I got a little bored this afternoon. I was waiting for the sun to go down a bit, for although its picture postcard in tourist board terms, its not very exciting light for photography.
That and the otters don’t come out for a wee while yet.
So, I thought I would take my Nikon 24-70 1:2.8 AFS-G N series lens, my Sigma 50mm 1:1.4 EX DG lens, and my Sigma 24-60 1:2.8 EX DG lens and run them side by side – all at 50mm focal length
The first shots are taken in the studio, with a single light to the rhs set on lowest setting. ISO is 800 and metering is in camera. The camera is set to Aperture Priority. Camera is D700.
The camera was placed on the tripod (Manfrotto 180XB with Giottos head).
First the f2.8 results (as the 50mm sigma is the only lens to go faster than this, 2,8 was used as the universal benchmark)
Sigma 50mm:Nikon 24-70 @50mm: Sigma 24-60 @ 50mm
Now the f5.6 results, again in the same order
Sigma 50mm: Nikon 24-70 @ 50mm: Sigma 24-60 @ 50mm
Finally, the same shots were taken at f8, again presented here in the same order
Sigma 50mm: Nikon 24-70 @50mm: Sigma 24-60 @50mm
As you can see the Nikon renders everything a wee bit warmer so to test this theory, and to have a look at a real world shot I then took the camera in its tripod into the garden.
Shooting from under the canopy to ensure flare is reduced, and using the supplied lens hoods on lenses, I repeated the same shot three times, once with each lens.
The ISO has changed to 200, the aperture remained at f8 on each lens, each lens was set (where adjustable) to 50mm.
Again they appear in the name order : Sigma 50mm: Nikon 24-70 @50mm: Sigma 24-60 @50mm
As you can see the colour renditions between the two Sigma lenses is almost identical. So for ease of further comparison I have taken crops from the Nikon 24-70 and the Sigma 50mm lenses only.
To evaluate the lenses ability to capture shadows I can cropped from the same section of the largest tree, where a shadow area occurs.
Nikon
Sigma
As you can see there is slightly more detail in the shadows of the Sigma shot than the Nikon shot, although the slightly warmer tone is perhaps more pleasing to look at.
All shots were taken daylight white balance and no adjustments have been made other than a straight RAW to JPEG resave.
Now lets have a look at the sky:
Nikon
Sigma
As you can see the blue of the Nikon sky its more cornflower than the Sigma, both have had a slightly nasty outcome with the tree there.
Now lets compare the grass:
Nikon
Sigma
Again, another interesting comparison that would mainly be subjective. To my eyes the Nikon appears to have more depth to it, but the Sigma appears to be more ‘accurate’ to what I actually see looking out the window.
Lastly, lets have a look at retention of detail in the highlights:
Nikon
Sigma
What is also noticeable between these lenses in the different interpretation of 50mm. The Nikon seems to be zoomed in a little more, perhaps to around 52mm (although the reading on the EXIF data and on the lens itself was 50mm).
Both these highlight shots are taken from the edge of the frame too. This shows that the Sigma has better retained sharpness at the edges than the Nikon, but then it is a prime lens not a zoom so this should be expected.
When comparing the two zooms, the Sigma zoom is sharper to the edge of frame than the Nikon. Which is quiet surprising, because although the Sigma is 10mm shorter in its zoom capacity, it is a much cheaper lens and I really expected the Nikon to win this one. The colour renditions here are also closer and the shadow detail again it better retained. So, with the Nikon you appear to get more depth to the images but in fact you are doing so at a loss of detail. The Sigma’s colour is perhaps not quite so ‘nice’ initially as the Nikons but does retain greater shadow detail and better edge to edge sharpness.
Nikon 24-70
Sigma 24-60
Of course, these tests are not scientific. I am not comparing like for like. The Sigma 50mm is a prime, f1.4 max aperture lens costing around £350. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 max aperture will set you back a cool £1200 approximately, while the Sigma 24-60 f2.8 max aperture (now sadly discontinued) can sometimes be found for under £200 new and around £100 used.
So, not like for like at all, I will admit. But, I have used all the lenses on the same body, with the same ISO, same aperture, camera in identical position, at the same time of day (each shots taken within minutes) on a day with fairly static weather conditions.
The studio shots are completely controlled within the studio environment and were all taken again with the same settings and the camera remaining in place on the tripod between lens changes.
I therefore conclude, that the Nikon is producing perhaps a more pleasing result without any adjustments, but the Sigmas are both sharper edge to edge, retain greater shadow detail and provide excellent alternative options.
The Sigmas may require a little more post processing, with a few tweaks (and very minor ones at that) to perhaps get the greater appearance of depth within the image.
Nikon standard image with its preferred visual colour depth
The Sigma 24-60 at 50mm and f8, with a minor tweak to the mid-tones using levels in PS4
The Nikon does focus quicker than both the Sigmas thanks to Nikons AF-S motors, but the HSM Sigma is not very far behind at all. The older slower non-HSM Sigma takes a little longer still, but we are talking about fractions of a second here. Would you notice in use? Probably not. Unless, and this is a BIG UNLESS, any of them hunt in low light.
The Nikon 80-200 1:2.8 AF-D that I have hunts like no-ones business and drives me potty. But, the AF-S version if you can find it is like finding a needle in a planet sized haystack (anyone with one is keeping it!!!)
The newer 70-200 1:2.8 AF-S VR is supposed to be the answer to my prayers on this front. Its also a serious amount of money again, which is why I’m sticking with the older version. That and my falling out with Nikon of course.
I am surprised at the results of these tests. In spite of my run in with Nikon over the issues raised previously with the 24-70, and the results here which show it really isn’t worth the extra cash they want for them, I had always hated Sigmas. I have tried, repeatedly, many Sigmas for many years and sold on or returned every one. The 24-60 was the first “keeper” Sigma I have ever owned. It surprised me and given I acquired it from old stock for around £100 it was always going to be an excellent spare or second camera lens.
The 50mm 1:1.4 has shown me that Sigma are capable of making some truly excellent lenses and the bargain I had before was not a one off. Sigma still have terrible issues with inconsistant production and you can try several of any of their lenses (same models just different individuals) before finding the best of the bunch. Which is why they often appear on ebay and on used lists.
Which is also why I am very reluctant to buy second hand Sigma – its going back out there for a reason…
Tonight I shall be using the 80-200 1:2.8 on the D700 and the D200 (one for the extra reach and one for when the light drops and ISO has to go up). I will also be playing with the Sigma 50mm some more.
If I get any interesting insights, images, or want to make any comments, you’ll read them first – right HERE!
