Sigma 14 1.8 or 14-24 2.8 for astro landscapes?

AbsN

I'm New Here
Jan 2, 2014
18
1
Hi - I'm looking to get into astro landscapes and am considering the Sigma 14 1.8 or the Sigma 14-24 2.8. I expect most images to be towards the wide end but extra flexibility of the zoom sounds good. I do a lot of landscapes and already have the Canon 11-24, 17 + 24 tse's + 35 1.4ii. Has anyone used both of these lenses and any recommendations based on current lens line up? Many thanks!
 
Mar 14, 2012
2,241
135
With the lenses you have, I don't see think the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 has much value to you. It gains you one stop compared to your 11-24 -- that is pretty much it. I don't think another lens for 1 stop is worth it especially for landscape applications. I can see the Sigma 14 f/1.8 having more value as an astro only lens because it is 2+ stops faster, but it's use case will be limited. I'd rather cover the focal length range first and then think about max aperture.

If you are considering the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8, then I'd also strongly consider the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 III. It accepts filters and has a wider focal length range that is more applicable to general usage. When given the choice, I opt for the 16-35 f/2.8 III over the 11-24. Unless I know I need the 11-15mm range, I find the 16-35 f/2.8 III easier to use. Easier to protect with hoods, faster aperture, lighter and not as front heavy, fits better in camera bags, etc.
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
823
151
I would say your existing lenses have you covered for daylight landscape shooting unless you are trying to get down to one lens for this, then see the above post. For nighttime landscape/night sky I would go with the Sigma 14/f1.8. Which is hard to beat for this use.
 

AbsN

I'm New Here
Jan 2, 2014
18
1
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. The idea of going to one lens does actually appeal quite a bit! However I'm not personally convinced on the Canon 16-35 iii as it seems to have far too much vignetting for astro which will result in either stopping down or noise/quality loss in corners. It's also not wide enough for my specific landscape style and I don't require filters.

The 14 1.8 certainly seems a very good option but from what I've read the coma is generally only acceptable from 2.8 anyway. I've not found any direct comparison but the coma from the 14-24 sounds acceptable right from 2.8. Admittedly being able to pull that extra light in is great but I'm not sure how much you'd need it unless you are doing video, time lapse or aurora which I have no plans for. The main advantage could be the vignetting is pretty much gone on the 14 1.8 by 2.8 which will indeed result in more light being captured.
 
Last edited:

AbsN

I'm New Here
Jan 2, 2014
18
1
Nice images thanks - also the coma test of the 14 1.8 on your flickr page is really handy.

Researching the lenses I found these full frame comparisons of the 14 1.8 and 14-24 2.8 which others looking at these two lenses may find useful (found on facebook post below).

http://jpll.jp/SIGMA14-24mm test/


I ordered the 14-24 2.8 as for me it looks like it may be the best lens as it has more flexibility. The image quality was outstanding but it completely fell apart at 24mm. I've sent it straight back as there has to be something wrong with it - it would not get sharp across the frame until about f/11 at 24mm. I might order another copy though as other than the problem at 24mm it was extremely impressive.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Ah-Keong