Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Coming in October

[Loswr]

When I read back over TDP's review of the S50A and I think to myself on how to obtain the best focus using a tripod, using the AF from the camera with phase detect focusing is not how I'd do it.

The whole point of the test was to determine the accuracy of the SIR PDAF system with the Sigma 50/1.4 A under controlled conditions, with neither camera nor subject moving. Should be pretty simple for an AF system with an accurately-focusing lens. Using Live View would defeat the purpose of the test.

With Canon lenses mounted on a Canon camera, I've watched it focus on something and lock, then I press the focus button again, it de-focuses and refocuses again. Why can't it just "know" that it has acquired focus and not move the second time?

How does the camera "know" that the subject has not moved? Having said that, with many subjects, the focus will not change as the PDAF sensor will determine that it is already properly focused. When the AF does defocus/refocus, that's usually becuase of the characteristics of the subject, for example with a cross-type AF point and a subject having different phase differences in the orthogonal orientations.

The point I was making above is that if you've already focused the lens on X and press the button again, it is doubtful that the lens will end up in exactly the same position as before (and by exact, I mean exact, not some "within half a millimeter.")

Slight variances are one thing - you may see differences with image analysis (MTF/SQF values) that would be too subtle to detect visually. The OOF shots in the TDP test aren't subtle…the 50A just flat out missed focus on 4/10 shots.

 

[cellomaster27]

Yessssss!! Maybe we got sigma rumors mistaken for canon rumors for being the year of the lens. Hahaha! Have a great day everyone. ;D

 

[bereninga]

I wonder how it'll compare to the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS. I too am surprised they wouldn't release the 85mm before the 24mm.

Regarding the AF, I too am concerned about the Sigma 50mm Art, but I can wait until the lens gets in more consumers' hands to decide. Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.

 

[Loswr]

Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.

Depends on what you mean by update. I wonder which will generate more revenue - the Sigma 50/1.4 A at $950, or the Canon 50/1.4 at $400? I think it might be the latter…and the 50/1.8 at $125 will generate more revenue than both.

I do think Canon will bring out a 50mm IS prime (f/1.8 or f/2) in the relatively near future. It will be priced lower than Sigma's 50/1.4, and if it has the IQ of the 35/2 IS it will outsell the Sigma 50/1.4A.

 

[jdramirez]

I found the af test disconcerting too... but it is about context. Run the same test with a 50L and let me see the results. We AOL know that shooting at small depths of field is a game of roulette... sometimes we win... sometimes the eye is blurry and the Damn eye lashes are perfectly in focus.

And those saying the art is dead.... then the otus certainly never should have been born. Geesh.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm very curious to see how this compares to the 24L II. Unlike the 50L, it's a very sharp lens and won't be so easy to beat, at least in terms of sharpness. The biggest issue with the 24L II is the vignetting so that might be where they try to outdo Canon.

Also, I really don't get the, "Why not a 85 stuff"? They just release their latest 85mm in 2010 (to a lot of good reviews), while they don't even have a 24 f/1.4 lens. They have a 24 f/1.8, but from the reviews, it looks to be terrible on full frame cameras.

 

[sanj]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16409"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16409">Tweet</a></div>
Sigma is planning to announce a 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens at Photokina with availability coming in October of 2014.</p>
<p>There has been no word on the possible 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art or 135mm f/1.8DG HSM Art lenses. I think both the 85 and 135 would be more highly desired than a 24mm prime, though if it’s as good as the 35mm or 50mm, we’ll take it anyway.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JPL7CK6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00JPL7CK6&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045458-REG/sigma_311101_50mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG5014REOS.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2014/04/22/sigma-24mm-f1-4-art-lens-coming-in-october/" target="_blank">PR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

"We?" Many on this forum will fight you to death for saying that.

 

[sanj]

How quickly "new" Sigma's reputation went downhill. The 35A was hailed a great lens and now a lot of forum members seem to be bashing the 50A before they get their hands on a copy. And now some are already saying that this will have poor autofocus performance.

That's mob mentality for you.

Yep. Mob mentality. So many members pouncing on it too soon.

 

[Etienne]

When I read back over TDP's review of the S50A and I think to myself on how to obtain the best focus using a tripod, using the AF from the camera with phase detect focusing is not how I'd do it.

The whole point of the test was to determine the accuracy of the SIR PDAF system with the Sigma 50/1.4 A under controlled conditions, with neither camera nor subject moving. Should be pretty simple for an AF system with an accurately-focusing lens. Using Live View would defeat the purpose of the test.

With Canon lenses mounted on a Canon camera, I've watched it focus on something and lock, then I press the focus button again, it de-focuses and refocuses again. Why can't it just "know" that it has acquired focus and not move the second time?

How does the camera "know" that the subject has not moved? Having said that, with many subjects, the focus will not change as the PDAF sensor will determine that it is already properly focused. When the AF does defocus/refocus, that's usually becuase of the characteristics of the subject, for example with a cross-type AF point and a subject having different phase differences in the orthogonal orientations.

The point I was making above is that if you've already focused the lens on X and press the button again, it is doubtful that the lens will end up in exactly the same position as before (and by exact, I mean exact, not some "within half a millimeter.")

Slight variances are one thing - you may see differences with image analysis (MTF/SQF values) that would be too subtle to detect visually. The OOF shots in the TDP test aren't subtle…the 50A just flat out missed focus on 4/10 shots.

Depends on brightness of scene too. I often focus/re-focus on a subject as I am shooting/ verifying. In good light, my canon lenses either don't change focus distance at all, or very very little, if using single point focus. Most focus changes are probably due to a subtle change in the camera position or change in light quality/contrast on the subject. Defocus/refocus only happens in very low light.

 

[rpiotr01]

Fine, turn off the AF and treat it like a poor man's Otus which it gets pretty close. Problem solved

I tried that with the last Sigma 50 1.4 a couple years ago, the focus throw was way too short to be of much use in MF.

I agree with the poster above, these tests should really be using that USB dock before making a final judgment on AF issues. At least Sigma is trying to address a known issue (that said, that dock should be included with these lenses).

I also don't quite get how anyone can complain about having more excellent lens options. It's no longer the red ring or bust, Sigma has been doing exactly what people wished someone would do and make well-made lenses that compete optically with Canon's L offerings and at discounted prices. Every lens will have it's flaws - or I should say compromises (size, weight, optical performance wide open or in the corners) - but all things considered there are some really great new lenses on the market now, no need to nitpick the flaws. Just my 2 cents.

 

[fox40phil]

I say Sigmas AF in the new lenses is pretty good for the money....

If I can't trust it, it's worthless.

That was how I felt with the erratic and occasionally brilliant old model Sigma 50mm f/1.4.
My two copies got used for some personal work, endless testing but simply couldn't be trusted for client work. Therefore ultimately worthless.

I truly hope Sigma finds an AF fix for the new lenses deliverable via firmware. The optics are clearly awesome, but without dependable AF they're a commercial no-go.

-pw

I can totaly sign this!

the AF is the main thing and it need to work to 85-95% perfect...(for lens > 800€/1000$) I think..

 

[Etienne]

Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.

Depends on what you mean by update. I wonder which will generate more revenue - the Sigma 50/1.4 A at $950, or the Canon 50/1.4 at $400? I think it might be the latter…and the 50/1.8 at $125 will generate more revenue than both.

I do think Canon will bring out a 50mm IS prime (f/1.8 or f/2) in the relatively near future. It will be priced lower than Sigma's 50/1.4, and if it has the IQ of the 35/2 IS it will outsell the Sigma 50/1.4A.

I bought the Canon 35 f/2 IS over the sigma and love it. It is compact, light weight, great IQ, and hand-held video is amazingly stable, almost looks tripod mounted sometimes. Far superior to my non-stabilized 16-35 at 35mm handheld.

I've use the Canon 50 f/1.4 for video. Even with a shoulder support, it's tough to keep it steady. I'll buy the Canon 50 IS, if it's at least f/2, but I'm still hoping it will be a 50 f/1.4 IS .

 

[sanj]

Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.

Depends on what you mean by update. I wonder which will generate more revenue - the Sigma 50/1.4 A at $950, or the Canon 50/1.4 at $400? I think it might be the latter…and the 50/1.8 at $125 will generate more revenue than both.

I do think Canon will bring out a 50mm IS prime (f/1.8 or f/2) in the relatively near future. It will be priced lower than Sigma's 50/1.4, and if it has the IQ of the 35/2 IS it will outsell the Sigma 50/1.4A.

It does not bother you a bit that (according to YOU) Canon has not updated 50mm for >20 years?

 

[kubelik]

if coma, astig, and vignetting are good I'd happily buy this over the Canon 24 L II. all of the canon offerings make a very poor showing of the corners when doing wide-field astrophotography.

 

[mackguyver]

if coma, astig, and vignetting are good I'd happily buy this over the Canon 24 L II. all of the canon offerings make a very poor showing of the corners when doing wide-field astrophotography.

That's true, I forgot about the coma (I don't shoot the dark sky much). The new 50 Art has pretty good coma correction, so that's an area that could be improved.

 

[Loswr]

It does not bother you a bit that (according to YOU) Canon has not updated 50mm for >20 years?

Nope, but then 1) I have no interest in the 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 II, and 2) if I were to buy a 50mm lens it would be the 50/1.2L which was released 8 years ago, in 2006.

Having said that, the design age of the 50/1.8 II and 50/1.4 certainly don't seem to bother the buyers on Amazon.com, where the Canon 50/1.8 II is the #1 selling lens and the Canon 50/1.4 is the #3 selling lens. You need to go to #36 on their Top 100 list to find the first Sigma lens, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art isn't on the list at all.

 

[Rudeofus]

Having said that, the design age of the 50/1.8 II and 50/1.4 certainly don't seem to bother the buyers on Amazon.com, where the Canon 50/1.8 II is the #1 selling lens and the Canon 50/1.4 is the #3 selling lens. You need to go to #36 on their Top 100 list to find the first Sigma lens, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art isn't on the list at all.

That list contains quite a few oddities which makes me wonder how accurate it is:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 24-105 L IS is listed twice, once at rank 13, then again at rank 25. Given that it comes as kit lens to many ff cameras, I wonder how many people buy it later on. In the used market it is sold at fire sale prices ...
[*]Even stranger is the high volume reported for the various 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 lenses. These usually come as kit lenses for crop cameras, why would anyone buy these separately?
[*]I see lots and lots of people running around with crop camera plus superzoom, yet these don't seem to show up in the higher ranks.
[*]The 16-35 shows up higher in rank than the 17-40. Sounds bogus if you ask me.
[*]The 70-200 F/4 showing up lower in rank compared to the 70-200 F/2.8 also strikes me as odd. All people I know with a 70-200 F/2.8 have the IS version, either Mk I or Mk II.
[/list]

Obviously I don't have any insight into Amazon's sales numbers, and I don't run or work in a photo store to provide real world numbers, but I think Amazon's reported numbers raise more questions than they answer.

 

[sanj]

Having said that, the design age of the 50/1.8 II and 50/1.4 certainly don't seem to bother the buyers on Amazon.com, where the Canon 50/1.8 II is the #1 selling lens and the Canon 50/1.4 is the #3 selling lens. You need to go to #36 on their Top 100 list to find the first Sigma lens, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art isn't on the list at all.

That list contains quite a few oddities which makes me wonder how accurate it is:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 24-105 L IS is listed twice, once at rank 13, then again at rank 25. Given that it comes as kit lens to many ff cameras, I wonder how many people buy it later on. In the used market it is sold at fire sale prices ...
[*]Even stranger is the high volume reported for the various 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 lenses. These usually come as kit lenses for crop cameras, why would anyone buy these separately?
[*]I see lots and lots of people running around with crop camera plus superzoom, yet these don't seem to show up in the higher ranks.
[*]The 16-35 shows up higher in rank than the 17-40. Sounds bogus if you ask me.
[*]The 70-200 F/4 showing up lower in rank compared to the 70-200 F/2.8 also strikes me as odd. All people I know with a 70-200 F/2.8 have the IS version, either Mk I or Mk II.
[/list]

Obviously I don't have any insight into Amazon's sales numbers, and I don't run or work in a photo store to provide real world numbers, but I think Amazon's reported numbers raise more questions than they answer.

I am in the minority here but these 'facts' do not impress me. What would impress me is that Canon uses its might and releases new lenses with better technology in less than 20 years. But that is MY thinking, the guys in commercials at Canon are way smarter than me.

 

[jdramirez]

I'm very curious to see how this compares to the 24L II. Unlike the 50L, it's a very sharp lens and won't be so easy to beat, at least in terms of sharpness. The biggest issue with the 24L II is the vignetting so that might be where they try to outdo Canon.

Also, I really don't get the, "Why not a 85 stuff"? They just release their latest 85mm in 2010 (to a lot of good reviews), while they don't even have a 24 f/1.4 lens. They have a 24 f/1.8, but from the reviews, it looks to be terrible on full frame cameras.

They'll beat it in the price tag. I'd guess another sub $1000 offering. If matches image performance... And at that focal length where depth of field is typically less of a concern... it will be fine.

 

[BLFPhoto]

I don't know how TDP conducted the test other than the layman's description that he posted, but I'm highly skeptical that there are serious issues with the AF. First, we know nothing of the pre-configuration of the lens and/or camera system. Was it properly calibrated for AFMA? Was it calibrated and checked with the Sigma dock? I would not draw any conclusion about any lens, OEM or otherwise, for which I didn't do some basic configuration and calibration with my equipment that it is interfacing with.

We also know little of the lighting conditions under which the photos were taken.

I'm not doubting a reasonable effort to see what would happen when the lens was mounted on a camera body. He does decent work. But these results are more anecdotal than any serious evidence of a focusing issue. The 35 1.4 was initially reported to have issues as well. But those simply aren't bearing out in reality. I can report having run my own Sigma 35 1.4 as well as two from local friends through the full gamut of Reikan FoCal calibration and performance tests. These were run on multiple bodies, both my own and others. Focus consistency for all three of these Sigma 35 1.4 copies always measured in the 97-98% range for all bodies which had AFMA available and which was performed. For reference, all three of the Sigmas tested more consistent than my own Canon 35mm 1.4. Aperture sharpness curve was superior to my Canon on all three copies. Focal point consistency was equivalent between the Sigmas and my Canon. In short, I see no evidence of a shortfall in AF performance on the Sigma 35 1.4 compared to my Canon version based on empirical evidence on fairly well-controlled tests given the sample community I have access to test. And my experience in shooting my Sigma 35 1.4 in the real world bears these "lab" tests out. I have had zero focusing issues in any conditions that were notably different from anything I experience with the Canon version on a given body.

Part of my day job is engineering developmental and operational test and evaluation design and execution. There is far more involved in properly testing an item than most people give credit for. I trust what Roger at LensRentals says about lenses more than most any others out there. He has a vested, financial interest in establishing a watertight, repeatable test protocol for the thousands of lenses they own. They have invested in the right kinds of equipment and established clearly repeatable conditions under which to evaluate lenses. If Roger, at some point, comes out with an AF performance delta between the Sigmas and their Canon counterparts, I would be inclined to then hang my hat on that. Certainly it will be based upon a test sample far larger than anything we, TDP, DPReview, or others might have access to.

I am not hesitating one bit to invest in this new Sigma 50mm 1.4.

My only concern with these new Sigmas is longevity. Will they still maintain their performance after a decade or more of service? My Canon 35 1.4 is far more than a decade old in my hands and has given not a single hiccup. It has been cleaned and serviced by Canon once during that period. Are these Sigmas constructed and capable of the same level of reliability? I don't know. But I'm going to invest in the opportunity to find out. At these prices, both the 35 and 50 Sigmas together cost about the same as a new Canon 35 1.4 alone. Seems like a reasonable risk proposition to me. And I'm known in my day job as risk-averse!


Edit: Oh, and when they come out with this 24 1.4...sign me up.

And, full disclosure, I did own Sigma's newest 70-200 f/2.8 OS briefly as a replacement to my aging old Canon 80-200 f/2.8L. I quickly rejected it after a few months specifically for sub-par focus consistency and distracting bokeh, particularly with a 1.4x teleconverter. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II I have now is so much better as to be in a completely different league. All of which is to say that I'm not unfamiliar with Sigma products AF issues and unfavorable performance relative to similar Canon products. I am simply astounded on what I've found with the 35 1.4 so far. So much so that it has right of way in my bag at the moment.