Review - Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG Art

[ahsanford]

That's right. This "review" is a really a cliche.
In photography those "cons" will be overtaken by good photographer in a millisecond.
I think this "review" has more to do with marketing Canon's new 16-35mm launch.

Dustin Abbott = 2000+ posts at this site, including a host of many valuable reviews -- often speaking glowingly of 3rd party lenses.

He answers questions here in this forum and candidly pegs strengths and weaknesses of gear. I can say from my experience of having read more than 10 of his reviews that he's as pro-Canon as DXO is.

- A

 

[j-nord]

As soon as I saw the announcement for this lens, it caught my attention as a potential astro lens. Poor coma control is a mistake, a lot of potential buyers in this market. I'd prefer a more versatile AF lens that can double as an astro lens over getting manual focus Rokinon lenses. Also 20mm is quite a bit better than 24mm for astro landscapes.

 

[jeffa4444]

...
but there is also a reason that more and more lenses are coming with weather sealing (including Zeiss repackaging a number of their lenses in new bodies with it). I think it is more than marketing. Yes, you should always use good judgment in protecting your gear, but some help from the lens is always welcome.
...

They spend, what, 10 cents more on production to put a bit of foam in there and get to charge $hundreds more?

You're right, it is more than marketing, it is money making because a little bit of effort adds a lot to the price that punters will pay.

To Dustin / Canon defence of this proper weather sealing is not "a few cents" its much more complex than that and involves machined parts being adapted for seals, more careful assembly with tighter tolerances and materials that will not decompose or rot in harsh environments. Seals to switches and buttons are not easy to design or impliment I know Ive had experiance of this in building equipment.

Lenses are almost impossible to completely seal because even internal focusing assemblies move to acheive focus or zoom which displaces air and therefor cannot be in a vaccuum but they then can induce suction which will move dust.

 

[jeffa4444]

Its interesting to note the view on "weather sealing". Many professional lenses for cinematography which run many hundreds of thousands of $$$ more do not have weather sealing and nor do most motion picture cameras. They are used in hostile conditions and by & large with the exception of very fine dust remain OK because crew take precautions to protect the equipment.
Any sensible photographer is not going to leave even weather sealed lenses or cameras out in the rain they are not completely weather proof and its not ideal operating wet equipment. Humidity doesnt respect weather sealing and fine dust is almost impossible to eliminate getting into a lens given lenses rack in & out or are exposed at the rear when dismounted from cameras.
Weather sealing limits the effects of the environment but we should never assume it eliminates those effects.

All you have said is true...but there is also a reason that more and more lenses are coming with weather sealing (including Zeiss repackaging a number of their lenses in new bodies with it). I think it is more than marketing. Yes, you should always use good judgment in protecting your gear, but some help from the lens is always welcome.

Funny how so many photographers rip on 6D, 70/80D, etc... because they "don't" have "pro-grade" weatherproofing (not true, BTW).

I agree people want weather sealing however some dont fully understand what were actually getting is measures to help avoid ingres or limit ingres not eliminate it.

On your second point I also agree my own experiance with the Canon 6D has been positive having been caught out twice in sudden summer storms in remote areas of Dartmoor where the camera got a soaking but lived to tell the tale without incident. Being prepared to dry it does help however, I always carry cloths.

 

[jeffa4444]

...
but there is also a reason that more and more lenses are coming with weather sealing (including Zeiss repackaging a number of their lenses in new bodies with it). I think it is more than marketing. Yes, you should always use good judgment in protecting your gear, but some help from the lens is always welcome.
...

They spend, what, 10 cents more on production to put a bit of foam in there and get to charge $hundreds more?

You're right, it is more than marketing, it is money making because a little bit of effort adds a lot to the price that punters will pay.

You think so? I dunno. The only way we'd know for sure is if the exact same lenses existed in the two versions, weather sealed, and not. I know that I personally wouldn't pay any more for the weathered seal version.
..

If you were going to buy one of the two Irix 15mm/f2.4 lenses, which would you buy: the Blackstone or Firefly?

Having handled both Blackstone.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

A lively discussion is good. My experience says that I am most likely to experience "lively discussion" when I review Sigma lenses for some reason.

 

[Larsskv]

The 20A is a good lens, but it is clearly not superior to other options near the same focal length as the 35A and 50A were when they first came out.

I can´t see that the 20A has any competitors. The f/1.4 on 20mm is unique.

And speeking of coma, one might expect too much. It must be hard to overcome. Is there any 24mm f/1.4 lenses with good coma control? Maybe the Samyang? The Canon 24LII isn't good at all when it comes to coma.

 

[Andyx01]

...
but there is also a reason that more and more lenses are coming with weather sealing (including Zeiss repackaging a number of their lenses in new bodies with it). I think it is more than marketing. Yes, you should always use good judgment in protecting your gear, but some help from the lens is always welcome.
...

They spend, what, 10 cents more on production to put a bit of foam in there and get to charge $hundreds more?

You're right, it is more than marketing, it is money making because a little bit of effort adds a lot to the price that punters will pay.

You think so? I dunno. The only way we'd know for sure is if the exact same lenses existed in the two versions, weather sealed, and not. I know that I personally wouldn't pay any more for the weathered seal version.

Weather sealing is more marketing then anything else. Nothing is black and white. All various levels of grey. Just use your gear and be smart about it. I don't mind some misting, snow, etc. but you won't see me sitting outside in a hard rain either.

You're an idiot if you wouldn't pay $0.99 for weather sealing.
You're an idiot if you think you can out-protect the weather seal with your ninja reflexes and preparation.
One of my bodies got wrecked by a rouge wave simply splashing onto the bag my camera was in.
I didn't even think it got wet, but pulled the battery to be pro-active. It wasn't until I re-inserted the battery a few days later that I discovered the body was wrecked.

Spend the $0.99.

 

[ahsanford]

The 20A is a good lens, but it is clearly not superior to other options near the same focal length as the 35A and 50A were when they first came out.

I can´t see that the 20A has any competitors. The f/1.4 on 20mm is unique.

And speeking of coma, one might expect too much. It must be hard to overcome. Is there any 24mm f/1.4 lenses with good coma control? Maybe the Samyang? The Canon 24LII isn't good at all when it comes to coma.

The 24L III might be, if it has that BR gunk in it (which we assume it will).

Consider: the coma on the 35L vs. the coma on the 35L II is night and day better.

Agree that folks are being really hard on this 20mm lens. Whereas the 35 and 50 Art mopped the floor resolution-wise vs. its Canon counterparts, here at 20mm f/1.4, nothing else is offered to compare it to. You have the choice of some UWA primes at f/2.8 or the 24L II, but they aren't exactly apples to apples comparisons.

I just think everyone is whinging about the coma as -- with no surprise -- this would have been a legendary / staple / first-choice astro lens otherwise.

- A

 

[slclick]

He really seems to gloss over the AF issue with this lens, not even listing it as one of the "cons." As somebody who used to buy and use a lot of Sigma lenses, I have to say that AF is something that is always my first question when Sigma introduces a new lens. I think I've had 1 out of 5 Sigma lenses that AF right. I no longer own any Sigma lenses, because they still don't know how to make the things autofocus. Even on a 20mm lens! Astonishing.

Also, "perspective distortion" isn't the stretching in the corners. PD is what happens when a camera is close to the subject and the subject looks distorted to the viewer. An enlarged nose, for example, when taking a photo at extreme close range. Even a 50mm lens can be used to take a photograph with perspective distortion. It's the distance, not the lens, that creates perspective distortion.

There's a reason the classic portrait lenses are from 85mm to 135mm.

I'm curious if you have had a chance to try or own any of the Art lenses? They are much better than the EX line in terms of copy variation, AF speed and consistency.

 

[Larsskv]

The 20A is a good lens, but it is clearly not superior to other options near the same focal length as the 35A and 50A were when they first came out.

I can´t see that the 20A has any competitors. The f/1.4 on 20mm is unique.

And speeking of coma, one might expect too much. It must be hard to overcome. Is there any 24mm f/1.4 lenses with good coma control? Maybe the Samyang? The Canon 24LII isn't good at all when it comes to coma.

The 24L III might be, if it has that BR gunk in it (which we assume it will).

Consider: the coma on the 35L vs. the coma on the 35L II is night and day better.

Agree that folks are being really hard on this 20mm lens. Whereas the 35 and 50 Art mopped the floor resolution-wise vs. its Canon counterparts, here at 20mm f/1.4, nothing else is offered to compare it to. You have the choice of some UWA primes at f/2.8 or the 24L II, but they aren't exactly apples to apples comparisons.

I just think everyone is whinging about the coma as -- with no surprise -- this would have been a legendary / staple / first-choice astro lens otherwise.

- A

That will be very interesting to see. I was under the impression that the BR element was for removing chromatic aberrations. It would be amazing if it affects coma to.

 

[ahsanford]

That will be very interesting to see. I was under the impression that the BR element was for removing chromatic aberrations. It would be amazing if it affects coma to.

Fair comment. The 35L II is far more than 'just the 35L I with BR gunk added' -- it's a new optical design. It's quite possible that the BR stuff is not the source of the coma improvement.

- A

 

[pierlux]

Let's be honest here. You, Canon Rumors, are very important part of Canon's marketing.

All the "insider tips", which no one else gets.
Exclusive launch stories.
Expensive Canon L-lens giveaways.

Canon this, Canon that, Canon everywhere on this site. And that's okay, that's why I come here. After all, most of my gear comes from Canon.
But this to be trustworthy review site, HA!
I don't for one second think, that you are not smart enough not to understand, how big part of Canon's marketing this site is. In this day and age.

Even tough a Canon user mostly, I've had many pleasant surprises with Sigma lenses. The need for reviewers to find con lists, is sometimes unbelievable. Seems to be linked either cause to another manufacturer or desperate need for YouTube attention. So how is it with the shoe?

I doubt Canon, Inc gives a rats aperture about this site. Dustin is a huge 3rd party supporter and even a quick visit to his site proves that. Way off base imho.

This. I was about to reply more or less the same except replacing "I doubt" with "I'm certain".

@ Dustin: I'd love a review of the Venus Optics - Laowa 15mm f/4 ultrawide 1:1 Macro/shift lens, it intrigues me so much. It's so... unique one would even overlook a poor optical performance. If only it costed a bit less... Sorry for the OT, talking about 3rd party lenses I just happened to think of it.

 

[Larsskv]

He really seems to gloss over the AF issue with this lens, not even listing it as one of the "cons." As somebody who used to buy and use a lot of Sigma lenses, I have to say that AF is something that is always my first question when Sigma introduces a new lens. I think I've had 1 out of 5 Sigma lenses that AF right. I no longer own any Sigma lenses, because they still don't know how to make the things autofocus. Even on a 20mm lens! Astonishing.

Also, "perspective distortion" isn't the stretching in the corners. PD is what happens when a camera is close to the subject and the subject looks distorted to the viewer. An enlarged nose, for example, when taking a photo at extreme close range. Even a 50mm lens can be used to take a photograph with perspective distortion. It's the distance, not the lens, that creates perspective distortion.

There's a reason the classic portrait lenses are from 85mm to 135mm.

I'm curious if you have had a chance to try or own any of the Art lenses? They are much better than the EX line in terms of copy variation, AF speed and consistency.

From my experience so far, I find the AF on the 20A to be very acceptable on my 5Ds.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Coma control is actually pretty good on the lens and is competitive with most everything else on the market (as simple as doing a google search to find test results). At f2, it is performing really well already. So I don't consider this a knock on the lens itself. It may not be perfect with regard to coma, but no one else is either especially when you consider that there is no other direct competitor. So to that, I say, one should try to compare the Sigma coma performance to the other brands of 20mm f/1.4 lenses.

The better way to look at this lens would be to see it as a unique piece that gives you the ability to shoot in new and different ways than you could before with anything else. Prior to this, anything you had in this focal range would max out at 2.8 so the Sigma stands alone here.

With regard to AF, this thing is wide enough (with a much larger on average DOF) that it probably isn't anywhere near as much of an issue when compared with the 35 and 50 Art. I personally use all of these adapted to an A7R2 so I cannot comment on how well the 20 would perform on a DSLR at this point.

Lack of weather seal is a legitimate con for the lens for those that need it. Doesn't matter for my uses though.

Incompatibility with filters is also legitimately a big issue for many that would be interested in a lens of this type. Again, not an issue for me though as I use it mostly as a walk around.

With regard to the knock on Dustin... He's always been a stand up guy and his reviews have always been thoroughly legit. The knock is a fairly unfair assessment as he is one of the more respectable dudes around the net. In the words of the great Joe Dirt, "Keep on keepin' on," Dustin.

 

[blanddragon]

Looks like you touched some kind of fanboi nerve Dustin. For what it's worth I always enjoy your perspective because it saves me from G.A.S (slightly).

 

[slclick]

Looks like you touched some kind of fanboi nerve Dustin. For what it's worth I always enjoy your perspective because it saves me from G.A.S (slightly).

I find it interesting there has been no thread or comments on Dustin's 50L review a few days back. That is truly a lens with some strong opinions.

 

[Random Orbits]

The 20A is a good lens, but it is clearly not superior to other options near the same focal length as the 35A and 50A were when they first came out.

I can´t see that the 20A has any competitors. The f/1.4 on 20mm is unique.

And speeking of coma, one might expect too much. It must be hard to overcome. Is there any 24mm f/1.4 lenses with good coma control? Maybe the Samyang? The Canon 24LII isn't good at all when it comes to coma.

Disagree, I think many people will compare the 24 primes to the 20A. How many people will have a fast 24mm prime AND the 20A? I can't imagine that that population would be very large at all. But I can see people having the 20A in place of a 24.

Sigma set up the expectation on coma for the 20A. It it's press release for the 20A:

Allowing the photographer to leverage the perspective provided by the wide-angle and the shallow depth of field provided by the large aperture, this lens is ideal not only for such ultra-wide-angle subjects as landscapes and starry skies, but also for snapshots in low light, indoor photography, portraits with a natural bokeh effect, and much more.

...

Moreover, SIGMA’s advanced optical design minimises distortion, transverse chromatic aberration, sagittal coma flare, and the reduction of brightness toward the edges of the image. Delivering top performance even at wide-open aperture, this lens can be considered the culmination of SIGMA’s Art line.

 

[ahsanford]

With regard to the knock on Dustin... He's always been a stand up guy and his reviews have always been thoroughly legit. The knock is a fairly unfair assessment as he is one of the more respectable dudes around the net. In the words of the great Joe Dirt, "Keep on keepin' on," Dustin.

+1. One snap-judgment poster throwing haymakers at (of all people) Dustin for having a Canon bias is pretty laughable.

I have to chalk that one up to ignorance -- just open a few reviews at his site and it won't take long to see what a thorough and fair reviewer he is.

- A

 

[9VIII]

I might get a Sigma 20mm if the Quattro H comes in at a reasonable price, but as an APS-C user this lens is made completely redundant by the 18-35A, which is cheaper and basically the same in terms of IQ and light gathering (18-35A has a transmission value of T1.8, same as the aperture, where f1.4 lenses usually come out closer to T1.6 for light transmission, theoretically it's nearly a wash between the two. You just can't produce the same Bokeh with a smaller aperture).