Lenstip finished their review of the Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art

[Hjalmarg1]

Their comments favour a little over the Canon and Nikkor counterparts, except for coma. But Sigma's lens is about a half price. Enjoy the reading.

http://www.lenstip.com/2122-news-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_-_lens_review.html

 

[Coldhands]

The coma distortion is a real shame from an astrophotography point of view. A 24mm f1.4 is one of the most popular lens choices for wide-field astro, but with coma smearing the stars so badly this one looks like a bit of a non-starter.

 

[NancyP]

So what f/1.4 or f/2 20mm to 24mm lenses have minimal or no coma wide open?

 

[Hjalmarg1]

So what f/1.4 or f/2 20mm to 24mm lenses have minimal or no coma wide open?

Currently many people use the cheap Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 for most of the nightscapes. The Rokinon 24mm had better coma than Sigma, Canon and Nikkor in lenstip tests.

 

[Coldhands]

So what f/1.4 or f/2 20mm to 24mm lenses have minimal or no coma wide open?

None that I'm aware of, hence the disappointment. The Rokinon and Zeiss 25/2 aren't too bad, but obviously come with the caveat of being MF only. I had hoped somewhat (based on the prior performance of the 35 A) that Sigma might have cracked it, but alas, it seems not. Sigh.

 

[9VIII]

It's decent but I'm still on the fence. I guess looking at the price of the first party equivalent it's still a good deal, but the lens really only excells in center sharpness at f1.4. Other than that it's largely the same, distortion is the same.

It still makes no sense to me that no-one makes a distortion free wide angle prime when you can get the zoom lenses that are distortion free at various focal lengths. Just take the freaking zoom lens design (good grief now they're sticking ads in the body of my text?)at that focal length and take out the zoom mechanism. You'd have a cheaper lens that's much better than anythnig else on the market.
I would say that it's because of the wide aperture but the f2.8 primes are no better. I guess we're all just fools for buying prime lenses.

 

[danielm]

Another review here: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/sigma-24mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-a-review

Page 4 has this reviewer's opinion about the coma:

At the other end of the light-level scale, anyone interested in shooting star fields or cityscapes at night will be pleased to hear that coma is very low indeed, meaning that point light sources in the corner of the frame don’t distort excessively in shape, even when shooting wide open.

But frankly the examples look pretty much the same as the ones on the lenstip.com review. So, what is one person's "very low indeed" is another's "simply outrageous"?

Someone tell me what to think!