Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art -- this week?!

[e_honda]

Good catch! That relatively small Digicame photo doesn't show the hood-to-lens lineup dots like the other Art lenses. This very well may be a fixed hood, which would royally p--- off landscapers.

Seems a shame if so. Canon and Nikon can pull off 16-something zooms with front filter rings -- why couldn't Sigma?

- A

None of those are f1.4.

And Canon's 16-35 f2.8II, as maligned as it is, is the only thing that is 16mm, f2.8 and can take a front filter.

It's pretty clear that the wider you get along with the bigger aperture, you have to start making lenses with bulbous front elements; otherwise there's probably going to be downfalls like more vignetting, more distortion.

 

[ahsanford]

Good catch! That relatively small Digicame photo doesn't show the hood-to-lens lineup dots like the other Art lenses. This very well may be a fixed hood, which would royally p--- off landscapers.

Seems a shame if so. Canon and Nikon can pull off 16-something zooms with front filter rings -- why couldn't Sigma?

- A

None of those are f1.4.

And Canon's 16-35 f2.8II, as maligned as it is, is the only thing that is 16mm, f2.8 and can take a front filter.

It's pretty clear that the wider you get along with the bigger aperture, you have to start making lenses with bulbous front elements; otherwise there's probably going to be downfalls like more vignetting, more distortion.

I still contend Tamron foolishly, idiotically, inexplicably, infuriatingly chased the 14-24 Nikon when they put out their 15-30 f/2.8 VC. It's a fine optic, but the single decision to go down to 15mm pushed them into 'bulbous' territory, the front filter was lost, and POOF -- there went all the prospective landscapers.

I really hope that 1 extra mm wider (and yes, I appreciate that's not a small framing change on the UWA end) was worth losing all the landscapers. It was a wretched design decision for that reason alone, IMHO.

- A

 

[Viggo]

Would rather buy the Zeiss 15 with filter threads than the Tamron. But as pointed out, at 1.4 , 20mm is pretty sweet!

 

[ahsanford]

Would rather buy the Zeiss 15 with filter threads than the Tamron. But as pointed out, at 1.4 , 20mm is pretty sweet!

Agree personally, but I think it depends on what you shoot with it.

Landscapers should avoid non-front-filterable glass like the plague. Some 11mm prime owners (I mean 11-24 f/4L owners, excuse me) who shoot landscapes would disagree, but threading in filters is a must to me.

But if you are shooting astro (or maybe really low light events where you can't use a flash?), you don't really care about the threads as much, and this Sigma might fit the bill.

- A

 

[RGF]

photo tips says this friday.

I hope.

Like to get one in early 2016 for several trips I have planned.

 

[kbmelb]

I like this. I have never liked 24mm. Always felt like it was either too wide or not wide enough. I've owned both Canon 24Ls and either sold or returned them. A 20mm 1.4 might just be my cat's meow.

 

[Zanken]

I still contend Tamron foolishly, idiotically, inexplicably, infuriatingly chased the 14-24 Nikon when they put out their 15-30 f/2.8 VC. It's a fine optic, but the single decision to go down to 15mm pushed them into 'bulbous' territory, the front filter was lost, and POOF -- there went all the prospective landscapers.

I really hope that 1 extra mm wider (and yes, I appreciate that's not a small framing change on the UWA end) was worth losing all the landscapers. It was a wretched design decision for that reason alone, IMHO.

- A

I really hate this attitude. A theoretical Tamron 16-30 would not be the same thing with a filter thread. It would be a very different lens. It would likely be bigger/heavier and more than likely worse edge performance and CA. There is a reason why Canon have made a bunch of different 16-35ish f2.8 lenses and haven't come close to IQ of the Nikon lens with the bulbous front element.

Canon now has an f4 lens to suit your filter thread and IQ needs.

I'm much more a fan of different brands trying to appeal to find their own niche in the marketplace rather than spit out their old versions of the 'tried and true.'

On topic, Sigma released some photo samples on their blog:
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2015/20mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-hands-on-sneak-peek-with-image-samples/

It looks soft wide open which is a shame. I had hoped that it would be a decent improvement over the old f1.8 model which I still had a lot of fun with.

 

[ahsanford]

I really hate this attitude. A theoretical Tamron 16-30 would not be the same thing with a filter thread. It would be a very different lens. It would likely be bigger/heavier and more than likely worse edge performance and CA. There is a reason why Canon have made a bunch of different 16-35ish f2.8 lenses and haven't come close to IQ of the Nikon lens with the bulbous front element.

You are correct, it would be a very different lens. More landscapers might actually use it!

Look, I'm just saying that chasing 15mm + f/2.8 is a step towards astro / events / sports and a step away from landscapes. You absolutely can shoot all of those with this lens, but I think you will find landscape work will have the most strings attached -- for starters, it's a heavy f/2.8 lens when landscapers tend to live in a stopped down world, and it requires a very large and expensive filter setup.

As Dustin has shown, you can net some killer landscapes with it, but I'd contend the following: unless 15mm really unlocks something magical for you, you can highly likely net the exact same image more conveniently, more inexpensively and in a more compact and lightweight total bag with the 16-35 f/4L IS. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not bashing the lens -- far from it. I'm pissed it's so hard/expensive/large to filter because I'd love to try it if it wasn't.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

On topic, Sigma released some photo samples on their blog:
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2015/20mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-hands-on-sneak-peek-with-image-samples/

It looks soft wide open which is a shame. I had hoped that it would be a decent improvement over the old f1.8 model which I still had a lot of fun with.

Right, on topic, we all should give this a go -- a proper review of this new Sigma 20mm lens:

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

And, for those too impatient to leaf through, here's the (potentially) bad news:
http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

I don't shoot astro -- is that a death sentence for this lens, or is it just a bummer?

- A

 

[Djaaf]

Right, on topic, we all should give this a go -- a proper review of this new Sigma 20mm lens:

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

And, for those too impatient to leaf through, here's the (potentially) bad news:
http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

I don't shoot astro -- is that a death sentence for this lens, or is it just a bummer?

- A

Depends on your expectations.
As said before, there's not much competition in that segment (apart from the Nikon 20 f/1.8, but it's just as bad...), so... it's bad, but it's not like someone is offering something better.

I was hoping to get it, but i'll keep my Samy 14mm f/2.8 for now. It's less bright but the shorter focal allow for longer pose without having to compensate for the earth rotation... All in all, not a big difference in total light gathered...and the 14 is almost coma-free.

If it comes down in price quite a bit or if I manage to find it used in a few months/year for around 500€, I'll give it a go.

Djaaf.

 

[sanj]

I am going to buy this lens. It sounds great for shooting in crowds in low light.

 

[MickDK]

Don't understand Sigmas reasoning here. No filters? Bad coma? Yuck.

Not for landscapers - and not good for astro either.

Should be OK for low light event shooting though.

I'd much prefer the Rokinon/Samyang 24mm F1.4 (low coma and very sharp).

 

[docsmith]

Bad coma? Have you compared it to the 24 f/1.4s? Much improved over the Canon and slight improvement over the Sigma. Plus...sharper wide open and pretty much across the board. I am not 100% sold yet, but that review did not disappoint.

 

[meywd]

I expected a better coma performance since well.....its meant for astro, but still its tempting at 20mm and $1k, though the 35mm f/1.4 II tempts me more, waiting for lenstip's review of it, but even if it's not better, it will get higher usage.