Sigma 16mm F1.4 vs Sony 28mm F2

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by quwackers, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. quwackers

    quwackers Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Hey all!

    I was wondering if anyone could comment on these two lenses?
    • Mainly the 16mm F1.4

    I shoot on an A7iii and have been getting into video, I need a wide angle for ultra low light (my ISO is in the range of 12k - 52k) my two questions are:

    I know the Sigma is for ASPC but I was wondering if the extra stop would see more benefit then shooting Full Frame video vs Super35 on the Sony?

    And finally if the Sigma is sharp enough for 4k on the A7iii?

    Cheers guys :thumbup:
     
  2. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,280
    Location:
    Sydney
    Well you definitely would be making use of that extra stop, think you are looking at the wrong lens though. How wide do you want to go? I'd be considering the Sigma full frame options in E mount 14mm/20mm/24mm etc
     
    quwackers likes this.
  3. OP
    OP
    quwackers

    quwackers Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    24mm is my ideal spot, I have use my 16-35 F4 and yeah definitely need the extra stops it would cut my ISO down heaps and provide better exposures.

    I purchased and used the Rokinon 24mm F2.8 but it had vignette in the video which was unfixable in such low light.

    I was considering the Sigma 16mm as it worked out to be 24mm effective focal length but with a deeper DOF at F1.4 plus it's size and price are far more attractive than the Art lens (if that's what you're suggesting as alternatives).
     
  4. lonewolf1983

    lonewolf1983 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    4,485
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    cant comment on video or the sigma ones but loved the 28mm F2 on full-frame for images
    great size, always happy with the sharpness and bokeh
     
    quwackers likes this.
  5. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,280
    Location:
    Sydney
    As far as I know it wont even work on the full frame body?
     
  6. OP
    OP
    quwackers

    quwackers Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Sony's can work with crop lenses, they crop in appropriately or you can manual instruct them to do so (obviously there is resolution loss for photos) :)
     
  7. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,280
    Location:
    Sydney
    There you go! Still wouldnt be something i'd be pushing for id be looking at spending and buying the right glass for the body.
     
  8. lonewolf1983

    lonewolf1983 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    4,485
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    you'd only go the crop lens if you wanted to only ever use it for super-35 video (its cropped anyway), if you're going to ever shoot stills or possibly need the wider angle then get the Full-frame glass either way.
     
  9. Xang

    Xang Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    969
    I'm utterly clueless to shooting video, but surely if you want 4K output you'd be better off shooting without a crop. The Sigma or Sony 24mm f/1.4 would get the most light possible while still being able to use the full sensor?
     
  10. mtma

    mtma Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,633
    In video it gets weird when the sensor is pixel binning or using a subset as it doesn't use all the information on the sensor to produce the video.

    In the case of the a7iii it appears to use 5k width (out of 6k native) and downsamples this to 4k. So it has a 'call it' 1.2 crop factor at the largest setting vs 'call it' 1.5 factor on Super35

    With the raw numbers, the Sigma will be effectively a little wider, and also the effective f-number will be faster, however light transmission isn't published for either lens and I suspect the simpler Sony lens will probably make up for the difference light wise. The Sony's also quite a margin smaller too despite being a full frame lens.
    I guess if it comes down to it that video is of prime importance then it will come down to which lens renders better to your liking when wide open balanced against the effective FOV.
     
    quwackers likes this.
  11. OP
    OP
    quwackers

    quwackers Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    I actually didn't know that about the 1.2 'full frame' crop I believed it to use the full sensor and down sample 6k to 4k.

    With that in mind I think the Sigma will be a better choice as the effective focal length works out 24mm vs 33mm which is a significant difference in the FOV comparative to 24mm vs 28mm

    And I highly doubt Full Frame vs Super35 noise will be as significant as 1 stop reduction in ISO when working in the ranges of 6400-51,2000.

    Cheers everyone :thumbup:

    PS As a side note if anybody does the Sigma 16mm around SE QLD I'd love to borrow it (with a safety deposit of course).
     
  12. mtma

    mtma Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,633
    P.S: you might want to confirm the 5k thing, I didn't dig too deep and there isn't any obvious official information (?)
     
  13. lonewolf1983

    lonewolf1983 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    4,485
    Location:
    Perth, WA
    Ditto but most of the video reviews have mentioned that with the Sony's the super35 mode tends to produce better quality
     
  14. OP
    OP
    quwackers

    quwackers Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    I actually have a feeling the opposite is true for the A7iii as it uses down sampling instead of pixel binning.

    So this definitely means reduced noise (Source: https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/noise-reduction-and-downsampling/) as for sharpness I am unsure of the factor it effects this.

    The one area I know Super35 to be better is rolling shutter as it has less pixels to read off the sensor it has far less rolling shutter compared to Full Frame.

    Edit: Further A7III specific reading https://www.4kshooters.net/2018/03/...ive-video-quality-and-feature-set-comparison/
     
  15. kaizokuou

    kaizokuou Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    46
    Location:
    Sydney
    The 1.2x crop in 4k happens when shooting in 4k30. While in 24 or 25fps it uses the full width.
     
    quwackers likes this.
  16. OP
    OP
    quwackers

    quwackers Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Gold Coast
    Good to know thanks for looking into that :)

    The main reason I am looking at the crop is due to the fact the GM 1.4 is 5.1x the cost of this Sigma.

    Outside of low light video the lens provides very little value to me, I do mostly portraiture/event and working into real estate and I have all those bases covered.
     
  17. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,280
    Location:
    Sydney
    You can just get the Sigma 24 1.4 Art ... $1200ish? Comes native in E mount and a good option :)
     
  18. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,962
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    Super35 appears to be better at the same ISO for 4K video.

    So if you can use Super35 at a lower ISO than full frame thats a no brainer.



    You've already got the camera, just shoot some 4K video at full frame and then turn on super35/crop mode at the ISO range you use and compare.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2018 at 9:40 PM
  19. Digit

    Digit Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Sydney
    What about the Sony 24mm f1.4 GM? Hits everything you want apart from price.
     

Share This Page