Sony 16-35 GM Vs Sigma 14-24 (November 2025) Specs, Build & Review

When it comes to ultra-wide-angle zoom lenses for Sony E-mount cameras, two titans stand out: the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM and the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art. As a professional landscape and architectural photographer who has shot extensively with both lenses, I’m here to help you decide which one deserves a place in your camera bag.

Ultra-wide-angle lenses are essential tools for capturing expansive landscapes, towering architecture, and tight interior spaces. They allow you to include more of the scene in your frame, creating dramatic perspectives that can’t be achieved with standard lenses. But choosing between these two excellent options isn’t easy, as each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

In this comprehensive comparison, I’ll share my hands-on experience with both lenses, examining everything from optical performance and build quality to real-world shooting scenarios. By the end, you’ll have all the information you need to make an informed decision based on your specific photography needs and budget.

Table of Contents

Overview of Both Lenses

Before diving into the nitty-gritty details, let’s get acquainted with our contenders.

Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM

The Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM is part of Sony’s prestigious G Master series, designed to deliver the highest possible optical performance. Released in November [cy-5], this lens quickly established itself as the go-to ultra-wide zoom for professional photographers using Sony cameras.

I remember unboxing this lens for the first time and being immediately impressed by its solid build quality and sleek design. As someone who has used Sony lenses for years, I wasn’t surprised by the premium feel, but I was excited to see how it would perform in the field compared to Sigma’s offering.

Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art

The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art is part of Sigma’s renowned Art line, designed specifically for mirrorless cameras. Released in November [cy-3], this lens has gained a reputation for delivering exceptional optical performance at a more affordable price point than Sony’s offering.

When I first got my hands on the Sigma 14-24mm, I was blown away by its incredibly wide 14mm starting point. The ability to capture such an expansive view in a single frame opened up new creative possibilities for my landscape work.

Technical Specifications Comparison

Let’s put these lenses side by side and see how they stack up on paper:

Specification	Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM	Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art
Focal Length	16-35mm	14-24mm
Maximum Aperture	f/2.8	f/2.8
Minimum Aperture	f/22	f/22
Lens Construction	13 elements in 10 groups	16 elements in 11 groups
Special Elements	2 XA, 3 aspherical, 1 ED	1 FLD, 5 SLD, 3 aspherical
Diaphragm Blades	11 (rounded)	11 (rounded)
Minimum Focus Distance	0.28m (11.02″)	0.28m (11.02″)
Maximum Magnification	0.19x	0.13x
Filter Size	82mm	None (rear filter slot)
Dimensions	3.5″ x 5.1″ (88.5mm x 130mm)	3.5″ x 5.2″ (89mm x 132mm)
Weight	1.3 lbs (680g)	1.4 lbs (795g)
Weather Sealing	Yes	Yes
Image Stabilization	No	No
Optical Steady Shot	No	No

At first glance, the most obvious differences are the focal length range (16-35mm vs 14-24mm) and the filter options (standard front filter vs rear filter only). These differences have significant implications for how each lens performs in real-world shooting situations.

Build Quality and Handling

Both lenses are well-built, but they have different design philosophies that affect their handling characteristics.

Physical Construction

The Sony 16-35mm GM features a predominantly metal construction with a smooth, matte finish that feels premium in the hand. The focus and zoom rings are generously sized and well-damped, providing precise control. I particularly appreciate the ribbed rubber grip on the zoom ring, which makes it easy to adjust even with gloves on.

The Sigma 14-24mm, while slightly heavier, maintains Sigma’s high build quality standards. It features a combination of metal and high-quality plastic components that keep the weight down without compromising durability. The zoom ring is slightly smaller than the Sony’s but still provides good feedback.

Weight and Balance

At 680g, the Sony is noticeably lighter than the Sigma at 795g. This 115g difference might not sound like much, but it’s definitely noticeable when carrying the lens for extended periods. When mounted on a Sony A7R IV or similar high-resolution body, both lenses feel well-balanced, but the Sony’s lighter weight makes it slightly more comfortable for handheld shooting.

I’ve taken both lenses on multi-day hiking trips, and while the Sigma’s weight wasn’t a deal-breaker, I did appreciate the Sony’s lighter form factor when climbing steep trails with my camera gear.

Weather Sealing

Both lenses feature comprehensive weather sealing, with rubber gaskets at the mount and controls, and a fluorine coating on the front element to repel water and oil. I’ve used both lenses in light rain and dusty conditions without any issues.

During a recent trip to the Oregon coast, I was caught in an unexpected downpour while shooting seascapes with the Sony. Despite being exposed to rain for about 15 minutes, the lens performed flawlessly, and I didn’t experience any moisture ingress.

Controls and Features

The Sony includes a customizable focus hold button on the lens barrel, which can be programmed to control various camera functions. This is a nice touch that adds versatility, especially when shooting in challenging conditions where accessing camera controls might be difficult.

The Sigma lacks a custom button but features a physical aperture ring with smooth detents, which is a welcome feature for those who prefer manual control over exposure settings.

Image Quality Comparison

This is where things get interesting. Both lenses produce stunning images, but they have their own unique characteristics that may appeal to different photographers.

Sharpness

When it comes to sharpness, both lenses perform exceptionally well, but with some differences:

Center Sharpness: Both lenses are tack-sharp in the center from wide open. I’ve found the Sony to have a slight edge at f/2.8, while the Sigma catches up when stopped down to f/4.
Mid-Frame Sharpness: The Sony maintains excellent sharpness across the frame even at f/2.8, while the Sigma shows some softness at f/2.8 that improves significantly when stopped down to f/4.
Corner Sharpness: This is where the Sony truly shines. Even at f/2.8, the corners are remarkably sharp. The Sigma’s corners are good at f/2.8 but become excellent when stopped down to f/5.6.

During a recent landscape shoot in the Rocky Mountains, I was able to capture incredible detail in both foreground rocks and distant mountain peaks with both lenses. However, I noticed that the Sony required less stopping down to achieve optimal corner-to-corner sharpness.

Distortion and Vignetting

Ultra-wide-angle lenses inevitably exhibit some distortion and vignetting, but both lenses handle these aberrations remarkably well:

Distortion: The Sony shows moderate barrel distortion at 16mm, which is easily corrected in post-processing or automatically in-camera with newer Sony bodies. The Sigma exhibits more pronounced barrel distortion at 14mm, which is expected given its extreme wide-angle coverage.
Vignetting: The Sony shows noticeable vignetting at f/2.8, which is reduced by about two stops when stopped down to f/4. The Sigma also shows vignetting at f/2.8, but it’s less pronounced than the Sony’s at the same aperture.

I’ve found that both lenses benefit from in-camera distortion corrections, which are available on newer Sony cameras. When shooting RAW, I typically apply lens profile corrections in Lightroom to automatically correct these issues.

Chromatic Aberration

Chromatic aberration (CA) is well-controlled on both lenses, but there are some differences:

Lateral CA: Both lenses show minimal lateral CA, which is easily corrected in post-processing.
Longitudinal CA: The Sony shows slightly more longitudinal CA (purple/green fringing) at f/2.8, particularly in high-contrast scenes. This is reduced when stopped down to f/4. The Sigma shows very little longitudinal CA even at f/2.8.

During a recent architectural shoot with strong backlighting, I noticed some purple fringing with the Sony at f/2.8, but it was easily correctable in post-processing. The Sigma showed minimal fringing in the same conditions.

Bokeh

While bokeh isn’t typically a priority for ultra-wide-angle lenses, both lenses produce pleasing out-of-focus rendering when the situation calls for it:

The Sony’s f/2.8 aperture allows for some background blur, which can be useful for separating foreground elements from the background.
The Sigma’s similar aperture produces comparable bokeh, though its slightly different optical design gives it a slightly different character.

I’ve used both lenses for environmental portraits, and while neither will replace a dedicated portrait lens, both can produce pleasing background blur when used creatively.

Flare and Ghosting

Both lenses handle flare remarkably well, but with some differences:

The Sony shows excellent resistance to flare, with minimal ghosting even when shooting directly into the sun. The lens hood is built-in and quite effective.
The Sigma also performs well in challenging lighting conditions, though it can show some ghosting in extreme backlit situations. The built-in lens hood is effective but slightly smaller than the Sony’s.

During a recent sunrise shoot in the desert, I was able to capture the sun directly in the frame with both lenses without significant flare issues. The Sony showed a slight edge in the most challenging lighting conditions.

Autofocus Performance

Autofocus performance is crucial for many photography genres, and both lenses deliver in this regard:

The Sony utilizes a Direct Drive SSM (Super Sonic wave Motor) autofocus system that is fast, quiet, and accurate. I’ve found it to be excellent for both still photography and video work.
The Sigma employs a stepping motor (STM) autofocus system that is also fast and quiet, with slightly better tracking performance for moving subjects.

In real-world use, both lenses focus quickly and accurately, even in low light conditions. During a recent event photography assignment, I used the Sony to capture candid moments in dimly lit indoor spaces, and the autofocus performed flawlessly, rarely hunting or missing focus.

For video work, both lenses are suitable, with quiet autofocus motors that won’t be picked up by built-in microphones. The Sony’s slightly better tracking performance makes it more suitable for video work involving moving subjects.

Real-World Shooting Experiences

Technical specifications only tell part of the story. Let me share some of my real-world experiences with both lenses in different photography genres.

Landscape Photography

For landscape photography, both lenses excel, but with some differences:

The Sony’s slightly longer 35mm reach makes it more versatile for landscape compositions where you want to include both foreground elements and distant mountains.
The Sigma’s wider 14mm focal length allows for more dramatic perspectives, which can be particularly useful for tight compositions or when you want to emphasize foreground elements.

During a recent trip to Yosemite National Park, I used both lenses extensively. The Sony was my go-to for golden hour shots when I needed versatility, while the Sigma was perfect for capturing the grandeur of El Capitan from close vantage points where I couldn’t step back further.

Architecture Photography

For architectural photography, both lenses perform well, but with different strengths:

The Sony’s slightly longer 35mm focal length results in less distortion, making it slightly easier to keep vertical lines straight. This is particularly useful for exterior architectural shots.
The Sigma’s 14mm focal length is invaluable for tight interior spaces, allowing you to capture entire rooms in a single frame.

I recently photographed a historic cathedral with both lenses. The Sony was perfect for exterior shots where I wanted to minimize distortion, while the Sigma allowed me to capture the entire nave from a single vantage point inside the building.

Astrophotography

For astrophotography, both lenses perform well due to their f/2.8 apertures:

The Sony’s slightly better corner sharpness at f/2.8 means stars remain pinpoints across the frame, which is crucial for high-quality astrophotography.
The Sigma’s wider 14mm field of view allows you to capture more of the night sky, which can be beneficial for Milky Way shots.

During a recent trip to a dark sky reserve, I captured the Milky Way with both lenses. While both produced excellent results, I found that the Sony’s images required less post-processing to achieve perfect star shapes across the entire frame.

Interior Photography

For interior photography, both lenses have their place:

The Sigma’s 14mm focal length is ideal for small rooms, allowing you to capture the entire space without having to back into a corner.
The Sony’s 35mm reach is useful for detail shots where you want to emphasize textures and materials.

I recently photographed a luxury hotel suite with both lenses. The Sigma was perfect for capturing the overall layout of the rooms, while the Sony excelled at detail shots where I wanted to highlight the luxurious finishes.

Price and Value Analysis

Price is often a deciding factor when choosing between these two lenses, and there’s a significant difference to consider:

The Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM retails for approximately $2,198 as of November 2025.
The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art retails for approximately $1,399 as of November 2025.

While the Sony is more expensive, it’s important to consider the value proposition of each lens:

The Sony offers better corner-to-corner sharpness wide open, less distortion, and a more versatile focal length range.
The Sigma provides a wider field of view at the wide end and excellent optical performance at a significantly lower price point.

For most photographers, I believe the Sigma offers better overall value. The $800 price difference is substantial, and the Sigma’s wider field of view and excellent optical performance make it a compelling alternative to the Sony.

Who Should Buy Which Lens?

Now that we’ve compared both lenses in detail, let’s discuss who might be better served by each option.

The Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM Is For You If:

You prioritize corner-to-corner sharpness at wide apertures
You frequently shoot architecture and want to minimize distortion
You value the versatility of a 16-35mm range over an ultra-wide 14-24mm
You’re a professional photographer who needs the most reliable performance in all conditions
Budget is less of a concern than having the absolute best optical performance

I’ve recommended the Sony to many of my photographer friends who specialize in architecture and landscape photography. The combination of excellent sharpness and minimal distortion makes it a versatile workhorse that can handle a wide range of shooting situations.

The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art Is For You If:

You need the absolute widest field of view possible for landscape or interior photography
You prioritize value for money without sacrificing optical quality
You primarily shoot at the wide end of the focal range
You’re on a tighter budget but still want a premium ultra-wide-angle lens
You frequently shoot in tight spaces where every millimeter of width counts

I know several landscape photographers who swear by the Sigma 14-24mm and wouldn’t consider using anything else. For them, the ability to capture extreme wide-angle views with excellent optical quality is worth the savings over the Sony.

Also Read: Fujifilm X-T20 vs Fujifilm X-T2

Pro Tips Section

Based on my extensive use of both lenses, here are some pro tips to help you get the most out of either option:

For the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM:

Use the Focus Hold Button: Take advantage of the customizable focus hold button for back-button focusing or to recall focus points. I’ve set mine to activate focus magnification for precise manual focusing.
Stop Down for Maximum Sharpness: While the lens is sharp wide open, stopping down to f/5.6-f/8 will yield optimal corner-to-corner sharpness for landscape and architectural work.
Use a High-Quality Circular Polarizer: The lens accepts standard 82mm filters, and a high-quality circular polarizer can dramatically improve your landscape images by reducing reflections and enhancing colors.

For the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art:

Leverage the 14mm Focal Length: Don’t be afraid to get close to your foreground elements to create dramatic perspectives. I’ve discovered that the 14mm focal length allows for incredibly dynamic compositions when used thoughtfully.
Use the Aperture Ring for Manual Control: Take advantage of the physical aperture ring for quick exposure adjustments, especially when shooting in manual mode.
Invest in a Rear Filter System: Since the lens doesn’t accept front filters, consider investing in a high-quality rear filter system for landscape photography.

For Both Lenses:

Use a Sturdy Tripod: For landscape and architectural photography, a sturdy tripod is essential to maximize image quality, especially with high-resolution cameras.
Focus Manually for Critical Work: While both lenses have excellent autofocus, switching to manual focus with focus magnification can ensure perfect sharpness for landscape and architectural shots.
Shoot RAW: Both lenses have unique rendering characteristics that are best preserved when shooting RAW. This gives you the most flexibility in post-processing.

FAQ Section

Which lens is better for landscape photography?

For landscape photography, the choice depends on your specific needs. The Sony 16-35mm GM offers better corner-to-corner sharpness and less distortion, while the Sigma 14-24mm provides a wider field of view. If you prioritize image quality and versatility, the Sony might be the better choice. If you want the widest possible perspective, the Sigma has the edge.

Can I use filters with these lenses?

The Sony 16-35mm GM accepts standard 82mm filters on the front, making it compatible with most filter systems. The Sigma 14-24mm does not accept front filters due to its bulbous front element, but it does have a rear filter slot for gel filters. For landscape photography, the Sony’s ability to accept standard circular polarizers and ND filters is a significant advantage.

Which lens is better for architectural photography?

For architectural photography, the Sony 16-35mm GM is generally the better choice due to its slightly longer focal length range and less distortion. The ability to zoom to 35mm makes it more versatile for exterior shots, while the Sigma’s 14mm is better for tight interior spaces.

How do these lenses compare for astrophotography?

For astrophotography, both lenses perform well due to their f/2.8 apertures. The Sony has slightly better corner sharpness wide open, which is important for keeping stars pinpoint across the frame. The Sigma’s wider field of view allows you to capture more of the night sky, which can be beneficial for Milky Way photography.

Are these lenses weather-sealed?

Yes, both lenses feature comprehensive weather sealing with rubber gaskets at the mount and controls. I’ve used both lenses in light rain and dusty conditions without any issues. However, they’re not waterproof, so I’d still exercise caution in extreme weather conditions.

Which lens is better for video work?

For video work, both lenses perform well with quiet autofocus motors that won’t be picked up by built-in microphones. The Sony’s Direct Drive SSM autofocus system provides slightly smoother focus transitions, making it the better choice for professional video work.

Do these lenses work well with high-resolution cameras?

Both lenses are excellent matches for high-resolution Sony cameras like the A7R IV and A1. They have sufficient resolving power to take full advantage of these cameras’ high megapixel counts, producing incredibly detailed images when used with proper technique.

Conclusion

After extensive use of both the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM and the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art, I can confidently say that both are exceptional lenses capable of producing stunning images. The right choice for you depends on your specific needs, shooting style, and budget.

For most photographers, I recommend the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art. It offers excellent optical performance at a significantly lower price point, and its wider 14mm field of view opens up creative possibilities that the Sony can’t match. The $800 savings can be invested in other gear or put toward a trip to a beautiful location to photograph.

However, if you’re a professional photographer who needs the absolute best optical performance, especially in terms of corner sharpness and distortion control, the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM is worth the premium. Its versatility and slightly better handling make it a joy to use in the field.

Regardless of which lens you choose, you’ll be getting one of the best ultra-wide-angle zoom lenses available for Sony E-mount cameras. Both lenses have earned their reputation for excellence, and either one will serve you well for years to come.

Ready to take your wide-angle photography to the next level? Check out my other lens comparisons and photography tips on [markus-hagner-photography.com]. And don’t forget to bookmark this page for future reference – I’ll be updating it as new information becomes available!