Sigma Art 20mm f1.4

The existing sigma 85mm is already very very good. Mines nearly as good as my 35mm ART. It just happened to be released before the ART branding came out. I can see them updating it at some point to keep the branding the same across their line, but personally it's not something I think they need to prioritise.
 
ukaskew said:
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.
Click to expand...
This^ all of it.

I don't know how this came to be about the 85mm, but it's a market crowded with great lenses. Sigma appear to be prioritising niches. Certainly Canon didn't produce a 35mm suitable for use as a std lens on crop (though Nikon did), their older 35mm offerings were cheap and ok and very good and ridiculously expensive. The Sigma at a little more money than the Canon f2 is a bargain as its a huge saving on the Canon L whilst being better.
 
Phil V said:
I don't know how this came to be about the 85mm
Click to expand...

Because, if you polled people about what lens they want to see from Sigma next, I'd wager an 85mm f/1.4 ART would win by a country mile. Despite this they've released a lens which differs from one of their existing models by all of 4mm.
 
Is the 20mm so close to 24mm from a design and manufacturing point of view, that it was a no brainer to bring out.?...... Possibly 16 or 18mm would have been nicer, but would have needed more financial / design input to bring to market?
 
Whilst Canon shooters have a very attractive 135mm option, Nikon shooters only have the 20 year old DC version which most reviews say isn't particularly sharp wide open. I'm surprised Nikon havnt made a 135mm 1.8 to go with their 1.8 primes yet. I'd love to see sigma make a 135mm ART.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Because, if you polled people about what lens they want to see from Sigma next, I'd wager an 85mm f/1.4 ART would win by a country mile. Despite this they've released a lens which differs from one of their existing models by all of 4mm.
Click to expand...
But the difference between 20mm and 24mm is massive.

I'd hope you appreciate that! I'd mark someone saying ' only 4mm' down on a 'possibly an idiot' list if I'm being honest. Their current 85mm 1.4 is almost an Art lens apart from the box.

A 135mm f2 would be interesting, but the Canon ones aren't hugely expensive and are very good, I'm not sure how they'd shoehorn a USP in, but maybe they could for Nikon?
 
Last edited:
I would imagine that a fast 135mm would be much easier to design / build than the fast ultrawides that they're making
 
Last edited:
As I mentioned earlier, even Nikon haven't thought it worth updating their positively ancient 135mm, so I'd guess that the business case isn't as strong as some might think. That, and it's hugely unlikely that they could undercut the Canon 135mm a great deal, so the usp for half their potential market is questionable.
 
I'm not claiming that there's very little difference between 20 and 24mm and I'm well aware that, the wider you go, the more each mm matters but, frankly, there isn't *that* much difference between them and it's certainly not what I'd call "massive".
 
Just tested this out with the Nikon simulator thingumy:

20mm:
20mm.JPG


24mm:
24mm.JPG


Obviously subjective but no way would I call the difference "massive". Personally I don't think it's even that significant.
 
dandeakin said:
Whilst Canon shooters have a very attractive 135mm option, Nikon shooters only have the 20 year old DC version which most reviews say isn't particularly sharp wide open. I'm surprised Nikon havnt made a 135mm 1.8 to go with their 1.8 primes yet. I'd love to see sigma make a 135mm ART.
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
Vertigo1 said:
Just tested this out with the Nikon simulator thingumy:

20mm:
20mm.JPG


24mm:
24mm.JPG


Obviously subjective but no way would I call the difference "massive". Personally I don't think it's even that significant.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends what you're shooting, none of my pictures look like that. It's all about the relationship between the subject and the background, that image doesn't really have a subject.
 
Having recently took a punt on an old 19-35mm lens i was kinda disappointed with the similarity between 19mm and 24mm. I bought it as a UWA lens for landscapes and whilst it's ok, I'm not sure it's any better for my work than my 24-70. It's a lot lighter though which is a bonus but I'm not usually one to moan about that as i usually take half of the contents of the house with me when going out hiking. :D

It's a good lens for astrophotography for sure.
 
While I'm loving sigmas reinvention as a maker of absolutely brilliant lenses I do wish they would turn there attention to a set of super sharp light weight moderate aperture primes!
 
For those of you looking for a review of this lens, there is this one (albeit in Polish) that is worth a look. The summary is that the lens has pretty good resolution but not great coma. The bit about coma was particularly disappointing as I see this lens as being useful only for astro (for me at least). The page on coma correction is: http://www.optyczne.pl/376.7-Test_o...m_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Koma__astygmatyzm_i_bokeh.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top