The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sigma 24mm, I was kind of hoping for this

D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
Lloyd Chambers has posted more of his review of this lens, with sample images, on his paid site. Impressive performance, smooth velvety bokeh, sharp to the corners, and well corrected ("...the least evidence of chromatic errors, and the least veiling haze" when compared to equivalent [Canon] lenses).

"First class performance, seemingly the finest 24mm f/1.4 lens ever realized for a DSLR, or conservatively speaking, no less good than the best Nikon or Canon or Leica M has to offer."

I'm not pushing Lloyd's site, nor am I affiliated with him in any way.

Paul, I understand your quest for a coma-free super-wide, and, from looking at the galleries on your website, admire your night sky work. Good luck in your search. This lens may not satisfy your needs, but it sure looks like just the ticket for what I enjoy shooting.

Joe
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Hi Joe:

Yes, I feel that for most shooting this will be a great lens indeed. Appearing to surpass the Nikon 24 1.4 in most areas for much less cost. Hopefully someone else will post info on it on a non pay site showing some more examples of bokeh. The examples I have seen were not that good but it seems Lloyd likes it, which is positive.

I had hoped this would be the answer for night work, but as you say, the quest will continue. All the other positive features of this lens make it one for my short list for sure.

Paul
 

Dan Bellyk

New member
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
Joe would you recommend the Nikon 20mm 1.8G ?
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
Joe would you recommend the Nikon 20mm 1.8G ?
Dan,

Yes, I would highly recommend the Nikon 20mm f/1.8G. My copy is sharp edge-to-edge with great microcontrast. It lives up to the positive reviews posted on the Web. Reduced sized Web JPEGs don't do it justice. Here's a Dropbox link to a full-sized JPEG from last fall.

Having said that, I'm going to evaluate the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art lens when it becomes available, primarily because I'm so impressed with the 35mm and 50mm Art lenses that I own. Whether I keep the Nikon 20mm f/1.8G will depend on how the Sigma compares and whether both can play a role in my shooting.

Joe
 

Dan Bellyk

New member
Thanks Joe was really thinking of this lens on my transition back into Nikon, took a crap kicking switching to Pentax 645Z and back to Nikon so my lens lineup is going to be thin :(
I have the Nikon 24-70 but was hoping to get the prime for sharpness and also being a little wider. I just picked up the 85mm 1.8 G and it's a great little lens.


Dan
 

jsf

Active member
I just received my Nikon 20mm f/1.8 today and took it out for a spin. I have been a die-hard 17-35 guy but I am trying to lighten the travel kit and still be able to take the Nikon 800. So I am really impressed with the 20mm. It is quite sharp in the corners, unless I put the sun into the picture no flare or ghosts. Even with the sun in the frame not at all objectionable. I find that 20mm is my usual focal length using the 17-35mm so a 20mm prime is perfect for what I want it for. It reduces my travel kit to the 20mm, an old MF 55mm micro, the 135 mm DC and the new 300mm. A little over 7 lbs not counting the case and the other stuff(filters, batteries, cards and asst'd. crap I seem to always need if I don't take it and never need if I do)
Not interesting pictures, but pretty good for the extreme corner which I don't care about anyway. 100 ISO d800e, f/8. The left hand shot is the center, the right hand is extreme left hand bottom corner.
 

segedi

Member
I just picked up the 85mm 1.8 G and it's a great little lens.
Yes it is! As is the 50/1.8. And so light you hardly notice it's there. I picked up a 28mm Voigtlander and really like that as well. I figured if I went back into DSLRs it might as well be as light as can be. And it's within 25 grams of my Leica kit!
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
The Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art was delivered late yesterday as promised by B&H. I used FocusTune and LensAlign to micro-adjust the lens to the D810. It took a +11 adjustment.

Today was pleasant enough to do some testing outdoors. Rather than bore you with multiple photos of my backyard (where I usually first test lenses), I'll simply share my first impressions.

[Edit - Sample photo has been deleted because it was taken in haste on a windy day and not representative of what the lens is capable of. I'll leave sample photos and lens testing to those who do it well.]

My initial impression is that this lens lives up to the reputation established by its 35mm and 50mm Art counterparts. It's sharp edge-to-edge, has excellent micro-contrast, and is well corrected. I'm impressed and now have to decide whether to keep both the new Sigma and the Nikon 20mm f/1.8G (which is also as sharp as a razor). Decisions, decisions...

Joe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
Excellent review by Roger, also published on the lensrentals.com website.

At $849, I don't find it terribly expensive, although some might. Having shot with Leica M and S systems for several years, I've been spoiled. For landscape shooting, which I enjoy, the Sigma Art series lenses - 35mm, 50mm and now 24mm - have filled a void. :thumbs:

At this price point, I wasn't expecting a breakthrough.

Joe
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
At this price point, I wasn't expecting a breakthrough.

Joe
I'm not sure if this is a smart move by Sigma. The 35 and 50 were clearly breakthroughs, both with regards to quality and price, more expensive than other Sigma lenses and better than Canikon equivalent. Now, they have entered into a class that is traditionally very expensive with a lens that is priced very low, almost approaching Samyang levels. As could be expected, there's no revolution when it comes to quality. The main reason for buying this lens rather than the Canon or Nikon is price.

Hopefully, Sigma will get back on track with a stellar 85 and/or 135mm.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I'm impressed and now have to decide whether to keep both the new Sigma and the Nikon 20mm f/1.8G (which is also as sharp as a razor). Decisions, decisions...

Joe
I downloaded your full jpeg and granted it's only 1 image but it only looks "good" not "great" -- at least to my eyes... Was it an in-cam jpeg, or LR conversion? Does the raw look the same detail-wise? No secret I am not a fan of LR, but if the raw from Capture1 or NX looks like that jpeg, I wouldn't be in any hurry to get rid of your Nikkor 20...

I wanted the 24 ART to be stellar -- I don't need an "okay" 24. In fact, it's got me thinking the Nikkor 20 would be a better choice for me since I already have an excellent 28. Sorry if this sounds blunt, just thinking out loud...
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I wanted the 24 ART to be stellar -- I don't need an "okay" 24. In fact, it's got me thinking the Nikkor 20 would be a better choice for me since I already have an excellent 28. Sorry if this sounds blunt, just thinking out loud...
Exactly my thought also, except I seem to be going for the Zeiss 21.
 

Steve P.

New member
If you've already got a 28 then the 20 makes more sense but if you're looking for a general purpose wide angle to complement a 35 or 50 then the Sigma Art is still a compelling option in the context of what's out there. I think the superlative quality of the 35 and 50 Art has raised expectations pretty high but can we really expect Sigma to hit it out of the park every time? It's still a fast 24 at a very competitive price point and I don't think many people will feel let down by the results.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I am kind of in again for a more extrem WA as well and a complete prime selection for the Nikon Df.

I must say that as supplement to the 1.8/35G I have tested which is an excellent and overall small lens I would choose the 1.8/20G as this is light weight and produces excellent IQ.

The Sigma ART 35 and 85 are great for sure, but relatively heavy and large again and I might most times not need 1.4 with the sensor of the Df. But maybe as many of you say the Sigmas are better than their Nikkor counterparts. Anyway I am trying to keep my equipment as small and lightweight as possible so I will probably go for the 1.8/85G which is excellent and lightweight again.

As a fast lens in my lineup I am leaning towards the 1.4/50G or even better the 1.4/58G, which seems to be a real marvel.
 

Steve P.

New member
Anyway I am trying to keep my equipment as small and lightweight as possible so I will probably go for the 1.8/85G which is excellent and lightweight again.
I'm the same way inclined. I looked at the Sigma 35 Art very closely but decided on the 35mm f1.8g for size and weight on my D750. I also have the 50 and 85 f1.8g and I can tell you the 85 is the best of the bunch. I'm sure you'll be satisfied if you opt for it.
Then again, I recently picked up a Voigtlander 20mm sl II for my wide angle so what do I know!?! :)
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
I downloaded your full jpeg and granted it's only 1 image but it only looks "good" not "great" -- at least to my eyes... Was it an in-cam jpeg, or LR conversion? Does the raw look the same detail-wise? No secret I am not a fan of LR, but if the raw from Capture1 or NX looks like that jpeg, I wouldn't be in any hurry to get rid of your Nikkor 20...

I wanted the 24 ART to be stellar -- I don't need an "okay" 24. In fact, it's got me thinking the Nikkor 20 would be a better choice for me since I already have an excellent 28. Sorry if this sounds blunt, just thinking out loud...
I've deleted the full-size JPEG (and the Web-size JPEG) because they are not representative of what the lens is capable of. The sample was a LR conversion, not an in-camera JPEG. I don't use C1 or NX for reasons I can elaborate on in another thread.

I'll leave the lens testing to the pros, like your friend Lloyd, Roger Cicala and Ken Rockwell, who have the time, skill, attention to detail, and revenue stream that I lack.

In the meantime, I'll likely enjoy both the Nikon 20mm f/1.8G and the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art until one proves measurably better than the other in real-world photography. Good luck with whichever you choose.

Joe
 

JCT

Member
Exactly my thought also, except I seem to be going for the Zeiss 21.
I've been bouncing back and forth re Nikon 20 vs Zeiss 21 for months. Will keep reading about the Sigma, but I just can't get the Zeiss out of my head.

At this point it may be time to sell my "least used" camera, use the proceeds to make up the difference for the Zeiss and be done with it. :rolleyes:
 
Top