Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced

True not all the older lenses are that great, but all the newer Art lenses they are now bringing out after a big shakeup are fantastic, it clearly signals a new era at the company.

f/1.2 is very expensive, niche and on a Nikon body is possibly problematic to get working with AF, not really a big deal.

Being tax deductible only saves a 30-40% of the cost so I wouldn't say it's not a concern, I am self employed in the IT industry and would not spend hundreds more on a phone or laptop simply cos it's tax deductible!
 
Sigma art lenses are indeed a DRAMATIC jump in optical quality from their previous efforts. 95% of their previous lenses were frankly crap, with all sorts of AF/optical issues.
I hated Sigma. It was the Skoda of the lens world. Now though, they are beginning to bring the fight to Canon/Nikon, and they are often winning in the fights they have entered so far. I think the reason we haven't seen a 35L II is because of Sigmas 35 art release. If you are Canon and you have a new 35mm prototype that you plan to sell for £1200-£1500. You would probably have to go back to the drawing board if the competition started selling a 35mm that was better at half the RRP. Otherwise it would tarnish your brands reputation.

Regarding tax. Being able to include such items as capital expenditures does indeed sweeten the deal when investing in equipment. It may also allow you to afford better tools than you could otherwise. Obviously if you were 100% businessman about it, you wouldn't bother with any of these 1.4's as the cost doesn't really outweigh the benefit of 1.8's (at least in Nikon land).

Anyway I sold my 24mm 1.4 in prep for mirrorless...
 
I suspect I'll end up getting one of these.

I had the Nikon 24 1.4 and loved it. But never got to use it 'in anger' (at a wedding etc) as I made the jump to canon. Never got around to getting the canon version as rumours have been floating around that the sigma art one would be coming out at some point.

We'll see. The sigma art 50 is great but not QUITE as reliable as my canon 35l or 85l ii in terms of focus accuracy. (I'm blown away by how spot on the focus of my 85l is....even wide open, time and time again). I suppose at 24mm there's more leeway though...so the art could be a real winner.
 
Some people noticing the Bokeh is quite rough:
http://g1.img-dpreview.com/B5779F52AB574F8A9EDB16F1BCCD337C.jpg
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/1E8BFD24FC234E78A1B333A3B8E4F3E8.jpg

At 24mm this is somewhat expected IMO but it raises an important point regarding these new Sigma primes (and other lenses from Sigma/Tamron like the 35mm ART and Tamron 24-70mm). There is a tradeoff between wide open sharpness and Bokeh quality related to correcting spherical aberrations. Sigma/Tamorn are focusing on wide open sharpness and reducing OoF rendering quality. This is quite apparent when comparing Sigma 35/50mm ART to Nikon 35/58G lenses.


Personally I don't really see the need to pay the premium for the Nikkors but if you want a lens that renders beautifully at f/1.4 the Sigma art primes may not be the most desirable. For my work I tend to value sharpness higher for landscape, architecture and still life. For Bokeh, the Nikon 24-70mm does extremely well even if resolution figures are outclassed by 3rd party lenses.
 
Last edited:
So I've hired a Canon 24mm F1.4 to get a feel for the focal length & depth of field and i'm loving it.
Come on Sigma - make your lens available !!
 
D.P. said:
Some people noticing the Bokeh is quite rough:
http://g1.img-dpreview.com/B5779F52AB574F8A9EDB16F1BCCD337C.jpg
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/1E8BFD24FC234E78A1B333A3B8E4F3E8.jpg

At 24mm this is somewhat expected IMO but it raises an important point regarding these new Sigma primes (and other lenses from Sigma/Tamron like the 35mm ART and Tamron 24-70mm). There is a tradeoff between wide open sharpness and Bokeh quality related to correcting spherical aberrations. Sigma/Tamorn are focusing on wide open sharpness and reducing OoF rendering quality. This is quite apparent when comparing Sigma 35/50mm ART to Nikon 35/58G lenses.


Personally I don't really see the need to pay the premium for the Nikkors but if you want a lens that renders beautifully at f/1.4 the Sigma art primes may not be the most desirable. For my work I tend to value sharpness higher for landscape, architecture and still life. For Bokeh, the Nikon 24-70mm does extremely well even if resolution figures are outclassed by 3rd party lenses.
Click to expand...

"Some" people said the same about the 35mm Art but then were silenced when others pointed out and showed examples of both canon and Nikon having "rough" or "nervous" bokeh in very similar scenes, mostly background foliage on tree branches and whatnot.

It's really not an issue.

I'd like to see what the 24mm aspect does to my Urbex shots. I want a 14mm Art or 14-24mm ideally although the 24mm @ 1.4 will mean I don't have to break out the 17-40 for wide angle interiors and can shoot them tripod free and simply stitch 2 or 3 shots for a wider FOV if needed.

Thinking about it more, the latter makes sense, perhaps the 24mm Art will make its way into my bag too :p
 
The Canon? It would be pointless as it's not 1.4 so I won't be able to hand hold some of the shots I've gotten with the 35 1.4 Art recently.

Example:

A26A2040.jpg
Images over 1,280 pixels wide should be placed in spoiler tags as I've done for you.

Cheers

Surveyor


1/40s @ iso1600 @ f/1.4

The TS is also £lol price.

I also would want to use the 24mm in paid work, weddings and whatnot so the added performance benefits are stronger still.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
"Some" people said the same about the 35mm Art but then were silenced when others pointed out and showed examples of both canon and Nikon having "rough" or "nervous" bokeh in very similar scenes, mostly background foliage on tree branches and whatnot.

It's really not an issue.

I'd like to see what the 24mm aspect does to my Urbex shots. I want a 14mm Art or 14-24mm ideally although the 24mm @ 1.4 will mean I don't have to break out the 17-40 for wide angle interiors and can shoot them tripod free and simply stitch 2 or 3 shots for a wider FOV if needed.

Thinking about it more, the latter makes sense, perhaps the 24mm Art will make its way into my bag too :p
Click to expand...

i don't know about the canon but the Nikon 35f/1.4G produces better bokeh than the sigma, the 55mm does especially well against the 50 ART.
 
Comparison shots in the same scenes? They both have 9 rounded aperture blades. The bokeh in the same scene between them all would be very similar with only small differences.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
Comparison shots in the same scenes? They both have 9 rounded aperture blades. The bokeh in the same scene between them all would be very similar with only small differences.
Click to expand...

The blades aren't the only factor, they merely depict they shape of the bokeh highlights. More important is the actual design of the lens, how well certain aberrations are corrected. Elements like aspherical glass can improve sharpness, reduce Chromatic aberrations cab create a more nervous bokeh with harsh edges.

Complex zoom lens with many different element can lead to a busy/noisy background, even if they have many rounded aperture blades.

For a lens to have better Bokeh ideally you want to slightly under correct the spherical aberrations, this way the edges of the Bokeh highlights are rendered soft. If you over correct the aberrations then the edges end up brighter than the center and you get a very hard Bokeh. The difficulty in zoom lenses is the amount of correction needed will vary through the zoom range. A perfectly corrected lens will have a bokeh highlight as a smooth flat uniform disk, which is OK, but not as smooth as under corrected lenses.
http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html


his is why Nikon made 105 and 135mm f/2.0 DC Defous Control lenses that let the user adjust how much spherical correction to do, thus allowing you to trade sharpness for Bokeh quality. I think Sony has a similar lens. Lenses like the 55mm f/1.4 Nikon are gaining legendary status for the Bokeh quality but are no where near as sharp as the 50mm ART wide open.

Thus a lens even with fewer aperture blades and non rounded blades at that can make nice gorgeous smooth bokeh because the bokeh highlights dim towards the edges. A 12 blade well rounded aperture may cretae perfect circles with harsh transitions to the background.


Recently there has been a move to over correcting lenses, perhaps this increases contrast at the expense of sharpness? Anyway, it makes Bokeh even harsher than normal.
 
Last edited:
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-...Nikon-50mm-vs-Nikon-58mm-Bokeh-Highlights.jpg

Nikon 58mm f/1.4G is leagues ahead of the competition with silky smooth transition from Bokeh ball to background. The sigma 50 ART has a harsher transition to the background since the lens is well corrected. The sigma 50 Art is way sharper than the Nikon and I would buy buy the sigma over the Nikon nanny day for what I shoot but if you like Bokeh then you have to forgo the sharpness and use a less corrected lens.

Funnily the previous sigma 50 had better Bokeh, why, because it was less corrected.
 
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, I would rather have the sigma versions for my use and it seems ridiculous to pay more money for a less corrected lens.
 
Those pixel peep samples don't show any sizeable lead over the Sigma that justifies the huge price difference though^ There's slightly sharper/more immediate green fringing on the Nikon images too. I'm not saying the Nikon (or Canon) versions are bad, they certainly are not, but given the price and performance figures on the table, the Sigmas run laps around the other two.
 
Last edited:
One thing I really like on the Canon 24 1.4 L II I currently have is the colour and contrast look. If the Sigma can match it and be sharper for half the price then it's a clear winner.

I'll grab some 1.4 bokeh foliage shots with the Canon so a comparison can be done when the Sigma arrives.
 
Last edited:
There's gonna be minimal difference but for those who shoot raw it doesn't matter either way.

1: The casual photographer who just wants a quick image in JPEG out of the camera might be more interested in a in out of the box look of one of the two lenses. But then why would a casual jpeg shooter be buying such an expensive lens anyway?

2: Enthusiast photographers will be applying their signature process in raw processing anyway, especially in a production environment .

In the older days lens colour characteristics may have been a deal making factor for a particular lens, these days it's a non issue given how fast and powerful raw processing is and in most cases, fully automated depending on how your import settings are configured.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
There's gonna be minimal difference but for those who shoot raw it doesn't matter either way.

1: The casual photographer who just wants a quick image in JPEG out of the camera might be more interested in a in out of the box look of one of the two lenses. But then why would a casual jpeg shooter be buying such an expensive lens anyway?

2: Enthusiast photographers will be applying their signature process in raw processing anyway, especially in a production environment .

In the older days lens colour characteristics may have been a deal making factor for a particular lens, these days it's a non issue given how fast and powerful raw processing is and in most cases, fully automated depending on how your import settings are configured.
Click to expand...

3. Professional photographers who want a consistent colour tone throughout their shoot. Especially helpful for agency shooters who shoot straight to jpeg and have their exposure and white balance locked in. Having to correct for colour differences is a massive time sink especially when your window for uploads is usually less than an hour after the event.

Plus there's the OCD element of having an L glass trio. Partly why I'm waiting for Sigma to update their 85mm! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom