Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art announced..

[Cory]

OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.

Hmmmm. My daughter's high school volleyball career has ended (a few favorites at www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ ) so I could maybe sell my 10-18 and 70D to finance that. Also, I can probably sell my 200 2.8 since I'm going to get a 100-400 anyway and that might work indoors with the 6D.
Might that really make sense with my entire kit being the 6D, 35, 85 and 100-400?

 

[LOALTD]

Just to echo what others have said: for me, the way this lens handles coma is going to be the determining factor in a possible purchase! I’ve rented the Canon 24/1.4 II numerous times, I love it, very sharp, great all-around rendering. But…the coma while shooting stars is simply too out-of-control. Shards of glass/bats in the corners, makes it a real deal breaker for nightscape (which is one of my favorite things to shoot).

For now I’ll be content with my 28/2.8 IS (for day) and Samyang 14/2.8 (for night). Having a 24/1.4 sure would be nice though 8)

 

[sagittariansrock]

OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.

Hmmmm. My daughter's high school volleyball career has ended (a few favorites at www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ ) so I could maybe sell my 10-18 and 70D to finance that. Also, I can probably sell my 200 2.8 since I'm going to get a 100-400 anyway and that might work indoors with the 6D.
Might that really make sense with my entire kit being the 6D, 35, 85 and 100-400?

That is a very versatile kit for many people. You might miss an UWA though, depending on your usage.
I recommend adding a 16-35/4 or even a 17-40/4 if that is the case. Or a Rokinon 14/2.8.

 

[epsiloneri]

As I mentioned above, I accept very bright "square stars" in the far corners of full frame.

I would too, that's not what I mean by poor coma.

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).

I start to wonder if I have a defect copy...

Anyway, I could not find a good 35mm Art starscape example in my archive and unfortunately the sky is overcast. Fortunately, I found a neighbour with some christmas light decorations left on the balcony rail, so I could use them as point sources. Instead of taking one picture, I focused in the center and then took one picture with the balcony in each corner of the field of view (in manual mode exposure and focus).

To show that coma doesn't necessarily need to be this bad, I also performed this test with a Samyang 24/1.4, also wide open. I also found a starscape with the Sigma 50/1.4 Art, attached. From these tests, I stand by my statements that the coma of the Sigmas wide open is poor, but the Samyang 24/1.4 together with the Sigma press release indicating they may have made some progress in this area, gives me some hope for the Sigma 24/1.4 Art.

 

[tron]

@epsiloneri: interesting demonstration of coma. Thanks. I believe though that the photos from Samyang apart from the exceptionally low coma exhibit yet another property of Samyang: Decentering

 

[sdsr]

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).

I start to wonder if I have a defect copy...

I don't think so - the sample you posted looks about right. I didn't mean to suggest - nor did the lenstip review show - that it had no coma wide open; rather, in my experience it's better than the alternatives I've used/seen. If I remember right, it's completely gone by c. f2.5, while - say - the Canon 35mm IS starts out far worse and takes much more stopping down to remove. If you poke around in the reviews at lenstip I don't think you'll find better fast 35mm coma performance on FF (the Canon 35L is terrible). Maybe Leica can do better.... (I've not tested my Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8 for coma, but one might hope that a slower lens would have less of it....)

 

[epsiloneri]

I believe though that the photos from Samyang apart from the exceptionally low coma exhibit yet another property of Samyang: Decentering

Yes, you're right - I will have to make some more experiments to see how bad it is

the sample you posted looks about right.

Ok, so the Sigma 35/1.4 Art has the best coma you've so far seen a 35mm exhibit, although I would say it is still quite poor. I guess I'm just disappointed in that the 35 & 50 Art lenses seem so perfect in all other respects (including AF, for me) that I wouldn't have thought their coma to be this bad. I thought it perhaps was an inherent problem with fast designs, but then the Samyang proved this wasn't so (though it has other problems, it seems). So perhaps the SIgma 24/1.4 Art will indeed have improved coma, I sincerely hope so, because the EF 24/1.4L II is as bad (or worse) as the Art examples posted above [wide open].

 

[YuengLinger]

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.

Ripley, could you please tell us the firmware version of your 50A? Thanks.

 

[Etienne]

OR ... get the 6D, they are almost giving them away these days. You already have the 35 and 85, two traditionally critical lenses.

Hmmmm. My daughter's high school volleyball career has ended (a few favorites at www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ ) so I could maybe sell my 10-18 and 70D to finance that. Also, I can probably sell my 200 2.8 since I'm going to get a 100-400 anyway and that might work indoors with the 6D.
Might that really make sense with my entire kit being the 6D, 35, 85 and 100-400?

That would make an excellent kit!

I am partial to ultrawide, so I would recommend adding the 16-35 f/4L IS at some point. That would give you a Pro setup from 16 - 400.

 

[Luds34]

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)?

35mm would probably still work. However 28mm might be a little better. Part of it is personal preference. I enjoy fast primes and shoot crop currently. I have 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm and they compliment each other well enough. 85mm is great, but for sure more of an outdoors, keep a bit more distance. I personally find 35mm (on crop) not always wide enough inside. The 28mm has worked well. Although sometimes when I bring gear with me, I leave the 28mm at home and its spot in the camera bag gets filled with the M + 22mm pancake.

Don't hear too much about 28mm primes these days, but on a crop sensor, I think it is the best focal length for a "normal" lens. And Canon's 28 f/1.8 is about as small/light as you can get without going to pancake lens.