Sigma Art 20mm f1.4

Nice! The 35mm art is stilll tempting my credit card!
 
950g

*Boilk*

Will take the Nikon 20mm f1/8 if I invest in a 20mm prime
 
JYC said:
950g

*Boilk*

Will take the Nikon 20mm f1/8 if I invest in a 20mm prime
Click to expand...

950! Thats pretty impressive weight! thats heavier or as heavy as most 24-70s?
 
Phal said:
Weight rates pretty low on my list of priorities when buying a lens :/
Click to expand...

Not for everyone though. People who suffer with arm/wrist injuries might not want the weight and casual shooters might just want a light travel lens.
 
I have and absolutely adore the Nikon 20/1.8. It's sharp, small and light. The ART I'd like to see from Sigma is an 85/1.4 :D
 
If I got this (and I'm very tempted!) it would only be for astrophotography. That means that it would be one of the few lenses in my bag as I hike up a mountain or whatever in the dark. So the weight doesn't bug me... much. What does bug me is that it doesn't have a front filter thread as I'm one of those guys who like a UV filter in front of all my lenses to protect against water spray and my clumsy fingers touching the front element :)
 
JJ! said:
Not for everyone though. People who suffer with arm/wrist injuries might not want the weight and casual shooters might just want a light travel lens.
Click to expand...

Size/weight seems to be something that Sigma are more than willing to sacrifice from what I've seen. Most of their 'A' lenses seem to be fairly large and heavy when compared to equivalent lenses from other manufacturers but it seems to be working for them.

I'm sure there's people who have to consider weight but I would have thought those were a minority? I'm guessing things are designed for the masses :/

I'd imagine that weight is definitely a consideration when designing a lens but for me it would be a last consideration behind glass quality/max aperture/ versatility (zoom or min focus range) and size.
 
I'm sure it'll be awesome like all the other ART's , although I'm surprised they made this over a 135mm 1.8.

I'd have thought they would have sold more 135mm's compared to 20mm's.

Perhaps the 135mm will be next.
 
chrism_scotland said:
We forget though that the other Sigma A lenses are really equivalent to the much karger and heavier Nikon and Canon f1.4 primes, not the Nikon G lenses which are closer to them in cost.
Click to expand...

All modern Nikons are G lenses, including the f1.4 lenses.
 
And I was excited then to see a new landscape lens announced until I saw no filter thread! Oh well scrap that idea
 
Me² said:
I have and absolutely adore the Nikon 20/1.8. It's sharp, small and light. The ART I'd like to see from Sigma is an 85/1.4 :D
Click to expand...

I've got a 16-35 and am on the fence about it. Its ok, not spectacular like the ziess 21mm (in the middle it was epic, in the corners it was pure mush and they couldn't fix it. Edit, no filter thread. Odd decision.
 
JJ! said:
Not for everyone though. People who suffer with arm/wrist injuries might not want the weight and casual shooters might just want a light travel lens.
Click to expand...
Sigma Art lenses aren't really aimed at 'casual shooters', it's not designed to compete with a lighter cheaper 1.8 lens.
 
I had the 18-35 1.8 on my crop sensor Nikon! It was an epic lens! Sharper than the three prime Zeiss lenses in the range

I nearly didn't go full frame because of that one single lens!
 
Some tests have the cheap 1.8g lenses as sharper and better IQ. If you need/crave/desire f1.4 then sigma seem a no brainer, if not.... Casual shooters and pros will probably be more than happy with the f1.8g range.
 
JJ! said:
Some tests have the cheap 1.8g lenses as sharper and better IQ. If you need/crave/desire f1.4 then sigma seem a no brainer, if not.... Casual shooters and pros will probably be more than happy with the f1.8g range.
Click to expand...
You can say that about just about any decent camera and/or lens though and if we stop everything down to f8 no one will be able to tell what kit we used.

It's getting the last perecntage point of performance out of wide aperture and edge performance and minimising optical nasties that makes the difference between a smsll cheap lens and a big heavy expensive one. We just have to decide what matters to us and what level of performance we'll settle for. It might even come down to the look the kit gives you.
 
Last edited:
Totally agreed about the fact that this isn't for casual shooters (although I do love 20mm in town).

The tiny niche it fills cannot be nearly as profitable as the 85mm f1.4 or 135mm f2 segments though, which is what makes it strange to me.
 
What's the point of an f/1.4 lens this wide?
 
Can also still get a shallowish DOF when focusing on something very close. I like to do that with my 18-35mm at F1.8
 
JYC said:
Astrophotography is the first thing that comes to mind,, sure there are more
Click to expand...

Ah, okay, that's a genuine use. Seems rather specialised though when we've been crying out for an ART 85mm f/1.4.

Phal said:
Can also still get a shallowish DOF when focusing on something very close. I like to do that with my 18-35mm at F1.8
Click to expand...

You'd have to be virtually on top of a subject though. I guess I'm people-centric when it comes to photography so can't see a use in that field.
 
JYC said:
The tiny niche it fills cannot be nearly as profitable as the 85mm f1.4 or 135mm f2 segments though, which is what makes it strange to me.
Click to expand...

The existing Sigma 85mm 1.4 is easily good enough not to be a priority for updating to Art for Sigma. 135mm is probably about as niche as 20mm in reality (there is a reason Nikon haven't updated theirs for over 20 years) and not forgetting 50% of their potential market (Canon owners) already have access to a relatively cheap, exceptional 135mm lens.

Clearly wide angles are working for them from a commercial perspective at the moment and they have a lot more flexibility with price/profit as the first party options either don't exist or are exceptionally expensive.
 
20mm 1.4 would make some interesting images, going by what a 21mm Summilux achieves. It's just a shame it's so much heavier than i personally would be comfortable with. Definitely one for the person who carries a wheely bag.
 
I'm honestly baffled by this release? Why release a 20mm when they already have a 24? Surely they'd have been better concentrating on getting an 85 f/1.4 ART out as that's what most people are waiting for right now?
 
Vertigo1 said:
I'm honestly baffled by this release? Why release a 20mm when they already have a 24? Surely they'd have been better concentrating on getting an 85 f/1.4 ART out as that's what most people are waiting for right now?
Click to expand...

Since when has Common-sense and Market Research ever come into it?
 
Well you'd think they'd release what would sell best but what do I know?

There's a massive gap in the market at 85mm with no Canon f/1.4 option and the Sigma one, whilst decent, is aging rapidly. An 85 ART would sell in mahoosive quantities and I really don't understand why it's not here already.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well you'd think they'd release what would sell best but what do I know?

There's a massive gap in the market at 85mm with no Canon f/1.4 option and the Sigma one, whilst decent, is aging rapidly. An 85 ART would sell in mahoosive quantities and I really don't understand why it's not here already.
Click to expand...

Maybe they thought something new would sell better than something that's been around for eons? Maybe they're not happy with what they've designed so far? There could be lots of different reasons I guess :/

This one seems to be aimed at Astro from what I've seen on the Canonrumors site (designed to minimise coma aberrations).


*edit*

I guess it also makes it a bit more interesting for crop users. There aren't many fast/wide primes wider than 24mm.
 
Last edited:
Just seems to me that 20mm is a fairly niche focal length, even without the existence of the 24. 85 on the other hand is one of the most common focal lengths for portrait photography on full frame.
 
just curious (and looking to be educated!), what type of scenario's is 20mm and 1.4 useful? I really love ultra wide angle (14-16 range), but I'm generally shooting fairly stopped down.
 
Oh wide, fast lenses can be very useful I'm not disputing that, just I don't really see the need for a 20mm when there's already a 24mm.

Both are extremely wide on full frame by the way - I use my 35 at weddings more than every other lens put together and exclusively for dance floor shots and it's already plenty wide enough.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Just seems to me that 20mm is a fairly niche focal length, even without the existence of the 24. 85 on the other hand is one of the most common focal lengths for portrait photography on full frame.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the beauty of what Sigma are up to with their Art line, though? They've gone with popular lengths when they can outperform existing efforts at significantly cheaper prices (i.e. 24, 35 and 50), but the rest have been putting things out there that the big boys simply aren't touching, like the 18-35 or the 24-35. Those unique efforts basically have no competition, so the business case is pretty sound. If you're looking at a fast ultra wide the 20mm will no doubt stand out (remember the difference in view between 20 and 24mm is much bigger than the 4mm suggests).

35 and 50mm are incredibly crowded markets but there was a clear gap for a well priced high quality 1.4 in both cases that CaNikon never filled.

85mm is a bit different in that Sigma themselves already have a very solid lens, and the first party efforts at a range of price points are pretty much universally excellent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top