Sigma 24mm, I was kind of hoping for this

[Jorgen Udvang]

SIGMA 24mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art - SIGMA CORPORATION

Art | 24mm F1.4 DG HSM | SIGMA GLOBAL VISION

 

[Swissblad]

I just saw this too…. very tempting…. just hope the quality is good… my Sigma 150mm Macro (which is a great lens) is enroute to Japan for an AF fix…. 12 week wait period indicated on the repair slip…..

 

[Jack]

Oh crap, another got to have it.

 

[Deleted member 7792]

Oh crap, another got to have it.

Jack, me too.

The Sigma 35mm and 50mm Art lenses are stellar AND priced reasonably compared to Nikon and Zeiss alternatives. I bought the 50mm based on your recommendation and haven't been disappointed. In fact, I'd say I'm gobsmacked by its performance.

In your recent workshop you used the 17-35mm for super-wide coverage. I'm curious about the focal length(s) that resulted in keepers using that lens in those shooting locations. When I look at my LR catalog for images I shot using that lens (I've owned two or three of 'em), I find my keepers clustered in the 22-26mm range. That would suggest that a 24mm prime might be a good alternative to carrying a zoom. What's been your experience?

Joe

 

[trioderob]

I took back the 20mm f1.8

I will buy this lens

 

[Jack]

Jack, me too.

The Sigma 35mm and 50mm Art lenses are stellar AND priced reasonably compared to Nikon and Zeiss alternatives. I bought the 50mm based on your recommendation and haven't been disappointed. In fact, I'd say I'm gobsmacked by its performance.

In your recent workshop you used the 17-35mm for super-wide coverage. I'm curious about the focal length(s) that resulted in keepers using that lens in those shooting locations. When I look at my LR catalog for images I shot using that lens (I've owned two or three of 'em), I find my keepers clustered in the 22-26mm range. That would suggest that a 24mm prime might be a good alternative to carrying a zoom. What's been your experience?

Joe

Joe,

Good word -- I'd say I'm rather gobsmacked by my 50 ART as well And yes, with the 17-35, I am very often hovering around 24-25, occasionally at the 18-ish mark, and occasionally at the 32-ish mark. But more than often so near 24 I'm going for a 24 ART as soon as they're available. My copy of that zoom is very good, excellent centrally, but not even in the same zipcode as the 35 or 50 ART in the outer 1/3. I also have a very good copy of the 24 PC-E, and while it's better in the outer 1/3rd than the zoom, it isn't quite as good centrally as the zoom, so again, the 24 ART is very appealing to me for general landscape.

In the end, the 24, 50, 85 is a tough trio to beat for landscape work. I may force myself to take only those lenses on the next workshop just to see how it goes

Somewhat paradoxically, I find 24 often not quite wide enough for travel, and prefer an 18/20 as my wide travel focal, so the zoom will get pressed into action there. My travel set is usually a foursome, 18, 28, 50 and 105 -- and the only 18 I own is the zoom. Though for travel, I could quite happily manage with just a 28!

 

[Bob]

Sigh, another lens for the bag...
-bob

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Somewhat paradoxically, I find 24 often not quite wide enough for travel, and prefer an 18/20 as my wide travel focal, so the zoom will get pressed into action there. My travel set is usually a foursome, 18, 28, 50 and 105 -- and the only 18 I own is the zoom. Though for travel, I could quite happily manage with just a 28!

Interestingly, my travel combo is nearly the same; 20/28/50/105. It would be interesting to see how I would cope with 24/50/105 though, and possibly add a 180, which I sometimes miss.

 

[segedi]

My travel combo would either be the D750 (when back from service) the 28 Voigtlander and 85mm 1.8G, with the 50mm 1.8G as a possible addon. But a 24/50 combo would be pretty nice too. I'm kinda partial to the Leica for travel though with 25/50 combo.

I had and sold the sigma 24mm f/1.8. Loved the angle of view and macro ability. Didn't like the overall image quality. The Art could be a keeper.

 

[Jack]

Interestingly, my travel combo is nearly the same; 20/28/50/105. It would be interesting to see how I would cope with 24/50/105 though, and possibly add a 180, which I sometimes miss.

Interesting ---- I recently added a 180 to take in lieu of the 105

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Interesting ---- I recently added a 180 to take in lieu of the 105

Great souls.... etc. :ROTFL:

 

[Paul2660]

Hopefully this lens will correct for coma better then Nikon's 24 1.4 and their new 20 1.8. Sadly the 20 has the coma problem as bad as the 24.

Sigma has made a point about a special element designed to correct for coma so I will preorder this lens when it available for order.

Paul

 

[Deleted member 7792]

Joe,

Good word -- I'd say I'm rather gobsmacked by my 50 ART as well And yes, with the 17-35, I am very often hovering around 24-25, occasionally at the 18-ish mark, and occasionally at the 32-ish mark. But more than often so near 24 I'm going for a 24 ART as soon as they're available. My copy of that zoom is very good, excellent centrally, but not even in the same zipcode as the 35 or 50 ART in the outer 1/3. I also have a very good copy of the 24 PC-E, and while it's better in the outer 1/3rd than the zoom, it isn't quite as good centrally as the zoom, so again, the 24 ART is very appealing to me for general landscape.

In the end, the 24, 50, 85 is a tough trio to beat for landscape work. I may force myself to take only those lenses on the next workshop just to see how it goes

Somewhat paradoxically, I find 24 often not quite wide enough for travel, and prefer an 18/20 as my wide travel focal, so the zoom will get pressed into action there. My travel set is usually a foursome, 18, 28, 50 and 105 -- and the only 18 I own is the zoom. Though for travel, I could quite happily manage with just a 28!

Thanks for your insights, Jack. At the moment, I'm using the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 at the super-wide end (or the 14-24mm zoom) and have found it to be sharp to the edges with good micro-contrast. For my shooting, the new Sigma 24mm may be a better choice from a focal length perspective. I hope Sigma bakes the cake as well as they did with the 35mm and 50mm

Joe

 

[Deleted member 7792]

...and possibly add a 180, which I sometimes miss.

Interesting ---- I recently added a 180 to take in lieu of the 105

Which 180mm are you guys adding?

Joe

 

[Jack]

I added the later 180/2.8 AF-D. Relatively small and lightweight and best of all, very affordable! Excellent centrally wide open, and only slightly less so at the outer say 15% -- so 85% central is excellent wide open, and that region improves as you stop down. But to be clear, it does have that older glass slightly smoother look, not quite as crisp as the newer offerings, but it makes a wonderful people lens and good for isolations of land and travel-scapes.

 

[Deleted member 7792]

I added the later 180/2.8 AF-D. Relatively small and lightweight and best of all, very affordable! Excellent centrally wide open, and only slightly less so at the outer say 15% -- so 85% central is excellent wide open, and that region improves as you stop down. But to be clear, it does have that older glass slightly smoother look, not quite as crisp as the newer offerings, but it makes a wonderful people lens and good for isolations of land and travel-scapes.

This one, I presume. For me, anything above 100-135mm needs to either a) be mounted on a tripod, b) have VR, or c) be shot at 1/250-1/500sec. to ensure sharpness. The 70-200mm VR works for me, but there are occasions when I wish for something less bulky.

Joe

 

[Jack]

That's it, but I bought it used from KEH for less than half that price -- like $390 or so IIRC for an EXC-. Also, it is light enough I personally do not need the tripod shoe. VR is nice, but again, I don't need it for most of what I shoot this lens with, even when hand-holding. Or stated differently, I don't appreciate the weight of the 70-200/2.8 VR or the loss of a stop for the f4 version -- but admit that *IF* I shot this focal range more frequently, I would probably opt for the 70-200/4 VR lens. But then at 1/3rd the price, this lens does just fine for me

 

[Paul2660]

The 24 came in at $849.00 US, not too bad if it delivers like the 50mm.

Paul

 

[Jack]

And available April 20, maybe just in time for spring desert wildflowers

Or possibly a week too late

 

[Deleted member 7792]

Dammit!!! I need a 12-step program. Or a winning Powerball ticket.

Pre-ordered.

Joe