Sigma 14mm/1.8 ART anyone?

[kxl]

If this lens performs like the other ART lenses, I may get one when it becomes available -- after I acquire a Sigma 135mm/1.8 ART

Some pre-production sample images here:

https://www.dpreview.com/samples/8743754083/sigma-14mm-f1-8-sample-gallery

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

To be honest, and if dpr's samples are anything to go by (they mostly aren't), nope. Images look kind of sharp all over... kind of. Things change a lot with some USM, which in itself makes me skeptical since that means the lens isn't really that sharp to start with, and even with sharpening, it seems to lack "life".

When that is said, it probably does the job that it's supposed to do, but so do many other 14-15mm lenses. The large aperture is a bonus of course, but only for those who need shallow depth of field at this wide angle and/or do a lot of ultra-wide, low light photography using a camera without stabilisation (like with a Nikon ).

Ultra wide-angle has become almost mainstream the last decade, but most of the images I see taken with these lenses look weird and distorted rather than interesting and beautiful. Again, it's an important tool for some, but I would much rather pay this kind of money or more for a great, much more usable 21mm than for this tool that has rather limited use.

If I'm going back into full frame, it's partly because I miss the Zeiss 21mm so much. Kind of good ultra-wide lenses are available for most formats.

Edit: An ultra-WA lens that I would love to try though, is the Laowa 15mm f/4 macro. It focuses down to 12.2 cm (1:1), weighs a third (410 vs. 1,170g) and costs a third ($499 vs. 1,599) of the Sigma and it includes 4mm shift and it takes ordinary filters!

 

[Knorp]

Better wait for more reviews when the lens is GA.
In the meanwhile I have the A20/1.4 coming (EF mount) for my Sony.
The A135/1.8 is pretty awesome ... :thumbs:

 

[Jack]

Ya know, some things just go to the ridiculous... To me, f1.8 on a 14 is almost useless -- it won't give you any significant shallow DoF effect, and moreover, for most 14 image I want extended DoF. Plus, there are already some optically excellent (at f5.6 - f8) 14's on the market for general imaging that cost in the $350 range. Manual focus is not a big deal here either, since they hyper-focus so easily they're almost AF anyway

Caveat: the only exception I can think of, is if this lens is really sharp at f1.8 ~ 2.8, and shows no coma, it could be an amazing astro lens -- but I suspect the "no coma" part is pretty unlikely.

 

[tcdeveau]

Ya know, some things just go to the ridiculous... To me, f1.8 on a 14 is almost useless -- it won't give you any significant shallow DoF effect, and moreover, for most 14 image I want extended DoF. Plus, there are already some optically excellent (at f5.6 - f8) 14's on the market for general imaging that cost in the $350 range. Manual focus is not a big deal here either, since they hyper-focus so easily they're almost AF anyway

Caveat: the only exception I can think of, is if this lens is really sharp at f1.8 ~ 2.8, and shows no coma, it could be an amazing astro lens -- but I suspect the "no coma" part is pretty unlikely.

For me, this would be a "throw in the bag for astrophotography" type lens. Astro results from the example photos I've seen so far look promising: http://www.canonrumors.com/icymi-sigma-14mm-f1-8-dg-hsm-art-astro-sample-images/

Those samples may not be from an f-mount lens but mount shouldn't matter.

 

[Jack]

For me, this would be a "throw in the bag for astrophotography" type lens. Astro results from the example photos I've seen so far look promising: http://www.canonrumors.com/icymi-sigma-14mm-f1-8-dg-hsm-art-astro-sample-images/

Those samples may not be from an f-mount lens but mount shouldn't matter.

The f2.8 corner does look promising for astro guys. Maybe even 3.5 or 4 and higher ISO would help better "pin-point" the corners... For me, I don't see enough extra juice over my Samyang 14 to warrant it.