Sigma 12mm F1.4 DC | CONTEMPORARY (APS-C) Review | The UWA Prime of Choice

0:10
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott and I'm here today
0:12
to give you my review of the new Sigma
0:15
12mm F1.4.
0:17
This is a DC lens in their contemporary
0:21
lineup. It was just a few weeks ago
0:23
actually that I in reviewing another
0:25
lens in a similar Sony E-mount was
0:28
noting that Sigma really didn't have
0:30
anything in their APS-C lineup wider
0:32
than the 16mm f1.4 that's been out now
0:35
for quite a while. I reviewed that back
0:38
now probably at least 5 years ago. But
0:41
they are back with this new 12mm f1.4
0:44
and I've got a unique opportunity. I am
0:46
traveling around Nova Scotia, Canada
0:48
right now and in the middle of Halifax
0:52
right now and I am taking a lot of
0:54
photos here. I will be testing and
0:56
reviewing the lens here in this
0:58
beautiful environment and hopefully have
0:59
some great photos to show for it. So, as
1:02
per usual, this lens was loan to me by
1:04
Sigma Canada, but they have had no input
1:07
on the review. This is completely
1:09
independent and they will not see it
1:10
before you do. Let's dive in and let's
1:12
take a look. Today's episode is
1:14
sponsored by the all-new Phantom Tracker
1:17
2.0. Phantom has not only seriously
1:19
upgraded the visual look of the card,
1:21
but now we have a superior build quality
1:23
made with tempered glass and metal
1:25
alloys. This credit card size tracker
1:27
can be locally tracked via a 90 decel
1:30
beeping noise, but also on a global
1:32
level via Apple's Find My Network and
1:34
its map. The addition of NFC means that
1:36
you can also use the card to trigger an
1:38
automation. Just tap it. The tracker
1:41
fits perfectly in any wallet or bag and
1:43
assures you won't lose your valuables.
1:45
It has a built-in rechargeable battery
1:47
that can be easily charged via any
1:49
wireless charger, and a single charge
1:51
can last up to 6 months. The Phantom
1:53
Tracker 2.0 makes for a seriously cool
1:56
gift. So, visit store.fanomwallet.com
1:59
and use code dustin20 at checkout for
2:01
20% off. That's store.fanomwallet.com
2:05
and use code dustin20 for 20% off. So,
2:08
let's take a look at the build and
2:10
handling here. Now, 12 mm is going to
2:13
have to be magnified by the crop factor
2:16
of the camera that you're using it on.
2:18
And so, in the case of both Sony, which
2:20
I'm testing here, and then Fuji Xmount,
2:22
that is a 1.5 times crop factor. So,
2:25
that means that 12 mm becomes an 18 mm
2:28
full-frame equivalent. In other words,
2:29
you'd have to have an 18 mm lens on
2:32
full-frame to get the same angle of
2:34
view. Now, Canon is a little bit
2:36
different. And so if you're buying the
2:37
RF mount version, Canon's crop factor is
2:40
1.6 times for some reason. And so that
2:42
means that this lens has a full-frame
2:44
equivalent of 19.2 mm. So it's a little
2:47
less wide on Canon. You make up for it
2:50
sometimes on the telephoto end with
2:52
getting a little bit of a longer focal
2:54
length. That's obviously not true here.
2:56
This lens, however, is very compact, uh,
2:59
more compact than other lenses in the
3:00
series. In fact, it's about 20% shorter
3:03
than the 16mm f1.4. 4. And it is also
3:07
the lightest in this series at just 225
3:10
g. That's for the E-mount version or 7.9
3:13
O. It has an overall size of 68 mm or
3:17
2.7 in in diameter. It is 69.4
3:21
mm in length or 2.7 in. So that's a full
3:24
10 mm shorter than the 23mm f1.4 that I
3:28
reviewed last year. So that's great. Up
3:30
front we have 62mm front filter threads.
3:33
no problem in using filters on that.
3:36
There isn't really isn't a lot of 12
3:38
millimeters competitors on any of these
3:41
platforms. Uh Fuji is really sparse down
3:43
at this particular area. On Sony, you
3:46
have the 11mm f1.8.
3:48
And on both of those platforms, you also
3:50
have the option of uh Samyang's 12mm f2,
3:54
which is the closest kind of direct
3:55
analog, though obviously this is a full
3:57
stop faster. This is also nicer than
4:01
really any of the competing lenses in
4:03
terms of the build quality. Although
4:04
this is part of their contemporary
4:06
series, Sigma's moved upscale with this
4:08
particular lens, adding on a little bit
4:10
more robust features. And in fact, some
4:12
of the things that I've been complaining
4:13
about. One of those is an aperture ring.
4:15
And so, we do have an aperture ring. It
4:17
is clicked. There's no d-click option.
4:19
There's no iris lock or anything like
4:21
that, but it is a fully functional
4:23
aperture ring. And Fuji shooters in
4:25
particular are going to be delighted
4:26
over that. By the way, if you're
4:27
shooting on Canon RF, this will be a
4:29
control ring instead of a standard
4:31
aperture ring. What's more, rather than
4:34
just having a gasket at the rear mount,
4:36
we now have seals throughout the lens.
4:38
So, a more thorough degree of weather
4:40
sealing. All of that is obviously very,
4:43
very welcome. The aperture Iris is nine
4:46
rather than seven blades as we've seen
4:47
on some previous. And so, that gives us
4:49
an 18-pointed sunstar, which I think
4:52
looks quite nice. Sigma's lens hoods are
4:54
a cut above what you're getting from
4:56
pretty much everyone else. Even though
4:58
it's a very tiny hood here, there is
5:00
some variety here, including a
5:02
rubberized section, a ribbed section for
5:04
grabbing it, it has the uh ribs inside,
5:07
and so the whole thing just feels well
5:10
more premium than what I'm often seeing
5:12
here. And it bayonets into place with
5:14
good precision. While there's no lock,
5:16
it stays there nicely unless you really
5:17
intentionally break it free. Now,
5:20
minimum focus distance is a little bit
5:22
of an oddity here. Uh, on paper, it is
5:25
17.2 cm. What I found, however, is that
5:28
I could get quite a bit closer than
5:30
that. Not just manually focusing, but
5:32
even autofocusing. And so, while the
5:34
magnification is only supposed to be
5:36
about 0.12 times, as you can see here, I
5:39
could get a lot more than that. Probably
5:41
right under 0.20 times. In fact, when I
5:43
compared to the Viltrox 15mm f1.7 that I
5:47
recently reviewed that has a 0.10 one
5:49
zero times magnification. So, this
5:51
should be just a little bit better. I
5:53
found that it's a dramatic difference
5:54
between the two. I really don't know
5:56
what to make of that, but my own
5:58
findings are a little bit different from
6:00
what the specifications are that I
6:02
received. Make of that what you will.
6:04
All told, however, this is a nice
6:06
package, well put together, and I love
6:09
the compact size for an F1.4 lens. So,
6:12
let's talk autofocus. I'm using the lens
6:15
right now and so that you can get a
6:17
sense of how well it does tracking my
6:18
face for a static segment like this, but
6:22
this is powered by an STM focus motor.
6:25
However, it feels like Sigma's getting a
6:27
little bit more out of this than typical
6:29
because of a few tweaks here. Hello,
6:31
Nala. They have for one thing, rather
6:34
than having a focusing group, they
6:36
actually have a single focusing element
6:38
here. And so that means that there's
6:39
less glass for the focus motor to push.
6:42
And as a byproduct, this is able to
6:44
achieve pretty near instantaneous focus
6:46
speeds going from distance to far or
6:49
from close to far subjects. And so that
6:52
certainly makes it very useful. And I
6:54
found shooting in a wide variety of
6:56
situations while traveling that frankly
6:59
it just did a great job no matter
7:00
whether I was in low light shooting at
7:02
night or if I was shooting in interior
7:04
spaces and of course in brighter
7:06
conditions. I had no problems in any of
7:08
those focus situations. So, uh, focus,
7:10
autofocus was great for that. Likewise,
7:13
uh, because I was traveling with my
7:14
wife, I took a lot of pictures with her
7:16
in a variety of different situations.
7:18
Focus always locked right onto the eye
7:20
and rendered well focused results.
7:22
Likewise, if she took the camera to take
7:23
a picture of me, she similarly had no
7:26
problems in getting me in accurate
7:28
focus. I also noted that focus noise was
7:31
very, very quiet. It's basically silent.
7:34
You can put your ear right next to it
7:35
and you might hear the faintest whine
7:37
every now and then, but other than that,
7:39
it's never going to be picked up by any
7:40
microphone. So, for stills, I think
7:42
autofocus is really pretty fantastic.
7:45
So, how about for video AF? Now, when
7:48
you have a wide angle lens like this, it
7:50
doesn't have to work quite as much
7:52
because depth of field tends to be quite
7:55
large. Nonetheless, I'm shooting at f1.4
7:58
for right now. And you can see as I
8:00
approach the camera that it has managed
8:02
to keep me in focus as I move along.
8:04
Very importantly also for a lens like
8:07
this, this is going to be a prime type
8:09
lens for using for vlogging. And so
8:12
let's do a quick vlogging test and see
8:13
how it does in tracking me there. Okay,
8:16
let's give it a little test for vlogging
8:18
here. And so we're going to see how well
8:20
autofocus is going to stick with me as I
8:23
move around and walk into a couple of
8:26
different lighting scenarios here. And
8:29
so I'm about to move out of direct
8:31
sunlight into some dappled light here
8:34
and just seeing how that focus is going
8:37
to hang on as we move along. This is a
8:39
great focal length for this type of
8:41
work. And so, as long as the autofocus
8:43
holds up, this should be a winner. If
8:46
you're looking for a vlogging lens, you
8:48
can see no problems there. Even in
8:50
changing lighting conditions, it stayed
8:52
locked on my eye. And that's really what
8:54
you want for a lens like this that you
8:56
might use on a gimbal or use on a selfie
8:58
stick for vlogging. No problems with it
9:00
on that regard. Now, when it comes to
9:02
focus pools, I was able to go from point
9:04
A to point B with good confidence. No
9:06
pulsing or settling there. No issues
9:09
with that. When I did my hand test, I
9:12
found that uh for the most part, it did
9:15
good. In some of those early stages, you
9:17
might have noticed that it seemed to me
9:18
that focus when my hand was forward, it
9:20
was kind of about here on my wrist
9:22
rather than all the way to the palm. And
9:24
then in the the latter part, it seemed
9:25
like it sorted that out and it did
9:27
better. And so, you know, take from that
9:30
what you will. I suspect it's not really
9:31
a any kind of serious problem. And in
9:33
fact, when I shot in a variety of real
9:36
world situations, I always got good
9:38
focus results. Uh when I was shooting
9:40
video, video shots were stable, no
9:42
pulsing. It all did good. And so I think
9:44
that for most people in most situations,
9:46
you'll do just fine. Focus breathing
9:48
seems to be fairly low. It's not
9:50
non-existent, you know, in the way that
9:51
can be achieved with a native Sony lens,
9:53
for example, where it gets the focus
9:55
breathing compensation, but it's close
9:57
enough that I think that most people
9:59
will be just fine and be happy with it
10:00
in that regard. And of course, it
10:02
produced really good-looking footage. I
10:04
thought the colors looked really nice
10:05
off the lens. So, I liked it as a video
10:07
lens and as a vlogging option. So, let's
10:10
take a closer look at the optical
10:12
performance. This is your overview, and
10:13
if you want a deep dive, we'll do that
10:15
at the end of the video. The optical
10:16
design here is 14 elements in 12 groups.
10:19
So, that includes two SLD elements and
10:22
then three double-sided aspherical
10:24
elements. and it's uh Sigma's ability to
10:26
grind those elements that has allowed
10:28
them to get this lens the way that it is
10:31
uh and shrink the size down. You can see
10:34
from the MTF chart that it looks really
10:36
positive. It is basically good across
10:38
almost all of the frame. A little bit of
10:40
dip in the corners, but not as much as
10:41
what we often see with wide angle
10:43
lenses. So, that is great. Um you can
10:46
also see here that it is significantly
10:48
better all across the frame relative to
10:50
the 16mm f1.4, before a lens that
10:52
frankly I thought was quite good
10:54
optically. So, it's great to see that as
10:56
well. Some positive improvements. Now,
10:59
if for those of you that are wondering,
11:01
is this going to be able to work on
11:02
full-frame? The answer is not really.
11:04
Because I'm testing on Sony E-mount, I
11:06
could shoot in full frame, but you can
11:07
see that uh a big portion of the image
11:11
circle outside of APS-C is hard blocked
11:14
by mechanical vignetting. Now, if I
11:16
cropped in on that image, yeah, I could
11:18
get a little bit more image. Instead of
11:20
a 26 megapixel image on Sony's APS-C
11:23
crop, I could maybe get 31 32 megapixels
11:27
range, but frankly, it's just not worth
11:29
it. I certainly wouldn't buy this lens
11:31
for that purpose. This is an APS-C lens,
11:33
and that's really where it should be
11:35
used. Now, when it comes to some of the
11:37
other optical metrics, as is often the
11:40
case with Sigma's wide angle lenses,
11:43
they certainly are relying on correction
11:44
profiles to deal with the barrel
11:46
distortion. Barrel distortion is heavy,
11:48
requiring a plus 26 to correct in my
11:51
test. And and so it is reasonably linear
11:55
and so it doesn't correct perfectly
11:56
manually, but it corrects relatively
11:58
well. Fortunately, the correction
11:59
profile, as you can see from this real
12:01
world image, clears up the lines a lot
12:03
more nicely, but that certainly is a
12:05
factor. Vignette, not so much. I needed
12:08
a plus 50 to correct. And that's not bad
12:10
at all relative to other wide angle
12:13
lenses. And certainly considering it's a
12:15
maximum aperture of f1.4.
12:17
Not bad at all. And so that I liked. I
12:20
did see a bit of longitudinal style
12:22
chromatic aberration on my chart. See a
12:24
bit of green fringing. Likewise, when I
12:25
shot my dad's old SLR, you can also see
12:28
a bit of fringing on the shiny bits.
12:30
Because this is a wide-angle lens,
12:32
there's going to be relatively few
12:33
situations where depth of field is small
12:35
enough for that to be a factor. So, I'm
12:37
not too concerned about that. Likewise,
12:39
with lateral style chromatic aberrations
12:41
that are more likely to negatively
12:43
impact wide angle lenses, it's better
12:45
controlled in that regard. And so, not a
12:47
factor there. So, I'm not really
12:49
concerned about fringing either. As we
12:52
look at the test chart and I'm shooting
12:54
here at as mentioned 26 megapixels and
12:56
I'll show you crops at 200%
12:57
magnification. We can see that there is
13:00
good center sharpness and contrast.
13:02
Mid-frame looks good and the corners are
13:04
a bit softer but still look quite good.
13:07
I found as I went on from there and I
13:09
stopped down that I did see a little bit
13:11
more contrast at f2 but beyond that any
13:14
kind of improvement was so minimal as to
13:16
be mostly imperceptible. And so the one
13:19
negative I will take away is that the
13:21
corners never really improved up to
13:23
where they get pin sharp. And so I found
13:25
in real world shots, I found the corners
13:27
acceptably good, but certainly not
13:30
exceptionally good. It's good enough to
13:32
pass inspection in most situations, but
13:34
those of you that shoot on higher
13:35
resolution, like a Fuji 40 megapixel
13:37
sensor, you might find that corner is
13:40
just a little bit softer for your taste.
13:42
But at the same time, it's not like any
13:44
of the competing lenses is better. And
13:46
so this is really about as good as what
13:48
we're getting at this point. As per
13:50
usual, you will see defraction start to
13:52
affect the image. Starting at f11 here
13:55
on Sony, probably more like f8 on Fuji
13:58
on the 40 megapixel sensor. And by uh
14:01
f-16, which is the minimum aperture,
14:02
it's obviously softer and less contrast
14:05
than what it was. That's the reality of
14:07
higher resolution bodies. Bokeh quality
14:10
is varies a bit. I I think that in some
14:14
situations it looks relatively soft. In
14:16
situations that have more like specular
14:18
highlights, I see a little bit more
14:19
outlining than what I would like. And so
14:21
I I do find that in some situations it's
14:23
a little bit busy for my sense. Kind of
14:25
that soap bubble effect. Some of you
14:27
like that. I don't particularly. So
14:29
again, bokeh is subjective. Your mileage
14:31
may vary vary when it comes to that. I
14:34
will say also that the colors look
14:36
great. I used this on an extended trip.
14:40
As mentioned in the introduction, I shot
14:42
in a lot of different environments, and
14:43
I was really pleased with the colors and
14:46
the look of the images that I got out of
14:47
the lens. It delivered I I would say a
14:50
little bit better colors than what I
14:52
will see on some of the cheaper lenses
14:54
that you might be considering instead.
14:56
And so that was positive. Likewise, I
14:58
felt like flare resistance was good and
15:00
certainly again better than the cheaper
15:02
lenses, whether I shooting at wide
15:04
apertures or stop down. Yeah, there
15:06
might be some very mild ghosting here
15:08
and there, but for the most part, it was
15:11
very good and not a problem. All told,
15:14
I'm not sure that I have used an APS-C
15:17
wide-angle prime that I liked better in
15:20
terms of the overall optics. I think
15:21
that this is a really good option for
15:24
any of these platforms that you are
15:25
considering right now. My conclusion is
15:28
that we are very fortunate that at this
15:31
point first Fuji opening up its X-mount
15:33
platform and then Canon RF and it seems
15:36
like in some occasions we're also seeing
15:38
some Nikon Zmount lenses coming out from
15:40
Sigma. But opening up to those other
15:42
platforms has resulted in getting more
15:45
actual APS-C development. For a while
15:48
there it seemed like APS-C was almost
15:50
dying. There wasn't much coming from the
15:53
first parties and not much coming from
15:55
the third parties as well. But at this
15:57
point, the fact that more platforms have
15:59
opened up seems to me that it has
16:01
unleashed some creativity from third
16:03
parties like Sigma and so we're getting
16:05
some really excellent lenses like this.
16:07
I'm encouraged by the fact that this is
16:08
actually the third APS-C lens we've seen
16:11
from Sigma this year alone. Whereas in
16:14
the first years of being on the
16:16
platform, we were lucky to see a lens a
16:18
year, if not a lens every couple of
16:20
years. So, it's great to see some real
16:22
development and in this case, a really
16:24
quality lens. I'm also really happy to
16:27
see them move just a little bit more up
16:29
market when it comes to the feature set
16:31
and the weather sealing here. The
16:33
pressure of course on the bottom side is
16:35
from the Viltrox Air series and Sigma is
16:38
just not going to be able to compete
16:39
with Viltrox on price because really no
16:42
one else hardly is at least at the level
16:44
of performance that Viltrox seems able
16:45
to produce. But where Sigma does have an
16:48
edge is that the lenses are just a
16:49
little bit more refined, a little bit
16:51
more featurerich here, the weather
16:53
sealing of course, and then of course it
16:55
is just a little bit better in terms of
16:57
the overall package, the optical
17:00
performance, autofocus, all of those
17:02
things. And so I think that while this
17:04
lens is a little bit pricier than what I
17:06
would like at about $630,
17:09
I think that it still offers a a value,
17:13
particularly when you're comparing it to
17:15
the first party alternatives, which is
17:16
really the area where this lens is
17:18
punching at this point. And so if you
17:20
are looking for a quality wide-angle
17:22
lens to use for vlogging, and it appeals
17:25
to you to have a brighter maximum
17:26
aperture than what any of the
17:28
competitors are giving you, then check
17:29
out the Sigma 12mm F1.4. 4 DC
17:33
contemporary lens. It is a pretty sweet
17:36
little wide-angle prime. Now, if you
17:38
want more information, you've got two
17:39
options. You can check out my thorough
17:41
text review which is linked in the
17:43
description down below. It is on the
17:45
newly redesigned dustinbott.net. So, go
17:48
check out that review article there. And
17:50
beyond that, you can also stay tuned
17:52
with me. In just a few seconds, we'll
17:54
jump into a deeper dive into the optical
17:56
performance together. Let's take a look.
17:58
Okay, let's take a look at vignette and
18:01
distortion. To start off here, you can
18:03
see that there has been additional room
18:06
left all around the frame for the raw
18:07
image. When I was setting up the JPEG,
18:09
it would have been framed looking even a
18:11
little bit tighter than that, actually.
18:13
But you can see here that they've left
18:14
lots of room for correction because it
18:16
does take a lot of correction. That's a
18:18
strong amount of barrel distortion. Plus
18:20
26 to correct here on the right. And you
18:22
can see it's not a flawless manual
18:25
correction. There's a tiny bit of
18:27
mustache pattern there, but it's not bad
18:29
for the amount of distortion that's
18:31
here. Now, you can see that without
18:33
correction, you're definitely going to
18:34
get curvature to anything that's near
18:36
the edge. Fortunately, you can see here
18:38
if I toggle back and forth that the uh
18:41
profile does a good job, the actual
18:43
profile does a good job of correcting
18:45
those lines. Now, here's a look at the
18:47
image if I shoot on full-frame. So
18:50
definitely there's some hard vignette
18:51
covering a lot of the full-frame image
18:54
circle. And so the APS-C you can only
18:56
get a very slightly bigger crop than
18:58
APS-C crop. You can see here on the left
19:02
I've got the cropped in fullframe. I
19:04
probably needed to crop it just a little
19:06
bit further, but you probably could
19:07
eliminate that vignette without too much
19:09
work. But you can see I've gotten yes a
19:12
little bit wider here, but not enough to
19:14
really be useful. This really is a lens
19:17
designed for the APS-C image circle.
19:19
Coming back here for a moment, there is
19:21
a plus 50 to correct for the vignette in
19:24
the corners. That is not bad at all for
19:26
an F1.4 wide-angle lens. So, I consider
19:29
that to actually be a success for Sigma.
19:31
Now, while you often don't have to worry
19:33
much about longitudinal style chromatic
19:35
aberrations on a wide angle lens, the
19:37
fact that this does have an F1.4 for
19:40
aperture means that in some very rare
19:42
situations like I've been able to create
19:44
here you can get a narrow depth of field
19:46
and you can see that there definitely is
19:48
some green fringing a little bit of
19:50
magenta beforehand but it's really kind
19:51
of the blue green fringing that shows up
19:53
the most predominantly likewise here if
19:56
I punch in you can see a little bit of
19:58
that around some of the numbers here but
20:00
as we look at some of these shiny
20:01
surfaces beyond you can definitely see
20:03
some fringing there and there is a
20:05
little bit around the specular
20:06
highlights but probably not enough there
20:08
to worry worry about. More important on
20:11
wide-angle lenses is the lateral style
20:13
chromatic aberrations. And you can see
20:14
here they're really quite well
20:16
controlled. There's very little fringing
20:18
on either side of the black and white
20:20
transitions. So that's really important.
20:22
Means the edges of your landscape type
20:25
shots, for example, are going to look a
20:26
lot cleaner. So let's take a look at
20:28
resolution. So this is 26 megapixels,
20:30
200% magnification in the center of the
20:33
frame. It is, you know, good detail,
20:35
good contrast. I don't find that APS-C
20:38
lenses. It's rare I'll say that they pop
20:41
as much as the best full-frame lenses in
20:44
this test, but this looks pretty good
20:46
here. Mid-frame is very consistently.
20:48
It's basically as good as what the
20:50
center of the frame was. If I look here,
20:53
there's a very slight degradation on the
20:55
two here from the two up here. As we
20:58
move towards the corners, again, it's
21:00
really holding up pretty well right out
21:02
to the edge of the frame. Now, that's
21:04
awesome, for example, for shooting
21:06
scenes at night or in dim lighting
21:08
conditions, interior shots like this.
21:10
Even shooting at f1.4, you can see I've
21:12
got a nice crisp image. And really, as I
21:14
look down, even into this area, it's
21:16
still looking quite good. Everywhere
21:18
that I look that's in the, you know,
21:20
range of the depth of field, it all
21:21
looks nice and crisp in this situation.
21:24
At the same time though, this is a lens
21:27
that really is optimized for
21:30
wide aperture use. And so you can see
21:32
here that stopping down to f2, we've got
21:35
a little bit more contrast. And so
21:36
images at f2 are going to look like they
21:38
have a little bit more pop than what
21:40
images at f1.4 do. But you can also see
21:44
it's not a radical difference. And past
21:47
f2, there just really isn't a lot of
21:50
additional improvement that I can see.
21:52
So f2.8 here on the right, you can see
21:55
that in the center looked about the
21:57
same. Midframe looks about the same.
22:00
popping down to the corners. The corners
22:02
look largely the same. There's really
22:04
just not much difference. And that's
22:06
actually true as you continue to stop
22:08
the lens down. You're pretty much
22:10
getting maximum performance by f2, which
22:12
is awesome if you're shooting at wide
22:15
apertures. But if you're looking for
22:17
more corner sharpness, it never really
22:20
arrives.
22:22
So, for example, here at f2, uh this
22:25
image has lots of pop, lots of detail on
22:27
my wife's face here. And so all of that
22:30
is fine here at f4. This is the chatau
22:34
frontnac in Quebec City. One of my
22:36
favorite buildings in the world. Uh you
22:39
can see the detail looks really good.
22:41
This is at f4. Fantastic. Looking
22:43
towards the corners. The corners look,
22:45
you know, not all that different than
22:46
they did at f1.4. Here at f5.6
22:51
again, center of the frame, nice and
22:53
crisp. Looks great. If you look here and
22:55
then we pan off to the right, you can
22:58
see that yeah, the corners are still
23:01
slipping. They don't ever get to kind of
23:03
that center level here. Peggy's Cove in
23:05
Nova Scotia. This is f8. And we can see
23:09
again center of the frame looks really
23:12
good. Moving off to the edge of the
23:13
frame, it looks good. Looks fine, but it
23:16
never has gotten like fantastically
23:18
sharp. And so, you know, that's just the
23:20
reality of the lens. it sharpens up to
23:22
only a certain degree. Now, beyond f8,
23:26
you'll start to see some softening come
23:28
due to defraction. Here's f11 on the
23:30
left and the minimum aperture of f-16 on
23:32
the right. And if it is at this degree
23:34
on Sony, then it's going to be even
23:36
stronger on Canon at uh 32 megapixels
23:40
and then on Fuji at 40 megapixels.
23:43
You'll see that pop up from defraction
23:45
even more on those higher resolution
23:46
sensors. So, as noted, I could get
23:49
closer and get a higher magnification
23:52
level than what the actual
23:54
specifications suggest for some reason.
23:56
And up close, while you know there's
23:58
distortion here and so there's some
24:00
field curvature, it's really not bad. As
24:02
I look here, it looks really crisp even
24:04
at f1.4 on the center and off here
24:07
towards the edge of the frame. While you
24:09
can tell that there's distortion that
24:11
needs to be corrected, the plane of
24:12
focus is not too bad. You can see that
24:14
it's still relatively sharp here. right
24:17
off to these edges. And so that's a good
24:19
performance. And so that means that
24:22
obviously you can get fairly close to
24:24
subjects, much closer than what I am
24:25
here. And this gives you a look at some
24:28
of the out of focus area. So if you got
24:30
just basic areas, I think the bokeh
24:33
looks fine. I just find that specular
24:36
highlights have more outlining than what
24:38
I would like here. You know, this really
24:40
isn't too bad for being as a complex a
24:42
scene as what I've got here. In the
24:44
detail here looks pretty good. There's a
24:45
little bit of fringing out there, but
24:47
this image actually think holds up
24:48
pretty well for the circumstance cuz the
24:50
background is not far away in this
24:52
situation. However, while I think that
24:55
the subject looks great, nice and crisp,
24:58
that as I look here, there's just
25:00
there's definitely more outlining and
25:02
specular highlights than what I
25:03
personally prefer. But again, your
25:05
mileage may vary. You may love that
25:07
look.
25:09
I thought color rendition was really
25:11
great from the lens, and that's super
25:12
important in a wide-angle lens. uh
25:14
you're capturing a lot on frame and so
25:17
often a a wider variety of colors and
25:20
and I think that this lens produced just
25:22
a lot of images that I thought looked
25:24
really really great and I not only say
25:26
I'm not just saying that on images that
25:28
have me in them but you can see here
25:30
that the colors are really popping
25:32
detail and contrast look good here you
25:35
know the I've got nice detail in the
25:37
foreground and the background a nice
25:40
variety of colors there here with these
25:42
this is a Lunenburgg in Nova Scotia.
25:45
Nice pop on those kind of really bright
25:48
colors. Likewise here, really strong
25:50
colors, but hand handle it I I felt
25:52
always in a nuanced way without getting
25:54
kind of garish or pushed here. I uh as
25:57
the sun is setting um and this is up in
26:01
Cape Breton along the Cat Trail, you can
26:04
see it looks really really nice. Colors
26:06
look great there. Then when it comes to
26:08
flare resistance, uh I actually think
26:10
that the sunburst, it's an 18-pointed
26:13
sunst star. I think they look actually
26:14
quite nice. And here, this is wide open
26:18
f1.4 pointing right into a very bright
26:20
sun. You can see I got like a little bit
26:22
of like a streak almost like a streak
26:24
filters on there, but I can live with
26:25
that and stop down. It doesn't get worse
26:28
as I often see. Actually, still looks
26:31
good. There's that little bit of a
26:32
ghosting artifact there. No big deal at
26:34
all. Here the sun is really intensely
26:36
bright. You can see it's also, you know,
26:39
bouncing off the water here. But again,
26:41
contrast holds up in the image. No
26:43
ghosting artifacts. So, flare resistance
26:45
is a definite strength for this lens.
26:48
So, thanks for sticking around until the
26:49
very end. As always, thanks for
26:52
watching. Have a great day and let the
26:54
light in.

Sigma 12mm F1.4 DC | CONTEMPORARY (APS-C) Review | The UWA Prime of Choice

Dustin Abbott

Sigma 50-120mm F2.8 DC OS Review | It Just Makes Sense!

SongRaw vs Viltrox Pro | 85mm Z-Mount Showdown

Laowa AF 35mm F2.8 APO Macro - A Flawed Macro Gem

7Artisans AF 18mm F2 | An APS C Pancake for $169!

The Best (Affordable) Way to Reach 600mm and 800mm on Sony

SongRaw 85mm F1.2 MS Review | Huge Lens, Huge Performance

Sony FE 600mm F6.3 GM OSS Review | 600mm in Under a Kilo!

Sony FE 400mm F4.5 GM OSS Review | Lightweight Perfection!

Bluetti Elite 100 Mini Review | 1000Wh in a Small Package

Peak Design Roller Pro | A Perfect Bag at an Imperfect Price

Sigma 20-60mm F2.8-4 C Review | Your New Favorite Tiny Zoom Has Arrived

Sigma 85mm F1.2 ART Review | My New Favorite 85mm F1.2

7Artisans AF 10mm F25 MAX Fisheye Review - A Better Fisheye?

Phenyx Pro PTU-7000 Wireless Microphone System Review

Samsung 990 M.2 SSD Review | A "Budget" Alternative

Up next in 10

Sigma 12mm F1.4 DC | CONTEMPORARY (APS-C) Review | The UWA Prime of Choice

Dustin Abbott