December 17, 2017, 10:35:46 PM

Author Topic: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin  (Read 1408 times)

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • dustinabbott.net
Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« on: November 21, 2017, 10:46:50 AM »
Hi everyone - I launched my final coverage of the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART today.  It's an interesting lens, though the days of inexpensive options from Sigma seem to be behind us.


Text Review | http://bit.ly/14ARTabbott
Video Review | http://bit.ly/14ARTReview
Image Gallery | http://bit.ly/sigma14ig

Here's a photo I took (edited) at f/1.8 with the lens:

Wide Open Landscape (Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART) by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
6D x 2 | 80D | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + 55-200 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | EF-S 24mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Tamron 45mm VC | Zeiss 50 | 50 STM | 100L | 135L | Tamron 70-200 VC | 100-400L II | Legacy Glass

canon rumors FORUM

Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« on: November 21, 2017, 10:46:50 AM »

Click

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • *
  • Posts: 9588
Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2017, 10:51:15 AM »
Excellent review.

Thank you Dustin.

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2017, 11:09:31 AM »
Excellent review.

Thank you Dustin.
You're welcome.
6D x 2 | 80D | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + 55-200 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | EF-S 24mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Tamron 45mm VC | Zeiss 50 | 50 STM | 100L | 135L | Tamron 70-200 VC | 100-400L II | Legacy Glass

Hector1970

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 661
    • Flickr
Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2017, 11:20:01 AM »
Great review as normal Dustin.
Very fair on the pros and con.
I am very impressed with the lens.
I found it excellent in real world use.
Heavy yes and bulbous front end.
It's great for night shooting.

Random Orbits

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2017, 01:30:52 PM »
I appreciate how Sigma upped the ante in the IQ race, but I'm wondering if always shooting for the largest aperture is a good thing.  The 35A and 50A were bigger than their competitors (with the same aperture) when they came out but those focal lengths tend to result in the smaller lenses compared to the focal lengths that Sigma is targeting now.  The 85A is larger and heavier than the new 85L IS, the 12-24A is large and heavy (albeit 0.5 oz lighter than the Canon 11-24, but the Canon has a wider field of view and is still large and heavy), the 24-105A is larger and heavier than the 24-105L II, and those examples are where Sigma has matched Canon's max aperture.  Sigma has pushed into larger apertures with the 20A and others, and now with the 14A and the weight increase is even larger.  At some point, photographers won't want to bring a bagful of lenses because they are so heavy.  By making them so heavy and by charging higher prices, I'm wondering if they are shrinking their target market because these lenses become niche products.  Would it have made more sense to have a 14mm f/2 and shave off half a pound or more?  How many people would be willing to tote a 14A in addition to a 16-35/12-24, 24-70 and 70-x00 zoom?  Or if you prime, a 14A, 20A, 35A, 50A, 85A, etc.?  The one thing I liked about the 14L II when I had it was its compact size.  I could easily find space for a smaller lens, but these larger lens make planning for trips harder because most packs are optimized for such large diameter lenses.

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2017, 05:47:22 PM »
I appreciate how Sigma upped the ante in the IQ race, but I'm wondering if always shooting for the largest aperture is a good thing.  The 35A and 50A were bigger than their competitors (with the same aperture) when they came out but those focal lengths tend to result in the smaller lenses compared to the focal lengths that Sigma is targeting now.  The 85A is larger and heavier than the new 85L IS, the 12-24A is large and heavy (albeit 0.5 oz lighter than the Canon 11-24, but the Canon has a wider field of view and is still large and heavy), the 24-105A is larger and heavier than the 24-105L II, and those examples are where Sigma has matched Canon's max aperture.  Sigma has pushed into larger apertures with the 20A and others, and now with the 14A and the weight increase is even larger.  At some point, photographers won't want to bring a bagful of lenses because they are so heavy.  By making them so heavy and by charging higher prices, I'm wondering if they are shrinking their target market because these lenses become niche products.  Would it have made more sense to have a 14mm f/2 and shave off half a pound or more?  How many people would be willing to tote a 14A in addition to a 16-35/12-24, 24-70 and 70-x00 zoom?  Or if you prime, a 14A, 20A, 35A, 50A, 85A, etc.?  The one thing I liked about the 14L II when I had it was its compact size.  I could easily find space for a smaller lens, but these larger lens make planning for trips harder because most packs are optimized for such large diameter lenses.

I'm with you.  I reviewed the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 at the same time as the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART.  The Sigma is WAY sharper, but I ended up buying a copy of the little Voigtlander after my review.  Why?  It's super compact, and I can bring along a wide angle of view lens without much bag space. 

It's a similar argument for why I purchased the Tamron 45 and 85 VC lenses over the ART counterparts (focus issues were another).  They are nearly as sharp as the ART lenses, but trade a little smaller maximum aperture for a much smaller/more compact build.  They are just more practical to me.

I own three Sigma lenses - but they are all small, mirrorless lenses. (19mm f/2.8, 30mm f/1.4, and 60mm f/2.8).  Size matters :)
6D x 2 | 80D | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + 55-200 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | EF-S 24mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Tamron 45mm VC | Zeiss 50 | 50 STM | 100L | 135L | Tamron 70-200 VC | 100-400L II | Legacy Glass

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2017, 05:47:49 PM »
Great review as normal Dustin.
Very fair on the pros and con.
I am very impressed with the lens.
I found it excellent in real world use.
Heavy yes and bulbous front end.
It's great for night shooting.

It's an excellent lens - if you don't mind the weight and price!
6D x 2 | 80D | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + 55-200 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | EF-S 24mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Tamron 45mm VC | Zeiss 50 | 50 STM | 100L | 135L | Tamron 70-200 VC | 100-400L II | Legacy Glass

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2017, 05:47:49 PM »

Busted Knuckles

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
  • Enjoy this breath and the next
Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2017, 08:18:23 PM »
I appreciate how Sigma upped the ante in the IQ race, but I'm wondering if always shooting for the largest aperture is a good thing.  The 35A and 50A were bigger than their competitors (with the same aperture) when they came out but those focal lengths tend to result in the smaller lenses compared to the focal lengths that Sigma is targeting now.  The 85A is larger and heavier than the new 85L IS, the 12-24A is large and heavy (albeit 0.5 oz lighter than the Canon 11-24, but the Canon has a wider field of view and is still large and heavy), the 24-105A is larger and heavier than the 24-105L II, and those examples are where Sigma has matched Canon's max aperture.  Sigma has pushed into larger apertures with the 20A and others, and now with the 14A and the weight increase is even larger.  At some point, photographers won't want to bring a bagful of lenses because they are so heavy.  By making them so heavy and by charging higher prices, I'm wondering if they are shrinking their target market because these lenses become niche products.  Would it have made more sense to have a 14mm f/2 and shave off half a pound or more?  How many people would be willing to tote a 14A in addition to a 16-35/12-24, 24-70 and 70-x00 zoom?  Or if you prime, a 14A, 20A, 35A, 50A, 85A, etc.?  The one thing I liked about the 14L II when I had it was its compact size.  I could easily find space for a smaller lens, but these larger lens make planning for trips harder because most packs are optimized for such large diameter lenses.

I'm with you.  I reviewed the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 at the same time as the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART.  The Sigma is WAY sharper, but I ended up buying a copy of the little Voigtlander after my review.  Why?  It's super compact, and I can bring along a wide angle of view lens without much bag space. 

It's a similar argument for why I purchased the Tamron 45 and 85 VC lenses over the ART counterparts (focus issues were another).  They are nearly as sharp as the ART lenses, but trade a little smaller maximum aperture for a much smaller/more compact build.  They are just more practical to me.

I own three Sigma lenses - but they are all small, mirrorless lenses. (19mm f/2.8, 30mm f/1.4, and 60mm f/2.8).  Size matters :)

You beg an interesting question.  How many would Sigma sell of a 1 or 1.5 fstop smaller lens  - just as sharp, just with 1/2 the glass, etc.
Way too much gear to list, terminal GAS.  Grand kids will have to buy their own cars.

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2614
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2017, 09:31:54 AM »
I appreciate how Sigma upped the ante in the IQ race, but I'm wondering if always shooting for the largest aperture is a good thing.  The 35A and 50A were bigger than their competitors (with the same aperture) when they came out but those focal lengths tend to result in the smaller lenses compared to the focal lengths that Sigma is targeting now.  The 85A is larger and heavier than the new 85L IS, the 12-24A is large and heavy (albeit 0.5 oz lighter than the Canon 11-24, but the Canon has a wider field of view and is still large and heavy), the 24-105A is larger and heavier than the 24-105L II, and those examples are where Sigma has matched Canon's max aperture.  Sigma has pushed into larger apertures with the 20A and others, and now with the 14A and the weight increase is even larger.  At some point, photographers won't want to bring a bagful of lenses because they are so heavy.  By making them so heavy and by charging higher prices, I'm wondering if they are shrinking their target market because these lenses become niche products.  Would it have made more sense to have a 14mm f/2 and shave off half a pound or more?  How many people would be willing to tote a 14A in addition to a 16-35/12-24, 24-70 and 70-x00 zoom?  Or if you prime, a 14A, 20A, 35A, 50A, 85A, etc.?  The one thing I liked about the 14L II when I had it was its compact size.  I could easily find space for a smaller lens, but these larger lens make planning for trips harder because most packs are optimized for such large diameter lenses.

I'm with you.  I reviewed the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 at the same time as the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART.  The Sigma is WAY sharper, but I ended up buying a copy of the little Voigtlander after my review.  Why?  It's super compact, and I can bring along a wide angle of view lens without much bag space. 

It's a similar argument for why I purchased the Tamron 45 and 85 VC lenses over the ART counterparts (focus issues were another).  They are nearly as sharp as the ART lenses, but trade a little smaller maximum aperture for a much smaller/more compact build.  They are just more practical to me.

I own three Sigma lenses - but they are all small, mirrorless lenses. (19mm f/2.8, 30mm f/1.4, and 60mm f/2.8).  Size matters :)

You beg an interesting question.  How many would Sigma sell of a 1 or 1.5 fstop smaller lens  - just as sharp, just with 1/2 the glass, etc.

Considering the lackluster sales of the Tamron primes, I would say that Sigma has figured out the marketing aspect just fine.  I also believe (from the anecdotal evidence that I receive) that the return rate and resell rate of the Sigma primes is unusually high.  I'm a little more informed than the average photographer, however, so I'm less impressed by the easily marketable features and more interested in the complete package for my own kit.
6D x 2 | 80D | 70D | EOS-M3 w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + 55-200 STM + Rokinon 12MM F/2 + EF Adapter| Tamron 15-30 VC | EF-S 24mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | Tamron 45mm VC | Zeiss 50 | 50 STM | 100L | 135L | Tamron 70-200 VC | 100-400L II | Legacy Glass

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART Review | Dustin
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2017, 09:31:54 AM »