.8.
Hi Josh, no I didn't show the Sony at f3.5 although I do have samples for it at that aperture. Maybe I'll add them to my review page at cameralabs.com
Great analysis, Gordon! These videos don’t make themselves and you did a splendid job Comparing the two. I am one who owns the Sony, f1.4, GM, (and I am not giving it up)but I am attracted to the idea of the size, sharpness, and macro capability of the Sigma, 24mm, f 3.5 as a secondary more compact 24mm lens. I already have the wide max aperture with my 24mm, f1.4, GM so the Sigma’s f3.5, (as long as it is a sharp f3.5), wouldn’t bother me much. The majority of my shooting is outside landscape photography with my 24mm GM, and I go f8 anyway, because I want everything in sharp focus. I really want to like the Sony, f2.8, G, but the barrel distortion is really holding me back. I was hoping to see a comparison of the Sigma with lens corrections applied like what you showcased from the Sony, though I think at 10:03 you are saying the camera automatically applies corrections to JPGs without the distortion correction feature turned on. The sample photos seem very sharp, (as do the Sony images), but does the f3.5 seem to give Sigma an edge in reducing distortion?
I don't remember 100% for this lens, but most Sigma lenses are designed for use with distortion comp set to auto.
Ive owned both, i much prefer the Sigma. The Sony suffers from a lot of distortion and its overall and out of focus rendering was not my cup of tea.
Look forward to Samyang 24mm F1.8 joining the competition. Talking about affordable and compact! I am sure at f3.5 sharpness is no difference but Samyang can shoot at f1.8
I see that all these new e-mount lenses have quite heavy vignetting, this 24mm 2.8 starts at -3ev at the corners, can you call such a thing a true f2.8? Actually even the much praised 24mm gm suffers from light falloff which doesn't really clear up when stopping down....
I think it's an effect that lens manufacturers are willing to let slide as it's fairly easy to correct in post.
Blame Sony's lens mount, it gives lens designers a real headache. Luckily new glass with high refractive indexes comes to the rescue
Does the Sony 24mm 2.8 barrel distortion get corrected for videos or only photos?
that's a good question, I'll try to find out, but I do have some video samples in my Sony 24 review you could have a look at in the meantime...
Great review. Despite the price I'm more likely to go for the Sony lens. Will the Sigma lens maintain compatibility with future Alpha E-mount cameras? Back in the day I experienced compatibility issues with Sigma lenses on the A-mount. Sigma would resolve the issue (have to send the lens in for servicing) but if the lens was no longer supported then you are out of luck. Hopefully these issues no longer occur.
It's obviously a concern, but I think it would be ok.
The similar recent full frame Sony FE 24mm f/2.8 G according to various reviews has horrendous barrel distortion. This is corrected digitally with jpeg files inside the cameras. Digital lens corrections conceal optical problems of many lenses but a good lens is only a good lens without digital corrections.
Also I own the similar older full frame autofocus e-mount Samyang/Rokinon FE 24mm f/2.8 which has far less barrel distortion. It is very sharp at around f/5.6 with less sharp corners at f/2.8. Its autofocus speed and accuracy isn't ideal. It suffers from flaring but that can be avoided.
This Sigma 24mm f/3.5 looks the perfect choice for a small, light full frame wide lens designed for mirrorless cameras. The f/3.5 is an issue with low light situations but with the common IBIS, longer shutter speeds permit lower ISO with handheld shooting.
f/3.5 is very uncommon with prime lenses. I have the Sony APS-C macro e-mount 30mm f/3.5 which have great optical quality for its price but without IBIS handheld shooting with low light is a problem.
I compare the distortion on the Sony and the Sigma in the review when toggling between RAW and JPEG files.
I disagree with this view. The view that a lens has to be fully *optically* corrected, is originating from the old film-era, where the only way you can get a good output, was for the lens to be fully corrected, optically. There were no second chances then, when it came to the final image, since the image was final (for most intents and purposes), right out of the camera.
In the digital era, it makes good design sense to allow some of the "easy to fix" corrections to happen within the camera, if that results in a smaller/lighter and more portable lens. At the end of the day, it is the final output that matters, and not whether a manufacturer has done a lot of design gymnastics and built in a ton of *unnecessary* optical corrections into the lens, resulting in a big/large/unwieldy lens.
Thanks again for the great extensive work comparing the two lenses. (Magnificent). The barrel distortion on the Sony 24mm, f2.8, G is the only thing holding me back from pulling the trigger on it. 10:03 I did see the toggle between the uncorrected distortion of the raw file, and the corrected JPG of the Sony but I am noting you didn’t do the same for the Sigma lens. Is there a reason why? Perhaps distortion correction doesn’t work for the Sigma lens? For Sony I can see a clear difference. I am not a fan of the camera’s distortion correction because it stretches the image out and still distorts whats in on the edges. Faces look wider and bodies, or buildings look fatter, you still don’t get a true image.
Sigma would of been better off making them lighter faster like f1.8 in 24/40/60mm with the same design as there apsc dcdn lenses line up and they would of sold like hot cakes.
it would be bigger if it was faster. I have it and its a perfect lens in good lighting
Good One sir