|
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: ![](https://i.ibb.co/QH27nJF/DSC-5892.jpg) 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) ![](https://i.ibb.co/Lg9DvnW/DSC-5882b.jpg) 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% ![](https://i.ibb.co/VWRFZmy/DSC-5882-E.jpg) At f4 the corners of the Nikkor aren't very good. ![](https://i.ibb.co/pQxXxKF/DSC-5882f.jpg) Same f4 edge of the frame Nikkor does it very well, the Sigma no way! ![](https://i.ibb.co/x83J17h/DSC-5904b.jpg) With the focal lenght at 35mm things get better ( both at f4) ![](https://i.ibb.co/BT4zJSY/DSC-5898b.jpg) But even at f11 were the Sigma is at it's best, it's still no match for the Nikkor ![](https://i.ibb.co/vZ6LK2N/DSC-5890b.jpg) 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....
|
|