Sigma 24-35 or 24/1.4?

[Speedgraphic]

I'm looking at getting a wide for architecture, landscapes, wedding groups, interiors etc... Does anyone have any experience with either of these lenses? Everyone raves about both, and it makes it hard to choose one over the other.

 

[Jack]

I have the 24 ART. Simply put, it is excellent. And somewhat surprisingly is shows excellent bokeh wide open. It also is very low distortion. Corners are softish wide open, clean up as you stop down to f4 where it gets very good. At f5.6 the entire image corner to corner is as good as I've seen from a 24.

I do not own the ART zoom, so cannot comment other than my impression from what I've read and seen. It is also excellent, and especially so for a zoom. The MTFs indicate it is very close to the 24 prime at comparable apertures, which is remarkable. I do not know about distortion, but assume it has more than the prime, simply because of the nature of zoom design.

So, it comes down to comparing one of the best and fastest 24 primes available to a lens that is a stop slower, $150 more expensive, 1/3rd heavier and a little longer. But for all those negatives, you get zoom convenience and cover three major focals at near prime performance all in one lens...

Not an easy decision...

 

[Speedgraphic]

I guess it's just, would I rather have 1.4, or would I rather have a 28/f2 to go with my 24/2....

 

[Jack]

I guess it's just, would I rather have 1.4, or would I rather have a 28/f2 to go with my 24/2....

Haha! Yes, that's the conundrum. There is a definite look to the 1.4 when used for one of those closer-in full body portraits like the bride and groom's dance -- sharp main focus and enough DOF blur to keep our attention centered on their faces, but enough pleasing oof background image coming through the blur to let us see/feel the surrounding environment.

Surprisingly, focus is still pretty critical with the 24 at 1.4, so it takes care to use this way. Note that fall-off is pretty significant at f1.4 if that bothers you -- I happen to like it for this intended use. Also, corners themselves are a little mushy at f1.4, but again, there's usually nothing critical in the corners of a full body portrait taken with the 24, and then the falloff mitigates the softness' presence. All in all, I think they both work to the lens' favor for uses at f1.4... When you need critical corner to corner sharpness, like for the bridal party and family group shots, stop down to f5.6 and you're golden.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Would you consider 24 wide enough as a standard architectural lens? Or does it even matter now with stitching available to us. I don't do much now, but I'm entering a new market soon and it's an area of interest. I'm looking to build a marketable portfolio over a few months or so.

 

[Jack]

This 24 is a pleasure to stitch with when needed as base distortion is pretty low to begin with (less than 1% barrel). Gold standard would be to correct distortions in the frames first, then stitch. In fact, I sold my 24 PC-E when I got the Sigma for the very reason of the Sigma being significantly sharper in the outer 1/3rd frame area. With the 24, I only ever used a tiny amount of rise, and I find tilting this lens up and correcting in post delivers as good or better result than I got shifting the PC-E.

YMMV...