Twinkles: Sigma 14/2.8 EX

In my continuing quest for the perfect wide-angle, I've settled on a new contender. I replaced Popeye with Twinkles -- the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 EX had to make way for another Sigma, the 14/2.8 EX. While I was pretty satisfied with the optics on Popeye, I felt limited by its aperture range, and it was also rather (nose-)heavy for all-day walkaround use. The 14/2.8 EX has a rather a poor reputation: along with the 17-35/2.8-4.0 (since replaced with the 17-35/2.8-4.0 DG, similar in spec but an obviously different design) it's widely regarded as the only lemon in Sigma's EX line. I was very positively surprised with it from the start. Is my copy exceptional, or is the reputation due to some high-profile reviewers getting hold of poor copies? I don't know. Whichever way it is, here is my field report on Twinkles. Take it for what it's worth -- an account of one photographer's experience with the lens, no more, no less.

The availability of wide-angle lenses for the "crop factor" cameras has improved a great deal over the past year or so. Until recently, the Sigma 12-24 was considered pretty much the only game in town for Canon shooters who wanted a rectilinear lens significantly wider than about 17 mm. Since then, the EF-S 10-22 has hit the market, and Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma have announced similar "cropped" ultra-wide zooms. All of them hold their own optically against the likes of the hideously expensive Canon 16-35/2.8L on full-frame, are nicely built, not too big, not hideously expensive, and handle well. However, they all share the same weakness: none of them are brighter than about f/4.0. Therefore, spurred on by my personal positive experiences with Sigma lenses, and despite the fact that the Canon EOS-20D has pretty much caused me to stop drooling for full-frame digital, I decided to pass on all of them and look at something that's been around for a while longer.

Each of the major manufacturers has a rectilinear 14 mm on the market. The Canon 14/2.8L is the most expensive of the bunch, followed by the Tamron 14/2.8, and finally the Sigma. At about $900 in the US, the Sigma isn't exactly cheap either, but it's a positive bargain compared to the nearly $2,000 Canon. At that price, you'd expect the Canon to be just about perfect in every way, but going by the samples I've seen, it isn't. All of the ultra-wides appear to suffer from significant lateral CA and corner softening, and while the Canon is as contrasty as you'd expect from an L, and seems to handle flare much better than the Sigma, it seems distinctly overpriced. That said, if I was a millionaire, I'd get the Canon without a second thought.

Twinkles on the 20D. It's a nice match both visually and from a weight and balance point of view. Like Popeye, this one has a pretty impressive objective lens.

I had originally passed on the Sigma EX 14/2.8 because of some rather poor reviews it had received, but also due to a pretty large number of distinctly sub-par samples I'd seen at DPReview and elsewhere. However, following a posting in which I discouraged someone from buying the lens, I got some email and samples from a few people happy with their copies -- and was very favorably impressed by them. I got curious about trying it, and eventually an opportunity for swapping my 12-24 against it presented itself. I liked what I saw, and Popeye now has a new home, while I'm shooting with Twinkles.