Sigma Super Wide II 24mm f2.8? As good as some have said?

[parkpy]

I was nearly deadset on purchasing a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AIS for my Nikon FM-2n, but came across reviews for Sigma's Super Wide II 24mm f2.8. Some reviews indicate that it's sharper than the Nikkor, albeit susceptible to flare (not unlike the earlier Nikkor N-Auto non-AI 24mm lens). I've read also that the lens exhibits less contrast, and colder colors. I like contrast. And I like vivid colors. From what I've seen too, the out of focus rendering seems somewhat harsh, similar to bokeh I've experienced with my digital Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Does anyone have experience with the Sigma 24mm lens?

Thanks!

Paul

 

[filmamigo]

Well Paul, I have not compared it directly to the Nikon lens. But I happily use the Super Wide II 24/2.8 (in autofocus version) on my Pentax cameras. I find it very sharp, with nice contrast and neutral colour. It has nothing to apologize by way of image quality. I don't feel it lacks any IQ compared to say, the Pentax FA 50/1.4 or the Nikon 50/1.8 AF. I will often choose it as a small, lightweight snapshot lens for a day when I don't want to carry a big kit.

I picked up the Super Wide II after having VERY much enjoyed using a Sigma Mini-Wide 28/2.8 (manual focus) on my Nikon. The Mini-Wide and Super Wide II have very similar rendering and I recommend them both. They are also very sturdily built (mostly metal.)

 

[parkpy]

i loved the Pentax FA 50 1.4 when I owned it Thank you!!

-Paul

 

[Excalibur2]

Sigma Super Wide II 24mm f2.8? Well I would recommend it and it used to be a hidden gem for bang per buck, but some now are going for silly prices....anyway I don't think anyone would be disappointed when bought at 1/3 of the price of say a 24mm Nikon.

 

[dynachrome]

Sigma Super Wide II

I have an earlier metal barrel 24/2.8 Sigma lens in Konica mount and find it quite good.

 

[Johnkpap]

Hi i have a Sigma 24mm 2.8 Super wide II in Pentax Af mount, it is a good lens sharp, at all Stops, good contrast well built, The other 24's I have are a Tamron Adaptall II which is a very sharp under rated lens, and a Nikon 24mm 2.8 AIS this is a very nice lens, and it performs very well and the most expensive of the 3

I have found the Tamron to be the pick of the bunch, they can be had for around $60.00 with a mount and old tamron lenses are very well built. The only issue is it uses 55mm filters, the sigma and the nikon use 52mm filters

All three lenses are good choices and you will be happy with any of them.

Johnkpap

 

[KrankyKraut]

I've had the Sigma Super Wide II and the Nikkor 24mm 2.8 ai-s. I liked the Sigma better, especially as I obtained it at a much better price. The Sigma has great sharpness, contrast and colors, even though the colors area little bit cooler. Built quality was nothing to write home about, however.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I bought one brand new before your camera came out, for my Nikon FE2, I still have it and use it.

It's an excellent lens, takes 52mm filters, has a heavily scalloped lens hood, has ½ stop detents unlike the Nikkors, and focuses the same way Nikkor lenses do.

It isn't as good as a Nikkor, but it isn't far behind.

Mick.