With the D850 I don’t see the the soft corners when focusing on the center. But on all my Nikon Z cameras I had to apply a +5 focus correction to get a good compromise between sharpness in the center and in the corners.
Kevin C
January 31, 2020 8:49 pm
I am curious if you could test a concern I have regarding the 14mm f/1.8 for Nikon, when adapted to Nikon Z bodies. I’ve used the lens before on the D750, but when using the Nikon Z6, autofocusing at any aperture stopped down from f/1.8, the lens will not achieve correct autofocus if the previous subject was closer than infinity. The lens will focus approximately 80% of the way correctly, then stop before reaching critical focus. The problem is particularly obvious at apertures from f/4 and smaller. AF mode on the camera does not seem to matter, and even using pinpoint AF-S mode which uses slower and more accurate contrast detection does not yield better results. (I tested this in broad daylight so it is not an issue of low-light) I am concerned because I anticipate using this lens for landscape photography, and would like to make sure that I do not have to manually focus every photo on an autofocus lens unless I always shoot at f/1.8. I have tested this on two separate Nikon Z6 cameras using two separate FTZ adapters, and the issue is consistent. I am wondering if this issue has been documented before? There is no lens firmware on the sigma website to update the lens through the dock, so I figure most people haven’t noticed this yet.
LWestfall
May 17, 2019 4:23 am
Nasim, thank you for the excellent review of this venerable 14mm f/1.8 lens and for the very apt comparisons and real-world astro perspective! I believe the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Art lens would be a very interesting comparison for you. Like the Nikon there is zoom capability (and at the tighter focal lengths the coma is non-existent). It has similar price and form factor to the 14mm f/1.8. Its coma is at least on par, and its resolution at f/2.8 is noticeably better in the mid-frame and corners. www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie…;APIComp=0
bgavin
November 8, 2018 6:21 pm
Just a question: since field curvature is an issue, is it possible to use a different focus point in a Nikon D810?
Assume LiveView shows best overall focus is when a point halfway between center and corner is in sharp focus. Could one reliably select this is a focus point, instead of fiddling with LiveView, zoom, etc?
Thomas Cass
October 12, 2018 6:02 am
Doesn’t focusing on the corners put the center out of focus?
I’ve seen this with other ultrawides: center sharpness is not much of a concern. If you were tilting a circular aperture to the side, it should become narrower. But that would cause severe vignetting since in the corners, a bit of sideways image is covering a larger amount of pixels than in the center (which gives the typical “fat people” at the side of the frame). The optical recipe counters that: as you slant the lens sideways, the aperture appears to turn towards you and grow in size. That means that the depth of field is quite narrower in the corners, and that’s where unsharpness (also motion blur) becomes larger-than-life. Get the corners sharp, and the center tends to take care of itself if it isn’t at a hugely different distance.
Luca
September 13, 2018 3:36 am
Thank you for the amazing review Nasim!
In your opinion, strictly for astrophotography, would this Sigma give better results than the Tamron 15-30, on a Nikon D850?
I have the Tamron and I like it a lot, but I’m always thinking about upgrades. Of course f1.8 would mean cut the ISO noise in half at the same given shutter speed, but will the general quality be noticeably better?
Thanks!
Rick Francis
February 11, 2018 7:27 am
Great review! I was hoping though to read some comparison with the optical qualities of the Sigma ART 20mm f1.4. Other than the obvious differences of angle of view and widest aperture, how do they compare?
I own the Sigma 20mm and find it very useful for foregrounding small objects in context (close focus wide angle), in part because it focuses so close, and with a very thin extension tube will nearly focus to the lens surface!
BG
February 10, 2018 12:46 pm
Very interesting lens, and great review. Though I wonder about the following comment: “When shooting this wide, ghosting and flare are rarely an issue, because the points of light are so tiny in the frame.” Several ultra wide lenses, including the Nikon 14-24/2.8, Irix 15/2.4, and Laowa 12/2.8, are known for their susceptibility to flare, and it’s one of the more frequently heard user complaints when discussing these. The 14/1.8 seems to handle things very well, though, which is great to see.
It’s not totally free of ghosting and flare, but in comparison to the flare magnet Nikon 14-24, these flares of the Sigma are easy to handle. So far that’s my experience with the two lenses.
You have done an excellent job discussing field curvature in this review Nasim. It illustrates how a lens that would look mediocre is actually quite good once field curvature is taken into account. I think that you would really take your reviews to the next level if you could do the test on any lens that exhibited field curvature. I would be really curious to see what that would have to say about my 28 1.4, 58 1.4 and 105 1.4. Based on my experience with those lenses, that would yield a similarly insightful result.
With the D850 I don’t see the the soft corners when focusing on the center. But on all my Nikon Z cameras I had to apply a +5 focus correction to get a good compromise between sharpness in the center and in the corners.
I am curious if you could test a concern I have regarding the 14mm f/1.8 for Nikon, when adapted to Nikon Z bodies. I’ve used the lens before on the D750, but when using the Nikon Z6, autofocusing at any aperture stopped down from f/1.8, the lens will not achieve correct autofocus if the previous subject was closer than infinity. The lens will focus approximately 80% of the way correctly, then stop before reaching critical focus. The problem is particularly obvious at apertures from f/4 and smaller. AF mode on the camera does not seem to matter, and even using pinpoint AF-S mode which uses slower and more accurate contrast detection does not yield better results. (I tested this in broad daylight so it is not an issue of low-light) I am concerned because I anticipate using this lens for landscape photography, and would like to make sure that I do not have to manually focus every photo on an autofocus lens unless I always shoot at f/1.8. I have tested this on two separate Nikon Z6 cameras using two separate FTZ adapters, and the issue is consistent. I am wondering if this issue has been documented before? There is no lens firmware on the sigma website to update the lens through the dock, so I figure most people haven’t noticed this yet.
Nasim, thank you for the excellent review of this venerable 14mm f/1.8 lens and for the very apt comparisons and real-world astro perspective! I believe the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Art lens would be a very interesting comparison for you. Like the Nikon there is zoom capability (and at the tighter focal lengths the coma is non-existent). It has similar price and form factor to the 14mm f/1.8. Its coma is at least on par, and its resolution at f/2.8 is noticeably better in the mid-frame and corners.
www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie…;APIComp=0
Just a question: since field curvature is an issue, is it possible to use a different focus point in a Nikon D810?
Assume LiveView shows best overall focus is when a point halfway between center and corner is in sharp focus.
Could one reliably select this is a focus point, instead of fiddling with LiveView, zoom, etc?
Doesn’t focusing on the corners put the center out of focus?
I’ve seen this with other ultrawides: center sharpness is not much of a concern. If you were tilting a circular aperture to the side, it should become narrower. But that would cause severe vignetting since in the corners, a bit of sideways image is covering a larger amount of pixels than in the center (which gives the typical “fat people” at the side of the frame). The optical recipe counters that: as you slant the lens sideways, the aperture appears to turn towards you and grow in size. That means that the depth of field is quite narrower in the corners, and that’s where unsharpness (also motion blur) becomes larger-than-life. Get the corners sharp, and the center tends to take care of itself if it isn’t at a hugely different distance.
Thank you for the amazing review Nasim!
In your opinion, strictly for astrophotography, would this Sigma give better results than the Tamron 15-30, on a Nikon D850?
I have the Tamron and I like it a lot, but I’m always thinking about upgrades.
Of course f1.8 would mean cut the ISO noise in half at the same given shutter speed, but will the general quality be noticeably better?
Thanks!
Great review! I was hoping though to read some comparison with the optical qualities of the Sigma ART 20mm f1.4. Other than the obvious differences of angle of view and widest aperture, how do they compare?
I own the Sigma 20mm and find it very useful for foregrounding small objects in context (close focus wide angle), in part because it focuses so close, and with a very thin extension tube will nearly focus to the lens surface!
Very interesting lens, and great review. Though I wonder about the following comment: “When shooting this wide, ghosting and flare are rarely an issue, because the points of light are so tiny in the frame.” Several ultra wide lenses, including the Nikon 14-24/2.8, Irix 15/2.4, and Laowa 12/2.8, are known for their susceptibility to flare, and it’s one of the more frequently heard user complaints when discussing these. The 14/1.8 seems to handle things very well, though, which is great to see.
It’s not totally free of ghosting and flare, but in comparison to the flare magnet Nikon 14-24, these flares of the Sigma are easy to handle. So far that’s my experience with the two lenses.
A new model of the Sigma 14-24 Art is rumoured!
nikonrumors.com/2018/…ors.com%29
You have done an excellent job discussing field curvature in this review Nasim. It illustrates how a lens that would look mediocre is actually quite good once field curvature is taken into account. I think that you would really take your reviews to the next level if you could do the test on any lens that exhibited field curvature. I would be really curious to see what that would have to say about my 28 1.4, 58 1.4 and 105 1.4. Based on my experience with those lenses, that would yield a similarly insightful result.