Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM

andylim · 17th March 2005

Has anyone used this lens, or own this lens?
Any feedback for a potential buyer? I'm more in favour of this over the 12-24mm varieties (currently from Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, and soon Tamron's 11-18mm)... due to its F2.8 max aperture. And the fact that it's a prime lens.

Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM

ricohflex · 20th March 2005

Hi
Andy

No need to choose.
It is no contest even though Sigma is third party lens maker.
Take the prime lens.

The others are from branded cam makers but the lenses mentioned are not their prime lenses. Not even their so-so lenses. Definitely not their quality lenses like L or ED or G.

The lenses you mentioned are the smaller "for digital" lenses that makers realise they have to bundle in to make the public buy the camera.

These are cheap and sometimes supplied as a "kit" lens when you buy a digicam. Some users find they want to upgrade from the "kit" lens soon.
You do realise that most of these "kit" lenses are PLASTICKY and super light.
Why do manufacturers do this?

I was asked this too indirectly elsewhere but then I chose not to answer to defuse a situation.

Part of the answer is Price Positioning and grabbing Market Share.
Even Nikon and Canon is guilty of this. They have to, to survive.

If you sell a product without a lens, buyers cannot shoot. To buy a lens from the existing range they have to spend more.
Buyers in this target group are Extremely Price Sensitive.
If you don't give the package, they will choose to buy other makes.
So dump in a cheap plasticky "for digital" lens to satisfy them.
The main idea is to make them buy and bring the buyer into the system and the brand. Later these buyers will upgrade and buy more costly stuff and they will continue to buy your brand.

This also explains why brands like Canon and Nikon which already have premier lenses in teir range, choose to also make SOME "for digital" PLASTICKY EF-S and (what's the Nikon equivalent?) lenses.

The Market is king. At one time many compact makers added the "panorama" mode which was a cheat

since it simply chopped off the top and bottom of the same 35mm frame. (the true panorama cameras are the costly ones like Linhof Technorama, Fuji G17, Hasselbald Xpan)

But because it became a selling point to consumers who [simply do not know enough to understand] and who were Extremely Price Sensitive, (must have X features for $Y) almost all of them did include the "panorama" feature in their compacts.

So I think this "for digital" lens crap nonsense will live a while just like the "panorama" mode in compacts. Until a few major camera makers make full 35mm frame digicams cheap and all their models from a certain time onwards are full frame. Technically Kodak and Canon have done it already. But pricey.

mpenza · 20th March 2005

Originally Posted by ricohflex

The lenses you mentioned are the smaller "for digital" lenses that makers realise they have to bundle in to make the public buy the camera.

These are cheap and sometimes supplied as a "kit" lens when you buy a digicam. Some users find they want to upgrade from the "kit" lens soon.

Just want to mention that the Sigma 12-24 is made for full-frame cameras. Also, none of the 12-24 and 11-18 are supplied as cheap kit lenses. Nikon 12-24 F4DX costs ~$1.6k for e.g. and is not exactly cheap (Sigma 12-24 costs ~$1k? too).

andylim · 20th March 2005

Well, so far I've had quite disappointing feedback from people who have used this lens before. General comments were that it's soft if you use it at any larger than f5.6, and has flare problems.
The Nikon 14mm is way too expensive... that's why I'm looking at this lens. For me, super wide angle doesn't really need a zoom. I'm comfortable zooming with my legs at this focal length.
On the other hand, if it's going to be really soft unless I stop down to f5.6, then there's really not much advantage in getting the 14mm. The Sigma 12-24mm is cheaper than the 14mm prime.

ricohflex · 20th March 2005

Hi
Andy and Mpenza

Mpenza - thanks for the info. Did not know those lenses Andy mentioned were so expensive. Thought he was talking about "kit" lenses.

Andy - If these 11-18, 12 - 24 (mpenza said this one for full frame) are so expensive, then maybe better to buy the lens that is NOT made "for digital". Suppose the "for digital" have smaller circle of image.
Right now lens made for 35mm full frame can be used in digicams but suffer the 1.3x or 1.6x factor.
One day (soon?) when Nikon and Canon make all full frame digicams, you cannot reverse the process and use the "for digital" lens on the full frame digicam. Vignetting. But you already spent $1000+ on them!
By then if you let go on 2nd hand market, less value already.

If Sigma 14mm is known to be soft at full aperture, maybe consider only if you shoot in daylight mostly. Can stop down to f8. But I doubt it. Is it so bad? Then why Sigma put it on market. If you have a chance why not borrow one to shoot with and verify for yourself?
Maybe those who said it is soft did not focus properly.

Aiyah, you must be Nikon user. Nikon 14mm must be good but expensive.
If you are Canon user, can try the 14mm L or 14mm to 70mm L lens,
also expensive.

Gosh! I cannot think of a cheap but good 14mm AF lens for you.

andylim · 21st March 2005

Yea I'm a Nikon user

I don't have any opportunity to try this lens out... that's why I'm asking around for feedback. I wanted the F2.8 for creative depth of field in a wide angle, as well as street photography.

xl1 · 21st March 2005

CA is a common problem in WA esp lens use below 15mm range, so far i haven't found yet that lens don't have CA below 15mm

spongebong · 21st March 2005

using this lense and here are a few samples.

http://www.photonski.com/aiebo/hongbao
d70 with 14mm lense.

andylim · 22nd March 2005

Hi Spongebong...finally someone who owns this lens

Thanks for the link. If it's not too much trouble, could you post unresized, unsharpened crops of the corners and the center portions of one of the images?

Alternatively, maybe you could tell us what you think of this lens.
Thanks.

17th March 2005	#1
andylim New Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Malaysia Posts: 4	Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM Has anyone used this lens, or own this lens? Any feedback for a potential buyer? I'm more in favour of this over the 12-24mm varieties (currently from Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, and soon Tamron's 11-18mm)... due to its F2.8 max aperture. And the fact that it's a prime lens. Sigma 14mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL HSM

20th March 2005	#2
ricohflex Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: sing Posts: 1,537	prime Hi Andy No need to choose. It is no contest even though Sigma is third party lens maker. Take the prime lens. The others are from branded cam makers but the lenses mentioned are not their prime lenses. Not even their so-so lenses. Definitely not their quality lenses like L or ED or G. The lenses you mentioned are the smaller "for digital" lenses that makers realise they have to bundle in to make the public buy the camera. These are cheap and sometimes supplied as a "kit" lens when you buy a digicam. Some users find they want to upgrade from the "kit" lens soon. You do realise that most of these "kit" lenses are PLASTICKY and super light. Why do manufacturers do this? I was asked this too indirectly elsewhere but then I chose not to answer to defuse a situation. Part of the answer is Price Positioning and grabbing Market Share. Even Nikon and Canon is guilty of this. They have to, to survive. If you sell a product without a lens, buyers cannot shoot. To buy a lens from the existing range they have to spend more. Buyers in this target group are Extremely Price Sensitive. If you don't give the package, they will choose to buy other makes. So dump in a cheap plasticky "for digital" lens to satisfy them. The main idea is to make them buy and bring the buyer into the system and the brand. Later these buyers will upgrade and buy more costly stuff and they will continue to buy your brand. This also explains why brands like Canon and Nikon which already have premier lenses in teir range, choose to also make SOME "for digital" PLASTICKY EF-S and (what's the Nikon equivalent?) lenses. The Market is king. At one time many compact makers added the "panorama" mode which was a cheat since it simply chopped off the top and bottom of the same 35mm frame. (the true panorama cameras are the costly ones like Linhof Technorama, Fuji G17, Hasselbald Xpan) But because it became a selling point to consumers who [simply do not know enough to understand] and who were Extremely Price Sensitive, (must have X features for $Y) almost all of them did include the "panorama" feature in their compacts. So I think this "for digital" lens crap nonsense will live a while just like the "panorama" mode in compacts. Until a few major camera makers make full 35mm frame digicams cheap and all their models from a certain time onwards are full frame. Technically Kodak and Canon have done it already. But pricey.

20th March 2005	#5
ricohflex Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: sing Posts: 1,537	14mm Hi Andy and Mpenza Mpenza - thanks for the info. Did not know those lenses Andy mentioned were so expensive. Thought he was talking about "kit" lenses. Andy - If these 11-18, 12 - 24 (mpenza said this one for full frame) are so expensive, then maybe better to buy the lens that is NOT made "for digital". Suppose the "for digital" have smaller circle of image. Right now lens made for 35mm full frame can be used in digicams but suffer the 1.3x or 1.6x factor. One day (soon?) when Nikon and Canon make all full frame digicams, you cannot reverse the process and use the "for digital" lens on the full frame digicam. Vignetting. But you already spent $1000+ on them! By then if you let go on 2nd hand market, less value already. If Sigma 14mm is known to be soft at full aperture, maybe consider only if you shoot in daylight mostly. Can stop down to f8. But I doubt it. Is it so bad? Then why Sigma put it on market. If you have a chance why not borrow one to shoot with and verify for yourself? Maybe those who said it is soft did not focus properly. Aiyah, you must be Nikon user. Nikon 14mm must be good but expensive. If you are Canon user, can try the 14mm L or 14mm to 70mm L lens, also expensive. Gosh! I cannot think of a cheap but good 14mm AF lens for you. Last edited by ricohflex; 20th March 2005 at 11:21 PM.

21st March 2005	#7
xl1 Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Under the Son Posts: 2,598	CA is a common problem in WA esp lens use below 15mm range, so far i haven't found yet that lens don't have CA below 15mm __________________ www.ubans.com

21st March 2005	#8
spongebong Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 275	sigma 14mm f/2.8 EX HSM using this lense and here are a few samples. http://www.photonski.com/aiebo/hongbao d70 with 14mm lense. Last edited by spongebong; 21st March 2005 at 11:44 PM. Reason: rephrased

21st March 2005	#6
andylim New Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Malaysia Posts: 4	Yea I'm a Nikon user I don't have any opportunity to try this lens out... that's why I'm asking around for feedback. I wanted the F2.8 for creative depth of field in a wide angle, as well as street photography.

22nd March 2005	#9
andylim New Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Malaysia Posts: 4	Hi Spongebong...finally someone who owns this lens Thanks for the link. If it's not too much trouble, could you post unresized, unsharpened crops of the corners and the center portions of one of the images? Alternatively, maybe you could tell us what you think of this lens. Thanks.