Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DG DN 'C' lens review

[@TawhidKhan11]

I don’t even own a full frame Sony, but when it’s a constant aperture ultra wide zoom & the review is from Christopher, I had to watch it before putting my shirt on after shower when I was randomly checking my phone. & it’s a treat as usual.

[@ondrejkratochvil4589]

Any comparison to the Tamron 17-28/2.8 (apart from that 1 extra milimeter :) )? BTW I've got the 14-24/2.8 Sigma earlier this year, it's just great fun to shoot with :D but pretty heavy, about the same as the 70-180/2.8 from Tamron...

[@zfreek98]

Hey Chris, I'd love to see your take on Tamron's direct competition for this lens, the 17-28mm f/2.8 DI III RXD. Your reviews are my primary go-to for information because of how to the point they are. Huge appreciation for your work, good sir.

[@DomDoesVideo]

Great review as always! Yet I would love to see a Tamron 17-28 f2.8 review on your channel :)

[@alexanderje8336]

Yeah me too! Especially to make the comparison with this one.

[@alexanderje8336]

I'd love to see a review of the Tamron 17-28 2.8, to compare it :)

[@tortisrot]

Have you reviewed Tamron's 17-28? I'm surprised that you've reviewed this along with the Tamron 20-40 f/2.8 without reviewing the 17-28 f/2.8.

[@W0lfie91]

would love to see a comparison video between this and the tamron 17-28 f2,8

[@FamilyofTech]

Very interesting lens! Love the size and weight!! Very good for gimbal work !

[@BrianRichardson-k4k]

I like your reviews of lenses very much, straight down to business and right into the technical side of things. Is there any chance you will be doing a review of the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 Di III RXD Lens for Sony E Mount (A046) in the near future?

[@PhotographybySatesh]

When I want a lens or camera review this is the first place I come too:)

[@sselh]

the colours on this looks really good

[@SourPlanet]

Perfect set of compromises, IMHO. Makes this eminently affordable and useful for general shooters. Sigma holding down the top end quality and bottom end value, as per usual!

[@Gynra]

Excellent review: this lens is on my wish list for this year. At my age pounds (avoirdupois) are more important than pounds (sterling). The extra bonus is that lighter lenses are often cheaper than their heavier counterparts.

[@scottjanetsky1672]

I like this lens and I especially love it's contrast. Though, I think sigma made a stupid decision in giving it 11 rounded aperture blades. The bokeh would've been trash either way and if they gave it 10 straight blades it would've had really nice sunstars.

[@jamesquinn8958]

I know you typically talk about vignetting like it's a bad thing but honestly I kind of like a little vignette in some of my photos. I feel like it adds some artistic character and is part of a lenses charm. I wonder how this lens compares to the Tamron 17-28mm. I played around with one in a store and ended up buying it. I usually don't buy things without seeing reviews on them first but I liked the images that I got with that lens.

[@amrishsharma4788]

Great review as always. Just love the fact that you standardize your tests. I just wanted to make a request. Can you please test the Nikon Z 24-200mm lens please. You seem to have tested almost all the Z lenses available in the market but the above mentioned one. Thanks in advance 👍

[@PASquared]

Yes please. Been hoping for that one too

[@jamesborley4579]

Thank you Chris for this amazing video. Will you be reviewing the Tamron 17-28mm? I would love to see one of your comparison videos between this sigma 16-28 and the tamron 17-28mm. Take care.

[@RokPodaro]

HI Christpher. It would be great to make a review of tamron 17 28 mm f 2.8. I think you missed that lens. Great job as always.

[@anasrida3454]

Pretty good light lens. I was with Sigma's approach with their 85mm, where they decided to make the lens lsnaller at the expense of distortion and vignetting. However for ultra wides, i think correcting distortion in lens is more important.

[@Eikenhorst]

Why is correcting distortion in lens important? If you do it in lens or in post processing, it will degrade corner sharpness as you need to stretch the physical light or the pixels. In lens however means more glass and thus more weight and cost for something that can be done in post with the same result

[@anasrida3454]

@Eikenhorst because having to do it in post means you're losing information. For example the Nikon 16-35g lens has pretty bad distortion at 16mm making it more of a 17mm or even worse. For ultra-wide lenses each mm will be noticeable, but for telephoto it doesn't make as much of a difference.

[@Eikenhorst]

@@anasrida3454 Well that would be if the angle of view of the corrected image is significantly less than the advertised 107°. I don't think this is the case, but instead that the uncorrected image is far wider. But it would be nice if Christopher actually measured the angle of view as lenses with the same focal lenght don't always produce the same angle of view (the Nikon Z 24-120mm gives a wider image than the 24-70 for example)

[@sachintharavindu3356]

I am looking at the sigma 16-28 and the new sony 16-35 pz lens to get one. Any thoughts..? Particularly interesting part about the sigma is the contrast Mr.Frost mentions which i think makes the sony a bit sterile in the color department.

[@SyntheticFuture]

Honestly pretty impressive. Could be a good wide vlogging or gimbal lens. I think I'd prefer this over the 28mm f2 I have 🤔 interesting!

[@Stop-All-War]

Chris deserves Patreon support

[@cameronrichard41]

How would you compare to the Tamron 17-28?

[@shepdog_alpha]

So far I'm sticking with the Tamron 17-28. Just don't notice a big difference with this Sigma... Maybe glare and flare is a bit more controlled, but not impressive enough to switch for 1mm on the wide end. Great review as always though, love these videos!

[@DiminishingAugmentation]

Not sure why people even consider super mild upgrades. There's no reason to buy this if you own the 17-28 from Tamron.

[@shepdog_alpha]

@@DiminishingAugmentation I hadn't bought it yet. Was waiting for a review on this before I commit to the Tamron, and Tamron it is.

[@edc641]

@@shepdog_alpha Why would you get the Tamron over the Sigma?

[@marknathan7744]

Nice review Chris its a shame they didn't stick with a 67mm filter size to match the 28-70 f2.8 C , I think they dropped a clog there as Tamron nailed it with all three of there Zooms all with excellent Image quality. I wonder if they are going to do a 70-180 or 70-200 f2.8 C with a different filter size again like 77mm?

[@antonykeane5586]

I agree - wish they would have matched the filter thread sizes... the 16-28 2.8 and 28-70 2.8 look like a great combo, I'm considering switching my S1H lens setup from my Sigma 24-70 2.8 and Canon 16-35 F4 L to this

[@brunogoncalvesvisuals]

Would it be possible to compare this Sigma with the Tamron 17-28? I don't think you've reviewed the Tamron. Excellent work with the reviews!

[@TawhidKhan11]

Can't wait for Sony power zoom 16-35 f4 review.

[@patrick.771]

You said image quality in the center and corners is "very sharp" or "excellent" ... but compared to other reviews of yours it seems noticeable softer.

[@arnonart]

I own the tokina 16-28 2.8. i had it since 2011 and i am very happy with this solution. i wouldn't like to have longer range super wide angle zoom because they are extremely difficult to design anyway. the Tokina however have two flaws to my opinion. one, i hate their manual to AF clutch and it was once broken with no logical reason in sight. just quit functioning. the same problem i have with my other Tokina, the brilliant 100mm macro. no manual focus at the moment. one more advantage is the ability to use filters. the Tokina has a spherical front lens not enabling the use of filters. about the stabilizer, to frank, i don't really care. You've never tested the Tokina 16-28, it can be interesting to see the differences.

[@myown6898]

when are you reviewing the sony 24-70 f2.8 ii and comparing it to the 24-70 f2.8 i ?

[@Princeton_James]

I didnt even know this was coming out. This is awesome.

[@toowheela2111]

Another great review Chris. You must hate having to give these sample lenses back. I know I would.

[@gaboroot4599]

Hi Chris. thks for the video. Quick question. Lightroom doesn´t have a lens correction profile for this lens. How can i make adjustments and save them for future pictures or can i use another similar profile or what is your opinion? i appreciate if you take minute to help me out. Have a good one :)

[@TheJ_G]

Tamron 17-28 seems to perform better in most categories. I’m a little surprised. I wish sigma would get back to updating the Art series options instead of all these “decent” contemporary lenses.

[@evrythingis1]

You mean like the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 ART lens they prioritized and released well before this one?

[@TheJ_G]

@@evrythingis1 Yes. I’m aware they released a handful of mirrorless Art Series updates… That’s why I said, “get back to…” because they’ve been dropping a bunch of contemporary lenses mostly, but seem to have stopped/gone silent on updating the rest of the Art primes for mirrorless. I’d love to see a mirrorless redesign of the art 24, 50, 135 at the very least, the same way they did the 35 and 85.

[@ekphotography]

I do not think so, this performs better than the Tamron and is slightly wider.

[@princeharbinger]

@@TheJ_G I'm going to go with the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 Art. Nothing really beats it at the moment. I agree they should update those lenses. I'm personally waiting for them to update the 105mm. I'm pretty happy with their 85mm F/1.4 DG DN Art update. We'll see if the upcoming 85mm F/1.2 GM wows me.

[@evrythingis1]

@@TheJ_G It's inevitable that they will. They can only redesign and re manufacture so many lenses a year. I'm personally shocked at the rate they've managed recently.

[@fellowcitizen]

Very nice pairing for the CL/TL2

[@ekphotography]

Good thing I did not jump on the Tamron 17-28. I was contemplating getting it over the last few months. This is a no brainer over the Tamron. Good job Sigma.

[@cameronrichard41]

Could you make a comparison video with the Tamron 17-28?

[@stephanieyared245]

Hi! Thank you for your great detailed reviews! I'm an architecture photographer. Would you say that distortions are better controlled in post with the Sigma 16-28 or with the Sony PZ 16-35 f4? Thanks! 🙂

[@simplydiscgolf8519]

i just want to know where you got the crystal pepsi???

[@6rimR3ap3r]

Anyone here watching this after the first Sigma RF mount rumours? This could be a perfect replacement for my dinosaur Canon EF 20-35 f/2.8L, even down to the 72mm filter size. Let's wait and see if finally more happens on the third party segment beyond Voigtländer's Nokton.

[@KGi4]

Looks like great lens option for sony cameras. If Sony g master is to expensive this one does it perfect ✨🤙

[@captainkirk3000]

I wish you tested wide angle zooms at their middle setting too.

[@cantkeepitin]

I think with so liiittle zoom range you are anyway at max or min setting. Usually the mid is slightly better, especially regarding distortion!

[@Donbros]

Cant wait for their 28-70 f2

[@valentinesgiftshop799]

Hope they make an rf one..

[@반정우-haha]

Less distortion than 1635g F4??

[@dmmchugh3714]

Photography newbie here. What does 'DG DN' mean ?

[@ttown1376]

can't decide between this and the Sony 20mm 1.8

[@Rafa-nq7vq]

Last time sigma released 18-50mm f2.8 after the 28-70mm. Will there be a cheap 11-18mm f2.8 for crop sensor?!

[@SlavGuns]

Great video! Now to compare this to the Tamron. =)

[@JeffSpeers]

Canon RF mount please..!

[@clip2558]

Is it better than Tamron 17-28?

[@Mazel92PL]

Did you test this lens on aps-c camera? :) Its looks like a good option for someone who have aps-c camera and want to upgrade to full frame.

[@angusmackay7281]

Very good review. Even better reading matter :-) Thank you.

[@Vaquero_interestelar]

Muchas gracias. Se podría comparar este lente con algún lente de canon. Por ejemplo el RF 14-35 f4

[@MammadAliyev]

great review. thank you

[@summonedfist]

This lens looks amazing! I only might be mildly annoyed it slightly hurts the resale of my 14-24 dgdn 😂

[@officialtiimo]

I don't particularly think the image quality coming from the corners looked very good, I'm surprised at you Chris.

[@martin9410]

I have the lens and it's extremely sharp in the corners.

[@duvalpenny100]

If I didn't already have the Sony 20 1.8G This would've been the wide angle lens I would get. But since I do, I think the Sigma 14-24 is a better pairing.

[@The_GreenMachine]

wheres the Sony 70-200 GM II review? 😅

[@Tzadeck]

Really nice lens. Kind of want one.

[@vinaychinapanjwani2060]

When u want buy lens : CHRISTOPHER when u want buy dslr: MICHEAL MAVEN when u want to see negetive reviews abt canon : TONY when u want fair review about any camera : DAN WATSON when u want fair and accurate review about dynamic range : JUSTIN ABBOTT

[@puertadlm163]

Not trying to be rude but was the any reason you didn't add apsc cameras to your tests?

[@christopherfrost]

There wouldn't be much point using this lens on an APS-C camera because you can get ultra-wide angle lenses specially designed for APS-C cameras (ie. 10-16mm lenses etc)

[@puertadlm163]

@@christopherfrost ok fair enough. 👌

[@shahabh2108]

@@christopherfrost I would like to disagree. This will be a good choice still on spec considering it's light weight and small size. And you will have a nice wide to normal field of view. IMO it's better than the 18-50 2.8 giving you the 24mm instead of the 27mm.

[@maulolkajan8565]

@@shahabh2108 how about build your own channel bruh?

[@shahabh2108]

@@maulolkajan8565 You mean I have to build a channel only to be able to express my opinions?

[@kevc.2958]

f2.8 good pricing sharp light good flare resistant internal focus, no wonder why people go for the sony system

[@gamerat30]

Is it good for apsc camera?

[@bijosn]

Why not, it will give you 24-43mm range on aps-c

[@vpr5562]

Hi :) Should i sell mine 16-35 gm for this lighter/not extending lens? Not using 35 with it. Rare professional use, more fun. A7R3 body.

[@SourPlanet]

Is there a reason why you don't want to go with the Sony 16-35 PZ? Seems like a good option to swap straight over.

[@Donbros]

I think sony has less distortion, has better bokeh and of course has better af. If you dont need any of those and prefer light and internal zoom why not. For example I went other route to stay high aperture and sony native and bought 16-35gm as my main and 20mm g when i want lighter setup I think this just made tamron 17-28 hard buy

[@jahanghadami]

I’m also considering selling my 16-35 GM for this. The performance of the sigma looks very close to the GM

[@future2300]

Looks like a budget option for Astrophotography

[@yesconstructionltd]

Hi Christopher i have watched a lot of your videos. I really like how you review the lenses, it seems honest and accurate, so thank you. I wonder if you could help me with something? i am looking for a full-frame hybrid camera with a wide lens. Wide enough to vlog with. I am running a small construction company and I started my KZbin channel. I need a good quality camera to take photos for my website and a good quality video for my social sites. I looked at the Sony range as everyone is recommending Sony but the price point is also important for me. I do not want to spend more than £1,200-£1,400. Do you think I can find something? I am so confused. I looked at Canon, Nikon, Fuji, and Panasonic and my head is spinning.

[@yesconstructionltd]

i considered the zv e10 with wide lenses like the Tamron or sigma that are much brighter than the standard lens you get with the zve10, but as i said, i am so confused. I know little bit about photography as it was my hobby. I had the Nikon D700 back in the day with the 24-70 F2.8 and few other lanses.

[@jintuphoto1]

But we have more cheap cost for a portrait and landscape lens in our company link

[@DamianBrown]

Nice one Sigma

[@lesiakadam1977]

It's beyond me why reviewers avoid comparing this lens to Tamron 17-28. Is it because it's cheaper and better? :D

[@Jabber-ig3iw]

Is it ‘better’ because you own it?

[@camserpell]

does it come in L mount too??

[@Jimmyageek]

its a L Mount Lens First, Every Sigma Full Frame Lens release these days need to be a L Mount

[@oscarcrendeful]

It is ridiculous that a lens like this can't accept filters... Do you know if are there any problem with one slim filter? Please, review too the Tamron 17-28 2.8.

[@martin9410]

It does accept filters, it's the 12-24 that doesn't accept normal front lens filters.

[@oscarcrendeful]

​@@martin9410I mean that even 1 slim filter gets vignetting. I tried this lens with 77mm slim polarizer and the vignette is too visible. So, unusable with filter.

[@aldphillip2003]

I don't think anybody says the word "difffraction" more than this guy.

[@sarthakgupta8757]

Come on we need something like this for CANON ffs

[@hardywoodaway9912]

come to the dark side

[@sarthakgupta8757]

@@hardywoodaway9912 😢

[@yjl5476]

Bad sunstars. I decided to buy sony 16-35mm pz.

[@kenjiyamamoto423]

this what i hated from canon,. There's no cheap 3rd party lenses from other lenses company,. canon really sucks,. very selfish company,.

[@yoginwidhi6676]

They consider their EF is a third party for RF, a really stupid move by Canon indeed.

[@craigman7262]

I can;t really blame them. Sony only allowed others to use FE mount cause they didn't have many good lenses and wanted to promote their cameras. Canon already had great cameras and reputation. They pretty much had nothing to gain.

[@kenjiyamamoto423]

@@craigman7262 nothing to gain but consistently loosing more and more respective clients,. R7 and R10 was a good camera,. probably they've notice that their losing more on more for every camera they've always crippled,. like R6 no customization for video,. 20mp,. 30mins record time,. Canon doing it soo big,. no time soo they've lose that chuck of their market share they've care off,. too much crippling happening in canon camera bodies,.

[@yoginwidhi6676]

TBH i dont care how the lens looks as far they got the job done. If only its expand to 35mm and its gonna be more perfect.

[@diegorivera2711]

First!

[@Badonicus]

SECOND SORRY

[@Badonicus]

1