[Klaus]

Quite nice except at 24mm
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_f...1424f28art

[Rover]

"Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG HSM ART"

Thought so. The lens is looking good.

[JJ_SO]

I think it's about time to rethink your rating systems and decide which rating you'd give to the 11-24/4 Canon. It's about time to close the gaps you left with some of the early 50 MP tests, don't you think so?

Also, giving the Sigma 2 1/2 stars optically on 50 MP (and only 3 1/2 at 21 MP, which is rather wrong) while the (worse, due to the flare "magnetism") Nikon 14-24 still keeps 4 raises more than one eyebrow. I exchanged the Nikkor for the Sigma, as it definitely behaves less like a diva in frontlight. nOw I'd like to know what makes the Nikkor half a star better although it's tested on 24 MP and the reduction of these flares is pretty time-consuming and not always fully possible?

"... so front filters are a no-go here" - allow me to question that. No screw-in filters doesn't mean "no front filters", they just need to be big (150×150 mm should do), flat, with a proper holder and in excellent optical quality. That, with 2 or three of these filters can cost something between 40 and 80% of the lens. I use the same holder I purchased for the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor, just with a kind of a spacer.

But the downisde of thses extra holders always is: Are they light tight enough? For big stoppers like ND 3.0 and in bright sunlight it's a relevant question and since most of these stoppers have a more or less massive colordrift, we might look out for other possibilities.

And maybe we also should open a discussion which of these filters still are necessary today? Except for polarizers, I don't see much value of grading filters or medium stoppers, as all these long time exposures can also be done with software.

[Klaus]

If you look closely ... the rating is 2.75pts and 3.75pts ;-)

I've just made the stars a bit bigger to make that more obvious. (you may have to do a CTRL-SHIFT-R in your browser)

[Rover]

Woah, I wasn't sure if that was 2½٭ or 3٭ mark there. Now I know.

(and since I'm still here: is there a chance you're going to test the new Tamron 10-24 VC some time soon? )

[JJ_SO]

*searchingmyspecs* oh yes. Hell, now that makes SUCH a difference

Serioulsy, there's a bigger diff between the Nikkor and the Sigma. And I'm not even mentioning AF adjustments for close ups which both lenses would benefit from, but i'ts only possible with Sigma's dock.

Oh, and it might be worth to mention, there's already a version available for Sony (with "inbuilt" mount conversion tube), but here I think I'd prefer the rather small Sony genuine lens.

I also was trying to find out about the weight of the new Fujinon 8-16/2.8: 2k$, 805 grams, 12-24 eqiv.

[you2]

What is an 'ol' lens test ? Bit confused by the possible meaning of 'ol' ?

[Rover]

What is an 'ol' lens test ? Bit confused by the possible meaning of 'ol' ?

The abbreviated name of the site you're on.  It has nothing to do with "good ol' times" and whatnot.

[you2]

What is an 'ol' lens test ? Bit confused by the possible meaning of 'ol' ?

The abbreviated name of the site you're on.  It has nothing to do with "good ol' times" and whatnot.

Ack. I thought this was still photozone