Sigma 14mm f/3.5 AF (Nikon mount)

[Ole Gammelsæter]

I bought this lens in early 90's, when I started using SLR for underwater photography. The underwater housing manufacturer (Hugyfot) recommended this lens over the Nikkor 15mm 3.5. My copy of the lens is supposed to be the Mk 2 version. It was a bit physical longer than the Mk 1, and it was supposed to be a little better. I used it for many years, but was never quite satisfied with it. It was the corners that were unsharp. Later I learned that the problem with mushy corners most likely was due to the dome port on the underwater housing, having too little radius. Then I got a new dome port with bigger radius, and image quality improved a lot. After I went digital in 2005, the lens was put away into deep storage.
After I got the Df, I started to wish for a super wide-angle lens. The old Sigma was brought out of hibernation. I went for a walk in order to take some test shots. One thing is the unsharp corners, but now I experience a lot more ghosting/flaring than I seem to remember from the film days. Even when photographing away from the direction of the sun, I can see some flaring/ghosting. This is orange spots at the outer part of the image.
Do anyone have experience with this lens? Is the Samyang 14mm better, or should I get a Nikkor 15mm f3.5 instead? Or a 18mm?

[Erik Lund]

The new lenses have better surpression of ghosting and flare... If that is desired.

The Samyang is a very good cheap lens...

[Ole Gammelsæter]

Thanks Erik,
Will check prices on the Samyang. The Sigma is most likely destined for new tasks. Doorstopper, paperweight or similar.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The Nikkor 15 mm f/3.5 is beautifully made and a joy to use with a Df. It is unusual as far as superwides go in having remarkably low geometric distortion as well (its CRC produces barrel distortion up close, but retains sharpness). However, it does flare quite easily (blue patches or veiled areas) so a newer lens design with modern coatings probably is better.  The Nikkor also has significant CA as expected for such a wide lens from the film epoch, but most if not all can easily be cured with modern RAW converters.

I heard a lot of praises for the Samyang 14 mm and the price is quite acceptable I understand. Don't expect the ultimate in build quality though so treat such a lens carefully and it should give you a good service.

[zuglufttier]

I had the Samyang 14mm and it is really great, there's not much to buy which will produce better image quality. There's Zeiss but those are only marginally better. The biggest problem with the Samyang is the rather extreme and complex distortion that is not easily removed in post processing. If you don't go for archicture the distortion is not that much of a problem, at least it wasn't for me.

The real problem with 14mm is the difficult image composition...

[Akira]

If you don't mind the bulky zoom and the 1mm longer focal length, you may want to look at the new Tamron 15-30/2.8 zoom.  It has received good reviews, is about the half of the price of Nikon 14-24/2.8 and way cheaper than now outdated Ai AF 14/2.8 prime.

[Ole Gammelsæter]

That Tamron lens looks well made.
I forgot to mention that I already own the Nikkor 17-35mm f 2.8. This is an excellent lens, so why not use this one? First, it is quite big and heavy, and most of the time it is mounted on my underwater camera. A bit cumbersome to dismantle zoom gear ring and diopter lens. But for the time being I will just use this one, until I get a opportunity to test the Tamron and the Samyang. 

[Michael Erlewine]

The Nikkor 15 mm f/3.5 is beautifully made

You say 15mm. Is this what you called in your lens site as 16mm? I am confuses. I have the 16mm f/3.5 but and unaware of a 15mm. Thanks for any clarification.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 16/3.5 is a Fisheye and is clearly labeled as such. The 15 mm f/3.5 is a ultra-wide lens with 110 ° field of view. It is many times bigger.

(images from Roland Vink's excellent Nikon pages)

15/3.5 Nikkor



16/3.5 Fisheye-Nikkor



These lenses should accordingly be easily told apart ...

The 15 mm by the way is an excellent performer given its vintage, but will show CA on a DSLR. Most of these artefacts can be removed in the RAW converter though. It has very low geometric distortion for its class for subjects at some distance, but the close-range correction (CRC) feature introduces some barrel distortion up close, just like the 35/1.4 AI/AIS Nikkor. Flare can occasionally be troublesome too.

[Fons Baerken]

I had the good opportunity to play with the ais 15mm f/3.5 on Df