Sigma 24mm f2.8 Super-Wide II vs. DA 21mm.

**Lowell Goudge** · 07-11-2011, 05:43 AM

I have to ask this, as I see lots of great comments fir the sigma 24/2.8

I havethe 28'mm and it is terrible for lateral CA is the 24 substantially different?

civiletti · 07-11-2011, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I have to ask this, as I see lots of great comments fir the sigma 24/2.8

I havethe 28'mm and it is terrible for lateral CA is the 24 substantially different?

from PhotZone:

Lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are fairly well-controlled for a lens in the focal length class. In absolute terms CAs are getting more obvious from about f/5.6 with an average CA width around 1.3px at the image borders.

My copy does not have a major problem with CA.

axl · 07-11-2011, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I have to ask this, as I see lots of great comments fir the sigma 24/2.8

I havethe 28'mm and it is terrible for lateral CA is the 24 substantially different?

I don't think it is...

having said so, it's not much worse then FA*24 in CA.
Where it looses the battle is contrast and colour rendition.
Even the picture on top of this page documents this nicely (no offense to the poster)

GeneV · 07-11-2011, 10:45 AM

Well, here is where the personal preferences do come into play. I use the 21mm constantly because of its size, FOV and quality. I found 24mm kind of "meh," on APC-C, but 21mm is wide enough to shoot landscapes and some buildings. I use it for streets as well, and I crop if I need a tighter view. Best of all, for about the same size and weight of the Sigma in AF, you can carry both the DA21 and the DA40. I carry them with one in a pocket and one on the camera, and now I have a formidable street shooting combo.

wlachan · 07-12-2011, 12:04 AM

I used to own both Sigma 28 & 24 b4 buying the FA*24. The Sigma 24 produced noticeably better contrast and sharper images, and the FA* was quite poor on CA. That was when digital didn't exist. Sadly, the Sigma 24 was very cheaply made and flare control was non-exist. If it were made to be an OEM lens, it would be a real winner.

axl · 07-12-2011, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

I used to own both Sigma 28 & 24 b4 buying the FA*24. The Sigma 24 produced noticeably better contrast and sharper images, and the FA* was quite poor on CA. That was when digital didn't exist. Sadly, the Sigma 24 was very cheaply made and flare control was non-exist. If it were made to be an OEM lens, it would be a real winner.

I owned Sigma 24 AF and K24/2.8 and now FA*24. All on digital. From my experience the Sigma beats both SMC lenses on sharpness (stopped down that is, at f2.8 it beats the K but FA* would give it very decent run and by f4 I'd say FA* would win. But by f11 the Sigma would be in lead again...), but doesn't come anywhere near to touch them on contrast and colours. The FA* is probably the worst in CA and biggest of them all. K is the best made, followed by FA* and by mile by Sigma.

deadwolfbones · 07-12-2011, 07:24 AM

I've owned both, but I sold both a while ago. From what I remember...

- DA is marginally sharper.
- DA has faster/smoother AF.
- DA is much better built.
- DA has more contrast SOOC.
- DA flares a lot less easily.
- DA renders colors "cooler" by comparison and more correctly according to my eye.
- DA costs a LOT more.

I also feel like the DA might have a touch more barrel distortion, but I could be wrong there.

edit: and the Sigma can be used on film/FF digital (if it ever comes)... I used a Quantaray-badged Nikon copy on my D700 and it performed very admirably there as well.

civiletti · 07-12-2011, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by axl

I don't think it is...

having said so, it's not much worse then FA*24 in CA.
Where it looses the battle is contrast and colour rendition.
Even the picture on top of this page documents this nicely (no offense to the poster)

You are correct about color in the photo I posted, but it is not the fault of the lens. I processed it before I knew much about Lightroom. Since then, I have adjusted the color correction to the RAW image. Time permitting, I will post the new version. Although Sigma lenses in general produce slightly different color than Pentax lenses, on digital, as opposed to film, the difference makes no difference after post-processing. The same applies to contrast. Lightroom's 'clarity' adjustment can produce as much micro-contrast as one can stand. And no offense taken.

civiletti · 07-12-2011, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by axl

I owned Sigma 24 AF and K24/2.8 and now FA*24. All on digital. From my experience the Sigma beats both SMC lenses on sharpness (stopped down that is, at f2.8 it beats the K but FA* would give it very decent run and by f4 I'd say FA* would win. But by f11 the Sigma would be in lead again...), but doesn't come anywhere near to touch them on contrast and colours. The FA* is probably the worst in CA and biggest of them all. K is the best made, followed by FA* and by mile by Sigma.

Here are the PhotoZone MTF50 results [the manual and auto-focus versions of the Sigma are the same optically]. The FA* is better in the center. The Sigma is better at the edges. For landscape, I'd prefer the Sigma. The Pentax would be better for a central subject with the margins out of focus. As far as CA, the Sigma is better at wide aperture and the Pentax at small aperture, according to PZ tests.

paperbag846 · 07-12-2011, 09:40 AM

I think the 21 is a great lens, but too expensive for what it is. It has neither the WOW factor of the 15 (how did they fit it all in there?) or the rendering of the 40/70...

It's a great lens, but should not be the same price as the 15 / 7- IMHO. The limited line is pretty expensive as a set when you compare them with a f2.8 zoom (tamron, e.g.), and I personally feel that the 21 brings the least to the table (if the 15 didn't exist I wouldn't be so hard on it).

Also agree that 24mm just makes more sense as a focal length (on digital).

wlachan · 07-12-2011, 12:48 PM

Don't forget that photozone results are based on cropped sensor while both are FF lenses. The difference in performance will be greater on 135 film.

axl · 07-12-2011, 02:52 PM

Photozone numbers? Amen...not

What they don't show you is contrast and colour rendition and flare resistance. In these three instances the FA* (even the old K24) blows the Sigma 24 out of water with no effort...

Yes the Sigma is sharper lens but if overall IQ is considered it falls short...

axl · 07-12-2011, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by civiletti

You are correct about color in the photo I posted, but it is not the fault of the lens. I processed it before I knew much about Lightroom. Since then, I have adjusted the color correction to the RAW image. Time permitting, I will post the new version. Although Sigma lenses in general produce slightly different color than Pentax lenses, on digital, as opposed to film, the difference makes no difference after post-processing. The same applies to contrast. Lightroom's 'clarity' adjustment can produce as much micro-contrast as one can stand. And no offense taken.

It's true that you can adjust colours and contrast and clarity during PPing but wouldn't it be nicer if you wouldn't have to?

Nick Siebers · 07-12-2011, 07:06 PM

I like the Sigma 24/2.8. I do find the colors a little off and contrast a little low, but it seems easier to tweak those than to try to add sharpness. Plus there just aren't many good options at 24mm if you want auto-focus. The close-focus makes it pretty handy as a compact walk-around.

**dadipentak** · 07-12-2011, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by ;1573253:

I directly compared these two lenses. The 24 was sharper, the 21 has amazing flare resistance. I sold the 21 as I found the focal length a bit 'meh' - too wide wheareas the 24 is about right for me (35mm efl). But a lot of the reason for selling the 21 came down to the cost of it vs the 24

I absolutely love the 24 superwide - very nice lens for low light as it's really sharp at f2.8.

I have both lenses because I haven't been able to answer the question

I tend to prefer the Sigma: ihasa's "meh" regarding the 21mm FL rings true for me.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma Super Wide II 24mm f2.8 autofocus	jkglogau	Sold Items	2	12-30-2009 10:19 AM
Help with Sigma Super-Wide 24mm/2.8	dgaies	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	12-18-2009 10:02 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24mm 2.8 macro super-wide II; Sigma 20-40mm/2.8	DSims	Sold Items	14	11-18-2009 05:30 PM

07-11-2011, 05:43 AM	#16
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	I have to ask this, as I see lots of great comments fir the sigma 24/2.8 I havethe 28'mm and it is terrible for lateral CA is the 24 substantially different?

07-11-2011, 09:56 AM	#17
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I have to ask this, as I see lots of great comments fir the sigma 24/2.8 I havethe 28'mm and it is terrible for lateral CA is the 24 substantially different? from PhotZone: Lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) are fairly well-controlled for a lens in the focal length class. In absolute terms CAs are getting more obvious from about f/5.6 with an average CA width around 1.3px at the image borders. My copy does not have a major problem with CA.

07-11-2011, 10:45 AM	#18
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I have to ask this, as I see lots of great comments fir the sigma 24/2.8 I havethe 28'mm and it is terrible for lateral CA is the 24 substantially different? I don't think it is... having said so, it's not much worse then FA*24 in CA. Where it looses the battle is contrast and colour rendition. Even the picture on top of this page documents this nicely (no offense to the poster)

07-11-2011, 10:45 AM	#19
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Well, here is where the personal preferences do come into play. I use the 21mm constantly because of its size, FOV and quality. I found 24mm kind of "meh," on APC-C, but 21mm is wide enough to shoot landscapes and some buildings. I use it for streets as well, and I crop if I need a tighter view. Best of all, for about the same size and weight of the Sigma in AF, you can carry both the DA21 and the DA40. I carry them with one in a pocket and one on the camera, and now I have a formidable street shooting combo.

07-12-2011, 12:04 AM	#20
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	I used to own both Sigma 28 & 24 b4 buying the FA24. The Sigma 24 produced noticeably better contrast and sharper images, and the FA was quite poor on CA. That was when digital didn't exist. Sadly, the Sigma 24 was very cheaply made and flare control was non-exist. If it were made to be an OEM lens, it would be a real winner.

07-12-2011, 03:38 AM	#21
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by wlachan I used to own both Sigma 28 & 24 b4 buying the FA24. The Sigma 24 produced noticeably better contrast and sharper images, and the FA was quite poor on CA. That was when digital didn't exist. Sadly, the Sigma 24 was very cheaply made and flare control was non-exist. If it were made to be an OEM lens, it would be a real winner. I owned Sigma 24 AF and K24/2.8 and now FA24. All on digital. From my experience the Sigma beats both SMC lenses on sharpness (stopped down that is, at f2.8 it beats the K but FA would give it very decent run and by f4 I'd say FA* would win. But by f11 the Sigma would be in lead again...), but doesn't come anywhere near to touch them on contrast and colours. The FA* is probably the worst in CA and biggest of them all. K is the best made, followed by FA* and by mile by Sigma.

07-12-2011, 07:24 AM	#22
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM Posts: 7,451	I've owned both, but I sold both a while ago. From what I remember... - DA is marginally sharper. - DA has faster/smoother AF. - DA is much better built. - DA has more contrast SOOC. - DA flares a lot less easily. - DA renders colors "cooler" by comparison and more correctly according to my eye. - DA costs a LOT more. I also feel like the DA might have a touch more barrel distortion, but I could be wrong there. edit: and the Sigma can be used on film/FF digital (if it ever comes)... I used a Quantaray-badged Nikon copy on my D700 and it performed very admirably there as well.

07-12-2011, 09:08 AM	#23
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	Originally posted by axl I don't think it is... having said so, it's not much worse then FA*24 in CA. Where it looses the battle is contrast and colour rendition. Even the picture on top of this page documents this nicely (no offense to the poster) You are correct about color in the photo I posted, but it is not the fault of the lens. I processed it before I knew much about Lightroom. Since then, I have adjusted the color correction to the RAW image. Time permitting, I will post the new version. Although Sigma lenses in general produce slightly different color than Pentax lenses, on digital, as opposed to film, the difference makes no difference after post-processing. The same applies to contrast. Lightroom's 'clarity' adjustment can produce as much micro-contrast as one can stand. And no offense taken.

07-12-2011, 09:22 AM	#24
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	Originally posted by axl I owned Sigma 24 AF and K24/2.8 and now FA24. All on digital. From my experience the Sigma beats both SMC lenses on sharpness (stopped down that is, at f2.8 it beats the K but FA would give it very decent run and by f4 I'd say FA* would win. But by f11 the Sigma would be in lead again...), but doesn't come anywhere near to touch them on contrast and colours. The FA* is probably the worst in CA and biggest of them all. K is the best made, followed by FA* and by mile by Sigma. Here are the PhotoZone MTF50 results [the manual and auto-focus versions of the Sigma are the same optically]. The FA* is better in the center. The Sigma is better at the edges. For landscape, I'd prefer the Sigma. The Pentax would be better for a central subject with the margins out of focus. As far as CA, the Sigma is better at wide aperture and the Pentax at small aperture, according to PZ tests.

07-12-2011, 09:40 AM	#25
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I think the 21 is a great lens, but too expensive for what it is. It has neither the WOW factor of the 15 (how did they fit it all in there?) or the rendering of the 40/70... It's a great lens, but should not be the same price as the 15 / 7- IMHO. The limited line is pretty expensive as a set when you compare them with a f2.8 zoom (tamron, e.g.), and I personally feel that the 21 brings the least to the table (if the 15 didn't exist I wouldn't be so hard on it). Also agree that 24mm just makes more sense as a focal length (on digital).

07-12-2011, 12:48 PM	#26
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Don't forget that photozone results are based on cropped sensor while both are FF lenses. The difference in performance will be greater on 135 film.

07-12-2011, 02:52 PM	#27
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Photozone numbers? Amen...not What they don't show you is contrast and colour rendition and flare resistance. In these three instances the FA* (even the old K24) blows the Sigma 24 out of water with no effort... Yes the Sigma is sharper lens but if overall IQ is considered it falls short...

07-12-2011, 02:54 PM	#28
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by civiletti You are correct about color in the photo I posted, but it is not the fault of the lens. I processed it before I knew much about Lightroom. Since then, I have adjusted the color correction to the RAW image. Time permitting, I will post the new version. Although Sigma lenses in general produce slightly different color than Pentax lenses, on digital, as opposed to film, the difference makes no difference after post-processing. The same applies to contrast. Lightroom's 'clarity' adjustment can produce as much micro-contrast as one can stand. And no offense taken. It's true that you can adjust colours and contrast and clarity during PPing but wouldn't it be nicer if you wouldn't have to?

07-12-2011, 07:06 PM	#29
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	I like the Sigma 24/2.8. I do find the colors a little off and contrast a little low, but it seems easier to tweak those than to try to add sharpness. Plus there just aren't many good options at 24mm if you want auto-focus. The close-focus makes it pretty handy as a compact walk-around.

07-12-2011, 08:14 PM	#30
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by ;1573253: I directly compared these two lenses. The 24 was sharper, the 21 has amazing flare resistance. I sold the 21 as I found the focal length a bit 'meh' - too wide wheareas the 24 is about right for me (35mm efl). But a lot of the reason for selling the 21 came down to the cost of it vs the 24 I absolutely love the 24 superwide - very nice lens for low light as it's really sharp at f2.8. I have both lenses because I haven't been able to answer the question I tend to prefer the Sigma: ihasa's "meh" regarding the 21mm FL rings true for me.