Sigma 14mm F3.5 ZEN A-mount lens reviews
reviews found: 9
 randreev#11558 date: Dec-25-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Samyang 14mm (which I do not own, the rest I do) Zenitar fish-eye 16mm Minolta fish-eye 16mm Tokina 17mm Minolta 17-35 Cosina 19-35 Sigma 21-35 Minolta 2,8/20 Minolta 2,8/24 Sony 2,8/28 Zeiss 2,8/24-70 |
| price paid: | 140 Euro |
| positive: | It doesn't get wider than that. Cheap if you wait enough. The classic sharpness ( not sharpest at widest aperture, I consider that a plus). The correction is amazing for a lens that size. Great complement to my fish-eyes. The close focusing. At small apertures it's only limited by fear of front element damage. |
| negative: | Soft corners, actually not fair because it's a result of the good correction. The attention to flare control it takes when shooting, but I am used to that. Lack of filter usability - inherent. Tired of explaining: It's not a fish-eye. The attention it attracts. This is actually a good thing sometimes, but most cases not. |
| comment: | The only real negative is the flare control, again inherent with the state of correction for 1990 technology. Sun and even bright skies are not agreeable with that 14mm and its coating and element curvature, but a dark scene and a flash do wonders. As I wrote sharpness is classic and stopping down is needed for better results, but very usable wide-opened. |
; 10MP| 5thElefant#8425 date: Dec-20-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-35 Tokina 20-35 f2.8 |
| price paid: | 200 Euro |
| positive: | Wide Centre sharpness Lack of distortion Colour |
| negative: | Edge sharpness Vignetting |
| comment: | Surprisingly sharp in the centre, what I expect towards the edges (not sharp). Distortion is well controlled. This isn't a fish-eye. Not even a bit. Vignetting is apparent, even when stopped down (even at f11). Colour is very pleasing, which is a surprise. Freakishly wide so I can't see it getting much use, but it's nice to have the option. |
| awa54#7709 date: Jul-22-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Mino 20 f2.8 RS Sigma 24 f2.8 Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 Sigma EX 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 DG (the original screw drive version) Tokina 19-35 f3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | $349 USD |
| positive: | wide enough (14mm=21mm equivalent on APS) nice color solid construction fairly well corrected for linear distortion |
| negative: | ** NOT USEABLE ON a900 FF, due to sensor reflection ** scary exposed front element percieved image sharpness runs from OK to poor lens cap can slide off fairly easily slight "Sigma color" "Zen" finish sux IMO built in "hood" is just there to hold the lens cap |
| comment: | This review has been updated as the lens has gotten more use; I find the 14mm f3.5 acceptable in sharpness and very good in distortion rendering, the moderate but fairly constant barrel distortion is more pleasing to my eye than the odd pin-cushioned edges of the 10-20 (mustache distortion). Sharpness in the center is decent and depending on the shot can be good at the edges and corners too, but can't compare with the Sigma 24 or 10-20 in sharpness. C/A is also well controlled for an ultra-wide. However some images have significant softness at the outer edges even stopped down and used on an APS-C camera. (noticeably softer on outer edges of the frame with FF use) While this may be a perfectly acceptable lens for use on a film camera, I would recommend staying away from it for use on digital bodies: First, there is reflection off of the sensor/rear element when this lens is used with the a900, which is bad enough that it disqualifies it for use on that camera (and likely all FF digital bodies). **To be PERFECTLY CLEAR, there is no image made under daylight conditions in which I have NOT seen a colored blob, hazy patch or even a colored sheen covering the entire image width, while using my copy of this lens on the a900, it has been used with 3 different a900s with the exact same result on each** Next, there are dedicated APS-C format lenses available with much better performance, easier handling and better availability, so I can't endorse it as a good fit there either... The Sigma 10-20mm APS and 12-24mm FF, UW zooms I have used are better in every respect aside from maximum aperture and overall length. |
| Kaposi#6665 date: Jan-2-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 18-70 Sony 18-70 MAF 24mm F2.8 |
| price paid: | 230 EUR |
| positive: | - low distortion!!! - well-constructed and built - full frame |
| negative: | - lens cap - gel filter |
| comment: | missing |
| DarkScribe#6567 date: Dec-12-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 1 flare control: 1 overall: 2.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 11-18, Minolta 20mm, Sigma 10-20. |
| price paid: | au$75 |
| positive: | Cheap. That was about its best attribute. I checked here and the very few reviews made it seem a reasonable purchase at the price I paid. It wasn't. |
| negative: | Distortion is horrendous, colour biased toward red, flare and ghosting a constant issue. It is reasonably well made, though very noisy and not fast in focusing. |
| comment: | It was cheap and it was new old (very old) stock so I bought it. After a day of testing I decided to get rid of it. The amount of post processing required to get anything decent makes it impractical. I have it for sale now. I have a feeling that it might have performed better or at least have been regarded better on a film body, but I didn't waste film to test that hypothesis. |
| ronin#3612 date: May-19-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | €160.00 (like new) |
| positive: | WIDE, Full Frame |
| negative: | Front element, Lens hood UPDATE tends to Flair on the A900 |
| comment: | I pick it up on E-Bay for €160 with all the original packaging and documentation. The old owner calmed he had only used it 3 times (I dought it had been even used that much, total mint condition). The first thing that you see it the front element its enormous and looks like it could be a fish eyes. I was surprised it is very sharp from F4.5 and excellent at F8, and very usable at F3.5 IMHO it works better on a digital crop than a FF (or film) camera as the distortion is extreme around the edges, abut naturally cropped out on the 7D and A700 AF isn't the fastest in the world and seems slower with close moving objects, but is more than acceptable with a stationary and/or distant subject. All in all so far I am very happy with this lens so far |
| tanner#2682 date: Sep-1-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 16 mm f/2.8 fisheye Minolta 20 mm f/2.8 |
| price paid: | 400 USD (new) |
| positive: | * well-constructed * adequate sharpness * low distortion (excl closeups) * lighter and more compact than the 14 mm f/2.8s |
| negative: | * extreme distortion w/closeups * high flare and ghosting w/point light sources in or near fov * gel filter slot * warm color cast - doesn't match up well with Minolta lenses |
| comment: | Since I don't yet have a DSLR, my review differs a bit from the two others, in that I've used this lens for its full field of view on a film camera. I bought this lens as a companion to my 20 mm, because I shoot a lot of interiors, and I wanted something wider "just in case". Fortunately, there have been few instances when I've needed the additional coverage, because, in terms of contrast and sharpness, the Minolta 20 mm is far superior to this lens. If you can keep point light sources out of the field of view (hard to do with interiors, using an ultrawide), this lens produces adequate images up to about 10X. But, don't use it for those nifty perspective-deceiving closeups; you'll be sorely disappointed; the barrel distortion becomes enormous, and color saturation drops precipitously, along with sharpness. Outdoors, the lens fares better, as long as direct sunlight is kept away from its fov. The gel filter provision is extremely inconvenient, and you always risk touching the rear element, but this drawback is shared with the offerings from Canon and Nikon. (You'd think for the price, those lenses would be equipped with filter turrets.) Of course -- notwithstanding the color mismatch with Minolta's (now Sony's) own lenses -- digital processing obviates the critical need for in-camera color matching and balancing. I know I've really beat up on this lens. Maybe it's because the Minolta 16 and 20 mm lenses are so outstanding. I paid $400 for this lens a dozen years ago, at what was then a very good price, so I'm really curious how the other reviewer paid less than $200 for his (new). |
| 2manycamera#912 date: Jun-14-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 17/3.5 AT-X |
| price paid: | US 199 |
| positive: | Great w/a on aps camera. Very well controlled rectillinear distotion. |
| negative: | Easy to mess up big front element. Difficulty in using filters. |
| comment: | I bought this lens new for $199, and thought it a good investment when compared to the current Sigma and Tamaron 14/2.8's. My Tokina 17/3.5 wasn't wide enough anymore on the 7D and I like wide! The biggest surprise was how little rectilinear distortion it shows. Straight line at the bottom or top of the frame have less curve than my 28/2 Minolta. This is likely not the case when used FF, but on the aps crop, it is very satisfying. I mostly use this as an interiors lens and have beautiful, detailed pictures shot at 3.5-4 from the British Natural History Museum and the Smithsonian in D.C. I haven't used it outdoors much, so have not really put it to harsh tests for flare, but what I've done has been well-controlled and expected in an ultra-wide. The biggest (literally) problem is the big front element. Not only is it a magnet for dust, fingerprints and the occasional near-miss with bird droppings, it is almost impossible to use filters. There is a gel slot on the back, but this is near useless except for infra-red wratten filters. There is a partial work around on the front, however. The lens cap comes in two pieces. A 72mm cap and a cowl-like cover that goes around the built-in lens hood. I discovered if you leave the cowling on, but remove the cap, you can screw a 72mm filter into the cowl. It WILL vignette in the corners, but I frequently make 4x10 and 4x12 inch prints and the corners are cropped out anyway. I can use my minolta 72mm CPL and cokin P filters to great effect, as long as I print panorama format. This is not an EX lens, but the earlier ZEN coated lens line. Still robust, as many fixed focal length Sigma's are, but the ZEN coating is, well, funny. It almost feels like a very hard rubber, and it handles well. However, they are easy to stain and don't clean well. I do try to keep mine in a protedted spot in the bag when not being used as I feel it will look beat up with little use. One last observation: I have had fairly consistant BF problems with wide angle lenses on the 7D, but not with this lens. I know, wides hide a lot of sins, however I frequently shoot at 3.5 and isolate foreground detail from the background and I usually get good lock-on immediatey. So I am very pleased with this sigma and I don't feel the need to go out and spend on an ultra-wide zoom. Now I'm just hoping for a FF Sony to REALLY go wide with this one! Finally updating for use on FF a850, and it does not rate as well. Dropped both color and distortion ratings to 3, as this lens shows extensive problems at the edge even when stopped down to F8-11. Subjects were recorded almost like looking at a 3D image w/o glasses, the color separation is so severe. This is only on FF, but this is where it would be most useful. Still a fine lens in many circumstances, but not the performance on FF I could have wished for. |
| my-spot#457 date: Jan-30-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Bulbous Lens Makes people say "Wow, What is that!" Well built Wide enough for nearly anything, even on the 7D |
| negative: | Bulbous Lens creates a fear for its safety. Care must be used to avoid flare. Lens cap comes off too easily. |
| comment: | I picked this lens up used at a local camera shop for $175. It was worth the price. It is very well built with very little plastic. Definitely a specialty lens! Care must be used if this lens is used around people because the rectilinear correction causes people on the edge of the frame to appear 2x their real weight. This being said, the rectilinear correction is perfect. This can be a great "perspective" lens and allows for some artsy compositions if care and time is used. Flare control is good but, the very nature of this lens requires great care to be used during shots. |
reviews found: 9
rating summary
- total reviews: 9
- sharpness: 4.00
- color: 4.11
- build: 4.22
- distortion: 3.78
- flare control: 3.11
- overall: 3.84
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login