Just before hitting the road to go shooting in Scotland last July, I posted the first of a series of user-reviews comparing the King of the Bayer DSLR, the Nikon D800E, vs the King of the Foveon DSLR, the Sigma SD1 Merrill (you can read Part I of this saga HERE, and my first look at the SD1 Merrill HERE). I was immediately quite impressed with the SD1 Merrill's files, so much so that I decided to bring it along for my Scottish trip, leaving my faithful D800E home to enjoy a well deserved month of rest. For those of you interested in collecting Fine Art prints, the first batches from the trip are ready and have been published for sale on my website (see ARRAN'S IMPRESSIONS, SKYE'S IMPRESSIONS I: THE SEA and SKYE'S IMPRESSIONS II: THE LAND galleries on VIERI BOTTAZZINI FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY).
In Part I of this comparison, I examined how these cameras work with normal focal length lenses (or equivalent); here in Part II, I went and looked into extreme wide angle lenses, which I use quite a lot in the field for my Landscape and Fine Art work.
In Part I of this comparison, I examined how these cameras work with normal focal length lenses (or equivalent); here in Part II, I went and looked into extreme wide angle lenses, which I use quite a lot in the field for my Landscape and Fine Art work.
Without further ado, let's move on with the test: on Nikon's corner, enters the legendary Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S on the D800E; on Sigma's corner, please welcome the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM on the SD1 Merrill. Let the test begin!
 |
| The Sigma SD1 Merrill + 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 vs the Nikon D800E + 14-24mm f/2.8 |
ULTRA WIDE ANGLE LENSES, FILTERS AND LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY
In order to realise my vision, having a solid ultra wide-angle option in my bag is fundamental: my most used focal lengths in this range are 18mm & 24mm, with some excursion in wider territory (14-15mm) as well. Of course, I need to be able to use filters with lenses in this range, too: for ultra wide-angle, graduated ND, solid ND and sometimes a polariser are the ones I cannot be without. Unfortunately, both camera/lens options compared here are not easily filtered: as you can see from the image below, both lenses feature a built-in lens hood, and neither lens offer a filter thread. In order to be able to use filters on the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S, you have to get either the Lee SW150 or the Hitech Lucroit 165MM systems, both expensive, bulky, and both not allowing you to use a polariser. With the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM, on the other hand, you can skip the Lucroit 165MM (the Lee SW150 wouldn't work here anyway) and make do either by easily adapting your existing 4" filter system to it, if you use one like I do, or by getting one. The advantage here being that it's a less bulky and less expensive proposition, one that allows you to use a polariser as well, and last but not least you'll be getting a filter system that you'll be able to use on every other lens you own. The Sigma wins here easy.
COMPOSING & FOCUSSING AN IMAGE: VIEWFINDERS & LIVE VIEW
There are basically two ways to compose and focus an image with modern DSLR cameras. You can either use the camera's optical or electronic viewfinder, or you can use Live View on your camera's LCD, provided there is such an option of course. For people like me, coming from the Age of Film and having extensively used Medium Format both on film and with digital, having a good & bright viewfinder (or screen) to compose my images is a given; not any more so in today's world though, where crummy, slow-refreshing EVF are slowly taking over. With the D800E, you get both a very good optical viewfinder for a 35mm camera and a nicely enough implementation of Live View; well - one that works, anyway, which is especially useful when using ultra wide-angle lenses. More, the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S, being a fixed f/2.8 lens, will give you a chance to look at your scene through a bright enough viewfinder.
With the SD1 Merrill, on the other hand, you are a bit out of luck: its APS-C viewfinder, while very very good for an APS-C camera, is not on par with the D800E's Full Frame one; plus, the 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM isn't such a fast lens, so your viewfinder looks much darker than the D800E's with the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S: when the light is low, this can definitely make a difference. In such situations, you would go for Live View, but unfortunately the good people at Sigma didn't feel like implementing one in the SD1 Merrill. On the upside, the viewfinder of the SD1 Merrill has a sort of ground glass around the central focus point that tells you when the image is in focus (if you know where to look, that is): if you come from the old split-prism screens of the cameras of old, you'll find it quite easy to use, and using manual focus will also help. Overall, the Nikon wins this one, no questions here.
I am not a lab lens tester, nor do I wish or plan to become one; I am first and foremost a working photographer who needs his gear to perform in the field as good as possible. Lens charts and other flat targets, especially when shot at relatively close distances in controlled light conditions, are something completely different than the non-flat, near-far, tridimensional landscapes I shoot in the field under the most various light conditions. Therefore, let me repeat what I already said in Part I of this saga (read it full HERE).
In order to realise my vision, having a solid ultra wide-angle option in my bag is fundamental: my most used focal lengths in this range are 18mm & 24mm, with some excursion in wider territory (14-15mm) as well. Of course, I need to be able to use filters with lenses in this range, too: for ultra wide-angle, graduated ND, solid ND and sometimes a polariser are the ones I cannot be without. Unfortunately, both camera/lens options compared here are not easily filtered: as you can see from the image below, both lenses feature a built-in lens hood, and neither lens offer a filter thread. In order to be able to use filters on the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S, you have to get either the Lee SW150 or the Hitech Lucroit 165MM systems, both expensive, bulky, and both not allowing you to use a polariser. With the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM, on the other hand, you can skip the Lucroit 165MM (the Lee SW150 wouldn't work here anyway) and make do either by easily adapting your existing 4" filter system to it, if you use one like I do, or by getting one. The advantage here being that it's a less bulky and less expensive proposition, one that allows you to use a polariser as well, and last but not least you'll be getting a filter system that you'll be able to use on every other lens you own. The Sigma wins here easy.
 |
| The Sigma 8-16mm aside the Nikkor 14-24mm. |
COMPOSING & FOCUSSING AN IMAGE: VIEWFINDERS & LIVE VIEW
There are basically two ways to compose and focus an image with modern DSLR cameras. You can either use the camera's optical or electronic viewfinder, or you can use Live View on your camera's LCD, provided there is such an option of course. For people like me, coming from the Age of Film and having extensively used Medium Format both on film and with digital, having a good & bright viewfinder (or screen) to compose my images is a given; not any more so in today's world though, where crummy, slow-refreshing EVF are slowly taking over. With the D800E, you get both a very good optical viewfinder for a 35mm camera and a nicely enough implementation of Live View; well - one that works, anyway, which is especially useful when using ultra wide-angle lenses. More, the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S, being a fixed f/2.8 lens, will give you a chance to look at your scene through a bright enough viewfinder.
 |
| The Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S and its large, slip-on lens cap |
With the SD1 Merrill, on the other hand, you are a bit out of luck: its APS-C viewfinder, while very very good for an APS-C camera, is not on par with the D800E's Full Frame one; plus, the 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM isn't such a fast lens, so your viewfinder looks much darker than the D800E's with the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S: when the light is low, this can definitely make a difference. In such situations, you would go for Live View, but unfortunately the good people at Sigma didn't feel like implementing one in the SD1 Merrill. On the upside, the viewfinder of the SD1 Merrill has a sort of ground glass around the central focus point that tells you when the image is in focus (if you know where to look, that is): if you come from the old split-prism screens of the cameras of old, you'll find it quite easy to use, and using manual focus will also help. Overall, the Nikon wins this one, no questions here.
 |
| The Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM and its weird double-cap |
IMAGE QUALITY
While I know that comparing an Nikon APS-C body against the SD1 Merrill (using the same Sigma lens both in Nikon and Sigma flavour) would have been a better way to compare the Nikon's Bayer sensor vs the Sigma's Foveon, I am not at all interested in such a sensor comparison. To choose the best tool for my work, what I am interested in is comparing the highest-IQ Foveon-based DSLR system against the highest-IQ Bayer-based DSLR system available: hence my selection of camera & lenses for this test series.I am not a lab lens tester, nor do I wish or plan to become one; I am first and foremost a working photographer who needs his gear to perform in the field as good as possible. Lens charts and other flat targets, especially when shot at relatively close distances in controlled light conditions, are something completely different than the non-flat, near-far, tridimensional landscapes I shoot in the field under the most various light conditions. Therefore, let me repeat what I already said in Part I of this saga (read it full HERE).
Comparing two completely different imaging systems is not an easy task, and even less so in a case such as this. We are comparing cameras with different sensor sizes, lenses' fields of view will not exactly match, nor will depth of field at equal apertures; one lens is a fast, constant f2.8 lens while the other is a slower, variable aperture f4.5-5.6 one; there isn't any software able to develop RAW files from both cameras; sensor technology is completely different; etc. All this considered, my methodology for this comparison has been as follows:
- Shoot 3 sets of images for each set, re-setting AF every time (using Live View on the D800E), choosing the sharpest set of the three;
- Shoot RAW with both cameras in A mode without any exposure compensation, to be able to compare the two cameras' metering behaviours;
- Set the WB using corresponding preset WB for each camera (in this case, overcast) and correcting it in software doing a spot WB on the exact same point of the images;
- Develop the files in Sigma Photo Pro and Nikon Capture NX 2; since no available software is able to develop the RAWs from both cameras, I went for the softwares I'd use with each camera for my own work. In particular, I sharpened both cameras' files as I normally do for my work (setting Sharpening to -1.0 for the SD1 Merrill and using a combination of High Pass + Unsharp Mask for the D800E); I turned off all Noise Reduction and Distortion Correction options; I left on CA & Fringe correction at default level for both cameras;
Since Blogger may have some problems in displaying the test images in full size on some screens, I prepared a zip for you to be able to examine them on your screen at your leisure: CLICK HERE to download!
SHARPNESS
Here is the usual, uninspiring test scene:
 |
| Uninspiring Test Scene, Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 @ 24mm, f8 - Nikon D800E |
24MM (OR EQUIVALENT)
Let's start with examining images shot at 24mm or equivalent (16mm for the Sigma combination), and let's check out some centre crops (600x600 px, 100%), first the Nikon:
Let's start with examining images shot at 24mm or equivalent (16mm for the Sigma combination), and let's check out some centre crops (600x600 px, 100%), first the Nikon:
Then the Sigma:
As you can see, the Nikon is not tremendously sharp wide open, it gets better at f/4 and is amazing at f/5.6-f/8; after that, diffraction kicks in and resolution drops a bit.
On the other hand, the Sigma is already amazing sharp wide-open at f/5.6, stays the same at f/8 and after that, diffraction robs it of its sharpness.
Let's check out what happens in the lower left corner, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
In the lower left corner, the Nikon combination definitely struggles; starting out very mushy at f/2.8, the lens sharpens up slightly but it isn't until f/11 that image definition comes up to a near-decent level. After that, diffraction kicks in and softens things up again.
The Sigma combination, on the other hand, behaves much better: while it starts up slightly soft, at f/5.6 it's already better than the Nikon will ever be; at f/8 is quite sharp and is best at f/11. Diffraction, as always, soften things up after that.
Let's now move to the mid lower side, Nikon first:
On the other hand, the Sigma is already amazing sharp wide-open at f/5.6, stays the same at f/8 and after that, diffraction robs it of its sharpness.
Let's check out what happens in the lower left corner, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
In the lower left corner, the Nikon combination definitely struggles; starting out very mushy at f/2.8, the lens sharpens up slightly but it isn't until f/11 that image definition comes up to a near-decent level. After that, diffraction kicks in and softens things up again.
The Sigma combination, on the other hand, behaves much better: while it starts up slightly soft, at f/5.6 it's already better than the Nikon will ever be; at f/8 is quite sharp and is best at f/11. Diffraction, as always, soften things up after that.
Let's now move to the mid lower side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
The Nikon here starts off a little better than it did in the corner, but it's still very soft at f/2.8 and f/4, it gets better at f/5.6 and it becomes seriously sharp at f/8-f/11. After that, as usual, it's diffraction job to soften things up.
The Sigma, again, is very impressive wide-open at f/5.6 and at f/8, where is amazingly sharp; at f/11 and above, things get a bit softer, due as usual to diffraction.
Let's now see what happens in the mid right side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Here too the Nikon starts off very soft and mushy, and it doesn't come to its own until - well - never; it gets decent at about f/11, and that's about it.
The Sigma, on the other hand, is very good already at f/5.6 (though it shows some CA), and offers an amazing performance at f/8, while f/11 and f/16 gets a bit softer again due to diffraction.
As a conclusion, we can say that at 24mm the Nikon is OK in the centre, where it gets amazingly sharp at about f/5.6, but definitely suffers in the corners and the sides, where is never really convincing. The Sigma, on the other hand, shows quite an amazing performance all over the frame.
18MM OR EQUIVALENT
Let's see how things are at 18mm, starting with the centre. Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
At 18mm, things looks much better for the Nikon, which kick offs to a great start in the centre: already very very sharp at f/2.8, it shows an amazing performance between f/4-f/8, only to give in to diffraction at f/11 and above.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off pretty good at f/5 and it stays there, offering a very good performance until f/16 but never being amazingly sharp at any aperture.
Let's move to the lower left corner, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Here the Nikon starts off a bit on the soft side, improving constantly when stopping down and getting really sharp at f/8. After that, diffraction starts robbing it of its sharpness, as expected.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off very good wide open at f/5 and is very sharp at f/8, to lose then its sharpness to diffraction at further f-stops.
Now the lower mid side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Here too the Nikon starts off quite soft, improving slowly when stopping down and getting decently sharp at f/8. After that, is diffraction as usual...
The Sigma on the other hand, while slightly soft wide open at f/5, becomes pretty sharp at f/8, losing its sharpness to diffraction at further f-stops in the usual fashion.
And finally the mid right side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Once more, the Nikon starts off pretty soft and mushy, and it never becomes really sharp through the aperture range.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off slightly soft but at f/8 it looks pretty good, though not really bitingly sharp.
At 18mm I'd say that no lens is great; the Nikon is amazingly sharp in the centre and suffers around the edges, while the Sigma is less sharp in the centre but better overall.
14MM OR EQUIVALENT
OK, let's check things out at 14mm now, starting as usual from the centre, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
At this focal length, in the centre the Nikon is razor sharp wide open, and it stays that way up until f/11 where it starts getting soft due - as usual - to our friend, diffraction. Amazing performance here!
The Sigma, however, is no slouch either at this focal length, showing an amazing performance all over the range, similarly getting soft only when diffraction kicks in at f/11. Great job for both lenses here!
Let's move to the corner, the lower right this time. Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Very unfortunately, the Nikon cannot keep corner performance up to the amazing level it showed in the centre. Here it starts off really mushy, and it's never able to show any real sharpness over the aperture range.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off decently and keeps up a decent performance over the aperture range; while never being amazingly, bitingly sharp, is definitely good enough for such a wide angle lens.
Now, the lower mid side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
The Nikon starts off unconvincingly, very soft at f/2.8 and just a tad better at f/4; however, it sharpens up pretty nicely after that and is very sharp at f/5.6-f/11; after that, things soften up again due to diffraction.
The Sigma shows a similar performance here, starting off a bit soft and getting quite sharp at f/8-f/11.
And finally the right mid side:
And the Sigma:
The Nikon starts up pretty soft, though not disastrously so, and while it sharpens up through the range, it never becomes amazing on this side of the frame.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off pretty good and shows good sharpness all over the range; best aperture is f/8.
At 14mm, both lenses are really very good; the Nikon is best at the centre, while the Sigma is best over the whole frame.
Now let's see how the Sigma behaves at its widest focal length, 8mm (12mm equivalent), in the centre:
Here the Sigma at its widest focal length is definitely amazing: in a world, is ultra-sharp from f/4.5 to f/11.
In the lower right corner:
To my eye, this is an impressive performance for a 12mm-equivalent lens. However, you can see the evident presence of some CA, and note how CA's colour changes at different apertures. Other than that, this lens resolves wonderfully into its deep corners at 12mm; I'd have no problem in using it at pretty much any aperture here.
The mid lower side:
The mid lower side is OK but not great wide-open; it gets better at f/5.6 and it really shines at f/8-f/11.
And finally the mid right side:
As for the mid lower side, here too we witness a good performance, with best results at f/8-f/11.
At 12mm, the Sigma offers a very impressive performance for such a wide lens.
The Nikon here starts off a little better than it did in the corner, but it's still very soft at f/2.8 and f/4, it gets better at f/5.6 and it becomes seriously sharp at f/8-f/11. After that, as usual, it's diffraction job to soften things up.
The Sigma, again, is very impressive wide-open at f/5.6 and at f/8, where is amazingly sharp; at f/11 and above, things get a bit softer, due as usual to diffraction.
Let's now see what happens in the mid right side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Here too the Nikon starts off very soft and mushy, and it doesn't come to its own until - well - never; it gets decent at about f/11, and that's about it.
The Sigma, on the other hand, is very good already at f/5.6 (though it shows some CA), and offers an amazing performance at f/8, while f/11 and f/16 gets a bit softer again due to diffraction.
As a conclusion, we can say that at 24mm the Nikon is OK in the centre, where it gets amazingly sharp at about f/5.6, but definitely suffers in the corners and the sides, where is never really convincing. The Sigma, on the other hand, shows quite an amazing performance all over the frame.
18MM OR EQUIVALENT
Let's see how things are at 18mm, starting with the centre. Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
At 18mm, things looks much better for the Nikon, which kick offs to a great start in the centre: already very very sharp at f/2.8, it shows an amazing performance between f/4-f/8, only to give in to diffraction at f/11 and above.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off pretty good at f/5 and it stays there, offering a very good performance until f/16 but never being amazingly sharp at any aperture.
Let's move to the lower left corner, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Here the Nikon starts off a bit on the soft side, improving constantly when stopping down and getting really sharp at f/8. After that, diffraction starts robbing it of its sharpness, as expected.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off very good wide open at f/5 and is very sharp at f/8, to lose then its sharpness to diffraction at further f-stops.
Now the lower mid side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Here too the Nikon starts off quite soft, improving slowly when stopping down and getting decently sharp at f/8. After that, is diffraction as usual...
The Sigma on the other hand, while slightly soft wide open at f/5, becomes pretty sharp at f/8, losing its sharpness to diffraction at further f-stops in the usual fashion.
And finally the mid right side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Once more, the Nikon starts off pretty soft and mushy, and it never becomes really sharp through the aperture range.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off slightly soft but at f/8 it looks pretty good, though not really bitingly sharp.
At 18mm I'd say that no lens is great; the Nikon is amazingly sharp in the centre and suffers around the edges, while the Sigma is less sharp in the centre but better overall.
14MM OR EQUIVALENT
OK, let's check things out at 14mm now, starting as usual from the centre, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
At this focal length, in the centre the Nikon is razor sharp wide open, and it stays that way up until f/11 where it starts getting soft due - as usual - to our friend, diffraction. Amazing performance here!
The Sigma, however, is no slouch either at this focal length, showing an amazing performance all over the range, similarly getting soft only when diffraction kicks in at f/11. Great job for both lenses here!
Let's move to the corner, the lower right this time. Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
Very unfortunately, the Nikon cannot keep corner performance up to the amazing level it showed in the centre. Here it starts off really mushy, and it's never able to show any real sharpness over the aperture range.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off decently and keeps up a decent performance over the aperture range; while never being amazingly, bitingly sharp, is definitely good enough for such a wide angle lens.
Now, the lower mid side, Nikon first:
And the Sigma:
The Nikon starts off unconvincingly, very soft at f/2.8 and just a tad better at f/4; however, it sharpens up pretty nicely after that and is very sharp at f/5.6-f/11; after that, things soften up again due to diffraction.
The Sigma shows a similar performance here, starting off a bit soft and getting quite sharp at f/8-f/11.
And finally the right mid side:
And the Sigma:
The Nikon starts up pretty soft, though not disastrously so, and while it sharpens up through the range, it never becomes amazing on this side of the frame.
The Sigma, on the other hand, starts off pretty good and shows good sharpness all over the range; best aperture is f/8.
At 14mm, both lenses are really very good; the Nikon is best at the centre, while the Sigma is best over the whole frame.
Now let's see how the Sigma behaves at its widest focal length, 8mm (12mm equivalent), in the centre:
Here the Sigma at its widest focal length is definitely amazing: in a world, is ultra-sharp from f/4.5 to f/11.
In the lower right corner:
To my eye, this is an impressive performance for a 12mm-equivalent lens. However, you can see the evident presence of some CA, and note how CA's colour changes at different apertures. Other than that, this lens resolves wonderfully into its deep corners at 12mm; I'd have no problem in using it at pretty much any aperture here.
The mid lower side:
The mid lower side is OK but not great wide-open; it gets better at f/5.6 and it really shines at f/8-f/11.
And finally the mid right side:
As for the mid lower side, here too we witness a good performance, with best results at f/8-f/11.
At 12mm, the Sigma offers a very impressive performance for such a wide lens.
VIGNETTING / COLOURS / DISTORTION
Let's see how these two camera / lens combinations behave, first at 24mm:
It is interesting to note how these two cameras' metering systems work; I'd like to remind you here that I used A mode, with the purpose of seeing how the cameras' "brains" worked. Well, the Nikon's brain seems to be working much better here; results are more consistent over the aperture range, while the Sigma outputs darker files at larger apertures. Vignette is present on both cameras, more so in the Nikon of course - being a much faster lens, that was to be expected. Distortion and field of view are quite similar, with the Nikon combination being just a tad wider than the Sigma (of course, tripod hasn't been moved when changing cameras).
Then at 18mm:
As far as colour rendition and vignetting, we can see the same pattern as above going on here as well; the Sigma's metering behaved much better in this series though. However, if you checked out the two lenses field of view you'd see how the Nikon is quite evidently wider than the Sigma. This is not a question of wrong marks on the lens' barrel, since the EXIF said 12mm for the Sigma unequivocally.
And finally at 14mm (12mm equivalent for the Sigma):
I decided to show here both lenses at its widest; just to give you an idea about how much difference there is between 14mm and 12mm. And there is a lot, if you ask me.
As far as vignetting, colour and so on, nothing much different to note here; the Nikkor has quite a lot of vignetting, which doesn't really clean up until f/5.6-f/8; the Sigma's behaviour is similar at its widest to that of its Nikon counterpart, showing vignette that doesn't really clean up until f/8. Distortion is quite similar, too; if you check as a reference the water drain between the yellow and grey building on the right side, you'll see that both lenses have more or less the same amount of distortion and that the distortion is of the same type.
Again, since Blogger may have some problems in displaying the test images in full, I prepared a zip for you to be able to examine them on your screen at your leisure: CLICK HERE to download!
THE PRINTS
How about if you are one of those who, like me, love (or need) to put some ink on paper? Well, in my experience with both cameras / lens configurations, I found that both configurations print about the same if you need just to print up to 40x50cm (16x20 in) @ 240dpi. This is about the limit of the native resolution of the SD1 Merrill, and resizing the D800E's files to this size gets rid of most of the un-sharpness you saw above at full-resolution; at this print size, you'll get similar excellent results from both cameras at most focal / aperture combinations. The main differences here are:
- At 24mm the Nikon combination is still slightly weaker than the Sigma;
- At 18mm the Sigma combination is slightly weaker than the Nikon;
And obviously:
- With the Sigma combination you can shoot at 12mm equivalent and the prints look just great, while the Nikon doesn't go that wide;
- With the Nikon combination you can shoot between f/2.8-f/4.5 or f/5.6 and the prints look between OK and very good at 40x50cm (16x20 in) @ 240dpi if you shoot at f/2.8-f/4, while the Sigma has limited and non-constant aperture.
If you want to print larger than 40x50cm (16x20 in), then things change. The D800E has resolution in spades and can print natively up to 60x75cm (24x30 in) @ 240 dpi, but the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S is out-resolved by the sensor at many focal lengths / aperture combinations in many areas of the frame. It is very very good to excellent all over the focal / aperture range if you care only about centre-frame; if you want sharpness all over the frame, you are just not going to get it if you want to print at full resolution using the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S.
The Sigma's files, on the other hand, need to be up-rezzed to go beyond 40x50cm (16x20 in); this, as we know, involves post-processing skills that not everyone has or wants to spend time to learn: plus, inevitably even the most skilled operator will hit a physical limit after which up-rezzing artefacts will be too evident to be considered acceptable. In my experience, you can print great with the SD1 Merrill up to 50x65cm (20x25 in) @ 240 dpi, which is about 24-28 Mp depending on image ratio etc, and which is close enough to Sigma's claims of 30 Mp-equivalent luminance resolution. Larger than that, I wouldn't consider it an option for serious work.
For my professional work, considering the white mat area around the actual print area, I find the SD1 Merrill perfect to print even the largest images for my Fine Art business (60x75cm or 24x30 in), since the actual print area is just about 50x65cm (20x25 in). Of course, you'll not have much room to crop and such, and if you plan to print this big, you'll need to perfect your up-rezzing workflow. Ultimately, the D800E is of course much more at ease for such large prints, and it would be the evident choice: it just need a lens up to the task, and the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S - while amazing on 12 Mp cameras - is not that lens anymore.
As far as vignetting, colour and so on, nothing much different to note here; the Nikkor has quite a lot of vignetting, which doesn't really clean up until f/5.6-f/8; the Sigma's behaviour is similar at its widest to that of its Nikon counterpart, showing vignette that doesn't really clean up until f/8. Distortion is quite similar, too; if you check as a reference the water drain between the yellow and grey building on the right side, you'll see that both lenses have more or less the same amount of distortion and that the distortion is of the same type.
Again, since Blogger may have some problems in displaying the test images in full, I prepared a zip for you to be able to examine them on your screen at your leisure: CLICK HERE to download!
THE PRINTS
How about if you are one of those who, like me, love (or need) to put some ink on paper? Well, in my experience with both cameras / lens configurations, I found that both configurations print about the same if you need just to print up to 40x50cm (16x20 in) @ 240dpi. This is about the limit of the native resolution of the SD1 Merrill, and resizing the D800E's files to this size gets rid of most of the un-sharpness you saw above at full-resolution; at this print size, you'll get similar excellent results from both cameras at most focal / aperture combinations. The main differences here are:
- At 24mm the Nikon combination is still slightly weaker than the Sigma;
- At 18mm the Sigma combination is slightly weaker than the Nikon;
And obviously:
- With the Sigma combination you can shoot at 12mm equivalent and the prints look just great, while the Nikon doesn't go that wide;
- With the Nikon combination you can shoot between f/2.8-f/4.5 or f/5.6 and the prints look between OK and very good at 40x50cm (16x20 in) @ 240dpi if you shoot at f/2.8-f/4, while the Sigma has limited and non-constant aperture.
If you want to print larger than 40x50cm (16x20 in), then things change. The D800E has resolution in spades and can print natively up to 60x75cm (24x30 in) @ 240 dpi, but the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S is out-resolved by the sensor at many focal lengths / aperture combinations in many areas of the frame. It is very very good to excellent all over the focal / aperture range if you care only about centre-frame; if you want sharpness all over the frame, you are just not going to get it if you want to print at full resolution using the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S.
The Sigma's files, on the other hand, need to be up-rezzed to go beyond 40x50cm (16x20 in); this, as we know, involves post-processing skills that not everyone has or wants to spend time to learn: plus, inevitably even the most skilled operator will hit a physical limit after which up-rezzing artefacts will be too evident to be considered acceptable. In my experience, you can print great with the SD1 Merrill up to 50x65cm (20x25 in) @ 240 dpi, which is about 24-28 Mp depending on image ratio etc, and which is close enough to Sigma's claims of 30 Mp-equivalent luminance resolution. Larger than that, I wouldn't consider it an option for serious work.
For my professional work, considering the white mat area around the actual print area, I find the SD1 Merrill perfect to print even the largest images for my Fine Art business (60x75cm or 24x30 in), since the actual print area is just about 50x65cm (20x25 in). Of course, you'll not have much room to crop and such, and if you plan to print this big, you'll need to perfect your up-rezzing workflow. Ultimately, the D800E is of course much more at ease for such large prints, and it would be the evident choice: it just need a lens up to the task, and the 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S - while amazing on 12 Mp cameras - is not that lens anymore.
CONCLUSIONS
Let me start my conclusions by looking at the cameras compared here from the wallet's side, something seemingly unrelated to photography and image quality but that is important for many people out there nevertheless when choosing a camera system. The Sigma SD1 Merrill with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM sells (today, B&H prices) for $2.948 US; the Nikon D800E with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S, on the other hand, sells (today, B&H prices) for $5.292,95 US - a difference of more than $2.300 US, which could pay for a very nice photographic trip, a couple more lenses (or 3-4, if you choose Sigma) or whatever it is that you'd like to spend $2.300 US on. As well, the the Nikon D800E with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S weighs in at a whopping 2.110 grams (4.65 lb), battery & card included, without its lens cap, while the Sigma SD1 Merrill with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM weighs in at only 1.650 grams (3.63 lb), with battery & card, without its (absurd) lens cap; there is almost half a kg difference between the two packages (460 grams to be exact, or 1.01 lb). More, if you are one of those people who likes to use filters on your wide angles (I definitely am), to filter the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S you'd need to spend about $800 US extra to get either the Lee SW150 or the Lucroit 165MM enormous filter systems with 5-6 filters (Grads and ND grads, no polariser allowed), while to filter the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM you can adapt the same 4" filter system you'd use on all your other lenses (polariser included, for the longer end of the range or for these situation where a polariser would be needed even with a UWA lens), saving money and bulk. On the other hand, just a quick look at the specs of both systems will immediately tell you where these $2.300 and that extra pound of weight went: with the Nikon you get a much better performing camera by far under any point of view (for image quality, see below), more features, a much faster constant-aperture lens, and so on.
Now, all this aside, if you weren't concerned with any of the above and all you wanted to know is which system will give you the best wide angle performance, which one would I recommend?
Now, all this aside, if you weren't concerned with any of the above and all you wanted to know is which system will give you the best wide angle performance, which one would I recommend?
Well, at the end of the day, as it often happens, things aren't so black or white; if you need lens speed, thinner depth of field, a brighter viewfinder, Live View, electronic level or if camera performance and features are important to you, then Nikon it is; if you need to get quite a bit wider, if you need the deeper depth of field of the APS-C sensor, if (easier) filtering is important for your photography, if you don't mind a slower camera , if you don't need all the D800E's features to do your work and if you need to hike long distances to get to your locations and 1 lb makes a difference for you, then the Sigma is the best choice. Is the Sigma the end-all for landscape photography? No, at least not yet. To come close, it would need at least to have Live View, faster file write speed, allow for longer shutter speed without penalties in image quality, and I'd like an electronic level as well: thank you very much Sigma!
OK, this is all well and good, but at the end of the day image quality is what counts the most. As I said in Part I's conclusions, just being able to compare head-to-head files from the Sigma SD1 Merrill against those from the Nikon D800E shooting lenses in the normal focal length range tells a lot about the quality of Sigma's camera / lens system. Funny enough, considering that the ultra wide-angle range has always been a weakness for APS-C cameras compared to Full Frame, this turned out to be even more true in the test presented here; lens speed aside, the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM holds its own perfectly against the legendary Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S; in fact, the Sigma's overall performance over the frame & the zoom range is higher than the Nikon's, except perhaps at 18mm in some parts of the image - a pretty impressive feat, considering that the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S is considered by many the best UWA zoom ever made.
Coming to file quality, while the D800E wins in sheer resolution, it is evident that its sensor needs superior lenses to show its potential in full - even the legendary Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S comes a little short here. On the other hand, the SD1 Merrill produce files that have exceptional micro-contrast and fine detail, probably equal to about 24-30Mp files coming out of a Bayer camera; and while the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM is less ambitious in specs than the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S, it's really a wonderful lens if you don't need the speed.
OK, this is all well and good, but at the end of the day image quality is what counts the most. As I said in Part I's conclusions, just being able to compare head-to-head files from the Sigma SD1 Merrill against those from the Nikon D800E shooting lenses in the normal focal length range tells a lot about the quality of Sigma's camera / lens system. Funny enough, considering that the ultra wide-angle range has always been a weakness for APS-C cameras compared to Full Frame, this turned out to be even more true in the test presented here; lens speed aside, the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM holds its own perfectly against the legendary Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S; in fact, the Sigma's overall performance over the frame & the zoom range is higher than the Nikon's, except perhaps at 18mm in some parts of the image - a pretty impressive feat, considering that the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S is considered by many the best UWA zoom ever made.
Coming to file quality, while the D800E wins in sheer resolution, it is evident that its sensor needs superior lenses to show its potential in full - even the legendary Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S comes a little short here. On the other hand, the SD1 Merrill produce files that have exceptional micro-contrast and fine detail, probably equal to about 24-30Mp files coming out of a Bayer camera; and while the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM is less ambitious in specs than the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S, it's really a wonderful lens if you don't need the speed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If you don't need the features that the SD1 Merrill doesn't have (i.e. video or Live View), if you are starting from scratch or if you want to step up your game and haven't already invested heavily into one particular system, then this is a really easy one; Sigma is the way to go here, since not only it's the best bang for your buck but it's also a impressive camera / lens combination producing wonderful images at any price. However, if you already have a D800E, I'd not sell it to get the Sigma unless you felt hopelessly in love with the Foveon look, or unless all you shoot is landscapes or stuff that doesn't move too quickly, with your lens stopped down. So, if you already have one, just keep your D800E, get a Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon (same filtering problem you have with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S though), a Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 Distagon or a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon for your WA need and you'll be a very very happy camper. If you shoot stuff other than Landscape / Fine Arts and you can't afford to maintain two systems, the D800E is the camera that makes more sense out of the two.
WHAT ABOUT ME?
I am lucky enough to have both cameras; I will keep them both for now, since both have their strengths and weaknesses and both have their place in my camera bag, and keep working with both to find out what the best camera will be for me.
WHAT ABOUT ME?
I am lucky enough to have both cameras; I will keep them both for now, since both have their strengths and weaknesses and both have their place in my camera bag, and keep working with both to find out what the best camera will be for me.
I have more lens comparisons in the works involving the D800E & the SD1 Merrill: stay tuned!
Now for the technical stuff: the quick and dirty product shot at the beginning of this review has been taken with the Nikon COOLPIX P7700; light has been provided by two Nikon SB-700 Speedlight used as remote slaves on manual.
DID YOU ENJOY THE BLOG AND ITS CONTENTS? HELP ME TO PROVIDE YOU WITH EVEN BETTER ARTICLES WITH A $4.99 USD MONTHLY CONTRIBUTION VIA PAYPAL: IT'S LESS IN A MONTH THAN WHAT YOU SPEND FOR COFFEE IN A DAY, AND YOU DON'T GET ANY GEAR REVIEWS WITH YOUR CUPPA!
OR SEND ME A ONE-OFF DONATION:
0 comments:
Post a Comment