It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
What must else Sigma do to give the market confidence their Art line of lenses are top notch?
Incidentally why do not hear much about Sigma DSLRs why do they not give Nikon a true run for there money and make a D400ora D4x
Perhaps Nikon should buy out Sigma and let them keep producing this line of Art lenses.
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.
"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.
both were very well controlled on other Art primes.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Roger Cicala's Summery: 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.
PitchBlack: Great example of a certain look which could be achieved with this lens.
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.
Given the lack of other options in the 24mm prime arena for Nikon, I still think this is probably the best overall choice.
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.
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?
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?