S52 and s52x for video have 1.45 crops for High ibis and 1.5 crops to do 4k60 so keep that in mind, You can never be too wide on these cameras if shooting indoors. I use a Sigma 14-24 2.8 and with High Ibis on it is equivalent to a 20 - 35 lens. I run it like that and set a quick button to shut off High Ibis when I need the wider 14mm. For Apsc I get the equivalent of 29 - 52 full frame with high ibis on.
Additionally, they're throwing it in for FREE with the purchase of an S5II or S5IIX or at the moment, which has also made the "new in box" second hand sales of these go crazy. In Australia you can probably get one for about $500 AU which is like 260 pounds.
The cheaper one is a Macro lens as well. So definitely worth it especially for its smaller size. If you feel like spending money the Sigma wide zoom has lovely IQ. Glad i found your channel, thanks.
I got the 16-35 used for less than the 14-28 new. I love the lens but the one major drawback is the minimum focus distance. I would really like the macro capability of the 14-28. It doesn’t seem like much until it is. The 16-35 is decent, I just want a little bit more, and that exaggerated 14mm macro shot is something I’m dreaming about now.
Indeed… it was never meant to be a really technical comparison however… other channels out there are better at those kind of reviews… I’m just a photographer who uses them for day to day work.
@@JasonFriendPhotography Thanks for your response. I want to buy a lens for landscape and architecture photography with my S5, as an upgrade from my 20-60, and trying to decide between the 24-105 and the 16-35. Any idea how the two compare in terms of sharpness in the overlapping zoom range, between f/4 and f/8 ? I mostly shoot at the wide range, so the extra zoom of the 24-105 is nice to have, but not necessary.
I watched most of your video before I asked you this question, so far you have not mentioned if either lens is weather sealed, I would assume that the 16 -35 being a pro lens should be, also having a consistent appetite would be better for video shooting.ok now I have watched the entire video and no mention of weather sealing and for many outdoor photographers that can make a difference, also no mention of lens coatings and aperture blades.
OK... It wasn't meant to be a technical comparison as such... both lenses are weather sealed (the 16-35 has the edge as you would expect)... coatings I would imagine are very similar... and couldn't really help you with the aperture blades as its not something I really take any interest in. I hope that helps in some way!
I did consider the 16-28 but the 14-28 is wider and cheaper (of course it’s not f2.8 which is a huge advantage for the sigma if you want to use it handheld in low light)
This is what I'm trying to figure out at the moment... I'm tempted by the F2, 8 of the sigma but leaning towards those extra 2mm and macro of the lumix as I will use it for tiny interior spaces and architectural details. Not an easy decision, please give me your thoughts! 🙏😊
It wasn't meant to be a clinical review... more so of a straight from camera > processing software > editing and then to client observation. Let's face it, LR will automatically apply profile corrections which sorts out the majority of faults with any lens. Image quality was discussed and I (personally) found very little difference. But I am not a camera reviewer although I do use them every day for my job... My conclusion was that, bang for buck, it was hard to justify keeping the 16-35 when the 14-28 was so, so close in the real world (ie not pixel peeping as I am pretty sure most of my clients don't!)
@@JasonFriendPhotography The MTF charts show between a 5-10% difference in contrast and sharpness in some areas. That's a huge difference to those looking for the absolute best. There are also many other nuances like focus fall off, lens flaring, and micro contrast the S pro clearly excels at. They are both good enough but only one is special.
S52 and s52x for video have 1.45 crops for High ibis and 1.5 crops to do 4k60 so keep that in mind, You can never be too wide on these cameras if shooting indoors. I use a Sigma 14-24 2.8 and with High Ibis on it is equivalent to a 20 - 35 lens. I run it like that and set a quick button to shut off High Ibis when I need the wider 14mm. For Apsc I get the equivalent of 29 - 52 full frame with high ibis on.
Additionally, they're throwing it in for FREE with the purchase of an S5II or S5IIX or at the moment, which has also made the "new in box" second hand sales of these go crazy. In Australia you can probably get one for about $500 AU which is like 260 pounds.
It is a clear dilemma. Thank you for sharing thoughts. Appreciated. A Lumix Pro 16-35mm 2.8 would be the true magic word.
Definitely… both are still great lenses though
And nightmare cost also
The cheaper one is a Macro lens as well. So definitely worth it especially for its smaller size. If you feel like spending money the Sigma wide zoom has lovely IQ. Glad i found your channel, thanks.
The 14-28mm also has Macro in the name, it would have been useful to see you compare that. Informative anyway thanks.
I own s1635 and I found out that it is super useful range. that's why I chose it over sigma 14-24.
I got the 16-35 used for less than the 14-28 new. I love the lens but the one major drawback is the minimum focus distance. I would really like the macro capability of the 14-28. It doesn’t seem like much until it is. The 16-35 is decent, I just want a little bit more, and that exaggerated 14mm macro shot is something I’m dreaming about now.
I’ve kept the 14-28 and can’t say I have any complaints. The 16-35 is a fantastic lens though - you definitely had a good buy there!
I had both and chose the 14-28. This lens has a great performance, is lightweigth and compact, good priced. For me perfect.
Another important question for me would have been how it behaves with backlighting, lens flares, ghosting, etc.
Indeed… it was never meant to be a really technical comparison however… other channels out there are better at those kind of reviews… I’m just a photographer who uses them for day to day work.
3:28 if you took a step backwards and shot @16 with the 16-35, would it look like the 14-28 shot @14 ?
Possibly… but if i remember correctly i was standing on a rock in the stream so it wasn’t really an option. But its a good point
@@JasonFriendPhotography Thanks for your response. I want to buy a lens for landscape and architecture photography with my S5, as an upgrade from my 20-60, and trying to decide between the 24-105 and the 16-35. Any idea how the two compare in terms of sharpness in the overlapping zoom range, between f/4 and f/8 ? I mostly shoot at the wide range, so the extra zoom of the 24-105 is nice to have, but not necessary.
I watched most of your video before I asked you this question, so far you have not mentioned if either lens is weather sealed, I would assume that the 16 -35 being a pro lens should be, also having a consistent appetite would be better for video shooting.ok now I have watched the entire video and no mention of weather sealing and for many outdoor photographers that can make a difference, also no mention of lens coatings and aperture blades.
OK... It wasn't meant to be a technical comparison as such... both lenses are weather sealed (the 16-35 has the edge as you would expect)... coatings I would imagine are very similar... and couldn't really help you with the aperture blades as its not something I really take any interest in.
I hope that helps in some way!
Which lens would you recommend for real estate work with some videography? Is the 14-28 bright enough for indoor work and video applications?
I think I would go with the 16-35 f4… simply because of the fixed and slightly faster aperture
Why not go with a 11-16 2.8 Tokina as your probably shooting cropped apsc anyways? So CHEAP !!!
How I feel the Lumix 16-35/f4 not as sharp as the Sigma 24-70/f2.8. It's a little bit soft lens.
I haven’t used the sigma 24-70 2.8 but I do know it’s supposed to be an incredible lens
Would the sigma 16-28 2.8 be considered a middle ground between them?
I did consider the 16-28 but the 14-28 is wider and cheaper (of course it’s not f2.8 which is a huge advantage for the sigma if you want to use it handheld in low light)
This is what I'm trying to figure out at the moment... I'm tempted by the F2, 8 of the sigma but leaning towards those extra 2mm and macro of the lumix as I will use it for tiny interior spaces and architectural details. Not an easy decision, please give me your thoughts! 🙏😊
Great review. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for watching!
Great video - thanks. I would definitely cut the underlying "music". It's too loud to hear the speak properly and unnecessary.
Hm. No mentioning of difference in image quality, corner sharpness, vignetting, .... You forgot the most important points I think.
It wasn't meant to be a clinical review... more so of a straight from camera > processing software > editing and then to client observation. Let's face it, LR will automatically apply profile corrections which sorts out the majority of faults with any lens. Image quality was discussed and I (personally) found very little difference. But I am not a camera reviewer although I do use them every day for my job... My conclusion was that, bang for buck, it was hard to justify keeping the 16-35 when the 14-28 was so, so close in the real world (ie not pixel peeping as I am pretty sure most of my clients don't!)
I thought the pro is real mechanical manual focus!
Where the juice is that intro filmed!
My friends brewery tap house... www.firstandlastbrewery.co.uk
@@JasonFriendPhotography top friend to have Mr Friend
Jestem tego samego zdania i wybrałem S14-28 mm.
The 14-28 is a wonderful lens!
What you are paying for is image quality, the most important part.
I personally found very little difference between the two lenses. But of course one is a constant f4 which makes it far more useful.
@@JasonFriendPhotography The MTF charts show between a 5-10% difference in contrast and sharpness in some areas. That's a huge difference to those looking for the absolute best. There are also many other nuances like focus fall off, lens flaring, and micro contrast the S pro clearly excels at. They are both good enough but only one is special.