Quick comparison between Lumix 14-28 f4-5.6 and Sigma 16-28 f2.8

[Norman]

I'm also trying to select one of these lenses.
regarding Sigma - what I see that it has a huge distortion on 16mm - about 5%!
Compare with Panasonic - less than 2%...
The same for vignetting - Sigma even at 4 has it twice more than 14-28...

Panasonic - lighter, cheaper, better range, way less HA, distortion and vignetting.
Sigma - has 2.8- way faster, and has much better resolution in the centre..

An important question - how visible is this huge distorsion on Sigma at 16mm without the correction?
Thank you.

 

[pdk42]

An important question - how visible is this huge distorsion on Sigma at 16mm without the correction?
Thank you.

I don't know since I always leave digital corrections enabled. I don't see a good reason to not use them unless they cause too much resolution loss in the corners. The tests I did all had the correction turned on and the corners were fine, so I really don't worry about whether there is digital correction applied or not.

 

[RBecker]

Thank you very much for this comparison and that you shared your work with us!

Unfortunately when I started with my S1R there was no lightweight option and so I bought the Sigma 2.8/14-24. This lens is not small, quite huge and heavy, but the best UWA zoom I used ever! And I started with photography in 1985...

So the 16-28 will be never an option, only to have a compact and lightweight UWA could be an idea to think about the Lumix 14-28. But on the other side I hope that Sigma will release sometimes a new f4/12-24 (or even wider starting at 10 or 11), that is something I miss in the lineup and will buy instantly when released...

 

[pdk42]

Thank you very much for this comparison and that you shared your work with us!

Unfortunately when I started with my S1R there was no lightweight option and so I bought the Sigma 2.8/14-24. This lens is not small, quite huge and heavy, but the best UWA zoom I used ever! And I started with photography in 1985...

So the 16-28 will be never an option, only to have a compact and lightweight UWA could be an idea to think about the Lumix 14-28. But on the other side I hope that Sigma will release sometimes a new f4/12-24 (or even wider starting at 10 or 11), that is something I miss in the lineup and will buy instantly when released...

I'd get the 14-24, despite its weight, but the lack of a filter thread is a deal-breaker for me.

 

[Norman]

I still could not decide which one to order...
I need a light and small UW lens, for photo and for video (insight -concerts - low light), for landscapes, time laps, for travel...
extra 2 mm is not a decision maker.
Sigma looks good but to fix a huge distortion at 16mm in post in video - seems not simple.

 

[xaviergut]

I still could not decide which one to order...
I need a light and small UW lens, for photo and for video (insight -concerts - low light), for landscapes, time laps, for travel...
extra 2 mm is not a decision maker.
Sigma looks good but to fix a huge distortion at 16mm in post in video - seems not simple.

I have used the 14-28mm Lumix for indoor video and it works perfectly, that is the advantage of the Lumix lenses, which for video perform extremely well (in terms of focus breathing), as well as for photography. It is not a very big and heavy lens. I am quite happy with this lens.

 

[dirk]

Sigma looks good but to fix a huge distortion at 16mm in post in video - seems not simple.

The only way to find out for your use case is to order it and send it back in case it is not good enough for your use case. I would try the Sigma first.

 

[RBecker]

I'd get the 14-24, despite its weight, but the lack of a filter thread is a deal-breaker for me

What kind of filters do you use today? Since several years I only use ND filters for longtime exposures. I replaced gradual filters by using HDR and polarization makes no sense with UWA. The 14-24 has no filter thread but the option to use rear filters. A set of gradual filters is available e.g. from Haida.

 

[Babylonia]

September 2022 I was looking to a Wide Angle zoom.
As for weight and size, and normal filters to be used, in that time only two serious options.
The Sigma 16-28mm/f2.8 --and-- Lumix 16-35mm/f4.0

The Sigma 16-28mm with the "wrong" anti-clockwise min-max zoom ring, in comparison to the 24-105mm/f4.0 lens I already had.
And the more short zoom range of the Sigma 16-28mm, I decided to go with the Lumix 16-35mm/f4.0

In spite the 24-105mm/f4.0 is overlapping by focal length for both wide angle lenses, Sigma as well Lumix.
Don't want to change lenses within the "28mm" range.
The more long focal length to 35mm by the Lumix 16-35mm/f4.0 also was a strong point personally for choosing that one.
By that it also is more a general walk around lens.

As I bought F1.4 - F2 primes afterwards. I hardly do use the 24-105mm/f4.0 lens any more. (Often not taken on trips at all).

However I do miss the more wide 14mm focal length more than hoped.
Could be that I buy a "bargain" manual Pergear 14mm/f2.8
Seems to be a far better lens than expected, as looking to a test done by Christopher Frost


-

 

[CharlesH]

Sigma looks good but to fix a huge distortion at 16mm in post in video - seems not simple.

Is that right? I've not used a high distortion lens for video with Panasonic cameras. But my experience with Sony video is if you shoot RAW then then the distortion shows in the video and you need to correct it in post. But if you use any internal CODEC the camera applies distortion correction and it doesn't show in the video. I expect Panasonic does the same thing. But in any case is is pretty easy to correct distortion in post; most video editors have this capability.

 

[Norman]

Is that right? I've not used a high distortion lens for video with Panasonic cameras. But my experience with Sony video is if you shoot RAW then then the distortion shows in the video and you need to correct it in post. But if you use any internal CODEC the camera applies distortion correction and it doesn't show in the video. I expect Panasonic does the same thing. But in any case is is pretty easy to correct distortion in post; most video editors have this capability.

I'm not an expert, sorry.
I have checked and seems that in post to remove the distortion from video you need to:
- cut part of the footage
- add extra efforts
- probably even create an extra layer like in Adobe Premier
regarding the in-camera correction - this is very unclear.
How should Panasonic S5 (for example) know, which %% to apply in case of Sigma 16-28 or even Panasonic 14-28?
Both lenses will send this information to the body?

 

[pdk42]

I'm not an expert, sorry.
I have checked and seems that in post to remove the distortion from video you need to:
- cut part of the footage
- add extra efforts
- probably even create an extra layer like in Adobe Premier
regarding the in-camera correction - this is very unclear.
How should Panasonic S5 (for example) know, which %% to apply in case of Sigma 16-28 or even Panasonic 14-28?
Both lenses will send this information to the body?

I don’t shoot video so can’t answer your points on this directly, but what I can definitely say is that all L mount mainstream lenses have distortion correction data built into their firmware and this is passed to the body for it to apply corrections automatically.

 

[CharlesH]

I have checked and seems that in post to remove the distortion from video you need to:
- cut part of the footage
- add extra efforts
- probably even create an extra layer like in Adobe Premier

I don't use Adobe Premiere anymore, but mostly DaVinci Resolve. I expect Adobe Premiere is similar. With DaVinci Resolve you work in the Color Mode, on each clip recorded with a lens that has distortion. Pick from the effects table and add Lens Distortion. This brings up an adjustment slider to correct for barrel or pin cushion distortion.

I learned to do this the hard way. I had several hours of very good RAW video I shot in Fiordland National Park in New Zealand. It was shot with a Sony lens where I had never seen the distortion because I hadn't used RAW, but with RAW this jumped out. I finally found a third party app that would fix this and spent hours correcting the clips so I could edit several videos from this shooting. I was working in Final Cut Pro at the time. In the meantime I bought a very large and expensive lens that was pretty much distortion free, and I used that for some other videos. Finally I discovered the distortion could be easily corrected in DaVinci Resolve. (And sold the expensive distortion free lens.)

How should Panasonic S5 (for example) know, which %% to apply in case of Sigma 16-28 or even Panasonic 14-28?
Both lenses will send this information to the body?

Yes, that's how it works. (Except for RAW video where the camera just sends the sensor data.)

 

[Norman]

Currently I use Canon 16-35/4L USM lens with Sigma MC-21 adapter. Works very well, no complain but a but heavy.
Still thinking if it worth to buy Sigma 16-28 or Panasonic 14-28 to replace Canon in travels...

 

[dirk]

I chose the Sigma 16-28/2.8 because of its size and weight. I do not need F2.8. Would have preferred F4 and an even smaller size.

 

[pdk42]

The 14-28 isn't perfect, but it's more than good enough for what I do (and I tend to be picky on corner-to-corner sharpness). For its price, it's hard to criticise it. I think the Sigma 16-28 is of comparable performance and it has some advantages over the Lumix - better build quality, nicer sun-stars, and a brighter max aperture. However, it has some disadvantages too - it lacks weather sealing, and goes only to 16mm vs 14mm at the short. I think these are really the main points to use if you're considering which to buy. You should choose according to your needs/wants based on these differences since in other ways they are very similar performers.

 

[dirk]

I have never compared the image quality between the 14-28 and 16-28. But be aware that 2mm more wide angle is a lot in the final image. A lot more than 2mm more on the tele end of a 24-70mm normal zoom.

In case you need as much WA as possible, you do not have a lot of choice.

 

[Norman]

let me re-phrase my question.
having Canon 16-35/4L - is it worth to spend $1000 (approx) to buy Sigma 16-28 or Panasonic 14-28?
and can either of them replace Canon in travel?
What do you think?

 

[dirk]

Only you will know. It depends on your personal requirements for your individual use case.

I or we do not have experience with that Canon lens. No matter what we recommend, it is more a guessing.

 

[Norman]

I don't use Adobe Premiere anymore, but mostly DaVinci Resolve. I expect Adobe Premiere is similar. With DaVinci Resolve you work in the Color Mode, on each clip recorded with a lens that has distortion. Pick from the effects table and add Lens Distortion. This brings up an adjustment slider to correct for barrel or pin cushion distortion.

I learned to do this the hard way. I had several hours of very good RAW video I shot in Fiordland National Park in New Zealand. It was shot with a Sony lens where I had never seen the distortion because I hadn't used RAW, but with RAW this jumped out. I finally found a third party app that would fix this and spent hours correcting the clips so I could edit several videos from this shooting. I was working in Final Cut Pro at the time. In the meantime I bought a very large and expensive lens that was pretty much distortion free, and I used that for some other videos. Finally I discovered the distortion could be easily corrected in DaVinci Resolve. (And sold the expensive distortion free lens.)


Yes, that's how it works. (Except for RAW video where the camera just sends the sensor data.)

I have checked in Panasonic body S5.
There are only two compensation there for video:
Vignetting Compensation on/off and
Diffraction Compensation on/off.
seems like the body is not able to auto correct the lens distortion. And that's probably the reason why all panasonic lens as a rule has a well corrected distortion in the lens...