Sigma 24-35 f2 for landscapes anyone?

Messages
693
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I'm a Nikon shooter, mostly using primes for landscapes. I've got a 20 1.8 and 35 1.8, but I'm finding I sometimes miss the focal lengths in between. I'm reluctant to plug the gap with the 24/28 1.8 primes as I'm getting to the stage where I can't fit everything in my bag and I'm wondering if the Sigma could effectively replace the 24/28/35mm.

I had and recently sold the 24-120 f4 as the corners were soft and was left disappointed every time I used it. I've looked at the 24-70 2.8G and it looks like they are generally a bit soft in the corners too compared to the primes. Online reviews of the Sigma look good, but is anyone on here using the Sigma 24-35 f2 for landscapes and if so, what do you think of it? Any other options I should consider?
 
Messages
2,913
Name
Stu
Edit My Images
No
#2
I've not used it, but it's a big old lump to be carrying around for landscapes! Personally I'd get a 18-35 or if you wanted to be prime only, a 24 and crop in a bit if you need 28.
 
OP
OP
Son_of_Thor
Messages
693
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
Thanks Stu - I did try an 18-35 but didn't find it great in the corners TBH and was a bit underwhelmed with it overall so moved it on. Fair point about using a 24 and cropping in though
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,198
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
as mentioned above just crop in. In fact I'd even go as far as suggesting cropping all the way to 35mm from a 24mm image if you are using a high res body like D850. You will still have 19mp-ish image which is still a lot of resolution.
I used to do the same thing, I had a 24mm f1.4 which used to act as my 35mm f2 in APS-C mode.
 
Messages
487
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
I have the 24-35 and love it. Yes it is a bit heavy, but I'm really pleased with it. Unfortunately I can't share any examples at present as I'm away from home and don't have my Lightroom catalogue available - and I've not shot a lot with it anyway in fairness. I am therefore speaking in relation to how things looked through it more than the images captured. I'm only really starting in the landscape genre, but compared to the compromise Nikkor lens I was previously using (18-200 VR) it really pulled in the light and the focusing was almost silent and it just felt right.
 
OP
OP
Son_of_Thor
Messages
693
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
as mentioned above just crop in. In fact I'd even go as far as suggesting cropping all the way to 35mm from a 24mm image if you are using a high res body like D850. You will still have 19mp-ish image which is still a lot of resolution.
I used to do the same thing, I had a 24mm f1.4 which used to act as my 35mm f2 in APS-C mode.
Interesting thought, mirroring what Stu said but taking it a bit further. I'm using a D810, so I've got plenty of pixels to play with. Think I'd need to buy myself a 24 1.8G if going down that route - thinking 20mm to 28mm I'd be losing too many pixels which'd mean an extra lens to fit in bag, which is what I was ideally trying to avoid
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Son_of_Thor
Messages
693
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
I have the 24-35 and love it. Yes it is a bit heavy, but I'm really pleased with it. Unfortunately I can't share any examples at present as I'm away from home and don't have my Lightroom catalogue available - and I've not shot a lot with it anyway in fairness. I am therefore speaking in relation to how things looked through it more than the images captured. I'm only really starting in the landscape genre, but compared to the compromise Nikkor lens I was previously using (18-200 VR) it really pulled in the light and the focusing was almost silent and it just felt right.
Thanks for the feedback - the reviews are excellent and I'd hope it'd be a lot better than an 18-200 from a IQ point of view!
 
OP
OP
Son_of_Thor
Messages
693
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
I suggest you TRY 24-70mm. OK, it may not be PERFECT at 2.8 in the extreme corners but you will use it at f/8 or f/11 where it should be.
That is a fair point, nothing to stop me buying a decent used example and moving it on if it doesn't suit. I'm just a little wary having read a few reviews and after previous experience with Nikon zooms (albeit you'd hope the 24-70 being a 'pro' lens would be excellent!) It'd certainly work from a kit bag point of view as I could ditch the 35/50mm lenses
 
Messages
63
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
Not sure how relevant to the discussion having the Canon EF version is, but I had the 24-35 Art for a couple of weeks and now have the Canon 16-35 F2.8 Mk3 in its place. The Sigma AF motor is exceptionally fast for a WA lens, whereas its Canon replacement feels sluggish in this regard. However, the Canon has exceptional AF accuracy out of the box, i.e. mine didn't need any AF micro adjustments and had no learning curve at all. If I look back at the 24-35 shots I took, they don't hold a candle to the Canon in terms of AF consistency.

Your mileage may vary in Nikonland. But my feeling is that in order to get the best results with an Art, you may need the dock, and you may need to familiarise yourself with micro AF settings. I also think the Canon colour rendition is warmer, but that could be influenced by other factors. I think one thing is for certain, though: a native Nikon lens will involve less tweaking / faffing. But I'm sure you know this.
 
OP
OP
Son_of_Thor
Messages
693
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
Not sure how relevant to the discussion having the Canon EF version is, but I had the 24-35 Art for a couple of weeks and now have the Canon 16-35 F2.8 Mk3 in its place. The Sigma AF motor is exceptionally fast for a WA lens, whereas its Canon replacement feels sluggish in this regard. However, the Canon has exceptional AF accuracy out of the box, i.e. mine didn't need any AF micro adjustments and had no learning curve at all. If I look back at the 24-35 shots I took, they don't hold a candle to the Canon in terms of AF consistency.

Your mileage may vary in Nikonland. But my feeling is that in order to get the best results with an Art, you may need the dock, and you may need to familiarise yourself with micro AF settings. I also think the Canon colour rendition is warmer, but that could be influenced by other factors. I think one thing is for certain, though: a native Nikon lens will involve less tweaking / faffing. But I'm sure you know this.
Thanks for the feedback, I'd be using this for landscapes and tend to manual focus at 100% in live view as I don't trust Nikon's live view AF - I've had situations where it reports focus lock and it's out by quite some way!
 
Top