Sigma 24 1.4 Art

funtagraph

Don't think it's that easy for Nikon managers to admit they no longer offering the top line of lenses for their own cameras. So far their strategy was: Come up with a very great f/1.4, later on get those customers not willing/able to afford those steep price lenses and offer them a f/1.8 alternative. Im most cases, except the bokeh there is no other advantage, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sigma is attacking them at f/1.8 prices (for the 35 and 24) and being optically better than any Nikon in that range. 24-105 is a different story, 18-35 stands alone and the 50 walks through on the way to Zeiss-top-super-no-better-end. Sigma is leaving Nikon behind in their own lens-dust. "Fortunately" Sigma has a limited choice to offer, lots of FL still missing and the available one not easy to come by in the beginning.

Nikon is already cutting the shares of their f/1.4 lenses by making their own competition. Okay, the money is going into their own bank, one could say. Workers in Japan might see it differently because they have close to no share to that what Nikon manufactures in China. Not our problem, maybe. If I look with the eyes of a Sigma manager, I would not care much about Nikon - and Sony has some good bodies to offer, too, we just don't want to respect that because lots of things are missing. Who makes the Nikon sensors? Sigma could make it's whole business with Canon and just come out earlier with great glass, making us envy looking towards Canon. I wonder how Nikon will take the challenge, so far I don't see full hearted answers.

sevencrossing

What must else Sigma do to give the market confidence their Art line of lenses are top notch?

Building confidence in a product takes time
Over the last 50 years Nikon have built a reputation not only for first class optics but also for long lasting reliability

Incidentally why do not hear much about Sigma DSLRs
why do they not give Nikon a true run for there money and make
a D400
or
a D4x

funtagraph

Incidentally why do not hear much about Sigma DSLRs
why do they not give Nikon a true run for there money and make
a D400
or
a D4x

Honestly? You still believe in this phantom D400?
Sigma's a small company, compared to Nikon. And they offer more than only Nikon mounts. With Pentax and Sony and their own mount they have 5 different ones, each can cause it's own troubles. Now, if I decide to leave Nikon and go elsewhere, I can take my Sigmas with. The mount conversion service is quite a nice move.

In base ISO and resolutionwise, they compete and win against D800/E/810, even if I put an Otus in front of the Nikon. High ISO, fast AF or dynamic range, they lose. But given the fact I can get all three DPxMerrills for less than half of the cost of a D810 body (without lens...).

It's very easy to point on a small factory and ask for big-boy level. The way which Sigma decided to go is nonetheless much more exciting and interesting than the old paths old aunt Nikon is trampling down.

donaldejose

Perhaps Nikon should buy out Sigma and let them keep producing this line of Art lenses.

sevencrossing

Perhaps Nikon should buy out Sigma and let them keep producing this line of Art lenses.

That would also have the advantage of stopping Canon from doing so

funtagraph

Nikon can't afford Sigma, with a series of lower turnaround than expected Nikon needs to focus on what they're good at.

I really don't want defend Sigma against Nikon as both have some great products. Sigma deserves my sympathy because they managed to make a transition from cheapo to wow in maybe 3-5 years. Being founded in 1961, the first Art lens is just 3 years out. I still have a working 35-70 on a Contax, maybe 20 years old - so even the cheapos aren't that bad. None of the Sigmas ever let me down. I'm confident to buy a Nikon lens from a certain price on - above 1800$ it's difficult not to deliver great quality. The same confidence I have with Sigma - just at roughly half the price or lower. Each of the new lenses is not just very good but outstanding. Most of the Art are "best in class", so please forgive me @Sevencrossing if I prefer not to wait 50 years and see if they still are good.

Golf007sd

funtagraph

The lens is already showing up in various shops and expected at the end of May for Nikon mount. However I had to learn Sigma's roll-out dates are only "conceptual ideas" and sometimes more dreams.

As they appear to have the 24-105/4 under redesign (according to Sigma-rumors, see also http://sigma-rumors.com/2015/02/sigma-24-105mm-f4-art-under-redevelopment/ ) I can imagine tons of reasons for waiting longer.

I'm a really happy user of the Nikkor 24/1.4 which is now the oldest glass in my collection and still often with me as I like playing with it's wide open bokeh. But then I'm also a very happy user of three Art-lenses and love their rendering. That lens is tickling me.

PB_PM

There is another early review from Lens Rentals, where they tested five copies of the lens.

Roger Cicala's Summery:

The new Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art lens does, indeed, out resolve the offerings from the major manufacturers, at least in the center of the image. At the edges, though, the advantage disappears. More importantly with any 24mm f/1.4 lens, try as you will, unless you really stop the lens way down you aren't going to get a flat field of focus. And if you are going to stop the lens way down, why invest all the extra money for a wider aperture lens.

That doesn't make these bad lenses. There are clearly some types of photography that this focal length is invaluable for, and in that case you just learn to work around the shortcomings. In many cases, though, the old rule that the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards is often true.

I'm strongly considering placing an order, but I admit I'm going to wait a while and see if Nikon releases a AF-S 24mm F1.8G. If it is reasonably priced I'll skip the Sigma.

donaldejose

"In many cases, though, the old rule that the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards is often true." Very interesting and can save you $1,000.00.

PB_PM

"In many cases, though, the old rule that the best 24mm f/1.4 is a 35mm f/1.4 and a few steps backwards is often true." Very interesting and can save you $1,000.00.

How exactly are you saving $1000? The Sigma 24mm F1.4 Art is just $100 more than the Sigma 35mm F1.4 (in Canada anyway).

donaldejose

PB_PM: I don't have the 35mm Art. I would save $1,000 by just purchasing the 35mm and not buying both the 35mm and 24mm Art lenses. That is what I mean by saving money.

PitchBlack: Great example of a certain look which could be achieved with this lens.

Ironheart

The only thing I'm disappointed to hear about is the wide-open coma control. I was hoping it would be a notch better than the samyang, mainly for astrophotography. In other types of shooting this shouldn't be an issue.

PB_PM

Chromatic aberrations also look pretty bad from the samples I've seen, and are possibly worse than the Nikkor.

PB_PM

both were very well controlled on other Art primes.

That is my experience with the 50mm F1.4 Art as well, so I was surprised that the samples showed so much on the 24mm F1.4 Art.

JonMcGuffin

This review seems to be a pretty fair stab at this new kens and the results aren't that compelling.


As much as I love and am planning to purchase more Sigma art glass, it appears this lens is rather just "ok" and is really more of a value for $$ push than a straight up "art" class optic.

JonMcGuffin

Spoiled for sure. $850 for this lens screams bargain, it's still sharp and it looks like at least many of it's faults are in fact correctable. One thing of note, for all the crop users, this makes for a very nice 35mm 1.4 prime on those bodies which is not easy to find. (Please don't say that Nikon makes a 35mm DX 1.8 lens, this is *not* the same field of view).

Given the lack of other options in the 24mm prime arena for Nikon, I still think this is probably the best overall choice.

PB_PM

It will sure blow the pants off the old AF 24mm F2.8 I'm using now.

pigeyejacksn

I'm even more torn. I have a pre-order in for this lens and may cancel. I am interested in the lens for astrophotography (granted I have many other uses), but have been torn between this and the Nikon 20mm 1.8. From comments above, it sounds as though coma performance is an issue below 2.8. That being the case the Nikon 1.8 may be a better lens for me. It's being used on full frame, and I plan on doing more that just astrophotgraphy, so I want AF, otherwise I'd look at the Rokinon. Anyone know of samples yet of evening Milky Way shots? Thanks

pigeyejacksn

The 20mm 1.8 g is what I was going to go with initially. I have a thread on this subject from a month or so back and the difference from 1.8 to 1.4 sounds fairly significant with Milky Way shots? But if the lens produces coma at the corners on full frame and is no better than the Nikon 1.4, then I will be disappointed and will want to go with the 20mm 1.8g. I am just getting into astrophotography, and want to make sure I make the right decision. My main use will be backpacking, hiking and landscape. Basically I plan to carry a 20mm or 24mm and an 85mm with me. Since the 20mm and the 24mm sigma are about the same price and close to the same angle of view, astrophotography is the key differentiator for me. Both would work for my normal uses but expensive enough I don't want to buy incorrectly. I have a trip coming up in a few weeks, so may pull the trigger on the 20mm 1.8 if I can't get the Sigma anyhow.

I am torn. I have never been disappointed in going with a Nikon brand lens, and re-sale is always is fantastic when I'm switching things around. And the reviews on the 20mm 1.8g have been great. I have flipped back and forth constantly in my head for the last month. The only reason I don't have a lens in my hands right now is because of the release date and now back-order on the Sigma. I keep hoping for an excuse to just buy the Nikon and not wait on the Sigma :-). I just don't want to regret it. There are still moments I regret not getting the 14-24 2.8 instead of buying the 16-35 f4.

birdman

My 2 cents: Go with Nikon this time around if you'll primarily use it for astro. You can find the 20/1.8g for excellent used prices since its been around a long minute. 20mm vs. 24mm is quite apparent given THAT subject matter.

Otherwise, we all know the Sigma should be stellar. And it's gonna be more versatile (some may even say much more so) than the Nikon 20mm, which is on odd-duck to me anyway. About aperture, 1.8 should do fine on astrophotog but the extra glass for 1.4 lens is icing on the cake for handheld street shots. I shoot a D800, so I need fastest lens given I never venture north of 3200 ISO.

I've never been a fan of primes wider than 35mm. You're somewhat limited for landscapes due to framing. 35mm Art is priced great used & top performer. Use it for everything except astrophotos. You've certainly read this article, correct?

http://petapixel.com/2014/01/29/picking-great-lens-milky-way-photography/

funtagraph

"we all know Sigma should be…." I am a fan of the Art lenses, but this generalization sorry, no. Not all off us know, not all of us take it for granted and then… well, the order situation of Sigma in general should be kept in mind.

Would you just explain @birdman why you would go Nikon for Astro? In general I find it's hard to focus because infinity position has an override (that goes for Sigma as well and all AF stuff). However, I don't see a big reason to sell the 24/1.4G and buy a Sigma instead but if I had to choose today and Sigma would be available - what could be the reason to pay twice as much?

spraynpray

The Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 24mm is quite good for coma, but for nightscapes there is still too much for my taste. I am interested in seeing some 20mm Nikon nightscape shots.

spraynpray

So it is being shipped. Can't wait to see images from it.

spraynpray

According to DXO it is good, but their tests are useless to me because they ignore all aberrations that show at night.