Nikon 14-24, Sigma 14-24 or Sigma 12-24???

[Andrew Smith]

I have all 3 of the above lenses for test prior to purchase, using them with my D810.

Am trying out various test shots and can’t tell a lot between the lenses. The Sigma‘s have superb build quality and feel a lot more ‘solid’ than the Nikon lens. Anyone got any experience with these lenses and expressed a preference please? TIA.

 

[Nod]

When I bought my Sigma 12-24, the Nikkor option didn't exist so didn't compare the 2 side by side. Looking at images from both that I've seen since, the Sigma seems to be better corrected for rectilinear distortion than the Nikkor (at its widest setting) and is also a bit wider (even that 2mm is noticeable at such short focal lengths). The Sigma 12-24 is also rather cheaper than the Nikkor alternative!

 

[SFTPhotography]

I had a 14-24 Nikkor - I thought it was superior to the 16-35 optically but still not quite up to scratch with smeary corners - even stopped down.

To do a test - take some interior shots on each one at varying FL's - stopped down and check them over at 100% - and compare all over the frame. If it's all much of a likeness might as well have the 12-24

 

[ah5168]

I would always pick an f/2.8 constant aperture lens over an f/4 but obviously there is a weight an cost penalty.

I can only comment on the quality of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. I brought mine back in 2010 and have used it on almost every job and it's been faultless and I am still impressed by the corner sharpness, lack of distortion and lack of CA. If you look on my website every interior shot has been taken with the Nikon. I think the Sigma lenses have come a long way and there now isn't a lot/any difference between them and the Nikon lens in terms of image quality but I am not sure the Sigma lenses will last as long though regardless of the perceived build quality.

One minor difference for me comes up because I generally manual focus all my lenses for stills or video work and all Nikon lenses have focus rings that work the same way. Whenever I have used a lens that focuses the other way like Sigma lenses I have really struggled to adapt and sold them off.

I think they are all decent lenses but I would preferer the Nikon and if I was worried about the price difference I would buy the Nikon version used. If you look on MBP's website they have 31 to choose from at the moment.

 

[Andrew Smith]

Just to follow up on this, I have spent the weekend doing exhaustive tests on the lenses. In my humble opinion, the Nikkor 14-24 and the Sigma 12-24 ART are pretty much identical in performance and I think both are better than the 14-24 Sigma.

On that basis I will be buying the 12-24 ART Sigma lens.

Thanks for all the comments.

 

[darkroom12]

The Nikon 14/24 when it came out was compared against Nikon's own 17/35, because that at the time was supposed to be possibly it's sharpest lens of the time. I have seen images taken with the 17/35 and wide open it was distortion free and shar corner to corner. If the 14/24 is better than the 17/.35 then it was/is top of the tree in the technical stakes. As a confirmed Nikon user I will always choose Nikon Lenses against others when there is an alternative 3rd party version. Even my 20/35 F2.8 AFD constant is no sluggard in the sharpness stakes.