Post by belgiumreporter on Sept 12, 2021 9:51:32 GMT -5
For a long time the Sigma 17-35 2.8-4 USM FX was my trusty companion on travels and reporting jobs.
Because it won't auto focus on the new Z camera's i had to find a replacement, to keep it financially a bit within the limits i've bought the Nikkor AF-s 16-35 1:4 G ED VR.
Just out of curiousity i compared both lenses on the D800 (wich can AF them both) and to my surprice i noticed just how bad the Sigma performes on FX (full frame) I never noticed its flaws as i only used it on DX camera's like the D500/300/7100/5100... but now on full frame things get ugly.
To be fair i must admit the Nikkor costs about 4 times as much as the Sigma but i never thought there was so much difference
The first thing i've noticed the Sigma vignettes enourmously when used at full aperture (2.8) must be around two stops towards the corners:
Then stopped down to f4 there's still a heavy vignette, but the Nikkor has some serious barrel distortion (nikkor left at 16mm sigma right at 17mm)
While the Nikkor gives a crisp, contrasty sharp image the Sigma isn't sharp and has no contrast (both lenses at f4 ) Enlargement center of the image at 100%
At f4 the corners of the Nikkor aren't very good.
Same f4 edge of the frame Nikkor does it very well, the Sigma no way!
With the focal lenght at 35mm things get better ( both at f4)
But even at f11 were the Sigma is at it's best, it's still no match for the Nikkor
Still i never had any complaints of the shots i've took with the Sigma, but as you can see when things gets pushed to the limit the diffrences become all to clear....
Because it won't auto focus on the new Z camera's i had to find a replacement, to keep it financially a bit within the limits i've bought the Nikkor AF-s 16-35 1:4 G ED VR.
Just out of curiousity i compared both lenses on the D800 (wich can AF them both) and to my surprice i noticed just how bad the Sigma performes on FX (full frame) I never noticed its flaws as i only used it on DX camera's like the D500/300/7100/5100... but now on full frame things get ugly.
To be fair i must admit the Nikkor costs about 4 times as much as the Sigma but i never thought there was so much difference
The first thing i've noticed the Sigma vignettes enourmously when used at full aperture (2.8) must be around two stops towards the corners:
Then stopped down to f4 there's still a heavy vignette, but the Nikkor has some serious barrel distortion (nikkor left at 16mm sigma right at 17mm)
While the Nikkor gives a crisp, contrasty sharp image the Sigma isn't sharp and has no contrast (both lenses at f4 ) Enlargement center of the image at 100%
At f4 the corners of the Nikkor aren't very good.
Same f4 edge of the frame Nikkor does it very well, the Sigma no way!
With the focal lenght at 35mm things get better ( both at f4)
But even at f11 were the Sigma is at it's best, it's still no match for the Nikkor
Still i never had any complaints of the shots i've took with the Sigma, but as you can see when things gets pushed to the limit the diffrences become all to clear....