New Sigma lenses - 12-24/4 Art, 500/4 Sport, 85/1.4 Art

[Hulyss]

I'm really informed about Sigma... and not only, adri.

I do not care if a lens "outperform" an another lens. I care much about rendering consistency. Again "outperform" is a bold statement for charts. Sigma lenses give more performances in only one area : resolution. And again, if we speak about Sony... latest sony lenses have nothing to envy to sigma. The latest Canon L 35mm have nothing to envy to Sigma. The very light Zeiss 35f2 have nothing to envy to Sigma. Finally, the Nikon 35f1.4 is simply a pro choice for the very reason I stated : Rendering consistency.

I understand someone on a budget might skip the brand lenses offering and go full sigma art. But the after sale service is far from Nikon service I'm afraid and that's not gonna change tomorrow.

Adapting a lens x on a camera y is nice (for the whole market and user wallet) but often come with drawbacks. Professionals do it with only few lenses, often the canon 17 TS and other very useful professional lenses. The rest are hobbyist with lots of lenses up their shelves and lot of time for forums and social media's.

I never been a third party or alternative lens photographer.

My comment above was more toward Sigma cameras than Sigma lenses, by the way. This is a good thing to have such performance from a third party lens maker. It push other company to refresh some optics BUT is this the most important ? Resolution ?

I do not think so.

[shadowblade]

I'm really informed about Sigma... and not only, adri.

I do not care if a lens "outperform" an another lens. I care much about rendering consistency. Again "outperform" is a bold statement for charts. Sigma lenses give more performances in only one area : resolution. And again, if we speak about Sony... latest sony lenses have nothing to envy to sigma. The latest Canon L 35mm have nothing to envy to Sigma. The very light Zeiss 35f2 have nothing to envy to Sigma. Finally, the Nikon 35f1.4 is simply a pro choice for the very reason I stated : Rendering consistency.

I understand someone on a budget might skip the brand lenses offering and go full sigma art. But the after sale service is far from Nikon service I'm afraid and that's not gonna change tomorrow.

Adapting a lens x on a camera y is nice (for the whole market and user wallet) but often come with drawbacks. Professionals do it with only few lenses, often the canon 17 TS and other very useful professional lenses. The rest are hobbyist with lots of lenses up their shelves and lot of time for forums and social media's.

I never been a third party or alternative lens photographer.

My comment above was more toward Sigma cameras than Sigma lenses, by the way. This is a good thing to have such performance from a third party lens maker. It push other company to refresh some optics BUT is this the most important ? Resolution ?

I do not think so.

As a landscape photographer, corner-to-corner resolution is not only the most important, but just about the only important thing in a lens. The only other things which even rate a mention are the number of aperture blades, which influences the quality of sunstars, and the amount of CA.

[BernardLanguillier]

I do not care if a lens "outperform" an another lens. I care much about rendering consistency. Again "outperform" is a bold statement for charts. Sigma lenses give more performances in only one area : resolution. And again, if we speak about Sony... latest sony lenses have nothing to envy to sigma. The latest Canon L 35mm have nothing to envy to Sigma. The very light Zeiss 35f2 have nothing to envy to Sigma. Finally, the Nikon 35f1.4 is simply a pro choice for the very reason I stated : Rendering consistency.

This is in fact a very important point. I currently use lenses from Nikon, Zeiss, Leica (tele lenses) and Sigma (mostly wides)... and try not to mix them within a given shooting session.

The renderings are different in terms of color, bokeh, micro-detail,... Leica and Zeiss are more or less or to mix, but I would never mix them with Nikon or Sigma. I pretty much only use Sigma by itself.

Cheers,
Bernard

[GrahamBy]

out of necessity as well as the desire to up the brand and produce truly quality products.

Another way of putting it: to create products that compete in the pixel-peeper and mtf vanity stakes. For taking photos, the difference between the pre-ART and ART 85/1.4 I predict to be irrelevant... except maybe if it focuses a little faster. But then it already focused much faster than a Zeiss 

[muntanela]

As a landscape photographer, corner-to-corner resolution is not only the most important, but just about the only important thing in a lens.

I have just bought the wonderfully built Zeiss Distagon T 25 2.8, maybe the most notorious Zeiss lens for field curvature...,  I  dare hope to use it not only for close ups, but even for mountain landscapes . It is lighter than my Nikkor 16-35 (which has some field curvature, too).

[NancyP]

Hulyss, you shoot fashion, don't you? I would agree that your approach makes eminent sense for fashion. Your gear money would be weighted heavily toward decent flash gear and enough modifiers and stands (or voice activated holders, eg assistants) to be maximally versatile.

[Hulyss]

Hello Nancy,

I shoot Women first and fashion when it is needed. My approach have almost nothing to do with material; it was, few years ago when needed. Most of my work is training girls because none of them are models. I find them in the street or they seek my services to be trained, over a short or extended period of time. I have no assistants, no money and not that much material after all. In my position brain and patience are more important tools than any gear. But I'm surrounded by gearheads who lend me good stuff sometimes this is why I do have a sharp eye on photographer's need.

A photographer need at first a subject to shoot or inspiration; then come the material

[kers]

Must say that i very much like the Sigma Art 50mm lens.
Not only the sharpness but also the rendering, coating and colour.
I have used the two latest 50mm lenses from Nikon and the 58mm.
The 50mm were mediocre and cheap, the 58mm is a speciality lens with outstanding coatings and colour, butnot very shrp in the center wide open and never really sharp in the corner.
A plain good 50 mm is still lacking.  I am very glad Sigma filled that gap.