Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art All Discussions

Msmoto

This has made my mouth water. If it performs like the 35 and 50, it will quickly become part of my kit. May make my 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor a paper weight.

Any thoughts? The MTF chart looks better than the 35mm....

Dominique_R

I'm not so sure about the paperweight thing. I have the Nikkor 24 which suits me very well, and when I want to go really wide, I have the Zeiss 15. This new 20mm seems to be a bit in-between, “neither here nor there”, too wide for the “ordinary wide” shots, not wide enough for the super-wide ones.

And there is no lens that can, notwithstanding its optical qualities, serve both as a wide and an ultra-wide lens, so the “let's buy this one and thrash the 15 and the 24” route is not even an option.

kenadams

By no means a pro on MTF charts, but it seems realtively soft in the corners wide open, as did the reviews state for the 24 1.4 as well. I'd really like to get one of the two (edit: not for that reason, though, obviously).

Ironheart

I hate to rain on the parade, but for $100 more than the Nikkor 20/1.8G, and at 2.09 lb (950 g) vs. 12.6 oz (357 g) it better kick butt optically or I'll stick with the Nik and never miss the half a stop.
Ugh, I also just realized this siggy has a fixed petal hood and no threads for filters. That nixes it for me. The front element must be really bulbous.

WestEndFoto

If you are shooting astro and the coma is good, it could be a good lens. If you are shooting landscapes, 2.8 is more than enough. Hell, I have never shot a landscape wider than f4. Can you imagine what $2,000 could get you from Nikon on a 2.8 manual focus lens in terms of image quality. I would be all over that as my 20 2.8 AIS is my weakest landscape lens (I also have the 24 2.8 AIS, 28 2.8 AIS, 40 2.0 Ultron and 50 1.2 AIS).

haroldp

I am thinking slot canyons where tripods are a nuisance and f2.8 ISO 800 gets you 1/15th hand held. 1.4 would be nice

Ironheart

If you are shooting astro and the coma is good, it could be a good lens. If you are shooting landscapes, 2.8 is more than enough. Hell, I have never shot a landscape wider than f4.

You've hit the nail on the head. If the coma is better than my 20mm 1.4G, it'll be on my camera even if I have to saw that ugly hood off :P

I am thinking slot canyons where tripods are a nuisance and f2.8 ISO 800 gets you 1/15th hand held. 1.4 would be nice

Yeah, that gets you to 1/50th. However f/1.8 is only two clicks away

spraynpray

Well, we'll just have to wait to see what the aberrations (note use of that word instead of coma) are really like. My major reservation is the likely tiny rotation from minimum focus to infinity (VERY hard to focus accurately manually whatever method you use). Oh, and the low light focussing reliability of course.

I can't wait to see the tests.

kenadams

My major reservation is the likely tiny rotation from minimum focus to infinity

But isn't that an issue that most lenses exhibit? Do the Samyangs fare better here?

spraynpray

Yes, they are a manual focus design so they have around twice the resolution of the Sigmas. One annoying thing is that they have saved money by not having a hard stop at true infinity which no doubt makes the design much simpler/cheaper and the manufacture faster. VERY annoying for a lens that is usually bought for nightscapes tho.

Beso

This new Sigma is at the edge of focal length that I would use for my type of dark sky/nightscape photograph and I have pretty good coverage from 12 to 25mm. None of my wides and ultrawides (Nikon and Zeiss) are as good as I would like. It will be interesting to see the test results for this new Sigma Art.
I was an early adopter of the 35 f/1.4 Art and it is virtually always in my bag. I fairly recently purchased the 50 f/1.4 Art and out of the box the autofocus was poor, really poor. I made some quick adjustments but I need to do more work to get acceptable and reliable consistency. In my opinion it remains to be seen if Sigma has truly resolved the quality control issues that plagued them prior to the introduction of the Art series.

spraynpray

@Beso: How do you get on with the manual focus on the 35/1.4 Kent? As I said above, I found it hard to get absolute best focus on stars with it.

Msmoto

To follow up....if anyone misunderstood my strange humor....I would never give up my 24/1.4 Nikkor. But, this new lens may be just enough wider to give an advantage in close situations where one needs the extra speed. For those who like to look at MTF charts:

Sigma 20mm f1.4
MTF N/A

Nikkor 24mm f1.4


Nikkor 24mm f1.8


And, why the Sigma has 50mm at the top is not understood. It is quite different than the 50mm ART lens.

EDITED 10.20.15 0843 EST BY MSMOTO

WestEndFoto

I doubt that an MTF chart from one manufacturer is comparable to another. There are no agreed standards for producing one.

kenadams

MsMoto, the chart for the 20mm you link to above does not correspond to what was posted on the main blog in the announcement. What you posted looks way way more uniform across the frame than the chart in the blog post.

Beso

@spraynpray I don't have any secrets for focusing in the dark (and neither does any camera with autofocus that I have come across). My suggested approach is to find the infinity focus point of the particular lens you wish to use under ideal (daylight) conditions and mark it. Then when using the lens at night simply set it to that point and shoot away. Another technique I have used is to set up prior to dark, get my infinity focus point, and leave the lens alone after that. This method requires time and patience and I am not particularly known for the latter. The focus throw on most wides and ultrawides is relatively short so there is a lot of opportunity to be off slightly. Wish I could give you something better in terms of a technique that is more reliable but I simply don't have one. With today's gear the operator's flaws are more easily exposed!

spraynpray

Thanks for your response Kent. Given the longer travel of the focus ring on the Samyang, that method may work, I'll give it a try but nothing gets me fed up more that getting home and finding that the focus was off by a gnats hair. ~X(

Msmoto

As noted, the label of 50mm gives me concern, but the MTF was from the Sigma Website when I posted it. However, I am thinking this is NOT for the new lens and have changed my OP.

snakebunk

Sample images on lenstip: http://www.lenstip.com/2162-news-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_-_sample_images.html

What do you think? I have a feeling that the Sigma 24/1.4 is sharper.

Ironheart

I agree these images are lacking something. Perhaps here's why:
"Please enjoy the gallery of sample images taken with new Sigma A 20 mm f/1.4 DG HSM lens mounted on the Canon EOS 5D Mark III camera. All pictures are JPEG files stright from the camera with lowest level of sharpening."

kenadams

According to this test review, the 24 is less sharp both overall and more noticeably in the edge of the frame than the 20.

See for yourselves:
http://www.lenstip.com/457.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Introduction.html

snakebunk

That is a very positive review! And I regard lenstip as one of the best review sites.

[Deleted User]

Check out Ming Thein's blog for comparison between this and the Zeiss Loxia.