Which is Better, the Sigma 14-24mm Art or the Sony 16-35mm GM?

Wide angle zooms are incredibly popular and a staple of most photographers' kit bags, whatever their genre. But with brands like Sigma offering alternatives to the camera manufacturer's option for significantly less money, it's not an obvious decision.

When I moved across to Sony (no, I'm not going to get into why) I needed a a wide angle zoom lens. However, unlike most people, I have one specific requirement for my wide angle zoom lenses: minimum focus distance. Due to a niche type of photograph I often create for some clients, the closer the minimum focus distance, the better for me. As a result, the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art for Sony E mount and the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 G Master both didn't end up getting a look-in (I went with the Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 Di III RXD.) However, I spent a fair amount of time looking into the Sony in particular, so this video is pertinent for me too.

Yes, Sony's offering has better reach and superb optics, but as is often the case with these comparisons, the off-brand is significantly cheaper — $800 cheaper in this case. "Off-brand" might have been a slight once upon a time, but never has that been further from true as it is right now. Sigma Art lenses have earned themselves quite the reputation for quality and their 14-24mm appears to not deviate from that trend. So which is better? Where would you put your money?

Log in or register to post comments

6 Comments

S M's picture

I put my money with the 2.8G master as the investment was purely for videography and the sigma was way heavier than I wanted to deal with. And I love sigma glass, I own the 24, 35 and 50. But those lenses we’re bought for a very specific purpose and I was okay with the weight (as they wouldn’t be on a gimbal ever).

I’m sure you can’t go wrong either way. Frankly I find 14-20 range to be too wide for interior design photography/videography, but step into the real estate world and you’ll find photographers and realtors that think the Canon 11-24 is the best on the market!

And why not to compare it with Sony 12-24 instead? Does one stop make that much difference for ultra wide?

David Staggs's picture

Then we could compare that one with the Sigma 12-24 f4. Head to Head I would like to see that.

This is dumb. What next? "Which is Better, the Sigma 100-400 Contemporary or the Tamron 70-180?"

12-24 Sigma ART is what I bought, for a Nikon full frame. I do a lot of interiors, had the old 12-24 f4.5-5.6 Sigma, worked okay but vignettes and aberrations, somewhat soft. The 2nd version of the ff4.5-5.6 was much better. I jumped to the f4 ART 12-24, really nice, right price, Sigma came to Vistek in Toronto a while ago and showed their line, research, and manufacturing process. Totally competitive with Nikon and Canon. And a line of Cine ready lenses. Love the Nikon 14-24, but expensive lens. Any of these are front heavy even on my Nikon. I use a Steadicam Pilot, if using a gimbal, you'll need decent motors for the weight, and decent muscles. Look at DXO for lens reviews.

Chip Kalback's picture

Price wise Sigma's 14-24 is appealing but the fact that it can't take a normal screw on filter is enough for me to look elsewhere. Say you want to use ND filters you've already invested in on this lens.. you're out of luck. Such a bummer, Sigma's Art lenses are pretty awesome. I had Sigma's 35mm when I was still shooting Canon and was always really impressed with the results.