SIGMA Announces the 14mm F1.8 DG HSM Art Series Lens

[BeenThere]

How is Sigma going to produce all of these new lenses in the near term? Do they have the production capacity or new facilities? Does anyone know? Or, are we going to have to wait a long time for these to hit the shelves?

 

[Hector1970]

With all these new lens it would seem to be a Win or Bust strategy for Sigma.
Each new lens must take up alot of resources in tooling and testing and design.
They are covering so many niches and focal length's its getting bit confusing.
Are there any figures for lens sales by volume.
Do Sigma sell more lens than Nikon, are they any way close or selling more than Canon (i'd guess not but I don't know)?

I'm surprised they are not upgrading their Marco lens to Art style lens.
This was always a popular category for buying Sigma,
Maybe they are hard to improve.

 

[tron]

Well the 20 1.4 was bad but indeed the latest 12-24 was indeed OK. So if this one has low coma it's definitely the Astro King...

I agree on the 20mm 1.4; it could have been in my bag now, but the reviews stopped that. I'm excited about the 14mm 1.8, but if the reviews show serious flaws... The same goes for the mythical Rokinon 14mm 2.4. But I'll get one of these if only for caves and landscapes. I love having a choice!

The mythical Rokinon=Samyang does exist and it's excellent comawise.

http://gippslandimages.com.au/samyang-xp-14mm-f2-4-lens-review/

http://gippslandimages.com.au/samyang-xp-14mm-f2-4-vs-tamron-15-30-f2-8-vi-dc-coma-tests/

 

[YellowJersey]

Why is anybody at all hopeful about this lens being coma-free enough for astrophotography?

Because the 12-24 has very good coma.

And the press release for it starts by expressly mentioning astrophotography. If coma were crap, I doubt Sigma would be marketing it for astro like that.

At the very least, there's reason to be encouraged. Proof is in the pudding, though. We'll have to wait for the reviews (or at least sample images) to know with any degree of certainty.

 

[DtEW]

Why is anybody at all hopeful about this lens being coma-free enough for astrophotography?

Because the 12-24 has very good coma.

When has any modern-ish lens been unacceptable for coma at f/4?

Even my generally terrible Tokina 17-35mm f/4 had acceptable coma.

Controlling coma at f/4 is a totally different game than controlling it for f/1.4 to f/1.8.

And the press release for it starts by expressly mentioning astrophotography. If coma were crap, I doubt Sigma would be marketing it for astro like that.

Sigma said the same thing for the 20mm f/1.4 Art, and look where that got us.

https://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=548

 

[infared]

After absorbing this info for a little while I came back...and took another look. Damn...that lens is quite styl'in visually as well.

 

[applecider]

The samsung/ Rokinon 14mm f2.4 premium is listed at BHphoto and others but not in stock, the only place I've seen it for sale is on ebay and then it is from Hong Kong and who knows when you 'd get one if ordered from there.

As are others here I'm holding off on the gas long enough to get a handle on the wide open coma on all.
I've been thinking of getting the samyang 2.4 14mm or the zeiss 15mm f2.8 as I'v heard great things about this lens (i'd get it used). The appearance of the sigma changes all considerations. An f 1.8 wide angle that is good wide open would have to win. I'd probably keep the rokinon 2.8 just for its light weight and hiking use. It is a great lens except that the distance scale is f'ed up not being consistent from morning till afternoon, nothing wrong with the focus just can't use the scale to prefocus. The other problem I've had with it is trying to patch together panoramas, the lens correction software doesn't seem to remove enough distortion to patch .together a number of images, although this might be a characteristic of just the wide angle.

The image attached shows what I mean by this though it might have been generated by the rokinon 24mm f 1.4 there are bands of lighter sky where i think the vignetting came into play.

 

[tron]

The samsung/ Rokinon 14mm f2.4 premium is listed at BHphoto and others but not in stock, the only place I've seen it for sale is on ebay and then it is from Hong Kong and who knows when you 'd get one if ordered from there.

As are others here I'm holding off on the gas long enough to get a handle on the wide open coma on all.
I've been thinking of getting the samyang 2.4 14mm or the zeiss 15mm f2.8 as I'v heard great things about this lens (i'd get it used). The appearance of the sigma changes all considerations. An f 1.8 wide angle that is good wide open would have to win. I'd probably keep the rokinon 2.8 just for its light weight and hiking use. It is a great lens except that the distance scale is f'ed up not being consistent from morning till afternoon, nothing wrong with the focus just can't use the scale to prefocus. The other problem I've had with it is trying to patch together panoramas, the lens correction software doesn't seem to remove enough distortion to patch .together a number of images, although this might be a characteristic of just the wide angle.

The image attached shows what I mean by this though it might have been generated by the rokinon 24mm f 1.4 there are bands of lighter sky where i think the vignetting came into play.

This is not normal no matter the lens if you shoot raw.

 

[Ah-Keong]

gotta rob bank soon!
:

 

[infared]

Why is anybody at all hopeful about this lens being coma-free enough for astrophotography?

Sigma had the 24mm f/1.4 Art, and especially the 20mm f/1.4 Art, to show that they were willing to (capable of?) achieve this important characteristic for astrophotography. Famously, they didn't. Why does anybody think that they are suddenly going to do it with the 14mm f/1.8 Art, an even more unprecedented lens spec?

When Canon was introducing their Mk III version of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L, they made sure to release it with a Milky Way shot to show that it was indeed as coma-free as was hoped. It seems pretty obvious that manufacturers are indeed aware of the pent-up demand for good astro lenses. They'd brag about it if they could. It's not Sigma marketing being stupidly unaware, or just playing coy. Marketing does not play coy.

I own the 20mm ART. It's a ground-breaking lens and I positively LOVE my copy. Nothing comes close to it's unique capabilities for me...but you are correct about Sigma touting it for astrophotography and it's inability to pass the coma test at it's widest apertures...that is sort of bizarre on Sigma's part??? Astro is a way back-burner thing for me...so I did not let that little foible (for this photographer), distract me from an incredible optic....but yeah..I understand your doubt that the coma will be any better on this new, even more extreme lens offering. Sigma could surprise us with great coma performance wide open...but I would not be expecting it....and I also will not let that small fact stop me from seeing other qualities that this new, unique lens may offer. Am really looking foward to the lens debut and the reviews. This is an exciting prospect.

 

[hne]

"Distinctive bokeh effect" even at 14mm. I'd like to see that.

According to my calculator: 3ft from the subject at f/1.8 / 14mm... focus kicks in at 2.4ft runs 1.62ft deep to 4.02ft and then back out of focus. Hyperfocal distance at these parameters is 11.91ft. None of this, of course, means the bokeh is any good.

6 ft. from the subject gives a depth of field 8.11 ft deep.

Some of you that are gonna buy right away ( before testing or reviews) are brave souls.

Then again, surely there will be some independent testing before it hits the store shelves.

I'll never be that brave.

At what magnification?

If you attach a 14/1.8 to a Canon 5Ds and set focus on a stone 1m (3.3ft) away, stars would come across as 34 pixel diameter circles on the sensor. Even trees 5m (16ft) behind that foreground stone would look like you'd run a 28 pixel diameter Gaussian blur on them. If you print this postcard size (10x15 cm/4x6") that amounts to half a millimeter (20 thou) which would be just barely noticeable, but for a 3 meter (10 feet) wide panorama seen from half the image width it should be clearly visible (results in 72dpi print, which at 1.5m/5ft distance is roughly where the angular resolution becomes the same between the printed pixels and the line thickness of the block font characters for 20/20 eye sight on the Snellen test charts).

Under some circumstances, Bokeh might actually matter even on a 14mm lens. I applaud Sigma for taking this into consideration!

 

[tron]

Bokeh will prove useless if it has coma. I believe much more would care for coma than bokeh. Let's hope it will excell there too...

 

[chrysoberyl]

I agree on the 20mm 1.4; it could have been in my bag now, but the reviews stopped that. I'm excited about the 14mm 1.8, but if the reviews show serious flaws... The same goes for the mythical Rokinon 14mm 2.4. But I'll get one of these if only for caves and landscapes. I love having a choice!
[/quote]The mythical Rokinon=Samyang does exist and it's excellent comawise.

http://gippslandimages.com.au/samyang-xp-14mm-f2-4-lens-review/

http://gippslandimages.com.au/samyang-xp-14mm-f2-4-vs-tamron-15-30-f2-8-vi-dc-coma-tests/
[/quote]

Yes, I've seen that review and agree that the coma looks pretty good. When I wrote 'mythical', I wasn't being literal, I was expressing frustration. When I ordered my copy, I was told it would arrive in a few days. It has now been over a month and a half.

 

[chrysoberyl]

When has any modern-ish lens been unacceptable for coma at f/4?

Even my generally terrible Tokina 17-35mm f/4 had acceptable coma.

Controlling coma at f/4 is a totally different game than controlling it for f/1.4 to f/1.8.

And the press release for it starts by expressly mentioning astrophotography. If coma were crap, I doubt Sigma would be marketing it for astro like that.

Sigma said the same thing for the 20mm f/1.4 Art, and look where that got us.

https://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=548

Very good points! My enthusiasm is quelled. I eagerly await reviews.

 

[bwud]

Forgive my ignorance, but why are astophotographers specifically so concerned with coma? Is it because the subject is generally round points?

 

[tron]

Forgive my ignorance, but why are astophotographers specifically so concerned with coma? Is it because the subject is generally round points?

Check lenstip reviews and see in coma sections what happens to stars near the edges. In the worst case
(like Canon's 24mm 1.4L II) the stars look like seagulls...

 

[bwud]

Forgive my ignorance, but why are astophotographers specifically so concerned with coma? Is it because the subject is generally round points?

Check lenstip reviews and see in coma sections what happens to stars near the edges. In the worst case
(like Canon's 24mm 1.4L II) the stars look like seagulls...

I know what coma does, it just struck me that it is generally only emphasized in discussions of astrophotography (portrait artists for example I don't recall ever being concerned with coma). My guess is that the subject essentially being small round points makes coma particularly destructive.

 

[tron]

Forgive my ignorance, but why are astophotographers specifically so concerned with coma? Is it because the subject is generally round points?

Check lenstip reviews and see in coma sections what happens to stars near the edges. In the worst case
(like Canon's 24mm 1.4L II) the stars look like seagulls...

I know what coma does, it just struck me that it is generally only emphasized in discussions of astrophotography (portrait artists for example I don't recall ever being concerned with coma). My guess is that the subject essentially being small round points makes coma particularly destructive.

Yes, plus it is becoming more evident as we move towards the corners which nornally is not the case for portraits (although it wouldn't show like that anyway).

 

[AvTvM]

I know what coma does, it just struck me that it is generally only emphasized in discussions of astrophotography (portrait artists for example I don't recall ever being concerned with coma). My guess is that the subject essentially being small round points makes coma particularly destructive.

coma aberration is only an issue with MOVING objects [like stars in long-time exposures]. Portraits are usually taken with subject not in motion. And most of the time with subject not in corner of frame. So not much of an issue for portrait artists.


[EDIT] as pointed out in subsequent posts, first sentence is wrong. Thanks. Correct description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_(optics)

 

[tron]

I know what coma does, it just struck me that it is generally only emphasized in discussions of astrophotography (portrait artists for example I don't recall ever being concerned with coma). My guess is that the subject essentially being small round points makes coma particularly destructive.

coma aberration is only an issue with MOVING objects [like stars in long-time exposures]. Portraits are usually taken with subject not in motion. And most of the time with subject not in corner of frame. So not much of an issue for portrait artists.

Coma exhibits itself also in STATIC subects like stars with NO strartrails as well as light sources in LANDSCAPE night photos.

http://stormandsky.com/lens24mm