Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art vs Sigma 24 mm f/1.4 Art

Gjesdal

My widest lens in 50 mm and even if I mainly do portraits I sometimes miss having a wider lens.
Have promised wife I will not buy any more lenses in 2015 as beginning of this year and end of last I kind of went overboard, as one does...
... but I can still plan for 2016 :-)

So here is my question, why did they actually make the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art and should I consider it over getting the 24 f/1.4? (I think the 35 f/1.4 wouldn't be wide enough for me)

heartyfisher

There are no reviews of the 24-35 F2 yet.. however it seems like its the big brother to the very good 18-35 sigma 1.8 which is a very good dx lense.

The sigma 24 F1.4 is a good lense however there is a new 24 F1.8 from nikon. I would be considering that too. Again there are no reviews of that lense yet .. so cant really give an opinion. For 2016 read up on the reviews .. :-)

sevencrossing

I sometimes miss having a wider lens.

Do at least consider the AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED
sharper than any zoom, cheaper than an f 1.4
you can always crop in post

snakebunk

I am in the same position as my widest lense is the Sigma 50 Art.

I wish the Sigma zoom was a little wider (like 20-35) but otherwise it seems perfect. The gap between 35 and 50 mm doesn't worry me and I really like the Art lenses. I also think zoom can be handy when it comes to wide angle lenses.

The 24/1.4 is great but I think the gap to the 50/1.4 may be a little too long.

Here is a review: http://petapixel.com/2015/07/21/review-sigmas-24-35mm-f2-art-is-like-a-prime-lens-that-zooms/

Gjesdal

Thanks for the advice and feedback guys, will actually take some time to read up on this one as I'm not in a huge hurry this time :-)

TriShooter

@gdesdal : I shoot a fair amount of portrait work, and seriously avoid shooting anything with people in it with a lens wider than 24mm because of the challenges of framing while endeavoring to catch the right moment. I use a the Nikon 24-70mm, and the 28mm f/1.8 as my fast wide lens where space is severely limited.

Someone made the statement that "the best 24mm lens ever made was a 35mm lens used a few steps farther away." There is a lot of wisdom in that statement.

For landscapes the Nikon 16-35mm is hard to beat. Nikon's new f/1.8 lenses are all sharp, and sharper than their faster counterparts at the same aperture setting, and affordable; so these lenses are a deal.

snakebunk

Nikon's new f/1.8 lenses are all sharp, and sharper than their faster counterparts at the same aperture setting, and affordable; so these lenses are a deal.

I agree, but I have high expectations for the Sigma 24-35/2 and I think it will replace the need for the 24, 28 and 35 1.8 lenses. I think the Sigma will be the new deal .

Gjesdal

I'm not thinking of getting a wide angle lens for portrait @TriShooter , although today I really could have used one when I shot in a very, very small space, but I managed... just.