Sigma vs Nikon FX wide zoom -opinions please

[kirbinster]

I am trying to make a decision between the Sigma 12-24 and the Nikon 14-24 for my D700... Obviously the Nikon is a better lens, but how much better? I want this mostly for Landscape type shooting so I don't really need an f/2.8 lens, but what about image quality. The Sigma is a little wider too, which is a plus in my mind. Is the Nikon really worth almost three times the price for outdoor landscape work, or should I go with the Sigma?

[inkista]

Sigma: f/4.5-5.6.

Nikkor: f/2.8

And performance. I think the Nikkor is definitely worth the higher price, but depending on whether you need 12mm or not, the Sigma might be a better buy if you're budget-limited, and don't care so much about strict optical performance.

The lensrentals.com blurb on this is:

Roger’s take: Am I ambivalent about this lens? Well, yes and no. It does what it claims very well: its the widest aperture zoom lens you can put on a full frame camera. And 12mm on a full frame is spectacular: be careful in framing or you’ll see your shoes in the shot. Seriously. Its reasonably sharp in the center, even wide open. The corners and edges require stopping down to f/8 to sharpen up, and even then the corners are going to show some distortion at the wider end. If you want razor sharp, this isn’t the lens for you. If you want good acutance and a dramtically wide perspective, this is great.

As an aside, we often get asked with this lens to “check for a sharp copy because I saw online that there’s a lot of variation”. There is a lot of variation, but most of it is camera-to-camera: because of tiny tolerances in lens mounts a given copy may be a bit softer on one side on camera A, on the other side on Camera B. It happens with ultra-wide lenses. So if you’re a pixel peeper, this is NOT the lens for you. Promise. Get the Nikon 14-24 instead.

To me, the third option is the manual-focus Samyang 14mm f/2.8 ($400).

[sk66]

What do you mean by "landscape"? IMO, a wide angle is great for "up close and personal" type shots...a pic of a tree with a lot of "space" but taken close etc...in these kinds of images I don't mind a little distortion or lack of sharpness at the edges, it adds to the feel IMO...the sigma 12-24.

If you are looking to take maximum sharp "panorama" type images using hyperfocal distance etc, then probably the nikkor 14-24. But for that kind of thing I prefer stitched panos.

The difference between 12 and 14mm on a FF body is rather large....(the difference between 14 and 16mm (your 10-20 on a FF) is not nearly the same)

For me (being cheap) and my style/goals it was the Sigma...You'll have to decide for yourself....(are you a pixel peeper?)
BTW, it seems the nikkor is only about 2x the cost

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by sk66

What do you mean by "landscape"? IMO, a wide angle is great for "up close and personal" type shots...a pic of a tree with a lot of "space" but taken close etc...in these kinds of images I don't mind a little distortion or lack of sharpness at the edges, it adds to the feel IMO...the sigma 12-24.

If you are looking to take maximum sharp "panorama" type images using hyperfocal distance etc, then probably the nikkor 14-24. But for that kind of thing I prefer stitched panos.

The difference between 12 and 14mm on a FF body is rather large....(the difference between 14 and 16mm (your 10-20 on a FF) is not nearly the same)

For me (being cheap) and my style/goals it was the Sigma...You'll have to decide for yourself....(are you a pixel peeper?)
BTW, it seems the nikkor is only about 2x the cost

Yes, I am talking about the up close and personal shots outside as well as just wide shots of buildings and landscapes.

I would love the Nikon, but its a little rich for my blood. I get all my stuff lightly used anyway -- I am cheap I can get the Sigma for $525 in mint condition (barely used) while the best I am seeing the Nikon 14-24 is about $1350, so I guess its about 2.5X the price.

[sk66]

If you are cheap and not a "pixel peeper" you'll have less buyers remorse with the Sigma...

JMO...
BTW, I'm cheap too and I don't use ultra wide angle much...special situations only.
For most critical "wide" situations your 24-70 f/2.8 will do quite well.

[OsmosisStudios]

Why not consider the 16-35 f/4 VR?

[kirbinster]

I would like wider than 16, if I go wide I really want to go WIDE.