Introduction
While Sigma is mostly famous for their series of fast and big “Art” lenses they also offer a lineup of more compact and more affordable “Contemporary” lenses. At the time of writing this review, the widest prime entry of that series is this Sigma 17mm 4.0 DG DN Contemporary. Let’s have a closer look and also see how it compares to the Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air.
Sample Images
Most of the sample images in this review can be found in full resolution here.
Contents
Specifications
The E-mount version of the Sigma 17mm 4.0 DG DN Contemporary has the following specifications:
-
- Diameter: 64 mm
- Field of view: 103.7° (diagonally)
- Length: 51 mm
- Weight: 216g (without hood[35g] and caps)
- Filter Diameter: 55 mm
- Number of Aperture Blades: 7 (slightly rounded)
- Elements/Groups: 9/8
- Close Focusing Distance: 0.12 m
- Maximum Magnification: 1:3.0 (measured)
- Mount: Sony E, L-mount
buy from amazon.de | amazon.com | ebay.com | ebay.de | B&H (advertisement/affiliate links) for $599
Handling / Build Quality
Generally Sigma did not cheap out on the build quality and controls of this series. They offer an aperture ring as well as an AF/MF switch so compared to Sony’s later “G” and “GM” primes and most of Sigma’s “Art” lenses only the lens button is missing.
According to Sigma’s marketing material the outer casings of these lenses are made from metal and they do feel solidly made. The focus ring has decent resistance but the coupling is not completely linear: when you rotate the ring fast it takes about 180° from the minimum focus distance to infinity, if you turn it very slow it takes a bit longer. Not as bad as earlier Sony FE/ZA/Batis lenses, but still not perfectly linear.
Even the lens hood is made from metal. It can be mounted reversed for transport and personally I find this lens looks much nicer with the hood attached, it does ruin its small size a bit though.
The Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air is almost the same size, it neither features an aperture ring nor an AF/MF switch though.
AF performance
I am not shooting sports or fast moving animals/humans so if you want to know if the lens is fast enough for this, or how it compares to other lenses in this segment, you may have to look for a different review with a more detailed assessment of this aspect.
Generally the AF worked well, was reasonably fast and snappy and also completely silent.
I tried using this lens with the Megadap ETZ21pro, Neewer ETZ and Viltrox ETZ adapter on a Nikon Zf and that also worked well. The AF was best with the Megadap, the optical performance was best with the Neewer ETZ adapter, as that seems to give the correct flange focal distance, important for internal focusing ultra wide angle lenses like this one.
Vignetting
Light Falloff
| f/4.0 | 3.2 |
| f/5.6 | 2.6 |
| f/8.0 | 2.4 |
| f/11 - f/22 | 2.3 |
For a compact ultra wide angle lens these vignetting figures are somewhat typical but still on the high side.
What is especially noteworthy: the noticeably wider Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air actually shows slightly less vignetting at f/4.0, I didn’t expect that. The benefit of this Sigma is, that on stopping down it improves a bit more. The Viltrox shows almost the same vignetting figures at every aperture.
It is recommended to have a look at this article first to get an idea how this brightness graph works.
Color Cast
Lenses this wide often show a greenish/blueish color cast on modern BSI sensors. With this Sigma 17mm 4.0 DG DN C I did not notice it in any of the actual pictures I took with this lens, but when taking pictures of on overcast sky or of snowy environments you may be able to spot it when looking very closely. Still, it is so little here, not really worth mentioning.
Sharpness
infinity (42mp Sony A7rII)
The Sigma 17mm 4.0 DG DN C shows a good performance in this category. Most of the frame already looks very good from f/4.0, only the corners are a little softer. Peak across frame performance is reached from f/5.6 to f/8.0.
The Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air actually showed a more impressive across frame performance at f/4.0, as the corners looked better.
close (0.12m, 1:3.0)
A standout feature of this Sigma is its short minimum focus distance and high macro-like maximum magnification of 1:3.0. In the central part also the image quality is surprisingly good from wide open. Except for Laowa’s 15mm ultra wide angle macro lenses this is the closest focusing ultra wide angle lens I am aware of, surely nice to have.
There are a few things to be aware of though: at the minimum focus distance you subject will almost touch your front element, which makes lighting your subject difficult and there is high field curvature here, so this is not a great lens to take pictures of flat objects at 1:3.0 magnification – not that I am aware of an actual use case for a 17mm lens for that.
Flare resistance
I have definitely seen some affordable ultra wide angle lenses struggle in this category which is always unfortunate, as with such wide viewing angles there is also a high likelihood to catch the sun or another strong point light source in the frame.
While Sigma’s modern lenses generally perform well in many categories, Flare resistance hasn’t always been one of those.
Nikon Zf | Sigma 17mm 4.0 DN DN C | f/4.0
At its maximum aperture we can only see some small artefacts, not something with a lot of potential to ruin your shots.
Nikon Zf | Sigma 17mm 4.0 DN DN C | f/11
Stopped down these small ghosts can be a bit more obvious but the contrast always stays on a high level. Still a good performance.
The Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air showed a similarly good performance. The Laowa 15mm 5.0 Cookie clearly performed worse as did the 7Artisans 15mm 4.0. The NiSi 15mm 4.0 was one of the better affordable ultra wide angle lenses in this category and also showed a similarly good performance.
Coma
If you are looking for an ultra wide angle lens for landscape astrophotography I would recommend to look for a faster lens to begin with – already because of its slowish f/4.0 maximum aperture. Despite that slow maximum aperture, the Coma correction actually leaves something to be desired, stopping down to f/5.6 is a good idea to get rid of most of the artefacts. Also in this category the Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air showed a better performance with almost no visible artefacts at its maximum aperture.
Distortion
Like many of Sigma’s recent lenses, also this 17mm 4.0 DG DN C shows strong distortion. For Jpegs this can already be corrected in camera, for Raw files luckily Lightroom and Photoshop feature a correction profile which does a good job.
Bokeh
Now obviously this is not a lens you should buy if you are into shallow depth of field photography. Nevertheless, in close focus scenarios you can actually create some bokeh and the quality is quite alright.
Even at only slightly longer focus distances you will hardly notice the background being barely out of focus.
Sunstars
Sunstars are not high on Sigma’s priority list. Their newer lenses do a bit better here than the older ones though. Still, for distinct sunstars you need to stop down to f/22, which means you are deep in diffraction territory robbing you of resolution and contrast.
If nice sunstars are important to you, maybe have a look at the Laowa 15mm 5.0 Cookie, the Voigtländer 15mm 4.5 E or the NiSi 15mm 4.0.
If you want to learn more about sunstars have a look at this article.
Chromatic Aberrations
lateral
This Sigma 17mm 4.0 DN DN C features a built-in lens correction profile for lateral CA that will also be recognized in most raw converters, so in the end: you won’t see any.
longitudinal
Rather slow ultra wide angle lenses usually do not have any problems in this category. That being said this lens shows a little more magenta and cyan outlining than many of its modern competitors.
Also purple fringing is on a higher level than I would have expected. The Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air clearly performed better in this category.
Conclusion
good
|
average
|
not good
|
As is easily visible from the table above this Sigma 17mm 4.0 DG DN Contemporary is generally a well rounded lens without any outstanding flaws.
Its problem is, that – compared to the recent competitors – it doesn’t really knock it out of the park for me. If you are merely looking for a compact affordable ultra wide angle prime I’d say the Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air does a better job at that. Not only is it even lighter and a lot cheaper, it actually performed better in many categories.
Then for 200 bucks more you can get the Sony FE 16mm 1.8 G, one of the best ultra wide angle lenses I have seen so far and more than two stops faster, opening up a lot of possibilities.
The arguments left in favour of this Sigma 17mm 4.0 lens are its nice metal casing, but is that really enough? I am not sure about that.
buy from amazon.de | amazon.com | ebay.com | ebay.de | B&H (advertisement/affiliate links) for $599
Alternatives
You can find many of the modern ultra wide angle zoom as well as prime lenses discussed in our Guide to Ultra Wide Angle Lenses for the A7 Series. There are a few lenses worth mentioning in more detail though:
Autofocus
Viltrox AF 14mm 4.0 FE Air:
Now 17mm and 14mm are a significant difference. If you are not that fixated on the focal length the Viltrox lens is actually easier to recommend. It only costs a third of the Sigma while I actually found it to perform a bit better. What this Sigma has going for it are the nicer materials and better controls.
buy from manufacturer’s shop (comes with a 5% discount) | B&H | ebay.com | ebay.de (advertisement/affiliate links) for $199
Sony FE 16mm 1.8 G:
The Sony FE 16mm 1.8 G – if you find a good copy – is an amazing lens that performs well (meaning better than this Sigma lens) in pretty much every category. It is only 90g heavier but more than two stops faster. Personally, if you have the 600 bucks for this Sigma, save a bit more and buy the Sony FE 16mm 1.8 G.
buy from amazon.com | amazon.de | ebay.com | ebay.de | B&H (advertisement/affiliate links) for $798
Samyang AF 18mm 2.8 FE:
The Samyang used to be my budget recommendation when looking for an ultra wide angle lens with autofocus, but these days I rather recommend the aforementioned Viltrox lens which not only performs better in pretty much every way but is also cheaper.
buy from amazon.com | amazon.de | B&H | ebay.com (advertisement/affiliate links) for $299
Manual Focus
Laowa 15mm 5.0 Cookie:
The Laowa 15mm 5.0 Cookie is a little slower and a little wider. It is even smaller and was one of Laowa’s first lenses to feature electronic contacts but no autofocus. As this Sigma as well as the Viltrox 14mm lenses are both a bit stronger optically, the Laowa 15mm 5.0 mainly makes sense if you are after well defined sunstars – or as small size as possible.
buy from manufacturer’s shop | B&H | ebay.com | amazon.com for $399 (advertisement/affiliate links)
Voigtländer 15mm 4.5 E:
The Voigtländer 15mm 4.5 E was one of the first third party ultra wide angle lenses for the Sony E-mount. There were issues with sample variation, it has super high vignetting and creates beautiful sunstars. These days also here – especially for less than half the price – the Viltrox 14mm 4.0 looks like a better deal.
buy from amazon.com | amazon.de | B&H | ebay.com | ebay.de (advertisement/affiliate links) for $549
NiSi 15mm 4.0 Asph:
This NiSi 15mm 4.0 Asph is a solid performer and was one of the cheapest ultra wide options when it was released. As it is much bigger and heavier and not a lot cheaper and features neither autofocus nor electronic contacts it looks a bit outdated next to this Sigma 17mm 4.0 or the Viltrox 14mm 4.0. Like the two aforementioned lenses it also creates very appealing sunstars though.
buy from B&H | ebay.com | amazon.com | amazon.de for $479/479€ (advertisement/affiliate links)
Sample Images
Most of the sample images in this review can be found in full resolution here.
Further Reading
- Guide to 9-18mm Ultra Wide Angle Lenses
- Review: Laowa 9mm 5.6 – The World’s Widest fullframe lens
- Review: Sony FE 12-24mm 2.8 GM
- Review: Sony FE 16mm 1.8 G
- Analogue Adventures
Support Us
Did you find this article useful or just liked reading it? Treat us to a coffee!
via Paypal
This site contains advertisement/affiliate links. If you make a purchase using any of the links marked as advertisement/affiliate links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the creation of future content.
Latest posts by BastianK (see all)
- Review: Samyang 35mm 1.2 XP - April 1, 2026
- Review: 7Artisans 40mm 2.5 AF - March 28, 2026
- Analogue Adventures – Part 50: What I learned from Shooting Film (so far) - March 18, 2026
I really like the form factor and metallic casing, but I can only agree with the conclusion. And second-hand Viltrox 14mm can already easily be snatched for 120-130 eur on eBay. Some people change their minds quickly, I guess.
I really care about the lens size, it does affect how often I use it, but in this case I’d probably go for much larger, but also faster and better Viltrox 16mm, if I cared about FL.
I disagree with the conclusion.
With the cropping ability of the A7CR, this lens covers a range from 17mm on FF (60MP) to 25.5mm on APS-C (27MP). You can even crop further to 29mm if you are ok with the resolution.
This range covers most of my UWA needs and replaces a typical 16-30mm zoom lens in an extremely compact package.
Other lenses do not fit this use case as well:
– 14mm F4 is 21mm with APS-C crop, which is too wide for me.
– 16mm F1.8 is not compact enough.
– Other lenses are not much better optically.
This lens also fits perfectly with the A7CR and makes it an ideal travel combo for me.
If your concept is to crop all the time you are using the wrong lens in the first place.
Sony 16-35mm PZ could be another alternative, though being a zoom, it is only a bit heavier, and offers 35mm for more general use.
I didn’t think of it, but you are absolutely right.
And the 16-25/2.8 for that matter.
The close focus can make it useful for special Applications; I use the 20 mm variant for underwater photography; there are few ww alternatives with this high magnification
I think your analysis of the lens performance is 100 percent spot-on. However, I agree with Marwyn that this lens has no peer for lightweight travel on a 60 MP body. There is simply no other autofocus, compact and lightweight FF lens of this focal length, espcially if you also plan to use it with a small gimbal for video. With high MP bodies, the sensor can be used to digitally “zoom”. In fact, this is the entire concept behind the very popular Leica Q camera with fixed lenses on them. Furthermore, Leica is considering an ultra-wide Q model to add to their 28mm and 45mm lens models. Who knows, maybe it will even be 17mm. So, “cropping all the time” does not imply that we are “using the wrong lens”, unless you really do hate the whole concept of the Leica Q series.
I don’t hate the concept of the Leica Q (especially the second distance scale in macro mode I find pretty cool) but I find that concept to tell people you “have more focal lengths when you crop” inherently stupid, yes.
I just think cropping becomes a circular argument, I crop as much as anyone when I don’t have the right lens (on me or on camera) but you can do so with any lens… The 17mm could be cropped thru 25.5 or w/e, but a 16-35 could be cropped thru 53mm etc.
If anything, the better argument for the 17mm here would be how it pairs with other primes in your kit, rather than cropping per se (even tho the latter ties into the former)… eg Someone pairing it with a 50 might prefer the 17mm, someone pairing it with a 35 might prefer 14mm, etc.
I really don’t like this constant talk about cropping that we hear about now that we have so many megapixels available. It annoys me when reviewers, especially on YouTube, keep emphasizing cropping as an extended reach. Take the Sony 24-50mm, for example; they always say you can crop it to 70mm, acting like it’s just as good as a 24-70mm. But no one mentions you can crop a 24-70mm to hit 85mm or 105mm. Why does everyone fall for this?
Also, even though 14mm and 17mm can feel pretty different, I can’t agree with the idea that this lens has no peer for lightweight travel on a 60MP body. Maybe you haven’t heard about the Samyang 16mm f/2.8 PE. It’s one stop faster than the Sigma, plus it’s lighter and cheaper too. I think it definitely deserves a mention, especially since I’m looking for a budget-friendly wide-angle lens that can do well for astrophotography. I really hope this new Samyang lens gets reviewed here in the near future!
Thank you very much for the review. This lens initially attracts me because of the small size, the focal length, build quality, etc. it looks like a perfect little nugget. However I never liked the rendition of it. I find the tonal expression and colors to look lifeless. To me, that is possibly the most important factor so I’m just waiting around for better options
Hello Bastian,
Thank you for the lovely review. However, I cannot agree with your conclusion and comparison with the Viltrox 4/14. I use both lenses when travelling. In small towns where the buildings are not very tall, the Sigma delivers significantly better photos. The perspective appears more natural, and the AF/MF switch is valuable in practice. The edge distortions are not as severe as with the Viltrox, which often leads to rejects, e.g. when people are distorted at the edge.
The colours are more natural with the Sigma, and what is particularly important to me in architecture is that there is a good correction profile for the Sigma. There is still none available from the manufacturer for the Viltrox. I wrote one myself for the Viltrox, and it corrects very well in the centre, but too strongly at the edges.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
The Sony 11/1.8 is a great alternative. It’s a 16.5/2.7 equivalent and great optically. Super light and compact. Just lacks aperture ring.