Finally an excellent wide angle lens?

[Michael Erlewine]

For me, how corrected the lens is will be, for me, the deciding factor. I have the Sigma 24mm ART lens, and it is OK, holding the place in my bag until the Zeiss Otus 28mm arrives.

[kers]

Will be interesting to see a comparison between the Nikon and the Sigma for sure. The extra brightness of the latter is certainly interesting for some applications.

There is an interesting review of the lens on the Polish site  lenstip.com

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=457

Is seems the 20mm is very good indeed and has a fast autofocus.
(unlike the 24mm art lens)

[NancyP]

How much focusing does a 20mm lens need, at landscape f/stop selections?     Yes I can see the use of good autofocus in doing band photography or other low light reportage at f/1.4.

[shadowblade]

There is an interesting review of the lens on the Polish site  lenstip.com

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=457

Is seems the 20mm is very good indeed and has a fast autofocus.
(unlike the 24mm art lens)

Sounds good - maybe a good lineup to have would be 20/35/50/85, instead of the more usual 24/35/50/85. It also leaves room for a potential 28mm lens, as well as the inevitable Art-series UWA zooms (Sigma being a pioneer in that field).

Although I hope they fix the 24 Art, since it's the weakest of the Art lenses by far, being weaker than both this lens and the 24-35 zoom. The existence of the 20/1.4 proves it can be done, since 24mm is a significantly less challenging lens design.

[NashvilleMike]

Sounds good - maybe a good lineup to have would be 20/35/50/85, instead of the more usual 24/35/50/85. It also leaves room for a potential 28mm lens, as well as the inevitable Art-series UWA zooms (Sigma being a pioneer in that field).

Although I hope they fix the 24 Art, since it's the weakest of the Art lenses by far, being weaker than both this lens and the 24-35 zoom. The existence of the 20/1.4 proves it can be done, since 24mm is a significantly less challenging lens design.

As someone who owns the Sigma 24/1.4 Art, the Sigma 24-35/2 Art Zoom, and the Nikon 24/1.8G (and 20/1.8G), who has also in the past owned the Nikon 24/1.4G, who has spent several months shooting the 24 art prime in parallel with other lenses and who has done some pretty serious evaluation with the new Art zoom and Nikon prime as well, I would strongly caution you from thinking the Sigma 24/1.4 Art is the "weakest of the art lenses by far". I also own the other art primes, so I have a good reference.

Field curvature explains the difference between most of the better lenses in this broader 24mm segment, as does the balance between optimizing for across the field performance versus center sharpness. The Sigma art prime is a very good far distance landscape lens in that it can hold corner and edge sharpness at distance better than most of the competition. The Sigma art zoom is the inverse; it seems to be biased for closer subject distances and more central sharpness. The field curvature on the art zoom can greatly benefit things near to you: near corners, but corners/edges that are distant will not be handled anywhere as well as the art prime. Field curvature doesn't always magically improve by stopping down either, so really to evaluate these lenses, a simple test chart (or even the better option of a bench MTF test) won't tell the whole story. One has to work with the lenses in the photographic scenarios they encounter, for a while, to really determine which is the best, and often it ends up being one lens isn't an overall best, but rather a better fit for a scenario.

Note: Since I disagree with this sites decision to paywall everything including the forums, I will not be reading responses to this as I am pulling the plug on LL. Paywalled forums are things I do not support, so it's time to go. However, I've been meaning to reply to Shadowblades post for a while now, so this is it from me, not that I've ever been much more than a lurker here anyway.

[Petrus]

Note: Since I disagree with this sites decision to paywall everything including the forums, I will not be reading responses to this as I am pulling the plug on LL. Paywalled forums are things I do not support, so it's time to go. However, I've been meaning to reply to Shadowblades post for a while now, so this is it from me, not that I've ever been much more than a lurker here anyway.

Hey, forums will stay free, so do not go… Mike… Ah well...

[KevinA]

Note: Since I disagree with this sites decision to paywall everything including the forums, I will not be reading responses to this as I am pulling the plug on LL. Paywalled forums are things I do not support, so it's time to go. However, I've been meaning to reply to Shadowblades post for a while now, so this is it from me, not that I've ever been much more than a lurker here anyway.
[/quote]

why the hell should it be for free? If its not viable to rely on advertising etc to pay the bills, why should Michael be expected to provide a quality product for no return? Nothing of value if free.
Free on the internet is promoted by the likes of google so they can make money out of others efforts. I will happily pay $1 a month, $12 a year for christ sake!

[armand]

For what it's worth: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-24mm-f-1.8G-ED-Review-High-quality-wide-angle-lens-for-landscape-and-architecture-photography

[BernardLanguillier]

For what it's worth: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-24mm-f-1.8G-ED-Review-High-quality-wide-angle-lens-for-landscape-and-architecture-photography

Yep, I'll probably sell my 24mm f1.4 and get this one instead. Nikon is doing something special with their f1.8 series.

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

Yep, I'll probably sell my 24mm f1.4 and get this one instead. Nikon is doing something special with their f1.8 series.
Cheers,
Bernard

I find 24mm lenses very problematic. I have 3 nikkors 24mm PCE; 24mm 1.4G and the 14-24mm lens..
They all have their quirks. Real personalities. Together they are a team.
A  test is not enough to judge...
I have tested the 24mm sigma Art- It is better optically but not enough to say goodbye to my 1.4G Nikkor that has much faster autofocus.
The sides and corners @infinity are usually the problem areas. In the central area they are all fine.
The sample images @lenstip.com of the new 1.8G 24mm Nikkor  show some good results in this area even wide open.

PS  on some review sites i see photos of the new Otus 28mm and i am not very impressed. But as usual the photographers are the weakest link...
( some Zeiss arranged otus28 promotion boat trip that is not working to show the quality of the lens)

[John Koerner]

As someone who owns the Sigma 24/1.4 Art, the Sigma 24-35/2 Art Zoom, and the Nikon 24/1.8G (and 20/1.8G), who has also in the past owned the Nikon 24/1.4G, who has spent several months shooting the 24 art prime in parallel with other lenses and who has done some pretty serious evaluation with the new Art zoom and Nikon prime as well, I would strongly caution you from thinking the Sigma 24/1.4 Art is the "weakest of the art lenses by far". I also own the other art primes, so I have a good reference.

I agree there is too much bias against 3rd party lenses, often by people who have never tried them.

I have no experience with Nikon lenses, but I can say (with zero reservation) that people should really pay attention to what Sigma is doing with its lenses now.

They blow away the Canon equivalents, as far as macro goes, and even into the super-teles (e.g., the Sigma 100-300 is optically-superior to the Canon 100-400 II across the board ... and only trails behind the venerated Nikon 200-400 II, by fractions, across the board ... and for less than half the price).

FACT: Sigma makes more lenses than any other manufacturer.
FACT: Sigma's "Global Vision" is to upgrade beyond what the current Brand Names offer, for less money.

Consider this:

Fastest 20mm in the World
The Only f/2.8 180 mm Macro Lens in the World
The Best 50 mm in the World (pre-Otus, and still at a fraction of the cost).

I understand being partial to the brand you've decided to go with, but when your "brand" is decimated by the stats, across the board, and by another brand which is equal-to (or less) in price, it's time to ditch the brand name

[BernardLanguillier]

There is little doubt that Sigma produces excellent glass, in particular with their art series, while maintaining very affordable prices.

My first hand experience with some of them confirms their technical excellence, but I have been a bit less impressed by their look (bokeh, CA). Not bad but not great. The new Sigma 20mm f1.4 seems to improve on this though.

For what it's worth, some of them (including the 35mm f1.4 I own a copy of) are not really well regarded by Japanese photographers I know due to this look aspect. Most guys in Japan consider look by far the most important aspect of a fast prime and I know for a fact that at least Nikon ranks this also as more important than technical perfection when deciding design priorities.

I believe that Sigma is now designing lenses with DxO in mind since they understood that a high score is a huge sales booster outside Japan, while some key very senior people in Nikon and Canon still design the lenses they, and a handful of photographers whose opinion they respect, like to produce images with.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paul2660]

Sigma also (at least from my experience) has a bit of quality control issues. 

Finding a non-de-centered 24mm 1.4 Art was quite an experience.  3 copies.  The Bokeh on the 24mm 1.4 is strange to me.  For up close work it's very nice, but on a traditional landscape shot, the foreground seems to get a bit of a worried/busy look.  But to me the deal breaker was the terrible coma in this particular lens.  Also a very well known issue, in fact sadly something that the 20mm also carried forward. 

The 35mm 1.4 seems to be in a bit different league, from my experience.  Excellent bokeh and probably the best coma correction in a fast Moderate wide I have seem. 

As for Coma, it's not just Sigma, as all the Nikon fast wides I have tried have terrible coma, 24mm 1/4, 20mm 1.8 and in my past life so did the Canon fast wides.  But Canon may have improved, I have not used their glass since 2012. 

Sigma also only has a 1 year warranty, which is a bit surprising, but I believe Canon only has 1 year still also.  Tamron is 4. and Nikon 5, (limited)

Paul C

[armand]

I got the 24 1.8 today and I was looking side by side with the Fuji 16 1.4 as they both have same FOV and are quite fast. I was quite surprised to see they are roughly the same weight and almost the same size due to Fuji being all metal. While the Fuji felt like a high precision instrument somehow I felt less confident in it making it after a drop vs the polycarbonate of the Nikon (not that I dropped lenses so far).
And despite being on sale the Fuji was more expensive; remains 1.4 and WR though, equivalence be damned.

PS. I just checked, the Fuji is heavier

[armand]

As I just processed few shots the focus seems fast enough and flare resistance seems ok but not great.

[kers]

As I just processed few shots the focus seems fast enough and flare resistance seems ok but not great.

I just used the nikkor 24mm 1.8G  lens and i think it is a very good lens with very good flare resistance.
The coating is great. F1.8 makes already very sharp images on a d810. Very good controlled Chromatic and spherical aberration.
Very natural bokeh.
It is not made for manual focus. AF is very fast and spot on.
My only complaint is that it is clearly not made as a professional grade item although the optical quality is.
and the copy i have used has a tilted focus about 15 degrees left -right.
So make sure to get a good copy.

[armand]

For me great flare resistance means no flare, from there everything goes down and it's all very relative.

Here are couple more shots for bokeh and contrast. First has some significant manual distortion correction and second was shot at 6400 and 1/20.

[kers]

If i have a better copy i think i can make a F1.8 photo @infinity that is sharp across the frame on an 36Mp sensor. That would be very special for a 24mm.

I wish everybody here a good 2016 !

the photo (s) was made with the 28mm1.8G and you can see it in full size on my site
made a mistake it was the 24mm 1.8G 

http://www.beeld.nu/2016/

cheers!

Pieter Kers

[John Koerner]

No need for that if you use Canon. The recently introduced 35mm f 1.4L II is the new king, without a doubt (Said while looking sadly at my Sigma 35mm Art  )
You can see the comparison here

IMO, you should read the whole review more carefully. In summary,

• Alternatives to the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens
  
  "The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the real contender in my mind. The Sigma 35 Art is a very nicely designed and classy-looking lens that performs very well for, the BIG advantage, a much lower price. The Canon is sharper at f/1.4 and I find the Canon to autofocus accurately more consistently, but certain is that many will find the Sigma to be a better value for them due to the price difference."

There is also this review, which (while showing the Sigma to be only slightly surpassed in resolution by the new Canon) is still only half the price of the slightly-better new lens. In bokeh quality (arguably more important to "art" than resolution), they are identical, with the Sigma enjoying the slight edge:

Bokeh Quality:

• "One of the single best qualities of the Canon’s performance is in the bokeh transition performance. The lens really transitions from focus to defocus beautifully, and produces a very creamy bokeh region when shooting at close distances that produces stunning subject isolation.
  
  "When comparing the Sigma 35A and Canon 35L II side by side at a wide open f/1.4 aperture it is actually surprising how similar the bokeh highlights looked.
  
  Stopping down to f/2 helps correct the lemon or cat-eye shape, but also further accentuates the signature of both lenses. The Sigma is bit more “patterned”, and the concentric circles are slightly more defined on the Canon. The Sigma does a slightly better job of retaining circular shape, with the Canon showing the first hints of the shape of the aperture blades.
  
  Little changes at f/2.8, although now both lenses show the slight shape of their aperture blades at a 1:1 level to a similar degree.
  
  By f/4 both lenses are producing highlights looking more “nonagonal”. The shape of the aperture blades is now clear, though the result is far less objectionable than the odd shape of the old 50mm f/1.8 and its five blades. There is also far more light bleed around the edges of the shapes, but roughly at an equal level from both lenses.

Alternatives:

• "The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART referenced in this review continues to be a solid budget alternative to the 35L II with nearly as good optical performance. It is held back somewhat by focus issues, but there are many delighted users of the lens. It retails for half the price of the 35L II and is hard to ignore."

Therefore, in the end I personally don't see anything "sad" about the Sigma being essentially an equal-quality lens as the new Canon 35, for half the price.

I also happen to like the Sigma Global lens line-up's "Glock-like" appearance.
In fact, the new Sigma Global lenses remind me of the Glock's simplicity and durability also.

In the end, the new Canon lens looks to have replaced the Sigma as the best 35mm lens available, ever-so-slightly, but the fact that it is twice as expensive negates its overall value IMO.

Jack[/list][/list]