Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art Samples Images

[Canon Rumors]

German web site d-pixx has posted a lot of full resolution sample images from the brand new and yet-to-be-released Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art series lens.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.d-pixx.de/2015/03/sigma-24-mm-f14-dg-hsm-art-im-ersten-test/" target="_blank">View Samples Images</a> | Preorder Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/SG2414CA.html%20" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120085-REG/sigma_24mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | Amazon</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Viggo]

I saw the picture of the organ at 1.4 in large thumbnail and thought, nice! Then opened it up and wth? They must have done everything wrong shooting that picture!

 

[Chaitanya]

I saw the picture of the organ at 1.4 in large thumbnail and thought, nice! Then opened it up and wth? They must have done everything wrong shooting that picture!

check the samples posted by lenstip. they should be better than these.

http://www.lenstip.com/2120-news-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_-_sample_images.html

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I saw the picture of the organ at 1.4 in large thumbnail and thought, nice! Then opened it up and wth? They must have done everything wrong shooting that picture!

check the samples posted by lenstip. they should be better than these.

http://www.lenstip.com/2120-news-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_-_sample_images.html

The link to the German site did not work. But the samples in lenstip.com are disappointing in F1.4 and very good at F4.

Honestly, I do not buy a F1.4 lens that has a bad image in F1.4.

I must have been very demanding after I bought the Sigma 50mm Art.

 

[9VIII]

If the Sigma 24A isn't sharp at f1.4 then they've dropped the ball.
Sigma put out three super sharp fast aperture lenses now, and I still get the impression every once in a while that they don't know what the measurement of their success is (e.g. the now defunct 24-105).

Personally, if the lens is soft wide open but has unparalleled distortion control that's a trade off I can acccept (as long as it's still extremely sharp stopped down), it'll be interesting to see how this turns out when we get some proper reviews.

 

[Viggo]

I saw the picture of the organ at 1.4 in large thumbnail and thought, nice! Then opened it up and wth? They must have done everything wrong shooting that picture!

check the samples posted by lenstip. they should be better than these.

http://www.lenstip.com/2120-news-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_-_sample_images.html

Perhaps, but this is from LensTip and it has CRAZY bad IQ, are they using defective copies of the lens??

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I saw the picture of the organ at 1.4 in large thumbnail and thought, nice! Then opened it up and wth? They must have done everything wrong shooting that picture!

check the samples posted by lenstip. they should be better than these.

http://www.lenstip.com/2120-news-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_-_sample_images.html

Perhaps, but this is from LensTip and it has CRAZY bad IQ, are they using defective copies of the lens??

All of the images taken at apertures wider than f/4 on that site (lenstip) look soft to me. I imagine it has to be a bad copy.

I can't access the other site. I get a blank page.

 

[Viggo]

I saw the picture of the organ at 1.4 in large thumbnail and thought, nice! Then opened it up and wth? They must have done everything wrong shooting that picture!

check the samples posted by lenstip. they should be better than these.

http://www.lenstip.com/2120-news-Sigma_A_24_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_-_sample_images.html

Perhaps, but this is from LensTip and it has CRAZY bad IQ, are they using defective copies of the lens??

All of the images taken at apertures wider than f/4 on that site (lenstip) look soft to me. I imagine it has to be a bad copy.

I can't access the other site. I get a blank page.

It took forever to load, but after a while it opened here. Running Chrome on Mac.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

After trying many times, and wait several minutes, I managed to load the German site page. The pictures look much better than the samples from the site lenstip.com.

The sharpness and contrast look good on center of image, and well acceptable in the corners.

Perhaps lenstip.com received a defective lens.

 

[Viggo]

After trying many times, and wait several minutes, I managed to load the German site page. The pictures look much better than the samples from the site lenstip.com.

The sharpness and contrast look good on center of image, and well acceptable in the corners.

Perhaps lenstip.com received a defective lens.

Did you see the picture of the organ at 1.4? Equally horrible to the LensTip shots.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

After trying many times, and wait several minutes, I managed to load the German site page. The pictures look much better than the samples from the site lenstip.com.

The sharpness and contrast look good on center of image, and well acceptable in the corners.

Perhaps lenstip.com received a defective lens.

Did you see the picture of the organ at 1.4? Equally horrible to the LensTip shots.

I saw the images on both sites, and samples of lenstip.com seem unacceptable to the standard Sigma Art.

On the other hand, the German site has much more sharper F1.4 samples.

 

[Ripley]

If the Sigma 24A isn't sharp at f1.4 then they've dropped the ball.
Sigma put out three super sharp fast aperture lenses now, and I still get the impression every once in a while that they don't know what the measurement of their success is (e.g. the now defunct 24-105).

Although I agree with your first statement, the second is partially incorrect. The 24-105A is not discontinued, as some websites would have us believe.

I recently rented the 24-105A and, if I didn't already own the 24-70ii, would buy it. In my opinion, the 24-105A is constructed better than the 24-70ii. The 24-105A's zoom mechanism is solid and very smooth, which is not how I would describe the 24-70ii.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

After trying many times, and wait several minutes, I managed to load the German site page. The pictures look much better than the samples from the site lenstip.com.

The sharpness and contrast look good on center of image, and well acceptable in the corners.

Perhaps lenstip.com received a defective lens.

Did you see the picture of the organ at 1.4? Equally horrible to the LensTip shots.

I think perhaps it's slightly oof.

 

[BeenThere]

At f1.4 the DOF is not large. There is a lot of depth in the organ photo. Some parts of image look sharp. Other parts are probably too far out of the focus plane.

 

[Ripley]

Why are they all shot @ ISO200?

Stay tuned everyone, for real reviews with production copies.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

At f1.4 the DOF is not large. There is a lot of depth in the organ photo. Some parts of image look sharp. Other parts are probably too far out of the focus plane.

I was referring to the organ pipes which appear oof. I'm assuming that was what they intended to focus on.

 

[Rudeofus]

I was referring to the organ pipes which appear oof. I'm assuming that was what they intended to focus on.

Regardless of what the person taking the picture focused on, a major part of that subject matter will be oof. Many people have engaged in the practice of pixel peeping, and rightfully so when a new lens is introduced as "high performance". However, we can not take standard DOF formulas for such a case. If you use dofmaster, the dof reported for Canon EOS 5DIII uses a CoC of 0.030mm, which is almost five times the 5DIII's pixel size (0.00625mm).

As pixel peepers we therefore can't use the dof number provided by dofmaster for 5DIII (1.38m at 3m distance, 4.23m at 5m distance), we have to use the numbers for CoC of 0.006mm CoC, which are 26cm for 3m distance and 74cm for 5m subject distance.

Conclusion: Since the organ pipes are not in focus anywhere, despite covering the image center, there is a good chance that this shot was not focused correctly. However, even a perfectly focused shot would show most of these pipes out of focus. What we may see here is a combination of possible focus error and completely unsuitable subject matter. I have no idea, why such a sample image was provided, and I understand even less why such a sample image is used by forum members here to evaluate a new lens.

 

[Lawliet]

What we may see here is a combination of possible focus error and completely unsuitable subject matter. I have no idea, why such a sample image was provided, and I understand even less why such a sample image is used by forum members here to evaluate a new lens.

Also the stated hand held shutter speeds are borderline for if used akin the the default DoF-calculations. For lens evaluation the requirements would be more stringent, of course.

 

[Viggo]

You don't need a dof calculator to see that picture has useless quality. I've shot super fast lenses for 15 years and take the 200 f2 as an example, it's not possible to not see where it has focused, even if the dof is next to nothing. And I have had three copies of the 24 L II, same deal there, even if that lens isn't particularly great.

And the oof areas are also telling of iq. I conclude that it's completely off, either due to great mismatch with the body, or defective lens. I also noticed the shutterspeed. That's why I meant they have done pretty much everything wrong.

Seeing the iq from the Art lenses I don't believe the 24 is THIS bad, but if they focused using normal AF, I can believe the results. :

 

[garret]

The bike @ lenstip taken at F1.4 looks much better then the building taken at F1.4
http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig24A/sig24_fot12.JPG

Garret