Sigma 24mm f/3.5 and 24mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary comparison

[Jonathan-Mac]

I bought a used (but as new) copy of the f/3.5 in May as I wanted a native prime wider than the 35mm I had and funds didn't stretch to the f/2 version (of which there were none on the used market). Thanks to the sale of another item and the July discounts from Sigma I was able to stretch to a new f/2 much sooner than I had expected so I currently have both until the f/3.5 sells. Both have stellar image quality but the extra speed of the f/2 makes it an obvious choice between the two for me as f/2 allows for shallow DoF shots that are impossible with the f/3.5. If you prioritise small size over speed then it might not be such an easy decision as image quality is just fantastic in every way, even wide open, on both lenses.

If I have time to do some basic comparison shots with both then I'll post them here too but for now just a size comparison.

No hoods


Comparison of the two I-series 24mm lenses - f/3.5 on the left, f/2 on the right by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

With hoods


Comparison of the two I-series 24mm lenses - f/3.5 on the left, f/2 on the right by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

With hoods reversed


Comparison of the two I-series 24mm lenses - f/3.5 on the left, f/2 on the right by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

 

[inspiredtimothy]

I would love to see some images comparisons of the rendering and focus breathing on each if you are able to take any!

 

[CharlesH]

I'm interested in a 24mm contemporary, so will appreciate any comments you have about these two lenses. Thanks for the side by side shots for comparison. I think I read somewhere the f/2 has a focus breathing issue; otherwise I would have purchased it already.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Well I won't have much time for comparisons - I sold the lens yesterday afternoon, only 24 hours after putting it up for sale. So before I package it up for shipping I did some comparisons on a tripod yesterday evening to show rendering wide open compared to the f/2 wide open and at f/3.5, minimum focus distance of each and short videos to show any focus breathing.

Note that flowers with small petals and plants with small leaves are pretty tough for nice bokeh so this is quite a stress test for bokeh.

The f/3.5 wide open:


2023-08-08_08-26-19 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

The f/2 wide open to compare the extent of defocusing possible:


2023-08-08_08-27-50 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

The f/2 stopped down to f/3.5 for an OOF rendering comparsion with the slower lens:


2023-08-08_08-28-54 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

The extra speed of the f/2 makes for a more defocused background when it's used wide open but at f/3.5 for a direct comparison with the slower lens I see no difference in the quality of the bokeh.

Minimum focus distances were checked using manual focus at the minimum and moving the camera in until it reached focus.

Sigma give the minimum distance for the f/3.5 as 10.8cm, giving 0.5x magnification while it's 24.5cm for the f/2, giving 0.15x magnification. You can see that there's a significant difference.

The minimum focus distance of the f/3.5:


2023-08-09_11-08-04 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

And the minimum focus distance of the f/2:


2023-08-08_08-30-38 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

A video to show the f/3.5 wide open focusing from minimum distance to infinity and back (click to open in a new tab and play):


01150486 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

And the same for the f/2:


01150490 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

So the f/2 certainly shows a little focus breathing but it doesn't seem much to me (though I'm not a video shooter). I can see no breathing at all on the f/3.5 so for video shooters that might be the better option.

Something I've realised lately is that on some of the I-series lenses the aperture ring is partially covered by the reversed hood, making it difficult to use. I usually have the hood in place but in cases where I need to take the shot quickly or when I'm sure there's zero risk of flare I might use it without removing the hood and putting it on properly. The 90mm f/2.8 is the same while on the 24mm f/2, 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 the aperture ring is fully accessible with the hood reversed.

 

[inspiredtimothy]

Well I won't have much time for comparisons - I sold the lens yesterday afternoon, only 24 hours after putting it up for sale. So before I package it up for shipping I did some comparisons on a tripod yesterday evening to show rendering wide open compared to the f/2 wide open and at f/3.5, minimum focus distance of each and short videos to show any focus breathing.

Note that flowers with small petals and plants with small leaves are pretty tough for nice bokeh so this is quite a stress test for bokeh.

The f/3.5 wide open:

View attachment 876
2023-08-08_08-26-19 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

The f/2 wide open to compare the extent of defocusing possible:

View attachment 877
2023-08-08_08-27-50 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

The f/2 stopped down to f/3.5 for an OOF rendering comparsion with the slower lens:

View attachment 878
2023-08-08_08-28-54 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

The extra speed of the f/2 makes for a more defocused background when it's used wide open but at f/3.5 for a direct comparison with the slower lens I see no difference in the quality of the bokeh.

Minimum focus distances were checked using manual focus at the minimum and moving the camera in until it reached focus.

Sigma give the minimum distance for the f/3.5 as 10.8cm, giving 0.5x magnification while it's 24.5cm for the f/2, giving 0.15x magnification. You can see that there's a significant difference.

The minimum focus distance of the f/3.5:

View attachment 879
2023-08-09_11-08-04 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

And the minimum focus distance of the f/2:

View attachment 880
2023-08-08_08-30-38 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

A video to show the f/3.5 wide open focusing from minimum distance to infinity and back (click to open in a new tab and play):

View attachment 881
01150486 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

And the same for the f/2:

View attachment 882
01150490 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr

So the f/2 certainly shows a little focus breathing but it doesn't seem much to me (though I'm not a video shooter). I can see no breathing at all on the f/3.5 so for video shooters that might be the better option.

Something I've realised lately is that on some of the I-series lenses the aperture ring is partially covered by the reversed hood, making it difficult to use. I usually have the hood in place but in cases where I need to take the shot quickly or when I'm sure there's zero risk of flare I might use it without removing the hood and putting it on properly. The 90mm f/2.8 is the same while on the 24mm f/2, 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 the aperture ring is fully accessible with the hood reversed.

Thank you for the detailed comparisons! This is great

 

[CharlesH]

Well I won't have much time for comparisons - I sold the lens yesterday afternoon, only 24 hours after putting it up for sale. So before I package it up for shipping I did some comparisons on a tripod yesterday evening to show rendering wide open compared to the f/2 wide open and at f/3.5, minimum focus distance of each and short videos to show any focus breathing.

Yes, thanks for taking the time for the comparisons, this is very useful.

 

[robin0112358]

Thanks for this. The f/3.5 seems the obvious win. Closer focus will get even smoother bokeh with the correct composition... if that is your thing.

 

[Pete_W]

I have just revisited this thread as the 24mm f3.5 would be a great lens to use on the new Panasonic S9. Thanks again for posting the comparison shots.

I already have the little Sigma 45mm f2.8 so this pair of lenses would make a great light-weight and compact kit.

 

[CharlesH]

I have just revisited this thread as the 24mm f3.5 would be a great lens to use on the new Panasonic S9. Thanks again for posting the comparison shots.

I've been thinking the same thing. The Hybrid Zoom or whatever it's called on the S9 will make these small lenses very interesting for video, and they are very good for photos. I already have the 17mm, 20mm, and 45mm. The 24mm f/3.5 looks really good, and the 35mm f/2 is also tempting.

 

[Pete_W]

I have the 35mm f2 and love it. Fantastic lens.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Both 24s and the 35 are really excellent but the 24/3.5 is significantly smaller, so it's the obvious choice for a small kit. Obviously much better on an S5 or S1 than the crippled S9 but if you must have three absolute smallest it's your guy.

 

[AlanC]

I've been using the 24/3.5 on the Sigma fp L (60MP) for more than a year now and am very impressed with it: plenty of detail right to the edges, maximum 0.5x magnification up close and a very nice look to the photos overall. It's probably my all-time favourite lens. I also have the 35/2, a comparatively recent purchase, and am very pleased with it as well.