Sigma 24/1.4 Art vs. Nikon 18-35G f/3.5-4.5 at 24mm test
I see in photography forums there is some interest in comparing Sigma 24/1.4 prime with Nikon 18-35G zoom for landscape use. I bought it for different use (portrait and event) as I never felt limited by 18-35G for landscapes perhaps except perhaps Milky Way shots where fast aperture is useful as long as corner performance is good (which is not that good on Sigma 24/1.4 due to astigmatism at wider apertures). Here is a quick comparison that may be useful to those who want to use it for landscapes.
Disclaimer: this is a test of one copy of the Sigma and one copy of the Nikon. Your copy of lens may be different, better or worse. I always prefer tests where multiple copies are tested (like Roger Cicala does), but sorry, sample size of 1 in my test is not going to be useful to to make statements about all copies of the same model.
Contenders
- Sigma 24/1.4 Art
- Nikon 18-35G AF-S f/3.5-4.5 ED
Sigma weighs noticeably more despite smaller length. Both lenses accept 77mm filter.
Tests
I have tested both on Nikon D610 (24MP full-frame). As usually with landscapes I use as low ISO as it is possible and tripod. Tripod is quite good and used with proper technique (delayed exposure to avoid touching camera during exposure, invoked from Live View to avoid mirror shake; see Tripod & ballhead & technique test). For tests, M mode was used. I used back button focus mode (AF-ON) to activate focus.
Processing of raw images is done Adobe Lightroom 5.7. Sharpening is default. I have a chromatic aberration correction turned on for sharpness tests. Both lenses show similar amount of chromatic aberration. Other lens corrections are turned off. Images are exported to JPG with low amount of screen sharpening.
Sharpness test 1 - Dobeška
- Each lens was autofocused in LV AF for widest aperture on center (a small church). I used back button focus mode (AF-ON) to focus and did not refocus during series. I have verified that picture focused with LV AF at f/8 is not significantly different to ensure there is no focus shift affecting results.
- Processing notes: Reasonable exposure to protect highlights was ISO 100 f/2.8 t=1/4000s so for two wider aperture steps on Sigma I have run out of shutter speed (D610 has 1/4000s as fastest). I have tried to fix that by using exposure slider in LR for those apertures (-2 for f/1.4 and -1 for f/2 which equalizes central exposure at cost for vignetting in corners) but highlights show a bit of clipping. Because of dark area in shadow of a Dobeška hill I was standing on, I used LR setting Shadow +100 to allow to examine detail there (applies only to this series).
Full images are available here.
Click here to select your own crops (does not work on mobile phone/tablet browsers, requires a lot of RAM).
Lets look at some crops. This is center crop on church where I placed LVAF focus point:
These are both dx-corner crops:
These are both fx-corner crops:
Two corner crops showing far and close detail:
Generally, at f/11 differences are very small even in corners. Usually, at f/4, f/5.6 and sometimes f/8 the Sigma is slightly better, but I see one case where at f/4 and f/5.6 the Nikon is better - in the far detail crops.
Sharpness test 2 - Brumlovka
- Each lens was autofocused in LV AF for widest aperture on target. There are three targets in separate series (close - the dog sign bottom left, middle - center, and far - the building on top right). I used back button focus mode (AF-ON) to focus and did not refocus during series.
- Processing notes: Reasonable exposure to protect highlights was ISO 100 f/2.8 t=1/4000s so for two wider aperture steps on Sigma I have run out of shutter speed (D610 has 1/4000s as fastest). I have tried to fix that by using exposure slider in LR for those apertures (-2 for f/1.4 and -1 for f/2 which equalizes central exposure at cost for vignetting in corners) but highlights show a bit of clipping.
| Focus target | Link to directory with samples | Link to interactive tool (not for mobile browsers, requires mouse, slow) |
|---|---|---|
| Middle distance - center focus | Full images | Tool link. |
| Far distance - top right building | Full images | Tool link. |
| Close distance - bottom left dog sign | Full images | Tool link. |
Center crop for center focus:
Did you notice moire behind the tree? D610 has weak AA filter.
Top right crop with building for center focus:
Nikon looks better at f/4 and f/5.6, but next crops for top right focus show that this is only a difference in field curvature and when Sigma is focused directly on the building it is much sharper around f/4 f/5.6:
Now the Sigma looks pretty sharp even at f/2.8. But even when comparing two Sigma shots at f/11, the one in proper focus is still slightly sharper.
Flare test 1 - Dobeška
This two images are at f/6.3. Nikon:
Sigma:
I suggest to open these images in two tabs and switch between them to see all the differences. Sigma obviously flares more.
Flare test 2 - Brumlovka 1
This two images are at f/8. Nikon:
Sigma:
I suggest to open these images in two tabs and switch between them to see all the differences. Sigma obviously flares more.
Flare test 2 - Brumlovka 2
This two images are at f/8. Nikon:
Sigma:
I suggest to open these images in two tabs and switch between them to see all the differences. Sigma obviously flares more and has less contrast in dark shrubbery.
Conclusion
The Sigma is usually a bit sharper at mid-apertures. It is even nicely sharp in center at f/2. But sharpness in corners depends on field curvature. It looks like Sigma 24/1.4 prefers corners closer to camera compared to Nikon 18-35G. At f/11 differences between lenses are minimal.
Legal
Images presented in this article are copyrighted. Copyright (c) 2016 Jakub Trávník. You can use them personally, but further distribution is not allowed.
Related links
Back to index - Jakub Trávník's resources.