Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..

[NancyP]

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open. I don't mind "square stars" in the extreme full frame corners at f/1.4. Pixel peepers may tut-tut, but the images look good. PS. for astrophotography, one shoots in manual, so the consistency issue is not pertinent. My copy has been fine for the few daytime shots taken with AF. (I also shoot landscapes with manual focus.)

 

[9VIII]

I'm hesitantly excited for this lens.

One thing that may put me off is the actual light transmission, the 18-35f1.8 has almost the same T-stop as f-stop, very good light transmission and it's almost as good as some f1.4 lenses for light gathering. DOF is something else entirely, but I primarily want a wide aperture for light transmission.
On the other hand if the new 24f1.4 has very low distortion then I'll probably get it regardless.

 

[dash2k8]

I'm definitely buying one.

 

[Ripley]

Uhh... where's the other 61mm ???

 

[Ripley]

This and any other Sigma is off my radar until they have fully proven that they have fixed the AF issues. I´ll never go through the pain I had with the 35 and 50 Arts again ... Imagine an 85 f1.4 with that AF ...

Same here. Not even an attempt yet to fix the 50mm Art with a firmware update.

I purchased the 35A and 50A over the holidays and their autofocus has been great.

 

[TommyLee]

This should be an interesting battle with Canon & Nikon as both of them have well-regarded 24 f/1.4 lenses. Yes, coma, and vignetting are issues, but they are very sharp lenses. This was not the case with the 35mm and more so with the 50mm lenses, so unless the price is right, I think it's going to be a tougher sell to anyone other than people who shoot starry skies (assuming excellent coma correction).

Also, given Viggo and Eldar's experiences with the Art series AF, I'm staying far away from this line of lenses.

I believe the Canon 35mm is more widely regarded as sharper than the Canon 24mm wide open. In fact, in my experience I felt that the 24mm was not very sharp except for the center wide open. Have no experience with the Nikon, of course.
Another aspect is price. One big reason for people buying the 35A is the lower price. I am sure a lot of people will go for a 24A if it is $ 500 cheaper than the 24L.
I agree with staying away from Sigma lenses due to AF issues though. A pity...

my 35L WAS sharper than my 24L mk I, I got the sig 35 1.4 because it was sharper than the canon wide open
...gave my brother the 24L mk I, ...tried the 24L mk II...lower chromatics but too much vignetting...

I believe the sig 24 1.4 will fit right in with my sig 35 1.4... both of them better than current canon offerings
in most places...35L had a very slight BOKEH edge over sigma 35 IMO...

24mm and f1.4 has a heck of a lot of use for me....
the orig canon 24mm mk I was quite compact....

I also believe the sigma 135 f1.8/f2... with OS will... be a better NEXT lens for them...
I am waiting...and waiting

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I also believe the sigma 135 f1.8/f2... with OS will... be a better NEXT lens for them...
I am waiting...and waiting

My Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS is SOLD already. I have two lenses covering 24mm FL but if test on this lens indicates it performs fine, it will be an option to consider, particularly if distortion is lower and minimal coma.

If Sigma launches the 135 f2 OS lens along with the new 85mm f1.4 (with OS?), they can take my money right now.

 

[Bennymiata]

The 3 Sigma lenses I own, all af perfectly.
They focus a tiny touch slower than some of L glass, but they nail focus really well.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This should be an interesting battle with Canon & Nikon as both of them have well-regarded 24 f/1.4 lenses. Yes, coma, and vignetting are issues, but they are very sharp lenses. This was not the case with the 35mm and more so with the 50mm lenses, so unless the price is right, I think it's going to be a tougher sell to anyone other than people who shoot starry skies (assuming excellent coma correction).

Also, given Viggo and Eldar's experiences with the Art series AF, I'm staying far away from this line of lenses.

I believe the Canon 35mm is more widely regarded as sharper than the Canon 24mm wide open. In fact, in my experience I felt that the 24mm was not very sharp except for the center wide open. Have no experience with the Nikon, of course.
Another aspect is price. One big reason for people buying the 35A is the lower price. I am sure a lot of people will go for a 24A if it is $ 500 cheaper than the 24L.
I agree with staying away from Sigma lenses due to AF issues though. A pity...

my 35L WAS sharper than my 24L mk I, I got the sig 35 1.4 because it was sharper than the canon wide open
...gave my brother the 24L mk I, ...tried the 24L mk II...lower chromatics but too much vignetting...

I believe the sig 24 1.4 will fit right in with my sig 35 1.4... both of them better than current canon offerings
in most places...35L had a very slight BOKEH edge over sigma 35 IMO...

24mm and f1.4 has a heck of a lot of use for me....
the orig canon 24mm mk I was quite compact....

I also believe the sigma 135 f1.8/f2... with OS will... be a better NEXT lens for them...
I am waiting...and waiting

The ef 24mm f1.4 II L is a sharper lens than either the ef 35mm f1.4 L or the mkI of the 24mm. But only a fool would consider a lens based only on a sharpness metric. The 35L renders far better photos than either the Sigma 35 art or the 24mm f1.4L. The 35L is primarily a portrait lens and in that use, it excels.
I have said it many times here and have been accused of all sorts of stuff by Sigma fans. So i'll say it again, after using Canon's professional lenses and Sigma lenses in a professional context...I have found Sigma products disappointing, fragile and have inherent AF issues. What's the point of a sharp lens if it can't focus properly when you need it to? I have owned a lot of Sigma glass over the years, including their 70-200 f2.8, 100-300 f4 (a complete dog), 180 macro, 12-24, 15mm fisheye, 24-70 f2.8, 120-300 DG OS (many know of my disappointment of this particular lens). All of these lenses have been replaced by Canon optics and they have out lasted, impressed and delivered consistency every time I've used them.

So Sigma have released a new 24mm, I'll be using my existing 24mm f1.4 II L and my advice is this: if you want a great f1.4 24mm prime lens, get the Canon mkII. Otherwise, good luck with your purchase and I hope you have better milage with the Sigma brand than I have. I'm done with the brand.

 

[mackguyver]

The lens is going to be $849 and available in late March:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html

 

[epsiloneri]

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open.

Is your experience perhaps from using it on APS-C? From what I recall on FF, the coma was not subtle. I will search for samples or obtain new ones tonight, weather permitting.

 

[NancyP]

As I mentioned above, I accept very bright "square stars" in the far corners of full frame. For my purposes, a good overall image, not scientific accuracy, "square stars" (small amount of coma, no wings) do not detract. I am not printing larger than 13 x 19 at the moment. Of course, I could stop down to f/2 and often do, if I think that I am going to blow the brightest stars off the right end of the histogram. f/2 has brightest round stars in far corners of FF. Speaking of which, Canon really ought to provide an option for RAW histograms.

 

[bereninga]

The lens is going to be $849 and available in late March:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html

Wow, that's a VERY impressive price. If I were in need of a 24mm, I'd pick this one.

 

[RLPhoto]

The lens is going to be $849 and available in late March:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html

Wow, that's a VERY impressive price. If I were in need of a 24mm, I'd pick this one.

I guess Sigma does want my money. If a 135mm Super Sigma is released, they'd get all my prime lens money.

 

[BeenThere]

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open. I don't mind "square stars" in the extreme full frame corners at f/1.4. Pixel peepers may tut-tut, but the images look good. PS. for astrophotography, one shoots in manual, so the consistency issue is not pertinent. My copy has been fine for the few daytime shots taken with AF. (I also shoot landscapes with manual focus.)

I agree with NancyP in being able to accept slight coma in the extreme corners. Most print viewers are not as picky as we are and probably don't look that carefully at individual stars. However, with the pointed language in the lens description of two aspherical lens elements to minimize coma, I expect astrophotography to be a strength of this lens.
Vignette chart shows 2 stops of vignette in the corners (Wide open) not great, but not unexpected for a f/1.4 lens.

 

[infared]

My GAS just acted up a bit. I need some chamomile.

Yes...Yes..... I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???

 

[Cory]

I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???

Now that you mention it - I have a crop sensor and a 10-18 so maybe 24 doesn't make a ton of sense. My other standard lens is the 35 2.0 IS and then I have a 85 1.8 for outdoor portraits. The 35 is generally what I have on the camera, but 50mm is a little "better" for indoor portraits.
Would you think that having a 35 and a 50 makes sense? Of course, the difference is more pronounced on my crop than on your ff so maybe "yes", but maybe not. Maybe 28mm and 50mm to really round it out (vs. 35 and 50)?

 

[Etienne]

I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???

Now that you mention it - I have a crop sensor and a 10-18 so maybe 24 doesn't make a ton of sense. My other standard lens is the 35 2.0 IS and then I have a 85 1.8 for outdoor portraits. The 35 is generally what I have on the camera, but 50mm is a little "better" for indoor portraits.
Would you think that having a 35 and a 50 makes sense? Of course, the difference is more pronounced on my crop than on your ff so maybe "yes", but maybe not. Maybe 28mm and 50mm to really round it out (vs. 35 and 50)?

You'd be better with a 24 and a 50.
24 gives about 38mm (good all around), and 50mm give you a nice 80mm portrait lens.
OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.

 

[sdsr]

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art has very little coma wide open.

Is your experience perhaps from using it on APS-C? From what I recall on FF, the coma was not subtle. I will search for samples or obtain new ones tonight, weather permitting.

My experience (FF only) matches lenstip's:

http://www.lenstip.com/359.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

As far as I'm concerned coma is the one area where it most obviously beats the Canon 35 IS (aside from max. aperture, of course).

 

[lintoni]

As I mentioned above, I accept very bright "square stars" in the far corners of full frame. For my purposes, a good overall image, not scientific accuracy, "square stars" (small amount of coma, no wings) do not detract. I am not printing larger than 13 x 19 at the moment. Of course, I could stop down to f/2 and often do, if I think that I am going to blow the brightest stars off the right end of the histogram. f/2 has brightest round stars in far corners of FF. Speaking of which, Canon really ought to provide an option for RAW histograms.!

Are you aware that you can get RAW histograms with Magic Lantern?